Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 241 views

    Mafinco vs. Ople - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    Repomanta and Moralde had separate contracts to buy and sell Cosmos soft drinks from Mafinco for one year. When Mafinco terminated the contracts, Repomanta and Moralde claimed they were employees and filed a complaint. The NLRC dismissed the complaint finding they were independent contractors. The Secretary of Labor reversed this but the Supreme Court then ruled that Repomanta and Moralde were independent contractors as they used their own capital and employees to distribute the soft drinks under voluntary contracts they signed with Mafinco.

    Copyright:

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

    Mafinco vs. Ople - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    241 views1 page
    Repomanta and Moralde had separate contracts to buy and sell Cosmos soft drinks from Mafinco for one year. When Mafinco terminated the contracts, Repomanta and Moralde claimed they were employees and filed a complaint. The NLRC dismissed the complaint finding they were independent contractors. The Secretary of Labor reversed this but the Supreme Court then ruled that Repomanta and Moralde were independent contractors as they used their own capital and employees to distribute the soft drinks under voluntary contracts they signed with Mafinco.

    Original Title

    Mafinco vs. Ople - Case Digest.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Repomanta and Moralde had separate contracts to buy and sell Cosmos soft drinks from Mafinco for one year. When Mafinco terminated the contracts, Repomanta and Moralde claimed they were employees and filed a complaint. The NLRC dismissed the complaint finding they were independent contractors. The Secretary of Labor reversed this but the Supreme Court then ruled that Repomanta and Moralde were independent contractors as they used their own capital and employees to distribute the soft drinks under voluntary contracts they signed with Mafinco.

    Copyright:

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

    Mafinco vs. Ople - Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Abigail Tolabing
    Repomanta and Moralde had separate contracts to buy and sell Cosmos soft drinks from Mafinco for one year. When Mafinco terminated the contracts, Repomanta and Moralde claimed they were employees and filed a complaint. The NLRC dismissed the complaint finding they were independent contractors. The Secretary of Labor reversed this but the Supreme Court then ruled that Repomanta and Moralde were independent contractors as they used their own capital and employees to distribute the soft drinks under voluntary contracts they signed with Mafinco.

    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

    MAFINCO TRADING CORPORATION vs. OPLE, et al.

    Independent or Job Contractor


    No. L-37790 | March 25, 1976 | Aquino

    FACTS: Mafinco is the sole distributor of Cosmos soft drinks in Manila. It entered into separate peddling
    contracts with Repomanta and Moralde where they agreed to "buy and sell" Cosmos soft drinks for one year.
    Mafinco terminated their contract and Repomanta and Moralde filed a complaint with the NLRC against
    Mafinco for violating PD 21. NLRC dismissed it, holding that it had no jurisdiction over it because Repomanta
    and Moralde were not Mafinco's employees but were independent contractors and PD 21 does not apply.
    Repomanta and Moralde appealed to the Secretary of Labor who reversed NLRC's decision. Hence, Mafinco
    raised this to the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE: Whether Repomante and Moralde are employees of Mafinco?

    RULING: No. Repomante and Moralde were independent contractors. They were distributors of Cosmos soft
    drinks with their own capital and employees. Repomanta and Moralde voluntarily executed with Mafinco
    formal peddling contracts. That circumstance signifies that they were acting as independent businessmen.
    They were free to sign or not to sign that contract. But having signed it, they were bound by its stipulations
    and the consequences thereof under existing labor laws. One such stipulation is the right of the parties to
    terminate the contract upon 5 days’ prior notice. Using the contract itself as the sole criterion, the
    termination should perforce be characterized as simply the exercise of a right freely stipulated upon by the
    parties.

    You might also like