PANULAYA, EMMANUEL C.

G.R. No. 190509. July 20, 2022

10.PEAK VENTURES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. SECRETARY OF LABOR

Facts
This Court resolves the three consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari1
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which emanated from a complaint filed by a
group of security guards imploring the visitorial and enforcement powers of the
Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE). Respondent security guards,
Rogelio M. Fernandez, Gerardo Plantig, Guillermo Banaga and Rodolfo Reyes
(Fernandez et al.), were engaged to provide security service to CFI under a
security service agreement with PVC. They filed a Complaint for underpayment
of wages based on the prevailing wage order, and for non-payment of legal and
special holiday pay, premium pay on rest days, 13th month pay, and emergency
cost of living allowance. Regional Director (RD) set out to inspect PVC's
premises, but having been denied access to employment records, interviewed
the employees instead and found violations of the prevailing wage order it
appears that Fernandez et al. were each paid P198.00 per 8-hour working day or
P5,940.00/month as salary.

From there, the case took a two-pronged course. CFI, upon posting a
supersedeas bond, filed a petition assailing the RD's jurisdiction before the
National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) on the ground that the amount of
the claims was cognizable instead by the Labor Arbiter. The petition was
dismissed by the NLRC which upheld the jurisdiction of the RD over the case.

PVC, on the other hand, appealed to the Secretary of Labor likewise upon filing
of its supersedeas bond. On February 15, 2005, the Secretary of Labor issued an
Order dismissing PVC's appeal and directing the liability to be satisfied out of
its supersedeas bond.
Issue
(1) whether the RD has jurisdiction over the present case;
PANULAYA, EMMANUEL C.

(2) whether PVC and CFI are solidarily liable for the payment of the monetary
awards to respondents; and
(3) whether PVC's filing of supersedeas bond discharged CFI from liability.

Ruling

The RD has jurisdiction over the present case.

ART. 129. Recovery of wages, simple money claims and other benefits. Upon
complaint of any interested party, the Regional Director of the Department of
Labor and Employment or any of the duly authorized hearing officers of the
Department is empowered, through summary proceeding and after due notice, to
hear and decide any matter involving the recovery of wages and other monetary
claims and benefits, including legal interest, owing to an employee or person
employed in domestic or household service or househelper under this Code,
arising from employer?-employee relations: Provided, That such complaint does
not include a claim for reinstatement: Provided, further, That the aggregate
money claims of each employee or househelper do not exceed Five thousand
pesos (P5,000.00) x x x.

ART. 217. Jurisdiction of Labor Arbiters and the Commission. (a) Except as
otherwise provided under this Code, the Labor Arbiters shall have original and
exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide, within thirty (30) calendar days after the
submission of the case by the parties for decision without extension, even in the
absence of stenographic notes, the following cases involving all workers, whether
agricultural or non?agricultural;

Articles 129 and 217 of the Labor Code vest jurisdiction on the labor arbiter over
aggregate individual money claims exceeding P5,000.00, the said provisions do
not contemplate the visitorial and enforcement powers of the Secretary of Labor
or his duly authorized representatives.
PANULAYA, EMMANUEL C.

2. PVC and CFI are solidarily liable for the payment of the monetary awards to
respondents.
Articles 106, 107, and 109 of the Labor Code provide:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Art. 106. Contractor or Subcontractor. Whenever an employer enters into a
contract with another person for the performance of the farmer's work, the
employees of the contractor and of the latter's subcontractor, if any, shall be paid
in accordance with the provisions of this Code.

In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wage of his
employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and
severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the
extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent
that he is liable to employees directly employed by him. x x x

Art. 107. Indirect Employer. The provisions of the immediately preceding [A]rticle
shall likewise apply to any person, partnership, association or corporation which,
not being an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the
performance of any work, task, job or project.

Art. 109. Solidary liability. The provisions of existing laws to the contrary
notwithstanding, every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible
with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this
Code. For purposes of determining the extent of their civil liability under this
Chapter, they shall be considered as direct employers.

Under the foregoing provisions, the principal and the contractor are jointly and
severally liable for the payment of unpaid wages of the contractor's employees.
solidary liability assures compliance with the provisions of the Labor Code,
whereby the contractor is made liable under its status as the direct employer and
the p1incipal as the indirect employer, to secure the payment of wages should
the contractor be unable to pay them.
PANULAYA, EMMANUEL C.

In the present case, it was established that respondents are the employees of
PVC. They were assigned as security guards in the premises of CFI pursuant to
the latter's security service agreement with PVC. During the term of the
agreement, respondents were not paid their proper wages and other monetary
benefits. Evidently, the application of the aforecited provisions of the Labor Code
on the solidary liability of CFI, as principal, and PVC, as contractor, insofar as the
payment of wages is concerned, is warranted here.

3. PVC's filing of supersedeas bond did not necessarily discharge CFI from
liability.
When solidary obligation obtains by agreement or by law, the creditor may
demand from any of the debtors the entire compliance with the prestation. Such
is the essence of solidarity in Article 1207 Civil Code.

This Court notes that claims of nonliability by PVC and CFI on various grounds
punctuated this case since its departure from the RD's August 20, 2003 Order,
such as claims of previous remittances of payments representing the just wages
owing respondents, and as previously discussed, claims to the effect that the
subsistence of the appeal bond of one would exclude from liability the other. To
our mind, the miscellaneous arguments raised by PVC and CFI are non-issues in
the case at hand inasmuch as the RD was dutybound to simply make an
affirmative and substantial finding on the allegations of underpayment of wages
and non-payment of other benefits as well as on the relative liabilities of PVC and
CFI as principal employer and contractor under their own security service
agreement.