Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 132 views

    Eparwa V Liceo - Notepad

    Uploaded by

    Donvidachiye Liwag Cena
    This case discusses the joint and several liability of a security contractor, Eparwa, and principal Liceo de Cagayan University for unpaid wages of security guards. The Supreme Court ruled that both the contractor and principal are liable to ensure workers receive statutory minimum wage and benefits. While both are liable to the workers, the contractor is the direct employer and primary liable party. The principal is secondarily liable if the contractor cannot pay. However, since the security contract between Eparwa and LDCU had expired, Eparwa cannot demand price adjustments from LDCU, though it can seek reimbursement for payments made to workers. LDCU is ultimately responsible for paying workers but cannot recover costs from Eparwa due

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Eparwa V Liceo - Notepad

    Uploaded by

    Donvidachiye Liwag Cena
    132 views1 page
    This case discusses the joint and several liability of a security contractor, Eparwa, and principal Liceo de Cagayan University for unpaid wages of security guards. The Supreme Court ruled that both the contractor and principal are liable to ensure workers receive statutory minimum wage and benefits. While both are liable to the workers, the contractor is the direct employer and primary liable party. The principal is secondarily liable if the contractor cannot pay. However, since the security contract between Eparwa and LDCU had expired, Eparwa cannot demand price adjustments from LDCU, though it can seek reimbursement for payments made to workers. LDCU is ultimately responsible for paying workers but cannot recover costs from Eparwa due

    Original Description:

    eparwa v liceo

    Original Title

    Eparwa v Liceo - Notepad

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case discusses the joint and several liability of a security contractor, Eparwa, and principal Liceo de Cagayan University for unpaid wages of security guards. The Supreme Court ruled that both the contractor and principal are liable to ensure workers receive statutory minimum wage and benefits. While both are liable to the workers, the contractor is the direct employer and primary liable party. The principal is secondarily liable if the contractor cannot pay. However, since the security contract between Eparwa and LDCU had expired, Eparwa cannot demand price adjustments from LDCU, though it can seek reimbursement for payments made to workers. LDCU is ultimately responsible for paying workers but cannot recover costs from Eparwa due

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    132 views1 page

    Eparwa V Liceo - Notepad

    Uploaded by

    Donvidachiye Liwag Cena
    This case discusses the joint and several liability of a security contractor, Eparwa, and principal Liceo de Cagayan University for unpaid wages of security guards. The Supreme Court ruled that both the contractor and principal are liable to ensure workers receive statutory minimum wage and benefits. While both are liable to the workers, the contractor is the direct employer and primary liable party. The principal is secondarily liable if the contractor cannot pay. However, since the security contract between Eparwa and LDCU had expired, Eparwa cannot demand price adjustments from LDCU, though it can seek reimbursement for payments made to workers. LDCU is ultimately responsible for paying workers but cannot recover costs from Eparwa due

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Eparwa v Liceo Eparwa vs. Liceo de Cagayan University 08/16/2013 0 Comments G.R. No.

    150402 November 28, 2006

    Facts: Eparwa and Liceo de Cagayan University [LDCU], through their representatives, entered into a Contract for Security Services. Thereafter, 11 security guards whom Eparwa assigned to LDCU from filed a complaint before the NLRC. The complaint was filed against both Eparwa and LDCU for underpayment of salary, legal holiday pay, 13th month pay, rest day, service incentive leave, night shift differential, overtime pay, and payment for attorneys fees. To protect its interest LDCU made a cross-claim and prayed that Eparwa should reimburse LDCU for any payment to the security guards. The LA found that claim of the Security guards meritorious and order the same to be paid by Eparwa and LDCU. LDCU Issue: Whether or not LDCU alone ultimately liable to the security guards for the wage differentials and premium for holiday and rest day pay. Held: No. Adopting the ruling in Eagle Security Agency vs. NLRC which has the same facts in this case, the SC ruled- 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 contractors 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]. xxxx However, in the instant case, the contract for security services had already expired without being amended consonant with the Wage Orders. It is also apparent from a reading of a record that EAGLE does not now demand from PTSI any adjustment in the contract price and its main concern is freeing itself from liability. Given these peculiar circumstances, if PTSI pays the security guards, it cannot claim reimbursement from EAGLE. But in case it is EAGLE that pays them, the latter can claim reimbursement from PTSI in lieu of an adjustment, considering that the contract, [sic] had expired and had not been renewed. For the security guards, the actual source of the payment of their wage differentials and premium for holiday and rest day work does not matter as long as they are paid. This is the import of Eparwa and LDCUs solidary liability. Creditors, such as the security guards, may collect from anyone of the solidary debtors. Solidary liability does not mean that, as between themselves, two solidary debtors are liable for only half of the payment. LDCUs ultimate liability comes into play because of the expiration of the Contract for Security Services. There is no privity of contract between the security guards and LDCU, but LDCUs liability to the security guards remains because of Articles 106, 107 and 109 of the Labor Code. Eparwa is already precluded from asking LDCU for an adjustment in the contract price because of the expiration of the contract, but Eparwas liability to the security guards remains because of their employer-employee relationship. In lieu of an adjustment in the contract price, Eparwa may claim reimbursement from LDCU for any payment it may make to the security guards. However, LDCU cannot claim any reimbursement from Eparwa for any payment it may make to the security guards. Page 1

    You might also like