Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 71 views

    018 LAGUILLES Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Cabalo

    Uploaded by

    CamillaGalang
    This case concerns a petition for review on certiorari filed by Coca Cola Bottlers against employees who filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the employee's case but the NLRC remanded it back for further proceedings. Coca Cola then petitioned the Court of Appeals but its petition was dismissed for failing to attach a certified true copy of the assailed NLRC decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that while Coca Cola attached a certified photocopy of the NLRC decision, it did not provide a written explanation for failing to personally serve notice of the petition as required.

    Copyright:

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

    018 LAGUILLES Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Cabalo

    Uploaded by

    CamillaGalang
    71 views1 page
    This case concerns a petition for review on certiorari filed by Coca Cola Bottlers against employees who filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the employee's case but the NLRC remanded it back for further proceedings. Coca Cola then petitioned the Court of Appeals but its petition was dismissed for failing to attach a certified true copy of the assailed NLRC decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that while Coca Cola attached a certified photocopy of the NLRC decision, it did not provide a written explanation for failing to personally serve notice of the petition as required.

    Original Description:

    Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Cabalo

    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 case concerns a petition for review on certiorari filed by Coca Cola Bottlers against employees who filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the employee's case but the NLRC remanded it back for further proceedings. Coca Cola then petitioned the Court of Appeals but its petition was dismissed for failing to attach a certified true copy of the assailed NLRC decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that while Coca Cola attached a certified photocopy of the NLRC decision, it did not provide a written explanation for failing to personally serve notice of the petition as required.

    Copyright:

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

    018 LAGUILLES Coca Cola Bottlers vs. Cabalo

    Uploaded by

    CamillaGalang
    This case concerns a petition for review on certiorari filed by Coca Cola Bottlers against employees who filed an illegal dismissal case. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the employee's case but the NLRC remanded it back for further proceedings. Coca Cola then petitioned the Court of Appeals but its petition was dismissed for failing to attach a certified true copy of the assailed NLRC decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding that while Coca Cola attached a certified photocopy of the NLRC decision, it did not provide a written explanation for failing to personally serve notice of the petition as required.

    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

    017 COCA COLA BOTTLERS vs.

    CABALO (LAGUILLES) provide a written explanation why service of their petition was not made
    January 30, 2006 | Chico-Nazario, J.| Rule 43 personally cannot justify its omission. It does not constitute excusable negligence
    especially since said rule had already been in effect for 3 years before they filed
    PETITIONER: Coca Cola Bottlers Phils., Inc., Natale J. Dicosmo, Steve their petition before the CA. Therefore, the petition is DENIED.
    Heath, Mary Chua, Alberto Fajardo, Jess Bangsil, Lito Garcia, Noel Roxas,
    Chito Enriquez, Frederick Kerulf, Armando Canlas, Danilo Dauz
    RESPONDENTS: Rodolfo Cabalo, Juanito Gerona, Luis Gerona, Luis De DOCTRINE: Any petition filed under Rule 65 should be accompanied by a
    Ocampo, Mario Nilo Mecua certified true copy of the judgment, order or resolution subject thereof (But the
    case itself did not say whether petitioners in this case appealed via which rule. It
    SUMMARY: just said that they filed a petition for review on certiorari before the CA. No
    This is a petition for review on certiotari. The controversy is about an illegal mention of Rule 43 either).
    dismissal case filed by the respondents against the petitioners. Complainants
    claim that they have been employed by Coca Cola for 10-13 years as route
    helpers, cargadors, pahinantes, driver, etc. Coca Cola maintains that being one of
    the largest soft drink manufacturer in the country, it employs a big workforce all
    over the country and that due to fluctuating variable conditions in the market like
    volume of work and unexpected shortages in manpower, it is at times constrained
    to augment its workforce to cope with operational needs. Because of this, Coca
    Cola engages the services of workers on a temporary basis (5 months), apart from
    its regular workers. The Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Coca Cola for lack of
    evidence as to the existence of an employer-employee relationship. On appeal to
    the NLRC, the latter remanded the case back to the Labor Arbiter. Coca Cola then
    sought relief to the CA via petition for certiorari, but the same was dismissed on
    the ground that Coca Cola failed to comply with Sec. 11 Rule 13 of the Rules of
    Civil Procedure and for failure to attach certified true copy of the assailed NLRC
    decision, as required under Sec. 1, Rule 65.

    The issue is WoN:


    1. The CA erred in dismissing the petition, notwithstanding the fact that
    the NLRC only gave them Xerox copies and the CA only gave them the
    same.
    - The Court held that yes, the CA erred in this regard. A perusal of the
    attached NLRC decision easily discloses that it is not a mere photocopy,
    but is in fact, a certified photocopy of the decision. The CA in this
    matter, however, zeroed in on the copy of the NLRC Resolution denying
    Coca Cola’s MR, which is not a certified true copy.
    The Court also discussed the fact that the petition filed before the CA did not
    contain an explanation as to why service upon the OSG and Atty. Alam (counsel
    for the employees) was not made personally, albeit an affidavit of service by
    registered mail was attached to it. However, the Court finds that the CA did not
    err in dismissing the petition for failure to observe the requirement of a written
    explanation why service was not made personally to the OSG and to Atty. Alam.
    It cannot be said that serving the petition on the OSG and Atty. Alam through
    personal service was not practical under the circumstances. The office of Coca
    Cola’s counsel is in Pasig, while the OSG is in Makati, and that of Atty. Alam is
    in QC. Coca Cola’s claim of inadvertence as their reason for their failure to

    You might also like