G.R No.

210565 June 28, 2016

QUINTANAR VS. COCA-COLA BOTTLERS, PHILIPPINES INC

FACTS:
 Petitioners worked for COCA-COLA on different dates from 1984 to 2000 as Regular
Route Helpers with a salary of 3000/month. Petitioners were then transferred successfully
as agency workers to other agencies, mainly Interserve.
 The Department of Labor and Employment conducted an inspection of Coca-Cola. It found
out that regular employees were underpaid. The claims were settled by the respondent’s
companies but it did not include the issues on reinstatement and payment of CBA benefits.
A complaint was then filed for illegal dismissal.
 Petitioners argued that they were regular employees of Coca-Cola. They relied on the
pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of CCBPI vs NOWM, G.R No.
176024, June 18, 2007.
 Coca-Cola argued that all elements of employer-employee relationship existed between
Interserve and the complainant. NOT with Coca-Cola.
 The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC found that the petitioners were regular employees of
Coca- Cola and that Interserve was a labor-only contractor. However, the Court of Appeals
gave credence to the petition of Coca-Cola and said that Interserve was an independent
contractor.
 The petitioners sought reconsideration and claimed that the Court of Appeals violated stare
decisis when it ruled that Interserve was a legitimate job contractor. The petitioners cited
Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc vs Agito as they argued that the parties therein were the
same parties in the subject controversy, then the Court of Appeals should’ve taken
precedence.

ISSUE/S:
 WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS IS GUILTY OF GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO LACK OR IN EXCESS OF JUSRISDICTION IN:
RENDERING A DECISION THAT IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND
ESTABLISHED JURISPRUDENCE

RULING:
Petition is Granted. Resolution of the CA has been reversed and set-aside.

 YES. The court asserted its findings that route-helpers were indeed employees of Coca-
Cola in Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines Inc vs Dela Cruz and in Basan v Coca-cola
Bottlers Philippines Inc. The complainants therein were illegally dismissed for want of just
or authorized caus.
 The Court adopts the rulings made in Pacquing that Interserve was a labor-only contractor
and that Coca-Cola should be held liable pursuant to the principle of stare decisis et non
quieta movere.
 The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere (to adhere to precedents and not to
unsettle things which are established) is embedded in Article 8 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.
 The doctrine of stare decisis is one policy grounded on the necessity for securing
certainty and stability of judicial decision. (Chinese Young Men's Christian Association
of the Philippine Islands etc. v. Remington Steel Corp.)
 The rule of Stare Decisis is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the same issue. To abandon
thereof must be based only on strong and compelling reasons.
 Coca-Cola has not shown any strong and compelling reason to convince the Court that
the doctrine should not be applied.