ChanRobles Virtual law Library
G.R. No. 153841.
FILINVEST DEVT., CORP., v. NLRC, et al.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information,
is a resolution of this Court dated
G.R. No. 153841. (Filinvest Development Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, Third Division, Qitezon City , Gerry Onriibia, and Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc).
Herein petitioner Filinvest Development Corporation (Filinvest) entered into an agreement with respondent Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. (Emeritus), for the latter to provide security guards to Filinvest's properties in San Mateo, Rizal. The contract provides that the security guards are to be considered employees of Emeritus who shall be solely responsible for the guards' wages, salaries, and benefits under the Labor Code, Minimum Wage Law, Employees Compensation Act, Social Security Act, Medicare, and allied statutes; and that Emeritus shall hold Filinvest free and harmless and will defend it in any court of law from any claim for the abovementioned wages and benefits.
Pursuant to the foregoing agreement, Emeritus assigned its ecurity guard, herein respondent Gerry Onrubia,
at the Filinvest Doronilla
Property in San
Mateo, Rizal from
On
After petitioner Filinvest had filed its
position paper, the Labor Arbiter on
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby
rendered ordering respondent Emeritus Security and Maintenance Systems, Inc. to
pay complainant the amount of p84,166.38 representing complainant's
underpayment of wages from
Complaint for illegal dismissal is dismissed for lack of merit.
The complaint of complainant Udarbe is also dismissed in view of his voluntary withdrawal.
SO ORDERED.
(Emphasis added)
On appeal by petitioner, the NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter's decision. Petitioner then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, but the same was dismissed for lack of merit. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied. Hence this petition.
Petitioner contends that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over respondent Emeritus' third-party complaint against it absent an employer-employee relationship between them and erred in making it liable to Emeritus when the latter had not paid the claims of respondent Onrubia. Petitioner cites in support of his contention the decision in Lapanday Agricultural Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 324 SCRA 39 (2000)). Petitioner further contends that respondent Emeritus should be held solely liable for the claims of respondent Onrubia.
Considering the foregoing arguments, the Court finds the petition to be without merit. First of all, petitioner misapprehends the Labor Arbiter's decision which was affirmed both by the NLRC and the Court of Appeals. The same did not hold petitioner liable to respondent Emeritus; rather, it held both petitioner and Emeritus jointly and severally liable to respondent Onrubia for the latter's wage differentials covering the period from July 16, 1997 up to March 20, 1998 under Arts. 106, 107, and 109 of the Labor Code which state in pertinent part:
ART. 106. Contrator or subcontractor. - Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the former'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 wages 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.
ART. 107. Indirect employer. - The provisions of the immediately preceding Article 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 pro)ect.
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.
Respondent Onrubia's failure to implead petitioner as a defendant in his complaint is of no moment considering that respondent Emeritus filed a third-party complaint against it (petitioner). In an analogous case, (Development Bank of the Philippines v. NLRC, 233 SCRA 250 (1994)), this Court held:
Neither may petitioner argue that it was not properly impleaded and hence, should not be made liable to the claims of private respondents. On this matter, petitioner cannot be absolved from responsibility. We sustain respondent Commission's holding that:
Anent the Bank's first issue, what we actually have here is a "Third-Party Complaint," defined by Section 12, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court as "a claim that a defending party may, with leave of court, file against a person not a party to the action, called the third-part)' defendant, for contribution, Indemnity, subrogation or any other relief, in respect of his opponent's claim" (emphasis ours). Since Rule I, Section 3 of our 1986 Revised NLRC Rules adopts suppletorily the Rules of Court "in the interest of expeditious labor justice and whenever practicable and convenient" with the Security Agency's impleading the Bank for indemnity and subrogation considering that the complainants worked with the Bank "to safeguard their premises, properties and their person" (Record, p. 76), such a third-party complaint would therefore be proper. That the bank has not disputed liability on the admitted claims, but professes merely subsidiary, instead of solidary, liability, we find its position here all the more untenable.
The Lapanday case, cited by petitioner in support of its claim that the Labor Arbiter has no jurisdiction over Emeritus' third-party complaint, is inapplicable. In Lapanday, the only parties were the employer and the security agency and the issue was whether theemployer was liable to the security agency for sum of money and damages for its (employer's) failure to comply with their Guard Service Contract by increasing the consideration of the same pursuant to certain wage orders.
Finally, petitioner cannot use the security service agreement between it and respondent Emeritus to absolve it of liability for respondent Onrubia's wage differentials. Contracts are binding only on the parties to it, as a general rule. Employers cannot hide behind their contracts to evade their or their contractors' or subcontractors' liability for non-compliance with the statutory minimum wage (See Rosewood Processing, Inc. v. NLRC, 290 SCRA 408 (1998)).
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Asst. Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
