Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG

LEGAL RESEARCH
1-A
Diane Margret V. Uy Paper No. 2

Jaguar Security and Investigation Agency vs. Sales
G.R. No. 162420. April 22, 2008

FACTS
Jaguar Security and Investigation Agency (Jaguar), the petitioner is a private
corporation engaged in the business of providing security services to its clients.
One of its clients is Delta Milling Industries, Inc. Private respondents Sales,
Tamayo, Caranyagan, Silva, Moron and Fetalvero were security guards employed
by Jaguar.
On September 18, 1998, the respondents filed a labor case before the labor arbiter.
Caranyagan and Tamayo claimed they were dismissed arbitrarily and illegally, and
were entitled to separation pay and back wages; while the other respondents who
remained with Jaguar claimed for monetary benefits. Furthermore, all respondents
claimed for moral and exemplary damages.
The local arbiter rendered judgement in favor of the respondents wherein Jaguar
and Delta Milling Industries, Inc. were to jointly and severally pay the
complainants their monetary claims. Such claims amounted from benefit privileges
for their services rendered: April 24, 1995 April 24, 1998.
On July 1, 1999, the petitioner filed a partial appeal on the failure of NLRC to
resolve its cross-claim against Delta as the principal liable for payment of the
monetary claims.
The NLRC dismissed the appeal reasoning that Jaguar is the direct employer of the
security guard hence is the principal of the liability. Jaguar filed a separate civil
action for recovery of the amount to prove the liability of Delta.
Jaguar filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE
Whether or not petitioner may claim reimbursement from Delta Milling through a
cross-claim filed with the labor court

HELD
The petition was denied.
Since there exists no employee-employer relationship between the petitioner and
Delta Milling, and it was established that the cross-claim involves a civil dispute
regarding the reimbursement of monetary benefit claims, the jurisdiction then
belongs to the regular courts and not to labor courts. The petitioner does not seek
any relief under the Labor Code, but appeals for reimbursement from Delta
Milling.
Indubitably, both the petitioner and Delta Milling are liable to the security guard
employees. The petitioner as contractor is made liable by its status as the direct
employer while Delta Milling is made liable by its status as indirect employer for
purposes of compensation should the contractor be unable to pay them.
It was affirmed by the NLRC and CA that the petitioner has right of
reimbursement from Delta Milling under Article 1217 of the Civil Code. However,
payment is deemed as the operative fact which entitles reimbursement to solidary
debtors, hence payment by Jaguar has to be fulfilled and completed before it can
seek reimbursement from Delta. In this case, the security guard employees are yet
to be paid by either Jaguar or Delta Milling.