ROMULO C. NICOLAS, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. FULGENCIO DACARA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Petitioners herein, numbering 47 in all, are security guards working
with the different firms, 30 of them with the Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company. They are affiliated with or recruited by the
Enriquez Detective and Protective Agency, Inc. The respondents
Fulgencio Dacara, et al., are also security guards affiliated with the
Enriquez Detective and Protective Agency. They belong to the Free
Special Watchmen and Special Police Union, a local of the Federation of
Free Workers. On August 18, 1955 and November 25, 1955, respondents
Fulgencio Dacara and companions filed two cases for unfair labor
practice against the Enriquez Detective and Protective Agency, Inc. The
action was brought through the union to which they belonged. After
trial the Court of Industrial Relations found that the Enriquez
Detective and Protective Agency, Inc. is guilty of unfair labor
practice for having dismissed the said Fulgencio Dacara and companions,
and rendered judgment ordering the said agency to pay them the sum of
P53,000, more or less, by way of back wages.

The pertinent portion of the decision reads as follows: “To
reinstate complainants * * * immediately and fully to their former or
substantially equivalent positions, without prejudice to their
seniority or other rights or privileges, and further allows said
complainants with back wages from the time they were actually dismissed
up to the time of reinstatement.”

The above order having become final and executory, the clerk of the
Court of Industrial Relations issued on January 22, 1958, an order for
the execution of the judgment, the pertinent portion of which is as
follows:

“You are further directed to collect from the
respondent the amount of P53,498.67 and turn over the said amount to
this Court for further disposition. In case you fail to collect the
said amount you are hereby directed to cause to be made from the
movable goods or chattels or in the absence thereof from the immovable
properties of the respondent the equivalent amount of P53,498.67 and
turn over the same to this Court. You may collect your legal fees from
said respondent.”

It appears from the record that in compliance with said order of
execution, the sheriff was able to collect from customers of the
Enriquez Detective and Protective Agency, Inc., the sums of P8,512.77
and P4,664.57, which amounts were deposited with the clerk of the Court
of Industrial Relations, on April 25, 1958 and April 26, 1958,
respectively. Thereafter, Romulo Nicolas and Angel S. Cataque and their
companions filed with the court on April 12, 1958, an urgent motion to
withdraw from the court their salaries in the total amount of P8,299.30
(see Annex “H” of Petition). The Court denied this motion for
withdrawal, holding as follows:

“Both counsel for the movants and for the
complainants agreed on the following facts, namely: The movants are not
parties to the above-entitled cases nor have they filed any motion for
intervention to the said cases; there is no pending insolvency
proceedings filed by the respondents in the proper court; the sums of
money paid by the different clients of the respondents belong to said
respondents; and said money has been garnished by the attaching sheriff
and deposited now with the Court.

“Considering, therefore,
that the money attached by the Sheriff of Manila now in the custody of
this Court is money paid to the respondents by its several clients, one
of which is Ker and Co., Ltd., for services rendered them by the
security guards of said respondents, and there being no express
provisions of law that said money is to be exempted from the execution
issued by this Court in the above-entitled cases, and considering
further that the movants are not parties to these cases, and that no
insolvency proceedings have been filed by the respondents;

“Let the Urgent Motion filed by the movants be, as it is hereby, denied.”

A motion for the reconsideration of the order was denied.

The respondent Free Special Watchmen and Special Police Union (FFW)
subsequently secured an order from the lower court authorizing
Fulgencio Dacara and his co-respondents herein to withdraw from the
cashier of the court below the sums of P8,512.77 and P4,664.57 already
mentioned above. Upon the denial of a motion presented by herein
petitioners to reconsider this order, the present action was instituted
in this court to prohibit the court from enforcing this order
authorizing withdrawal, and to compel the court below to authorize the
release of the moneys amounting to P8,512.77 belonging to petitioners
herein. Upon the filing of the petition in this case, we give due
course thereto and at the same time issued a writ of preliminary
injunction prohibiting the payment authorized by the court below to the
respondent Free Special Watchmen and Special Police Union and its
members.

The report of the sheriff does not disclose from what company or
companies said amount of P8,512.77 had been secured by him. But
petitioners herein claim that the said amount represents their wages
from different employers under which they had worked. Among the said
employers are the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company, employing
38 of the petitioners, Ker and Company, employing 2 of the petitioners,
E. T. Yuchengco, Inc., employing 7 of the petitioners, etc. The
allegation of the petitioners is that the total amount of P8,299.30
actually represents the salaries due the petitioners from their
employers. Said allegation is not denied and the court below accepts
the fact that the said sum represents salaries of guards employed by
the different companies affiliated with the detective and protective
agency. But it held that the petitioners herein were not parties in the
case instituted by the respondents against the Enriquez Detective and
Protective Agency, Inc. and that said moneys, therefore, belong to the
respondent detective agency. But Ker and Company which intervened in
the proceedings called attention to the fact that the amount given to
the sheriff by it are wages due to two of the petitioners herein. To
the same effect is the claim of the petitioners, i. e., that the total
amount of P8,299.30 represents the salaries which 68 of them are
entitled to receive from their different employers. (See Annex “H”)

The claim of the petitioners herein that the sum of P8,299.30
represents salaries due them from the different establishments which
employed them does not appear to be denied, so he cannot understand how
the court below could have come to the conclusion that said wages are
moneys belonging to the respondent detective and protective agency. In
a case decided by us, involving affiliates of watchmen or detective
agencies (Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency, et al. vs.
Associated Watchmen and Security Union (PTWO), 103 Phil., 920), we have
held that the labor agency securing watchmen or security guards is not
an independent contractor insofar as the guarding of the ships and
their cargo is concerned; but the agencies merely recruit or furnish
the security guards. We are inclined to believe, there being no reason
to believe otherwise, and in view of the unchallenged claim of the
petitioners that the total sum of P8,299.30 represents the wages due
them from companies that have employed their services, that the said
amount really and actually represents such wages. Under these
circumstances, it cannot be said that said wages are moneys belonging
to the respondent detective agency in this case.

We also find merit in the contention of the petitioners that the
said amounts or wages earned by the petitioner, in this case cannot be
attached or garnished for the debts of the detective and protective
agency to pay the back wages granted by the court in its decision in
favor of the respondents Fulgencio Dacara and his companions against
the Enriquez Detective and Protective Agency, Inc. Since the said
moneys are salaries of petitioners, it was unlawful for the sheriff to
have levied upon them as moneys belonging to the respondent detective
and protective agency. Assuming that petitioners are affiliates of
respondent detective and protective agency and their services were
rendered through the intervention of the latter, which assigned
petitioners to render service, all the right and interest that the
detective agency had to the salaries earned by petitioners, was to
receive the same for and on behalf of petitioners, in trust for the
latter, subject to the agency’s right to deduct from said salaries what
corresponds to it for its services in securing the work for
petitioners. If the detective agency receives the salaries of
petitioners, an implied trust would arise to pay petitioners said sums
as the latter’s wages, in accordance with the provisions of Article
1453 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. As the said wages do not
belong to the detective agency, the fund for said wages may not be
attached to pay the judgment secured against the agency by respondent
union for Fulgencio Dacara and his companions.

The order of the court sought to be reviewed is, therefore,
erroneous insofar as it ordered the withdrawal of the funds under its
control and payment thereof to the detective agency’s creditors, the
respondents Fulgencio Dacara and others, members of the Free Special
Watchmen and Special Police Union (FFW). Only the share of the
detective agency in said funds can be made subject to the judgment that
respondents Fulgencio Dacara and his companions had obtained against
the agency.

For all the foregoing considerations, the order appealed from is
hereby set aside and the court below is hereby ordered to deliver to
the petitioners the wages due each and every one of them according to
the petition (Annex “H”), after deducting therefrom the ordinary fees
that the detective and protective agency is entitled to collect from
petitioners for assigning them to duty. Costs against respondents
Fulgencio Dacara and his companions and the Free Special Watchmen and
Special Police Union (FFW). So ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J. B. L., Endencia, Barrera, and Gutierrez David, JJ., concur.