This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-04-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, the liability of Delta Milling to reimburse petitioner will only arise if and when petitioner actually pays its employees the adjudged liabilities.[11] Payment, which means not only the delivery of money but also the performance, in any other manner, of the obligation, is the operative fact which will entitle either of the solidary debtors to seek reimbursement for the share which corresponds to each of the debtors.[12] In this case, it appears that petitioner has yet to pay the guard employees. As stated in Lapanday:However, it is not disputed that the private respondent has not actually paid the security guards the wage increases granted under the Wage Orders in question. Neither is it alleged that there is an extant claim for such wage adjustments from the security guards concerned, whose services have already been terminated by the contractor. Accordingly, private respondent has no cause of action against petitioner to recover the wage increases. Needless to stress, the increases in wages are intended for the benefit of the laborers and the contractor may not assert a claim against the principal for salary wage adjustments that it has not actually paid. Otherwise, as correctly put by the respondent, the contractor would be unduly enriching itself by recovering wage increases, for its own benefit.[13] | |||||