WHEREFORE, complainants having failed to establish their claimed employer-employee relationship with the respondent corporation by CLEAR and CONVINCING competent evidence, the Complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: The case before the Labor Arbiter was decided in favor of herein petitioners for lack of evidence as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Hence, the said workers’ employment with the Company ceased thereafter that complainants have now filed the present Complaint claiming that they worked in the Company and should, therefore, have achieved regular employment status in the Company that however, other than their self-serving assertions, there is no document on record that will support complainants’ alleged service periods with the Company. Respondent Company maintains that being one of the largest softdrink manufacturer in the country, it employs a sizeable workforce all over the country that due to the fluctuating and variable conditions in the market, e.g., unusually high volume of work and unexpected shortages in manpower complement, the Company at times is constrained to augment its workforce so as to cope with operational needs that in order to meet its fluctuating operational needs, the Company engages the services of workers apart from its regular workforce for its different plants that the engagement of such services is necessarily on a temporary basis due to the temporary nature of the operational needs of the Company lasting for a limited period that if, for example, the Company anticipates or actually experiences an unusually high volume of work or an unexpected shortage of manpower in any of its plants or sales offices arising from variable economic factors, it engages the services of outside workers to temporarily complement its regular workforce in the said plants or sales offices that as part of its adaptive operational measures, the Company engaged the services of workers on a temporary basis for a limited period of five (5) months that pursuant to the workers’ arrangement with the Company, their services were automatically terminated upon the expiration of the five-month period agreed upon by the parties. The present controversy finds its genesis in an illegal dismissal case filed by herein respondents against petitioners, the facts of which are narrated by the Labor Arbiter in his Decision dated 26 November 1998, viz:Ĭomplainants aver that they have been under the employ of respondent company for more than ten (10) to thirteen (13) years as follows:Īs route helper, cargadors or pahinantes, accompanying the salesmen/drivers in their deliveries to sari-sari stores, restaurants, groceries, supermarkets that they were all under the supervision and control of respondent Company which provided them with the tools, equipment and other working material that they worked exclusively at the plants, sales offices, delivery truck and/or respondent Company’s premises. Being questioned as well is the Resolution 2 dated 12 July 2000 which dismissed petitioners’ motion for reconsideration. RODOLFO CABALO, JUANITO GERONA, LUIS GERONA, LUIS DE OCAMPO and MARIO NILO MECUA, Respondents.īefore Us is a petition for review on certiorari questioning the Resolution 1 of the Court of Appeals dated 25 April 2000 which dismissed petitioners’ original action of certiorari filed therein. DICOSMO, STEVE HEATH, MARY CHUA, ALBERTO FAJARDO, JESS BANGSIL, LITO GARCIA, NOEL ROXAS, CHITO ENRIQUEZ, FREDERICK KERULF, ARMANDO CANLAS and DANILO DAUZ, Petitioners, COCA COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC., NATALE J.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |