Panganiban_106

Magsalin & Coca Cola Bottlers v. NOWM, et al.

GR No. 148492 May 9, 2003

Facts: Coca Cola Bottlers engaged the services of respondent workers as sales route helpers for 5
months. After that, they were employed on a day to day basis. They were hired to substitute for
regular sales route helpers whenever the latter would be unavailable or when there would be
unexpected shortage of manpower. If hired, they will be paid wages at end of the day. Respondent
workers asked petitioner to extend to them regular appointments. Petitioner refused. They filed
complaint for regularization with NLRC and later on claimed that they were illegally dismissed.
Parties agreed to submit the controversy for voluntary arbitration after respondents filed notice of
strike. VA dismissed complaint on the ground that respondents were not regular employees. On
appeal, the decision was reversed.

Issue: Whether or not respondents’ nature of work is of such nature as to be deemed necessary to
business that could qualify them to regular employees afforded with right to security of tenure

Held: Yes, The test is the reasonable connection between particular activity performed by
employee in relation to the usual business of employer, whether the work undertaken is necessary
or desirable in usual business or trade of employer. It can be assessed by the nature of services
rendered and its relation to general scheme under which business is pursued in usual course.
However, although work to be performed is only for specific project or seasonal, if employee is
engaged for at least 1 year, the law deems the repeated need for performance as sufficient
indicator that work is necessary.

Respondents have long been in the service of the company. They would go with route
salesman on board delivery truck and undertake laborious task of loading and unloading products
of petitioner. The argument that respondents’ work is merely post-production activities, one
which is not indispensable in manufacture of its products, is not persuasive. If so, then only those
directly involved in production of soft drinks can be considered as regular employees and there
should be no need for maintaining regular truck sales route helpers. The nature of the work
performed must be viewed from the entirety of business and not on a confined scope. The Court
ruled that repeated hiring of respondents for at least 1 year made them regular employees. While
it is true that Court recognized legality of fixed-term employment, it has done so with stern
admonition that where from the circumstances it is apparent that period is imposed to preclude
acquisition of tenurial security by the employee, it should be struck down for being contrary to
law, morals, good customs, and public policy. The practice of petitioner of hiring respondents on a
day to day basis after 5 months mocks the law. The fact that respondents agreed on such basis and
to forego protection given to them on right to security of tenure demonstrate serious problem of
impoverishment of so many people and the resulting unevenness between labor and capital.