KASAPIAN NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA COCA-COLA (KASAMMA-CCO)
vs.
THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and COCA-COLA BOTTLERS’ PHILS., INC.
G.R. No. 159828
April 19, 2006
Chico - Nazario, J.
FACTS:
After the expiration of the Collective Bargaining Agreement of 1995-1998, the petitioner’s
demand for another CBA but was refused resulting in gridlock. Subsequently, through NCMB
Administrator Magsalin, both parties came to settle the labor dispute resulting to the
establishment of a Memorandum of Association (MOA) stipulating salary increases and other
benefits on December 26, 1998. It also contained a provision for the regularization of
contractual, casual and/or agency workers working to the private respondents for more than one
year. Wherein, after screening 61 non-regular employees filled-in the position. The MOA was
later incorporated into the 1998-2001 CBA, ratified by the employees. Consequently, the
petitioner demanded for the payment of salary and other benefits of the newly regularized
workers however the private respondent refused, claiming that the date of effective
regularization of the said employees were May 1, 1999 and October 1, 1999. On December 9,
1999 private respondents closed its Manila and Antipolo plants resulting in the termination of
646 employees and then four days after, they sent a notice of closure to the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE). From that day to February 29, 2000, the affected employees were
considered on paid leave and were compensated afterwards about 500 workers received notice
and terminated on the grounds of redundancy.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the regularization of the 61 employees was effective December 1, 1998.
2. Whether or not the closure of private respondent's Manila and Antipolo plants, resulting
in the termination of employment of 646 employees, was legal.
RULING:
Yes, the regularization of 61 employees is effective December 1, 1998. The appeals interpret
the provisions of the MOA and agreed that the date December 1 refers to the effective date of
regularization and not reckoning date where the said one year employment shall be computed.
As evidence in the MOA, only those who have worked with the company for one year as of
1 December 1998 and are still working for the company as of the signing of the MOA, will be
considered for regularization. Truly, they were accorded the status of regular employees
precisely because they were rendering service to the company for the required period
Furthermore, according to Article 280 of the Labor Code, any employee who has rendered at
least one year of service, whether such service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a
regular employee with respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall
continue while such activity exists. Therefore, even without the MOA, the said 61 employees
already should be regular. In this case, private respondent violated the provision of the MOA
when it did not consider the regularization of the 61 employees effective 1 December 1998, and
granted them the full benefits of the MOA.
Yes, the closure of the Manila and Antipolo plants is legal. The petitioner failed to present
evidence to support their claim that the closure was done to prevent the renegotiations of CBA.
As adequately explained by the NLRC, the subject closure and the resulting termination of the
639 employees was due to legitimate business considerations, as evidenced by the technical
study conducted by private respondent.
In addition, the respondent gave required due process as intended by law. As early as 9
December 1999, more than thirty (30) days prior to their actual dismissal on 1 March 2000,
CCBPI served on the affected employees a written notice informing them of the closure of the
two plants and consequent redundation. Therefore, the closure of respondent company's Manila
and Antipolo plants was for a legal cause and that respondent company had substantially
complied with the notice requirement under the Labor Code.
The assailed Decisions are hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. The 61 subject
employees are hereby declared regular employees as of 1 December 1998 and are entitled to the
benefits provided for in the Memorandum of Agreement.
JOEY SONZA vs. ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
G.R. No. 138051
June 10, 2004
CARPIO, J.
FACTS:
In May 1994, respondent ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation signed an Agreement with
the Mel and Jay Management Development Corporation where Sonza agreed to provide services
exclusively to ABS-CBN as talent for radio and television. On April 1 1996, Sonza sent a letter
rescinding their agreement, reasoning that the respondents violated the agreement for not giving
other benefits agreed upon. Then April 30 1996, he filed a complaint against ABS-CBN before
the Department of Labor and Employment for the payment of his salaries, separation pay, service
incentive leave pay, 13th month pay, signing bonus, travel allowance and amounts due under the
Employees Stock Option Plan ("ESOP") . However, July 10, 1996 ABS-CBN opposed on the
ground that no employer-employee relationship existed between the parties. The Labor Arbiter
dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and the Court of Appeals affirmed the NLRC’s
finding that no employer-employee relationship existed between Sonza and ABS-CBN.
ISSUES:
Whether or not there was an employer-employee relationship between Sonza and ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation.
RULING:
No, there are no employer-employee relationship between Sonza and ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation. After considering Sonza’s condition to the elements of an employer-
employee relationship and control test it was found that he is an independent contractor rather
than an employee. The control test is the most critical criterion used by courts to determine
whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor. This measure is focused on how
much power the employer has over the employee. ABS-CBN doesn’t have control over the
means, methods or instruct Sonza’s work. It only merely reserved the right to adjust the program
format and airtime schedule "for more effective programming" to improve the quality and ratings
of the show.
Furthermore, the agreement does not require Sonza to comply with the rules and standards
of performance that the employees of ABS-CBN have. The code of conduct imposed on Sonza
under the Agreement is the "Television and Radio Code of the Kapisanan ng mga Broadcaster sa
Pilipinas (KBP), which has been implemented by the ABS-CBN as its Code of Ethics." The KBP
code applies to broadcasters, not to employees of radio and television stations like ABS-CBN.
Broadcasters are not necessarily employees of radio and television stations. Sonza being an
exclusive talent does not mean he is an employee of the ABS-CBN. Even an independent
contractor may legally offer services to the hiring party exclusively.
In this case, Sonza seeks the recovery of allegedly unpaid talent fees, 13th month pay,
separation pay, service incentive leave, signing bonus, travel allowance, and amounts due under
the Employee Stock Option Plan. However, Sonza’s claims are all based on the May 1994
Agreement and stock option plan, and not on the Labor Code. Clearly, the current situation does
not concern the compliance of Labor Code laws, but rather the understanding and
implementation of the May 1994 Agreement. In effect, Sonza’s cause of action is for breach of
contract which is intrinsically a civil dispute cognizable by the regular courts. Therefore, petition
denied.
