342 Phil. 277
MENDOZA, J.:
WHEREFORE, consistent with law, justice and equity and in accordance with the findings above stated, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the respondent to pay the following complainants their money claims:
All other claims are denied for lack of merit.On appeal to the NLRC, however, the decision was set aside and the case was remanded to the labor arbiter for further proceedings in view of certain factual matters which had to be determined, to wit:[3]
The Corporate Auditing Examiner is directed to compute the foregoing monetary awards which form part of this decision.
We discovered that aside from being mere machine copies the said documents while appearing to be indeed executed or signed after the filing of this case (except that of Nerio Ondong, Rec. p. 70) the same are not duly authenticated before any Labor Arbiter or Notary Public; the complainants-appellees also failed to comment on these documents despite their manifestation and the directive by the Arbiter (Rec. p. 70) to submit additional documents; this therefore needs clarification, on the circumstances surrounding its execution in order that full faith and credence may be given the said documents and in order that a fair and just resolution can be rendered on the matter raised on appeal.Petitioner corporation moved to implead the BIR as third-party respondent, alleging that in cases of contracts for janitorial and security services, the payment of the minimum wage and allowances was to be borne by the principal or client of the service contractor; that the BIR was the principal in this case; and that it was an indispensable party, which should be joined as a party in the action to avoid multiplicity of suits.[4]
As regards the alternative defense that if ever any award be adjudged in favor of the complainants- appellees then it should be the principal employer, the Bureau of Internal Revenue that should be held liable in accordance with the Rules Implementing the various wage orders as cited by the appellants in their position paper (Rec. p. 47), the records do not contain any evidence to support this allegation like the contract of janitorial services or any other document.
.. . . .
In this very case vital issues of fact like the due execution of the release and quitclaims and the determination as to whether the BIR is liable as principal need to be clarified.
This charge of the complainant was never controverted by the respondents [Helpmate] by presenting proof showing the justification of the suspension and/or dismissal.His finding was affirmed by the NLRC which stated:
It has been stressed often enough that in termination cases a dismissed employee is not required to prove his innocence of the charges levelled against him by his employer. The burden of proving the just cause of dismissing the employee rests on the employer and his failure to do so would result in the finding that the dismissal is unjustified.[12]
On the alleged failure by the Labor Arbiter to allow it to fully cross-examine the complainants, more specifically on Cabaron’s claim for cost of living allowance and the reason for his dismissal, We find no sufficient basis to disturb or alter these findings of the Labor Arbiter. With respect to the claim for cost of living allowance, cross-examination of the complainant claimant is not even necessary as this could so easily be refuted by the presentation of respondents’ payroll, voucher or any other form of receipt evidencing compliance with this obligation. Under the rules and applicable jurisprudence, employers are under obligation to keep employment records of their employees in the workplace. As to its opportunity to amplify on the reasons for Cabaron’s dismissal, the Labor Arbiter correctly declared that it behooves on the respondent to establish the existence of a valid or just cause for terminating an employee, thus it can not use as justification for its failure to substantiate its defenses, the lack of opportunity to cross-examine the complainants. Well settled is the rule that in cases of illegal dismissal, “the burden of proof rests upon the employer to show that the dismissal of the employee was for a just cause, and failure to do so would necessarily mean that the dismissal is not justified.[13]Petitioner’s third and fourth contentions are likewise untenable. The labor arbiter found the private respondents to be entitled to more than the amount stated in their position paper. This finding, together with the prayer in private respondents’ position paper asking for “such other reliefs as may be just and equitable in the premises,”[14] justifies the award given to private respondents. As stated by the NLRC in its decision:[15]
We likewise sustain the award of claims more than what was asked in the complainants’ position paper. The point raised by the respondent basically, is that the Labor Arbiter should have confined or limited the award to the amount stated in the complainants’ position paper.Petitioner’s final contention, that the BIR is solely liable to the employees of Helpmate, Inc., has no basis in law. The case cited by petitioner itself supports the ruling of the NLRC that the principal (BIR) and the contractor (Helpmate) are jointly and severally liable to the private respondents. In the leading case of Eagle Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC, this Court, through Mme. Justice Cortes, held:
. . .It goes beyond the realm of the law. It is unfair and unjust to deny the complainants what is justly due in their favor as mandated by law simply because what is computed and asked by them is much lesser. . . .
The Court finds that the NLRC acted correctly in ordering the two petitioners to jointly and severally pay the wage and allowance increases to the security guards.ART. 106. Contractor or subcontractor.- Whenever an employer enters into a contract with another person for the performance of the former’s work, the employees of the contractor and of the latter’s subcontractor, if any, shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Petitioners’ solidary liability for the amounts due the security guards finds support in Articles 106,107 and 109 of the Labor Code which state that:
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 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 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].[16]We affirm this rule today, as we hold that the NLRC correctly found the BIR and Helpmate, Inc. solidarily liable to private respondents for their money claims. While it is true that payment of the increases are “to be borne” by the principal or client (in this case, the BIR), we made it clear in that case that:
. . .“To be borne”, however, does not mean that the principal, PTSI in this case, would directly pay the security guards the wage and allowance increases because there is no privity of contract between them. The security guards’ contractual relationship is with their immediate employer, EAGLE. As an employer, EAGLE is tasked, among others, with the payment of their wages [See Article VII Sec. 3 of the Contract for Security Services, supra and Bautista v. Inciong, G.R. No. 52824, March 16, 1988, 158 SCRA 665].WHEREFORE, petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED.
On the other hand, there existed a contractual agreement between PTSI and EAGLE wherein the former availed of the security services provided by the latter. In return, the security agency collects from its client payment for its security services. This payment covers the wages for the security guards and also expenses for their supervision and training, the guards’ bonds, firearms with ammunitions, uniforms and other equipments, accessories, tools, materials and supplies necessary for the maintenance of a security force.
Premises considered, the security guards’ immediate recourse for the payment of the increases is with their direct employer, EAGLE. However, in order for the security agency to comply with the new wage and allowance rates it has to pay the security guards, the Wage Orders made specific provision to amend existing contracts for security services by allowing the adjustment of the consideration paid by the principal to the security agency concerned. What the Wage Orders require, therefore, is the amendment of the contract as to the consideration to cover the service contractor’s payment of the increases mandated. In the end, therefore, ultimate liability for the payment of the increases rests with the principal.
In view of the foregoing, the security guards should claim the amount of the increases from EAGLE. Under the Labor Code, in case the agency fails to pay them the amounts claimed, PTSI should be held solidarily liable with EAGLE [Articles 106, 107 and 109]. Should EAGLE pay, it can claim an adjustment from PTSI for an increase in consideration to cover the increases payable to the security guards.
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, had expired and had not been renewed.[17]