G.R. No. 179546 - COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., VS. ALAN M. AGITO, REGOLO S. OCA III, ERNESTO G. ALARIAO, JR., ALFONSO PAA, JR., DEMPSTER P. ONG, URRIQUIA T. ARVIN, GIL H. FRANCISCO, AND EDWIN M. GOLEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding that [herein respondents] are employees of [herein petitioner] INTERSERVE MANAGEMENT & MANPOWER RESOURCES, INC. Concomitantly, respondent Interserve is further ordered to pay [respondents] their pro-rated 13 th month pay. The complaints against COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. is DISMISMMED for lack of merit. In like manner the complaints against PEERLESS INTEGRATED SERVICES, INC., BETTER BUILDING INC. and EXCELLENT PARTNERS COOPERATIVE are DISMISSED for failure of complainants to pursue against them. Other claims are dismissed for lack of merit. The computation of the Computation and Examination Unit, this Commission if (sic) made part of this Decision. [15] Unsatisfied with the foregoing Decision of the Labor Arbiter, respondents filed an appeal with the NLRC, docketed as NLRC NCR CA No. 036494-03. In their Memorandum of Appeal, [16] respondents maintained that contrary to the finding of the Labor Arbiter, their work was indispensable to the principal business of petitioner. Respondents supported their claim with copies of the Delivery Agreement [17] between petitioner and TRMD Incorporated, stating that petitioner was "engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of soft drinks and other related products with various plants and sales offices and warehouses located all over the Philippines." Moreover, petitioner supplied the tools and equipment used by respondents in their jobs such as forklifts, pallet, etc . Respondents were also required to work in the warehouses, sales offices, and plants of petitioner. Respondents pointed out that, in contrast, Interserve did not own trucks, pallets cartillas , or any other equipment necessary in the sale of Coca-Cola products. Respondents further averred in their Memorandum of Appeal that petitioner exercised control over workers supplied by various contractors. Respondents cited as an example the case of Raul Arenajo (Arenajo), who, just like them, worked for petitioner, but was made to appear as an employee of the contractor Peerless Integrated Services, Inc. As proof of control by petitioner, respondents submitted copies of: (1) a Memorandum [18] dated 11 August 1998 issued by Vicente Dy (Dy), a supervisor of petitioner, addressed to Arenajo, suspending the latter from work until he explained his disrespectful acts toward the supervisor who caught him sleeping during work hours; (2) a Memorandum [19] dated 12 August 1998 again issued by Dy to Arenajo, informing the latter that the company had taken a more lenient and tolerant position regarding his offense despite having found cause for his dismissal; (3) Memorandum [20] issued by Dy to the personnel of Peerless Integrated Services, Inc., requiring the latter to present their timely request for leave or medical certificates for their absences; (4) Personnel Workers Schedules, [21] prepared by RB Chua, another supervisor of petitioner; (5) Daily Sales Monitoring Report prepared by petitioner; [22] and (