[GR Nos.

100376-77, Jun 17, 1994]

DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PHILIPPINES v. NLRC +

DECISION

PADILLA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari (here treated as a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, Rules of Court) seeks to
reverse and set aside the Resolution dated 11 June 1991 of respondent National Labor Relations Commission
("NLRC") in NLRC NCR Case Nos. 00-09-03383-87 and 00-10-03562-87, denying petitioner's motion for
reconsideration, the dispositive part of which reads:
"Accordingly, the Bank's motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. The responsible officers of the Bank and its
counsel are hereby warned, under pain of contempt, that we shall not tolerate their further delaying the execution of
the subject award."[1]
Private respondents Godofredo Morillo, Sunday Bacea, Alfredo Cos and Rogelio Villanueva were hired as security
guards by Confidential Investigation and Security Corporation ("CISCOR") on 19 May 1981, 21 August 1984, 22
January 1985, and 27 November 1985, respectively. In the course of their employment, private respondents were
assigned to secure the premises of CISCOR's clients, among them, the herein petitioner, Development Bank of the
Philippines ("DBP") which, in turn, assigned private respondents to secure one of its properties or assets, the
Riverside Mills Corporation.
On 11 August 1987, private respondent Villanueva resigned from CISCOR. On 15 August 1987, private
respondents Morillo, Bacea and Cos followed suit in resigning from CISCOR. Thereafter, private
respondents claimed from CISCOR the return of their cash bond and payment of their 13th month pay and service
incentive leave pay. For failure of CISCOR to grant their claims, private respondents Villanueva and Cos filed
against CISCOR and its President/Manager Ernesto Medina NLRC NCR Case No. 00-10-3562-87 on 13 October
1987, while private respondents Morillo and Bacea filed NLRC NCR Case No. 00-09-3383-87 on 29 September
1987. In said two (2) cases, private respondents sought recovery of their cash bond, payment of 13th month pay,
and their five-day service incentive leave pay. The two (2) cases were consolidated and assigned to Labor Arbiter
Crescencio Iniego.
In their position paper filed on 23 November 1987, private respondents (as complainants) alleged that they tendered
their resignations in August 1987 upon the assurance of CISCOR that they would be paid the cash benefits due
them. For failure of CISCOR to comply, private respondents claimed violations committed by CISCOR and Medina,
specifically, the non-payment of their 13th month pay, five (5) day service incentive leave pay from the date of
employment to the time of their separation, non-refund of their cash bond, non-payment of legal holiday pay and
rest day pay. On the other hand, CISCOR and Medina in their position paper filed on 3 March 1988 admitted that
private respondents were former security guards of CISCOR. They added, however, that sometime in 1987,
petitioner allegedly formed its own security agency and pirated private respondents who tendered their voluntary
resignations from CISCOR. Thereafter, when private respondents sought from CISCOR the return of their cash
bond deposit, payment of 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay, CISCOR explained to private
respondents that in view of the claim of petitioner that it incurred losses when private respondents and their other
co-security guards secured the premises of Riverside Mills Corporation, private respondents, prior to the payment of
their claims, were asked to first secure an individual/agency clearance from petitioner to show that no losses were
incurred while they were guarding Riverside Mills Corporation.
Instead of getting such clearance from the petitioner, private respondents secured their clearance from CISCOR's
detachment commander. Hence, for failure to secure the required clearance, private respondents' cash bond
deposit, their proportionate 13th month pay and service incentive leave pay were withheld to answer for liabilities
incurred while private respondents were guarding Riverside Mills Corporation.
On 10 March 1988, CISCOR filed a motion with leave to implead petitioner bank and averred therein that in view of
its contract with the petitioner whereby, for a certain service fee, CISCOR undertook to guard petitioner's premises,
both CISCOR and petitioner, under the Labor Code, are jointly and severally liable to pay the salaries and other
statutory benefits due the private respondents, petitioner being an indispensable party to the case. On 11 March
1988, Labor Arbiter Iniego issued an order granting the aforesaid motion and including petitioner as one of the
respondents therein. To this, private respondents filed their opposition and alleged, among others, that petitioner,
not being an employer of the private respondents, was not a proper, necessary or indispensable party to the case.
In answer, petitioner filed its position paper alleging therein that it was not made a respondent by the herein private
respondents in their complaint, and that none of the original parties to the case (private respondents and
CISCOR/Medina) interposed any claim against the petitioner. It further stated that it cannot be held liable to the
claim of private respondents because there was no failure on the part of CISCOR and Medina to pay said claims. If
CISCOR had apparently failed to pay private respondents' claims, it was only due to the failure of private
respondents to secure their individual clearance of accountability or agency clearance that there were no losses
incurred while they were guarding Riverside Mills Corporation.
On 12 July 1988, the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision, the dispositive part of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondents Confidential Investigation and Security
Corporation, Mr. Ernesto Medina and Development Bank of the Philippines to pay the complainants the
corresponding salary differential due them to be computed for the last three (3) years from the time they stopped
working with the respondents sometime in August 1987. Confidential Investigation and Security Corporation is
further ordered to return to the complainants their respective cash bond cited in this decision within a period of ten
(10) days from receipt hereof."[2]
From the above decision, CISCOR and Medina appealed to the NLRC. Petitioner likewise filed its Motion for
Reconsideration/Appeal and prayed for the Labor Arbiter to modify his decision and make CISCOR and
Medina solely liable for the claims of private respondents, and to declare the award for salary differentials as null
and void.
In its Resolution of 24 January 1991, the NLRC held the petitioner DBP, CISCOR and Medina, as jointly and
severally liable, the pertinent part of which reads:
"WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby modified. All the respondents (Confidential Investigation and
Security Corporation, Ernesto Medina and the Development Bank of the Philippines) are hereby adjudged jointly
and severally liable to the admitted claims for 13th month pay, 5 days incentive leave, and refund of cash bond, and
accordingly, immediate execution is hereby directed against any of the aforesaid respondents without prejudice to
their having lawful recourse against each other.
Anent the award of wage differential and the claim for rest day and legal holiday pay, the same are hereby
remanded to the Arbitration Branch of origin for further hearing with the directive that it be completed in 20 days
from the Arbitration Branch's receipt of this Order." [3]
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari, with petitioner DBP raising the following issues:
1. Whether or not the DBP is really liable for any of the claims of private respondents;
2. Whether or not the NLRC (or the Labor Arbiter) correctly applied Article 106 of the Labor Code; and
3. Whether or not the wage differential, rest day and legal holiday pay could and should be adjudicated in this case.
The threshold and, in the ultimate analysis, the decisive issue raised by the present petition is whether petitioner
was correctly held jointly and severally liable, alongside CISCOR and Medina, for the payment of the private
respondents' salary differentials, 13th month pay, service incentive leave pay, rest day pay, legal holiday pay, and
the refund of their cash deposit.
Petitioner posits that it is not the employer of private respondents and should thus not be held liable for the latter's
claims. In addition, it avers that it was not properly impleaded as it was CISCOR and Medina who filed the motion to
implead petitioner, and not the private respondents, as complainants therein. Petitioner even goes further by
countering that, assuming arguendo, it was the indirect employer of private respondents, Article 106 of the Labor
Code[4] cannot be applied to the present case as there was no failure on the part of CISCOR and Medina, as direct
employer, to pay the claims of private respondents, but only a failure on the part of the latter to present the proper
clearance to pave the way for the payment of the claims. It emphasizes that the term "fails" in Article 106 of the
Labor Code implies insolvency or unwillingness of the direct employer to pay, which cannot be said of CISCOR and
Medina as they have manifested their willingness to pay private respondents' claims after they have presented
proper clearance from accountability.
We are not persuaded by petitioner's arguments.
Petitioner's interpretation of Article 106 of the Labor Code is quite misplaced. Nothing in said Article 106 indicates
that insolvency or unwillingness to pay by the contractor or direct employer is a prerequisite for the joint and several
liability of the principal or indirect employer. In fact, the rule is that in job contracting, the principal is jointly and
severally liable with the contractor. The statutory basis for this joint and several liability is set forth in Articles
107[5] and 109[6] in relation to Article 106 of the Labor Code.[7] There is no doubt that private respondents are entitled
to the cash benefits due them. The petitioner is also, no doubt, liable to pay such benefits because the law
mandates the joint and several liability of the principal and the contractor for the protection of labor.
In Eagle Security Agency, Inc. vs. NLRC, this Court, explaining the aforesaid liability, held:
"This joint and several liability of the contractor and the principal is mandated by the Labor Code to assure
compliance of the provisions therein including the statutory minimum wage [Article 99, Labor Code]. The contractor
is made liable by virtue of his status as direct employer. The principal, on the other hand, is made the indirect
employer of the contractor's employees for purposes of paying the employees their wages should the contractor be
unable to pay them. This joint and several liability facilitates, if not guarantees, payment of the workers' performance
of any work, task, job or project; thus giving the workers ample protection as mandated by the 1987 Constitution
[See Article II Sec. 18 and Article XIII Sec. 3]."[8]
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 the third-party 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." [9]
Finally, petitioner submits that wage differential, rest day and legal holiday pay should not be adjudicated in this
case. The respondent Commission, however, observed:
"Regarding the question of wage differential, we note that the complaint (Record, p. 1), as well as the complainants'
Position Paper (Record, pp. 5-10) do not mention about any wage differential claim. We do not therefore see any
basis with which we may, on sight, affirm the said award. We note though that complainants' position paper save
technical arguments (that after all are not binding to us in this jurisdiction), sufficiently claims rest day and legal
holiday pay, claims that were not strongly refuted by respondents. Impressed, although not convincingly, that the
award on wage differential could have referred to the complainants' claim for rest day and legal holiday pay, we
therefore see the need to have the said claims subjected to further hearing but for a limited period of 20 days." [10]
We note that in the present case, there is no claim for wage differentials either in the complaints or in the position
paper filed by private respondents before the labor arbiter. Accordingly, no relief may be granted on such matter.
We, however, agree with the respondent Commission in its stand that private respondents are entitled to rest day
and holiday pay (aside from the refund of their cash bond and the payment of their 13th month pay and service
incentive leave pay for 1989). Private respondents' position paper submitted before the labor arbiter properly raised
the two (2) issues (rest and holiday pay) and included the same in their prayer for relief. The computation of the
amount due each individual security guard can be made during the additional hearings ordered by the Commission.
WHEREFORE,premises considered, the questioned resolution of the respondent NLRC is hereby AFFIRMED with
the modification that the additional hearing ordered by the NLRC shall not include wage differentials but shall be
confined to legal holiday and rest day pay. Execution shall forthwith proceed as to the NLRC awards of 13th month
pay, service incentive leave pay and return of private respondents' cash bond. Petitioner and CISCOR/Medina
are ORDERED to pay jointly and severally the claims of private respondents, as finally awarded by the NLRC,
without prejudice to the right of reimbursement which petitioner or CISCOR/Medina may have against each other.
SO ORDERED.