BASAN VS COCA-COLA BOTTLERS

P ARG: They were continuously rehired by R Company to perform

duties necessary and desirable in the usual trade or business, so they
are regular employees. And if their services really were only for fixed
specific periods, dapat nagbigay si R ng contracts of employment.
R ARG: CA already found that P were fixed-term employees who were
hired intermittently. The payslips that P gave as evidence only showed
that P rendered their services for periods of less than a year = so that
means they were not regular employees. Also, nasunog yung Manila
Plant nila where the employment records were kept, thats why they
cant present it. But even if they cant present it, the P voluntarily and
knowingly agreed to a fixed period of employment and its duration was
made known to them at the time they were engaged, so the P cant
assaild it now.
ISSUE: WON P are fixed-term employees NO, they are regular
employees.
RULING: In the absence of proof showing that P knowingly agreed upon
a fixed term of employment, the SC upheld the findings of the LA and
the NLRC and ruled that P are regular employees, entitled to security of
tenure. R company found guilty of illegal dismissal.
SC said that this issue had already been resolved in Magsalin vs
National Organization of Working Men
In that case, the SC held that the nature of work of route helpers
hired by Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines is necessary and
desirable in its usual business or trade, which qualifies them as
regular employees.
In Magsalin, Coca-Cola argued that sales route helpers work in
postproduction activities which arent indispensible in the
manufacturing of their products SC said no, because the
nature of the work performed must be viewed from a perspective
of the business in its entirety and not on a confined scope.
R ARG: Even if P were performing activities which are necessary or
desirable in its usual business or trade, they werent employed as
regular employees but only for a fixed period, which is allowed by law
under the Brent School Doctrine.
Brent School vs Zamora: Under the Civil Code and as a general
proposition, fixed-term employment contracts are not limited, as
they are under the present LC, to those by nature seasonal or for
specific projects with pre-determined dates of completion; they

also include those to which the parties by free choice have

assigned a specific date of termination.
Fixed-term employment employment embodied in a contract
specifying that the services of the employee shall be engaged
only for a definite period, the termination of which occurs upon
the expiration of said period irrespective of the existence of just
cause and regardless of the activity the employee is called to
perform.
The Court (in Brent) laid down the following criteria to prevent the
circumvention of the employees security of tenure:
The fixed period of employment was knowingly and voluntarily
agreed upon by the parties without any force, duress or improper
pressure being brought to bear upon the employee and absent
any other circumstances vitiating his consent
It satisfactorily appears that the employer and the employee
dealt with each other on more or less equal terms with no moral
dominance exercised by the former or the latter
APPLICATION IN THE INSTANT CASE:
R didnt show any records that the P freely entered into
agreements with the R to perform services for a specified length
of time no contract of employment shown because it was
destroyed in a fire, but SC said they could have shown other
documents. Since they didnt, it gives rise to the presumption
that if shown, the documents would likely be prejudicial to their
case
While fixed term employment is not per se illegal or against
public policy, the above criteria must be satisfied
o In instant case, P were repeatedly engaged to perform
functions necessary to Rs business for fixed periods short
of the 6 month probationary period of employment
o SC said that if they really had no intent to circumvent the
law, R should have made it clear to P that they were only
being hired for fixed periods in an agreement freely
entered into by the parties but since R kept on hiring
and re-hiring them in periods short of legal probationary
period, its evidence of Rs intent to thwart Ps security of
tenure.