Quintanar v.

Coca-Cola

Facts:
 The petitioners (Emmanuel Quintanar et al.) were former employees directly hired by Coca-Cola
and were assigned as regular Route Helpers.
 They were transferred successively as agency workers to manpower agencies, and the latest
being respondent Interserve Management and Manpower Resources, Inc.
 DOLE conducted an inspection of Coca-Cola and they were determined to be regular employees.
Coca-Cola was held liable to pay them the underpayment of their 13th month pay, emergency
COLA and other claims.
 When Coca-Cola learned of the filing of the claims, they were dismissed on various dates.
 Quintanar et al. filed a complaint for illegal dismissal, damages and attorney’s fees.

 Coca-Cola denied the employer-employee relationship and pointed to Interserve with which it
had a service agreement as petitioners’ employer. They claimed that Interserve was Coca-Cola’s
independent service contractor.
 Coca-Cola’s allegations:
o Interserve was free from the control and direction of Coca-Cola in all matters connected
with the performance of the work, except as to the results.
o Interserve was highly capitalized.
o All elements of employer-employee relationship existed between Interserve and the
petitioners.
 Interserve filed its position paper pertaining only to petitioners Quintanar and Cabili and ignored
the other 28 petitioners.
o Interserve’s position: petitioners were mere contractual workers whose employment
depends on the service contracts with the clients.
 LA ruled in favour of Quintanar et al.
o Documentary evidence confirmed that petitioners had been working for Coca-Cola for
some time.
o It was highly inconceivable for them who were already enjoying a stable job at a multi-
national company, to leave and become mere agency workers.
 NLRC affirmed the LA.
 CA reversed.
o Petitioners were employees of Interserve, not Coca-Cola.
o It was Interserve who exercised the power of selection and engagement over the
petitioners considering that they applied for their jobs and went through Interserve’s
pre-employment processes.

Issue:
WoN the petitioners were employees of Coca-Cola
 YES
A. The Court struck down Coca-Cola’s defense in previous cases. It ruled that route-helpers were
Coca-Cola’s employees. In this case, Coca-Cola has not shown any strong and compelling reason
to convince the Court that the doctrine of stare decisis should not be applied.
 Interserve did not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
machineries, and work premises.
 DOLE issued a certification that Interserve was an independent job contractor.
 o According to its Articles of Incorporation, the principal business of Interserve is to
provide janitorial and allied services. The delivery and distribution of Coca-Cola
products, the work for which respondents were employed and assigned to petitioner,
were in no way allied to janitorial services.
 Coca-Cola exercised the power of control over the petitioners

B. On the service agreement, payment of wages

 Petitioners have been rendering their services as route helpers even before Interserve entered
into a service agreement with Coca-Cola in 1998.
 No evidence was shown to prove that Interserve was the one which paid petitioners’ salaries.
 Records show that they were being compensated by Coca-Cola.

C. Interserve was engaged in the practice of labor-only contracting

 Elements (Agito case) – exists when any of the two elements is present
1.) Performing activities directly related to the principal business of the employer
2.) Lack of substantial capital or investment
 Petitioners were performing activities which were directly related to the principal business
Coca-Cola.
 Coca-Cola failed to rebut the allegation that petitioners were transferred from being its
employees to become employees of the agencies, which were labor-only contractors.

D. No evidence that petitioners voluntarily resigned from their employment.

 It was highly inconceivable for the petitioners, who were already enjoying a stable job at a multi-
national company, to leave and become mere agency workers.