Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 48 views

    Coca Cola VS Agito

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    This document summarizes a court case between Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. and former salesmen Alan M. Agito et al. The salesmen worked for Coke's Lagro Sales Office for years but were not regularized. Coke claimed the salesmen were employees of Interserve, an independent contractor it had hired. However, the court found that Interserve was actually a "labor-only" contractor based on: (1) It did not have substantial capital or investment; (2) The salesmen performed work directly related to Coke's principal business; and (3) Interserve did not exercise control over the salesmen's work. Thus, the court ruled that Interserve was not a legitimate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Coca Cola VS Agito

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    48 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case between Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. and former salesmen Alan M. Agito et al. The salesmen worked for Coke's Lagro Sales Office for years but were not regularized. Coke claimed the salesmen were employees of Interserve, an independent contractor it had hired. However, the court found that Interserve was actually a "labor-only" contractor based on: (1) It did not have substantial capital or investment; (2) The salesmen performed work directly related to Coke's principal business; and (3) Interserve did not exercise control over the salesmen's work. Thus, the court ruled that Interserve was not a legitimate

    Original Title

    32.-COCA-COLA-VS-AGITO

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case between Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. and former salesmen Alan M. Agito et al. The salesmen worked for Coke's Lagro Sales Office for years but were not regularized. Coke claimed the salesmen were employees of Interserve, an independent contractor it had hired. However, the court found that Interserve was actually a "labor-only" contractor based on: (1) It did not have substantial capital or investment; (2) The salesmen performed work directly related to Coke's principal business; and (3) Interserve did not exercise control over the salesmen's work. Thus, the court ruled that Interserve was not a legitimate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    48 views1 page

    Coca Cola VS Agito

    Uploaded by

    Bert Nazario
    This document summarizes a court case between Coca-Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc. and former salesmen Alan M. Agito et al. The salesmen worked for Coke's Lagro Sales Office for years but were not regularized. Coke claimed the salesmen were employees of Interserve, an independent contractor it had hired. However, the court found that Interserve was actually a "labor-only" contractor based on: (1) It did not have substantial capital or investment; (2) The salesmen performed work directly related to Coke's principal business; and (3) Interserve did not exercise control over the salesmen's work. Thus, the court ruled that Interserve was not a legitimate

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    32. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS PHILS., INC. vs. ALAN M. AGITO, et al GR No.

    179546

    February 13, 2009

    FACTS:

    Petitioner (Coke) is a domestic corporation engaged in manufacturing, bottling and distributing soft drink
    beverages and other allied products. Respondents were salesmen assigned at Coke Lagro Sales Office for years
    but were not regularized. Coke averred that respondents were employees of Interserve who were tasked to
    perform contracted services in accordance with the provisions of the Contract of Services executed between
    Coke and Interserve on 23 March 2002. Said Contract constituted legitimate job contracting, given that the
    latter was a bona fide independent contractor with substantial capital or investment in the form of tools,
    equipment, and machinery necessary in the conduct of its business.

    To prove the status of Interserve as an independent contractor, petitioner presented the following pieces of
    evidence: (1) the Articles of Incorporation of Interserve; (2) the Certificate of Registration of Interserve with the
    Bureau of Internal Revenue; (3) the Income Tax Return, with Audited Financial Statements, of Interserve for
    2001; and (4) the Certificate of Registration of Interserve as an independent job contractor, issued by the
    Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).

    As a result, petitioner asserted that respondents were employees of Interserve, since it was the latter which hired
    them, paid their wages, and supervised their work, as proven by: (1) respondents’ Personal Data Files in the
    records of Interserve; (2) respondents’ Contract of Temporary Employment with Interserve; and (3) the payroll
    records of Interserve.

    ISSUES: Whether or not Inteserve is a labor-only contractor;

    RULING: No.

    At the outset, the Court clarifies that although Interserve has an authorized capital stock amounting to
    P2,000,000.00, only P625,000.00 thereof was paid up as of 31 December 2001. The Court does not set an
    absolute figure for what it considers substantial capital for an independent job contractor, but it measures the
    same against the type of work which the contractor is obligated to perform for the principal..

    In sum, Interserve did not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment,
    machineries, and work premises; and respondents, its supposed employees, performed work which was
    directly related to the principal business of petitioner. It is, thus, evident that Interserve falls under the
    definition of a “labor-only” contractor, under Article 106 of the Labor Code; as well as Section 5(i) of the
    Rules Implementing Articles 106-109 of the Labor Code, as amended. It is also apparent that Interserve
    is a labor-only contractor under Section 5(ii) of the Rules Implementing Articles 106-109 of the Labor
    Code, as amended, since it did not exercise the right to control the performance of the work of
    respondents.

    The lack of control of Interserve over the respondents can be gleaned from the Contract of Services between
    Interserve (as the CONTRACTOR) and petitioner (as the CLIENT). The Contract of Services between
    Interserve and petitioner did not identify the work needed to be performed and the final result required to be
    accomplished.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy