Pacquing vs. Coca-Cola Philippines, Inc.

Employees sharing a common interest and invoking a common cause of action or defense substantially comply with the certification against forum shopping requirement when at least one of them signs the certification on behalf of the group. Furthermore, sales route helpers or cargadores-pahinantes who perform activities necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, or who have rendered at least one year of service, are deemed regular employees.

Petitioners were employed as sales route helpers or cargadores-pahinantes for respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., working exclusively at the company's plants, sales offices, and premises. They formed part of a three-person delivery truck crew responsible for loading and unloading softdrink products to various delivery points. After their dismissal, they filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal, seeking regularization and benefits. Respondent countered that petitioners were temporary workers engaged for a five-month period to act as substitutes for absent regular employees.

• Employment Status: Petitioners were sales route helpers or cargadores-pahinantes for respondent Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. Their lengths of service varied, with several having worked for more than one year (e.g., Roderick Centeno from November 15, 1985 to January 15, 1995; Juanito M. Guerra from June 16, 1980 to February 20, 1995).
• Nature of Work: Petitioners were part of a three-person delivery truck complement consisting of a driver, a salesman, and a regular route helper. They worked exclusively at respondent's plants, sales offices, and company premises, undertaking the task of loading and unloading softdrink products to various delivery points.
• Dismissal and Complaint: Following their dismissal, petitioners filed a complaint for unfair labor practice and illegal dismissal with claims for regularization, CBA benefits, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. Respondent maintained that petitioners were temporary workers engaged for a five-month period to substitute for absent regular employees.

• Verification and Forum Shopping: Petitioner argued that the absence of some signatures on the verification and certification against forum shopping was not fatal, as verification is a mere formal requirement and substantial compliance suffices when petitioners share a common interest and a common cause of action.
• Labor Technicalities: Petitioner maintained that technical rules of procedure should be relaxed in labor cases to serve substantial justice, rendering the defective verification in the NLRC appeal memorandum non-fatal.
• Regular Employment: Petitioner argued that they should be declared regular employees because they performed functions necessary or desirable to respondent's business and had been employed for more than one year.

• Procedural Compliance: Respondent countered that petitioners' blatant violation of procedural rules regarding verification and certification against forum shopping should not be countenanced.
• Scope of Rule 45: Respondent maintained that the petition sought an evaluation of evidence and factual findings, which is beyond the scope of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 where only questions of law are entertained.

• Verification and Forum Shopping: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the petition for certiorari due to the failure of some petitioners to sign the verification and certification against forum shopping.
• Nature of Verification: Whether non-compliance with the verification requirement renders the pleading fatally defective, or if substantial compliance applies.
• Regular Employment: Whether petitioners should be declared regular employees of respondent and thus entitled to reinstatement, backwages, damages, and attorney's fees.

• Verification and Forum Shopping: The dismissal was reversed. The signatures of five of the eight petitioners constituted substantial compliance with the rules on certification against forum shopping. Because petitioners filed the case as a collective group, sharing a common interest and invoking a single common cause of action against respondent, it was highly impractical to require all of them to sign the certification. Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman was distinguished, as the co-parties therein were sued in their individual capacities as public officials, meaning the acquittal or conviction of one would not necessarily apply to all.
• Nature of Verification: Verification is a formal, not jurisdictional, requirement intended to ensure the truthfulness of allegations and good faith. Non-compliance does not render the pleading fatally defective. In labor cases, technical rules are relaxed to serve substantial justice, and the Labor Code directs labor officials to ascertain facts with little regard to technicalities. Thus, the verification by only two complainants in the NLRC appeal memorandum also constituted substantial compliance.
• Regular Employment: Petitioners were declared regular employees. The determination of regular employment hinges on whether the work performed is necessary or desirable in the usual business of the employer, viewed from the perspective of the business in its entirety, not confined to the manufacturing process alone. The loading and unloading of softdrinks by route helpers is necessary to respondent's business. Under the principle of stare decisis, the ruling in Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men was applied directly. Furthermore, several petitioners had rendered at least one year of service, which under Article 280 of the Labor Code also deems their employment regular. Because respondent failed to show just or authorized cause for termination, the dismissal was illegal, entitling petitioners to reinstatement and backwages. Moral and exemplary damages were denied for failure to prove bad faith or ill motive.

• Substantial Compliance with Certification against Forum Shopping — While the certificate of non-forum shopping is mandatory and must generally be signed by all plaintiffs or petitioners, substantial compliance is accepted when the parties share a common interest and invoke a common cause of action or defense. In such instances, the signature of one plaintiff or petitioner acting as representative suffices, preventing the subversion of the rule's objective to facilitate the orderly administration of justice.
• Verification as a Formal Requirement — Verification is merely a condition affecting the form of a pleading, intended to assure that the allegations are true and correct and not a product of speculation. It is not jurisdictional. Courts may order correction or act on unverified pleadings if strict compliance may be dispensed with to serve the ends of justice, especially in labor cases where technical rules are liberally construed.
• Regular Employment Test (Necessary/Desirable Work) — An employment is deemed regular where the employee is engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer. The nature of the work must be viewed from the perspective of the business or trade in its entirety, not confined to the core manufacturing process. Furthermore, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, is considered a regular employee with respect to the activity in which they are employed.
• Stare Decisis in Labor Law — Once a case involving exactly the same point at issue has been decided, any other case involving the same point should be decided in the same manner to achieve a stable jurisprudential system. The ruling in Magsalin regarding the regular employment status of Coca-Cola route helpers was applied as controlling precedent.

• "In cases therefore where it is highly impractical to require all the plaintiffs to sign the certificate of non-forum shopping, it is sufficient, in order not to defeat the ends of justice, for one of the plaintiffs, acting as representative, to sign the certificate provided that xxx the plaintiffs share a common interest in the subject matter of the case or filed the case as a 'collective,' raising only one common cause of action or defense."
• "The nature of the work performed must be viewed from a perspective of the business or trade in its entirety and not on a confined scope."
• "The pernicious practice of having employees, workers and laborers, engaged for a fixed period of few months, short of the normal six-month probationary period of employment, and, thereafter, to be hired on a day-to-day basis, mocks the law."
• "Rules of procedure may be relaxed to relieve a party of an injustice not commensurate with the degree of noncompliance with the process required."

• Magsalin v. National Organization of Working Men, 451 Phil. 254 (2003) — Controlling precedent. Applied under the principle of stare decisis to hold that sales route helpers or cargadores-pahinantes of Coca-Cola performing loading and unloading tasks are regular employees because their work is necessary or desirable to the employer's business.
• HLC Construction and Development Corporation v. Emily Homes Subdivision Homeowners Association, G.R. No. 139360, September 23, 2003 — Followed. Established that substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping is sufficient when plaintiffs share a common interest and raise one common cause of action, making it impractical to require all signatures.
• San Miguel Corporation v. Aballa, G.R. No. 14911, June 28, 2005 — Followed. Ruled that three out of 97 dismissed employees signing the certification against forum shopping constituted substantial compliance due to the collective nature of the case.
• Espina v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 164582, March 28, 2007 — Followed. Held that 25 out of 28 signatures on the certification constituted substantial compliance because the employees shared a common interest and defense in the illegal dismissal case.
• Loquias v. Office of the Ombudsman, 392 Phil. 596 (2000) — Distinguished. The Court clarified that Loquias does not apply to cases involving a common cause of action among a collective group, as the co-parties in Loquias were sued in their individual capacities as public officials, where the liability of one did not necessarily affect the others.

• Article 280, Labor Code — Defines regular and casual employment, providing that an employment is regular when the employee performs activities usually necessary or desirable in the employer's usual business, and deems employment regular when the employee has rendered at least one year of service. Applied to determine that petitioners were regular employees.
• Article 279, Labor Code — Provides security of tenure for regular employees and mandates reinstatement with full backwages in cases of unjust dismissal. Applied to grant petitioners reinstatement and backwages.
• Article 221, Labor Code — Directs labor officials to use all reasonable means to ascertain the facts speedily and objectively, with little regard to technicalities or formalities. Relied upon to justify overlooking the defective verification in the labor proceedings.
• Section 10, Rule VII, New Rules of Procedure of the NLRC — Provides that technical rules of procedure and evidence prevailing in courts shall not be controlling in the NLRC. Cited to support the relaxation of procedural rules in labor cases.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Renato C. Corona, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, Ruben T. Reyes