You are on page 1of 2

Read the Statute as a Whole Alpha Investigation and Security Agency, Inc. (AISA) vs.

NLRC Facts: AISA is a private corporation engaged in providing security services and the Don Mariano Marcos State University is their client. The private respondents were as security guards by ASIA for DMMSU. Five months after, private respondents filed a complaint against AISA and then included DMMSU for non compliance with the current minimum wage order. The agreement was that they will be paid 1,200php every month but was only paid 900php as their monthly salary. AISA made representations for an increase in the contract rates to make up for the mandated minimum wage rates. DMMSU replied that it cannot grant said request due to budgetary constraints. The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision finding AISA and DMMSU solidary liable and ordering them to pay each of the complainant Php41,459.51 representing salary differential from Feb 16, 1990-Sept 30, 1991. NLRC affirmed this decision. Only AISA filed a motion for reconsideration but was denied by the NLRC. The judgment against DMMSU is final and executor since no motion for certiorari was filed while AISA filed a motion to the SC. AISAs arguments: - They argue that the payment of wage increases under the current minimum wage order should be borne exclusively by DMMSU citing Section 6 of RA 6727 which states that In case of contracts for construction projects and security...the prescribed increases in the wage rates of the workers shall be borne by the principals or clients... (see p.656 and p.657 for full text) - Articles 106, 107 and 109 generally refer to the failure of the contract or subcontractor to pay wages in accordance with the labor code with a mandate that failure to pay such wages would make the employer and contractor jointly and severally liable. - AISA insists that the matter involved in this case hinges on WAGE DIFFERENTIALS or WAGE INCREASES NOT WAGES IN GENERAL as provided by the Labor Code. NLRC: - Cited Articles 106, 107 and 109 of the Labor Code. - 106: ...In the event the contractor or sub contractor fails to pay the pages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or sub-contractor...(see p. 657 and p.658) - 107: the provisions shall apply to any person, partnership, corporation, which not being an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of any work, task , job or project. - 108: every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or sub-contractor for any violation of any provision of this Code. SC Held:

Wage orders cannot be waived since it is mandatory and statutory. AISA cannot escape liability since the law provides for a joint and solidary liability of the principal (DMMSU) and the contractor (AISA). Section 6 of RA 6727 merely provides that in the case of wage increase resulting in a salary differential, the liability of the principal and contractor shall be joint and several. Same goes with the liability attached in Articles 106, 107 and 109 which refer to the standard minimum wage. The NLRC decision is AFFIRMED. No grave abuse of discretion on their part. The Petition is DISMISSED. Statutory Construction: Cardinal Rule: In interpreting the meaning and scope of term used in the law, a careful review of the whole law involved, as well as the intendment of the law, must be made. Legislative intent must be ascertained from a consideration of the statute as whole, and not of an isolated part or a particular provision alone. AISA only referred to Sec 6 of RA6727 and some parts of Articles 106, 107 and 109 failing to see the bigger picture re: Wage Differentials, Wage increases and WAGES IN GENERAL. Considering bits and pieces instead of the statute as a whole.