Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EAGLE SECURITY AGENCY v. NLRC

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 162420 2008-04-22	JAGUAR SECURITY v. RODOLFO A. SALES AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Petitioner insists that its cross-claim should have been ruled upon in the labor case as the filing of a cross-claim is allowed under Section 3 of the NLRC Rules of Procedure which provides for the suppletory application of the Rules of Court. Petitioner argues that the claim arose out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action. Petitioner further argues that as principal, Delta Milling Industries, Inc. (Delta Milling) is liable for the awarded wage increases, pursuant to Wage Order Nos. NCR-04, NCR-05 and NCR-06; and in line with the ruling in Eagle Security Agency, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission,[7] petitioner should be reimbursed of any payments to be made.
	GR NO. 150402 2006-11-28	EPARWA SECURITY v. LICEO DE CAGAYAN UNIVERSITY CARPIO, J.
This Court's ruling in Eagle Security Agency, Inc. v. NLRC[12] squarely applies to the present case. In Eagle, we ruled 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].
	GR No. 144134 2003-11-11	MARIVELES SHIPYARD CORP. v. CA QUISUMBING, J.
On the third issue, petitioner argues that it should not be held jointly and severally liable with Longest Force for underpayment of wages and overtime pay because it had been religiously and promptly paying the bills for the security services sent by Longest Force and that these are in accordance with the statutory minimum wage. Also, petitioner contends that it should not be held liable for overtime pay as private respondents failed to present proof that overtime work was actually performed. Lastly, petitioner claims that the Court of Appeals failed to render a decision that finally disposed of the case because it did not specifically rule on the immediate recourse of private respondents, that is, the matter of reimbursement between petitioner and Longest Force in accordance with Eagle Security Agency Inc. v. NLRC ,[25] and Philippine Fisheries Development Authority v. NLRC.[26]