LEOPARD SECURITY AND INVESTIGATION AGENCY, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ROMEO NERO AND PILIPINAS BANK, RESPONDENTS.

The extent of the
liability of an employer to an employee with respect to the payment of the
latter’s salary and other benefits is the crux of the issue in the instant
petition.

The record of the case discloses that since June 30, 1985, private respondent Romeo Nero had
been employed as a security guard of petitioner Leopard Security and
Investigation Agency.  He was assigned as
a security guard for private respondent Pilipinas
Bank, then a client of the petitioner. 
Later on, he was assigned to another client, the Far East Bank and Trust
Company.  On July 20, 1987, he resigned from the petitioner
agency.

On August 13, 1987,
the said private respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner with the
National Labor Relations Commission.  The
complaint was for illegal dismissal, underpayment of salaries, non-payment of
overtime pay, legal holiday pay,
premium for holiday pay and separation pay, as well as for violation of the
provisions of certain labor laws such as Presidential Decrees Nos. 851, 928 and
1125.

The petitioner argued that the private respondent voluntarily
resigned from the company and executed a quitclaim absolving the company from
any financial liability in relation to his previous employment, and that as
such, he was estopped
from the aforementioned complaint.  The
petitioner impleaded private respondent Pilipinas Bank as a third-party defendant.

On June 6, 1988,
Labor Arbiter Cornelio T. Linsangan, to whom the case
was assigned, rendered a decision in favor of private respondent Romeo
Nero.  The dispositive
portion of the said decision is as follows – –

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent
Leopard Security and Investigation Agency and the third-party respondent Pilipinas Bank to pay complainant the sum of P12,634.75 as
underpayment of his basic salary, ECOLA and overtime.  In addition, the respondent security agency
is directed to pay complainant P1,000.00 as uniform allowance and the further
sum of P1,000.00 as underpayment of 13th month pay.

“The complaint for illegal dismissal and other monetary claims are
dismissed.”^[1]

The petitioner and the private respondent bank appealed the
decision of the labor arbiter to the National Labor Relations Commission.  On August
31, 1989, the First Division of the respondent Commission rendered
a resolution affirming the decision of the labor arbiter.^[2]

On October 12, 1989,
the petitioner elevated the case to this
Court by way of the
instant petition.  The petitioner argues
that the labor arbiter and the respondent Commission cannot hold it solidarily
liable with Pilipinas Bank as regards the sum of
money awarded to private respondent Romeo Nero, and that the bank alone should
shoulder the same, for the following reasons – –

(1)            The written
agreement executed between the petitioner and Pilipinas
Bank with respect to security services had been modified verbally by the same
parties.

(2)            Pilipinas Bank will be enriching itself at the expense of
the petitioner if the latter is made to pay the sum of money awarded to private
respondent Romeo Nero.

(3)            Private
Respondent Romeo Nero had executed a quitclaim in favor of the petitioner.

As instructed by this Court, the adverse parties commented on the
petition, with the Office of the Solicitor General representing the respondent
Commission.  The adverse parties contested the allegations of the
petition and, accordingly, prayed for its dismissal.^[3]

The petitioner filed a reply alleging therein that under the
pertinent provisions of the law, it cannot be held liable with its principal Pilipinas Bank.^[4]
Sometime thereafter, the case was deemed submitted for decision.

The petition is erroneously captioned as a “Petition for Review”
inasmuch as labor cases are reviewed by this Court by way of a special civil
action for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court and not
by way of an appeal.^[5]
This error notwithstanding, and in the interest of justice, the Court resolved
to treat the instant petition as a special civil action for certiorari on account of the jurisdictional
issues raised herein.^[6]

As to the substance of the petition, the Court finds the same
devoid of merit.

It clearly appears that there is an employer-employee
relationship between the petitioner security agency and private respondent
Romeo Nero.  This observation is confirmed
by the terms of the service contract executed between the petitioner security
agency and its client Pilipinas Bank, to wit —

“7.          That the SECURITY
AGENCY is not an agent or employee of the CLIENT and the guards to be assigned
by the SECURITY AGENCY to the CLIENT are in no sense employees of the latter as
they are for all intents and purposes employees of the SECURITY (AGENCY)…”^[7]
(Emphasis supplied.)

Attention is also called to another provision of said service
contract which recites that the petitioner security agency shall be solely
liable to pay all such claims that the
security guard may have by virtue of his employment, viz
—

“8.          That the SECURITY
AGENCY shall be solely liable
for any claim made by the security guards
assigned to various branches and premises for
its violations of the Minimum Wage Law, … and such other applicable
laws and decrees, which are now existing or any decree which may hereinafter be
enacted, and
the CLIENT shall be absolved, freed, and discharged absolutely and unconditionally
from any and all such claims or suits.”^[8]
(Emphasis supplied.)

The petitioner cannot be heard to state that the service contract
had been modified by the parties concerned albeit in a verbal manner.  No evidence has been presented by the petitioner
to support its allegation to this effect. 
Besides, under the rule on parol evidence,^[9] where the terms of an agreement have
been reduced to writing, as in this case, it is to be considered as containing
all such terms and, therefore, there can be, between the parties and their
successors-in-interest, no evidence of the terms of the agreement other than
the contents of the writing.  Likewise, the petitioner may not validly
allege unjust enrichment on the part of Pilipinas
Bank inasmuch as the terms of the service contract between them were
voluntarily negotiated.  If the petitioner firm got a bad
bargain, the misadventure is, in the absence of fraud, for its own
account.  As to the allegation that
private respondent Romeo Nero executed a quitclaim in favor of the petitioner,
suffice it to say that the same has not been sufficiently proved.  The petition merely mentions the contents of
the alleged quitclaim with no further indication of its authorship.  Thus, it may not be said that private
respondent Romeo Nero is estopped from filing the
complaint against the petitioner.

From the foregoing, the liability of the petitioner to pay
private respondent Romeo Nero the award in his favor is clearly established.

Notwithstanding the service contract between the petitioner and
private respondent Pilipinas Bank, the latter is solidarily liable with the petitioner with respect to the
sum of money awarded to private respondent Romeo Nero pursuant to Article 106
of the Labor Code.  In this regard, the
Court cites with approval the following observation of the respondent
Commission, thus —

“Under Article 106 of the Labor Code, Leopard Security and
Investigation Agency is a contractor, with respect to herein respondent Pilipinas Bank. 
Under the same provision, in case the contractor fails to pay the wages
of its employee in accordance
with law, the indirect employer, who is the respondent Bank in this case, is
jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the employee to the extent
of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is
liable to the employees directly employed by him.  Of course, if the Bank by any chance
voluntarily pays the claims of herein complainant, it has the right to recover
whatever amount it has paid from Leopard Security and Investigation Agency
under the contract it executed with the latter.”^[10]

Thus, while Pilipinas Bank is solidarily liable with the security agency with respect to
the award in favor of Romeo Nero, if the bank decides to pay the same, it can
recover whatever amount it had paid the worker in accordance with the terms of
the service contract between the petitioner and the bank, particularly the
provision which vests sole liability on the petitioner as regards the claim of
the workingman.

In fine, the Court finds no jurisdictional infirmity in the
questioned resolution of the National Labor Relations Commission.

WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED for
lack of merit, with costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Griño-Aquino, J., on leave.

^[1]
Page 25, Rollo.  The case was docketed as NLRC NCR Case No.
08-02838-87.

^[2]
Pages 25 to 28, Rollo.

^[3]
Pages 39 to 44 and 52 to 61, Rollo.

^[4]
Pages 66 to 72, Rollo.

^[5]
Asiaworld Publishing House, Inc. vs. Ople, 152 SCRA 219 (1987).

^[6]
Dentech Manufacturing Corporation vs. National
Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 81477, April 19, 1989.

^[7]
Page 5, Comment of the Solicitor General; page 56, Rollo.

^[8]
Pages 5 and 6, Comment; pages 56 and 57, Rollo.

^[9]
Section 7, Rule 130, Rules of Court.

^[10]
Page 10, Rollo.