Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 188 views

    Coca Cola Bottlers Inc v. SSC

    Uploaded by

    Juan Tamad
    1. Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. and Dr. Dean Climaco had a retainer agreement where Climaco provided professional services as a company physician. Climaco later filed complaints claiming he was an employee. 2. Climaco filed complaints with the NLRC seeking recognition as a regular employee and benefits. He also filed a petition with the SSC to order Coca-Cola to provide compulsory social security coverage. 3. Coca-Cola argued there was a prejudicial question since the issues in the NLRC and SSC cases were intertwined. However, the court found no prejudicial question existed as there was no pending criminal case, and

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Coca Cola Bottlers Inc v. SSC

    Uploaded by

    Juan Tamad
    188 views2 pages
    1. Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. and Dr. Dean Climaco had a retainer agreement where Climaco provided professional services as a company physician. Climaco later filed complaints claiming he was an employee. 2. Climaco filed complaints with the NLRC seeking recognition as a regular employee and benefits. He also filed a petition with the SSC to order Coca-Cola to provide compulsory social security coverage. 3. Coca-Cola argued there was a prejudicial question since the issues in the NLRC and SSC cases were intertwined. However, the court found no prejudicial question existed as there was no pending criminal case, and

    Original Description:

    Petition

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. and Dr. Dean Climaco had a retainer agreement where Climaco provided professional services as a company physician. Climaco later filed complaints claiming he was an employee. 2. Climaco filed complaints with the NLRC seeking recognition as a regular employee and benefits. He also filed a petition with the SSC to order Coca-Cola to provide compulsory social security coverage. 3. Coca-Cola argued there was a prejudicial question since the issues in the NLRC and SSC cases were intertwined. However, the court found no prejudicial question existed as there was no pending criminal case, and

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    188 views2 pages

    Coca Cola Bottlers Inc v. SSC

    Uploaded by

    Juan Tamad
    1. Coca-Cola Bottlers (Phils.), Inc. and Dr. Dean Climaco had a retainer agreement where Climaco provided professional services as a company physician. Climaco later filed complaints claiming he was an employee. 2. Climaco filed complaints with the NLRC seeking recognition as a regular employee and benefits. He also filed a petition with the SSC to order Coca-Cola to provide compulsory social security coverage. 3. Coca-Cola argued there was a prejudicial question since the issues in the NLRC and SSC cases were intertwined. However, the court found no prejudicial question existed as there was no pending criminal case, and

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    COCA-COLA BO11LLRS (PHILS.), INC. and LRIC MON1INOLA v.

    SOCIAL SLCURI1Y COMMISSION and DR. DLAN CLIMACO


    G.R. No. JS9323, 3J July 2008, 1HIRD DIVISION, (Reyes, J.)

    1be cov.otiaatea ^RC ca.e. cavvot be cov.iaerea a. reriov.t, iv.titvtea cirit actiov. v erbari r.
    Covceciov, it ra. beta tbat a re;vaiciat qve.tiov i. vvaer.tooa iv tar to be tbat rbicb vv.t receae tbe crivivat actiov,
    tbat rbicb reqvire. a aeci.iov ritb rbicb .aia qve.tiov i. cto.et, retatea.

    In 1988 petitioner Coca-Cola Bottlers ,Phils.,, Inc. ,Coke, and priate respondent Dr. Dean
    Climaco ,Climaco, entered into a retainer agreement where he can charge proessional ees in line with
    his specialization. 1he agreement also proided that either party may terminate the contract upon due
    notice and that no employer-employee relationship shall exist between Coke and Climaco while the
    contract is in eect.

    Ater seeral years, Climaco asked the Department o Labor and Lmployment ,DOLL, and
    Social Security System ,SSS, i he was an employee o the company. 1he agencies said yes and Climaco
    then iled a complaint beore the National Labor and Relations Commission ,NLRC, seeking
    recognition as a regular employee o Coke and asking or his beneits ,i.e. 13
    th
    month pay, holiday pay,
    etc.,. During the pendency o the complaint, Coke terminated the contract with Climaco, thus leading to
    another complaint by Climaco beore the NLRC against Coke or illegal dismissal.

    1he NLRC dismissed both complaints o Climaco`s but the Court o Appeals reersed the ruling
    saying that an employer-employee relationship between Coke and Climaco exists. Also, while the NLRC
    cases were pending, Climaco iled with the Social Security Commission ,SSC, a petition praying that
    Coke be ordered to report him or compulsory social security coerage. 1he SSC ordered that the case
    be remanded to the SSS Bacolod oice or reception o eidence o the parties.

    ISSUL:

    \hether or not a prejudicial question exists upon the iling o two complaints by Climaco beore
    the NLRC

    HLLD:

    Petition DLNILD.

    No prejudicial question exists

    Coke alleges that Climaco preiously iled separate complaints beore the NLRC seeking
    recognition as a regular employee. Necessarily then, a just resolution o these cases hinge on a
    determination o whether or not Climaco is an employee o the company. 1he issue o whether Climaco
    is entitled to employee beneits, as prayed or in the NLRC cases, is closely intertwined with the issue o
    whether Climaco is an employee o the company who is subject to compulsory coerage under the SSS
    Law. lence, they argue, said regularization,illegal dismissal case is a prejudicial question.

    1he argument is untenable.

    1he Court`s concept o prejudicial question was lited rom Spain, where ciil cases are tried
    exclusiely by ciil courts, while criminal cases are tried exclusiely in criminal courts. Lach kind o
    court is jurisdictionally distinct rom and independent o the other. In the Philippines, howeer, courts
    are inariably tribunals o general jurisdiction. 1his means that courts here exercise jurisdiction oer
    both ciil and criminal cases. 1hus, it is not impossible that the criminal case, as well as the ciil case in
    which a prejudicial question may rise, may be both pending in the same court. lor this reason, the
    elements o prejudicial question hae been modiied in such a way that the phrase pendency o the ciil
    case in a dierent tribunal` has been eliminated.

    1he rule is that there is prejudicial question when (a) the previously instituted civil
    action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
    criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal
    action may proceed. It comes into play generally in a situation where a ciil action and a criminal action
    both pend and there exists in the ormer an issue which must be preemptiely resoled beore the
    criminal action may proceed. 1his is so because howsoeer the issue raised in the ciil action is resoled
    would be determinatie ;vri. et ae ;vre o the guilt or innocence o the accused in the criminal case.

    lere, no prejudicial question exists because there is no pending criminal case. 1he
    consolidated NLRC cases cannot be considered as preiously instituted ciil action.` In erbari r.
    Covceciov, it was held that a prejudicial question is understood in law to be that which must precede
    the criminal action, that which requires a decision with which said question is closely related.

    Neither can the doctrine of prejudicial question be applied by analogy. 1he issue in the
    case iled by Climaco with the SSC inoles the question o whether or not he is an employee o Coca-
    Cola Bottlers ,Phils.,, Inc. and subject to the compulsory coerage o the Social Security System. On the
    contrary, the cases iled by Climaco beore the NLRC inoled dierent issues. In his irst complaint,
    Climaco sought recognition as a regular employee o the company and demanded payment o his 13th
    month pay, cost o liing allowance, holiday pay, serice incentie leae pay, Christmas bonus and all
    other beneits. 1he second complaint was or illegal dismissal, with prayer or reinstatement to his
    ormer position as company physician o the company`s Bacolod Plant, without loss o seniority rights,
    with ull payment o backwages, other unpaid beneits, and or payment o damages. 1hus, the issues in
    the NLRC cases are not determinatie o whether or not the SSC should proceed. It is settled that the
    question claimed to be prejudicial in nature must be determinatie o the case beore the court.

    Lidently, there is no another action` pending between Coke and Climaco at the time when the
    latter iled a petition beore the SSC.

    You might also like