~ OSOR Age; - Jag Ney vg, G.R. No. 162420. April 22, 299g — SEC TY and INVESTIGAT «AR SECURI ‘STIGATION Acun,. JAGUAN ©" RODOLFO A. SALES, JAtmp GENCY, peti tones Ok, TAMAYO, JESUS B. SIT L. MORON gLVIN R TTT Rep ey Lev AD AR. DIONISIC, ce MERANYAGAN, DANETH FETALVERO and DR] Thin cc ING INDUSTRIES, INC., respondents, “4 MILL. 7 », Indirect Employers; Unde: i Labor Law; 3 &mployers; Under Articles 106 rag ofthe Labor Code, the joint and several lability of the conn iit nd the principal is mandated to assure compliance with t a t gions therein including the statutory minimum wage.—Th, tractor ‘he provi- . : Ge Waees ere is no tion as regards the respective liabilities of petitioner and Delta Milling Under Articles 106, 107 and 109 of the Labor Cade, the joint and several liability of the contractor and the principal is mandated to assure compliance of the provisions therein including the statu- tory minimum wage. The contractor, petitioner in this case, is made liable by virtue of his status as direct employer. On the other hand Delta Milling, as principal, 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 work- ers’ performance of any work, task, job or project, thus giving the workers ample protection as mandated by the 1987 Constitution. Same; Same; Jurisdictions; The contractor can not claim reim- bursement from the principal through a cross-claim filed with the labor court—the claim is within the realm of civil law and jurisdic- tion over the case belongs to the regular courts.—The question that how arises is whether petitioner may claim reimbursement from Delta Milling through a cross-claim filed with the labor court. This ae has already been decisively resolved in Lapanday Agric 2000 Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, S24 ith the rest We resolve first the issue of jurisdiction. Wome ante f the nl that the RTC has jurisdiction OE eae ence that Where ng Sent case. It is well-settled in law and jurisP the parties employer-employee relationship exists between ~~owe COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 296 SUPREME - - SecurtlyY and Investigation Ayency va. Salen Jaguar See ~ | het may Be resolved by reference ty the any collective bury and no issue Labor Code, ott itis the Regt private mepel payin Hloged br vd Ww 8 involved Y ‘ por statutes @ ruining agree AL Trial Court that has jurisdiction. Tn ite com font in not soeking any relief under the Labor ( p pot money nnd damages on account ment, plaint sant of asa Code but sooks h of its obligation ander their Gunrd . sontract. The action 1s within the realne of ctoil law hence Service ees the case belongs to the regular courts, While the . sy the issue involves the application of labor laws, reference hor caxie was only for the determination of the solidary liabil titioner to the respondent where no employer-employee of petatione relation exists Obligations and Contracts; Payment, which means not only the delivery of money but also the performance, in any other manner, of tion, is the operative fact which will entitle either of the ~. debtors to seek reimbursement for the share which corre: to each of the debtors. —The liability of Delta Milling to reim- burse petitioner will only arise if and when petitioner actually pays its employees the adjudged liabilities. Payment, which means not =~ fe pratt a money but also the performance, in any other sither ef the sidan dant : the oper: tive fact whieh will entitle which cocreapanla to eae tors to seek reimbursement for the share is to each of the debtors. PETITION for revi ti ON for review on certiorari of the decision and resolu on of the Court of Appeals The facts are / acts are stated in the opinion of the Court. Froilar nM. Bac cungan & Associates for petitioner. Morales " Milliné ‘ayson & Rojas for respondent Delta Renato 4 - Abejon, 6 bejero for all respondent laborers.Jaguar Security and Investigation Agency 4. @ ency Assailed in the present Petition for Revi the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dean Certiorari is and Resolution dated February 13, 2004 ae 21, 2002 ition filed by Jaguar Security and Investi ismissing the (petitioner) and affirming the National lass Agency Commission (NLRC) Resolutions dated Septe T Relations and November 9, 2001. mber 19, 2000 cts of th wot of the case, as narrated by the CA, are undis- “Petitioner Jaguar Security and Investigation Agency (“Jag- var’) is a private corporation engaged in the business of providi security services to its clients, one of whom is Delta Milling Ind ng tries, Inc. (“Delta”) use Private respondents Rodolfo Sales, Melvin Tamayo, Dionisio Caranyagan, Jesus Silva, Jr, Jaime Moron and Daneth Fetalvero hired as secunty guards by Jaguar They were assigned at the premises of Delta in Libis, Quezon City Caranyagan and Tamayo were terminated by Jaguar on May 26, 1998 and August 21, 1998, respectively. Allegedly their dismissals were arbitrary and illegal Sales, Moron, Fetalvero and Silva remained with Jaguar. All the claim for monetary benefits such as underpay- Jay and holiday premium pay, underpaid 13th month pay, night shift differential, five days service and incen- tive leave pay. In addition to these money claims, Caranyagan and Tamayo argue that they were entitled to separation pay and back wages, for the time they were illegally dismissed until finality of the decision Furthermore, all respondents claim for moral and exem- plary damages On September 18, 1998, respondent security guards instituted the instant labor case before the labor arbiter XXXX were guard-employees, ment, overtime pay, rest ¢ Penned by Associate Justice Elvi Pen Justices Portia Alino- Hormachuel “Concurring; Rollo, pp. 23-28 Id., at pp. 30-32 John S. Asuncion, with As jos and Juan Q Enriquez,298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Jaguar Security and Investigation Agency ve Salee 1m May 28, 1999, the Inbor arbiter rendered a deciswn in faves of private mapondents Sales, ef ai. the dispositive portion of whip provides “WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered diamiasing the charges of illegal dismissal on the part of the complainant MELVIN R TAMAYO and DIONISIO ©. CARANYAGAN po lack of ment but ordering respondents JAGUAR SECURE AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY and DELTA MILLING [Ny DUSTRIES, INC , to jointly and severally pay all the six com plainants, namely: RODOLFO A. SALES, MELVIN RTA. MAYO. JAIME MORON and DANE ALVERO the fol Jowing money claims for their services rendered from April 24, 1995 to April 24, 1998, a) wage differentials b) overtime pay differentials (4 hours a day) ©) rest day pay d) holiday pay ) holiday premium pay ) 13th month pay differentials g) five days service incentive leave pay per year sub- ject to the exception earlier cited The Research and Information Unit of this Commission is hereby directed to compute and quantify the abave awards and submit a report thereon within 15 days from receipt of this decision. For purposes of any appeal, the appeal bond is tenta- tively set at P100,000.00. All other claims are DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED” On July 1, 1999, petitioner Jaguar filed a partial appeal ques tioning the failure of public respondent NLRC to resolve its cross claim against Delta as the party ultimately liable for payment of the monetary award to the security guards __ In its Resolution dated September 19, 2000, the NLRC dis: missed the appeal, holding that it was not the proper forum to raise the issue. It went on to say that Jaguar, being the direct employer of the security guards, is the one principally liable to the employees* vee APRIL, 29. 2008 299 Se = Jaguar Secunty and Invests, Ration . _ a Arency vg Sales Thus. ot directed petitioner to fj civil i aet. of the amount before the regular court ikaw 100 FoF Peeme gutyect matter, for the Jaguar sought reconsideration of the 4 ismissal, b : mission denied the same in its Resolution dat no coe ‘ed November 9, 2004. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari wi in the herein assailed Decision dated Octot Resolution dated February 13, 2004,' dism for lack of merit. In the present petition, the followi ground for the modification of the a lution: th the CA, which, er 21, 2002" and issed the petition Ng error is set forth as a ssailed Decision and Reso- WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RESOLVING PETITIONER'S CROSS-CLAIM AGAINST PRIVATE RESPONDENT DELTA MILLING INDUS. TRIES, INC.* Petitioner insists that its cross-claim should have been ruled upon in the labor case as the filing of a cross-claim is allowed under Section 3 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure which provides for the suppletory application of the Rules of Court. Petitioner argues that the claim arose out of the trans- action or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action. Petitioner further argues that as principal, Delta Mill- ing Industries, Inc. (Delta Milling) is liable for the awarded Wage increases, pursuant to Wage Order Nos. NC R04, 7 * 95 and NCR-06; and in line with the ruling in Eagle a ae Agency, Inc. v. ‘National Labor Relations Romie peth Uoner should be reimbursed of any payments to be made.300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Jaguar Security and Investigation Agency vs. Sales There is no question as regards the respective liabilj petitioner and Delta Milling Under Articles 106, 107 and 109 of the Labor Code, the joint and several liability of the con- tractor and the principal is mandated to assure compliance of the provisions therein including the statutory minimum wage. The contractor, petitioner in this case, is made liable by virtue of his status as direct employer. On the other hand, Delta Milling, as principal, is made the indirect employer of the contractor’s employees for purposes of paying the employ- ees 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 man- dated by the 1987 Constitution." ties of However, in the event that petitioner pays his obligation to the guard employees pursuant to the Decision of the Labor Arbiter, as affirmed by the NLRC and CA, petitioner has the right of reimbursement from Delta Milling under Article 1217 of the Civil Code, which provides: “Art. 1217. Payment made by one of the solidary debtors ex- tinguishes the obligation. If two or more solidary debtors offer to pay, the creditor may choose which offer to accept. He who made the payment may claim from his co-debtors only the share which corresponds to each, with the interest for the pay ment already made. If the payment is made before the debt is due, Ho interest for the intervening period may be demanded. xXx x” The question that now arises is whether petitioner may claim reimburseme ss- A Sement from Delt: ill h a cro’ claim filed with the labor court, “ee ee— fage” ~ ~ question has already bog js qu Y bee us S Agricultural Developm, panes. to wit: ApP “We n decisive nt Cor » resolve first the issue of jap; gent that the RTC has jurisdiction espon ont case. Tt is swell sett “ sloyer-employee relat daw and jun jssue iS ‘involved which mey Ee read ic. Betws 7 and Made, other labor statutes or any mene! by om itis the Regional Trial Court that has jure . sin private respondent is not seeking any reliog tion. In it ie put seeks payment of a sum of money and da, Under the m etitioner’s alleged breach of its obligation ‘ mae 0 gwice Contract. The action is within the rene’ Mit Guan jurisdiction over the case belongs to. a Civil lay courts. While the resolution of the issue involves the euler ton of eee eee reference to the labor code was tes the determination of the solidary liability of the petinn’ " the respondent where no employer-employee relation « ner 7 Article 217 of the Tabor Code as amended vests upon the labor arbi ters exclusive original jurisdiction only over the following: y 1. Unfair labor practices; hi law and the Pe amy pore m0 & w Labor n Account, servi pence 2. Termination disputes; 3. If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rates of pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 4. Claims for actual, moral exemplary and other forms of damages arising from employer-employee relations; 5. Cases arising from any violation of Article 264 of this Code, including questions involving legality of strikes and lockouts; and ial ati a 6. Except claims for Employees Compensation, Security, Medicare and maternity benefits, al Sine those of arising from employer-employee relations, int ing = amontl Persons in domestic or household service, involv! ee i | 581 Phil. 41; 324 SCRA 39 (2000).SUPREME COURT REPORTS: ANNOTATE), 302 urity and Investigation Agency ve say exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) rug, Whether accompanied with claim for reingtatemen of In all these an employeremployee relationshi, dispensable junsdictional requisite; and there is none in this" Cane * (Emphasis supplied) The jurisdiction of labor courts extends only to cases whe, employer-employee relationship exists. Te an In the present case, there exists no employer-employee lationship between petitioner and Delta Milling. In its ero. claim, petitioner is not seeking any relief under the (ue Code but merely reimbursement of the monetary beren” claims awarded and to be paid to the guard employees. ‘The. is no labor dispute involved in the cross-claim against Delt Milling. Rather, the cross-claim involves a civil dispute be. tween petitioner and Delta Milling. Petitioner's cross-claim ig within the realm of civil law, and jurisdiction over it belongs to the regular courts. Moreover, the liability of Delta Milling to reimburse peti- tioner will only arise if and when petitioner actually pays its employees the adjudged liabilities." Payment, which means not only the delivery of money but also the performance, in any other manner, of the obligation, is the operative fact which will entitle either of the solidary debtors to scek reim- bursement for the share which corresponds to each of the debtors.” In this case, it appears that petitioner has yet to pay the guard employees. As stated in Lapanday: thas not ted under “However, it is not. disputed that, the private responden is an actually paid the security guards the wage increases grante”’ the Wage Orders in question. Neither is it alleged that ther ©. extant claim for such wage adjustments from the security 6 7 Id., at pp. 48-49; pp. 45-46. 1445 phil- Urbanes, Jr. v. Secretary of Labor and Employment, 718, 728; 397 SCRA 665, 673 (2003). cout ‘orporation © 2 : . Lapanday Agricultural Develooment C'VOL. 552, APRIT, 22, 2008 - 303 r Security and Investigar; 2 Jagua RAtion Agency iq Sales ncerned, whose services have are, wee actor, Accordingly, private respondent hag. ny - nae vvainst petitioner (0 recover the WARE Increases. Newdlons i increases in wages are intended for the benefit of the and the contractor may not assert a claim againe the princ salary wage adjustments that. it has not net ually paid. Others, correctly put by the respondent, the contractor would be u enriching itself by recovering wage increases, for itg own be: — ———__ ady been terminated by th p he 0 COUR of action to stress, > laborers al for a6, as nduly nefit.”" Consequently, the CA did not commit an, ing the petition and in affirming the NLRC September 19, 2000 and November 9, 2001, WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. Double costs against petitioner. SO ORDERED. Y error in dismigs- Resolutions dated Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Nachura and Reyes, JeJ., concur. Petition denied. Note.—Articles 106 and 109 of the Labor Code simply ean that the party with whom an independent contracts deals ig solidarily liable with the latter for unpaid ee i ‘ly to that extent and for that purpose tat the latter considered g direct. employer. (Philippine Airlines, Inc. us. a » @hahpy 961) “ational Labor Relations Commission, 263 SCRA 638 |1996] —o00—