SEE: VIGILLA V PHILIPPINE COLLEGE OF CRIMINOLOGY, INC.
o The fact that it was the school who selected and
G.R. No. 200094 | JUNE 10, 2013
J. Mendoza
Marbee S. Musngi | Group 2
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: Benigno M. Vigilla, Alfonso M.
Bongot, Roberto Callesa, Linda C. Callo, Nilo B. Camara, Adelia T.
Camara, Adolfo G. Pinon, John A. Fernandez, Federico A. Callo,
Maxima P. Arellano, Julito B. Costales, Samson F. Bachar, Edwin P.
Damo, Renato E. Fernandez, Genaro F. Callio, Jimmy C. Aleta, and
Eugenio Salinas
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: Philippine College of Criminology,
Inc. and/or Gregory Alan F. Bautista
TOPIC:
• Work Relationship; Independent Contractor and Labor-Only
Contractor; Solidary Liability of Indirect Employer/Direct
Employer
CASE SUMMARY: PCCr terminated its relationship with MBMSI upon
learning of the revocation of the latter's Certificate of Incorporation.
This resulted in the dismissal of petitioners, who respondents claimed
were employees of MBMSI, prompting them to file complaints of illegal
dismissal. It was held in this case that MBMSI was a labor-only
contractor, making it solidarily liable with respondents. Given that
petitioners executed releases, waivers, and quitclaims in favor of
MBMSI, the same redounded to the benefit of respondents, thus
expunging their liability.
TERMS: N/A
PRECEDENTS: N/A
FACTS:
• Petitioners were employees of MBMSI, who worked for
PCCr under the supervision of Atty. Seril.
o PCCr: respondent; non-stock educational
institution
o MBMSI: a corporation engaged in providing
janitorial services to clients
o Vigilla, et al: petitioners; janitors, janitresses, and
supervisor in the Maintenance Department of
PCCr
o Atty. Seril: PCCr's Senior Vice President for
Administration and President and General
Manager of MBMSI
• PCCr discovered in 2008 that the Certificate of Incorporation
of MBMSI had already been revoked since 2003. PCCr
president Bautista then terminated the school's relationship
with MBMSI, resulting in the dismissal of petitioners (except
for one Bongot, who was retired).
• Petitioners, led by supervisor Vigilla, filed complaints for
illegal dismissal, reinstatement, back wages, separation pay
(for Bongot), underpayment of salaries, overtime pay,
holiday pay, service incentive leave, and 13th month pay
against MBMSI, Atty. Seril, PCCr, and Bautista. They
alleged that their real employer was PCCr given:
o The revocation of MBMSI's certification;
o Its direct control over MBMSI's operations;
o The absence of contract between the school and
MBMSI; and
hired the employees.
• Respondents, in their defense, contended that MBMSI was
petitioners' direct employer given:
o The fact that it was the latter who had complete
and direct control over petitioners, thus the former
could not have illegally dismissed the same; and
o The contractual agreement between the school
and the corporation.
• To support their claim, they submitted various documents,
including releases, waivers, and quitclaims.
• LA:
o PCCr was the real, principal employer
▪ PCCr controlled the
means and
methods of petitioners' work through
Atty. Seril, who acted in his capacity as
PCCr's SVPA and not as MBMSI's
President/GM.
o MBMSI was an alter ego/labor-only contractor.
o Petitioners were regular employees of PCCr.
o Respondents were in bad faith for dismissing
petitioners.
o Did not touch on the validity and authenticity of the
• documents submitted by petitioners
NLRC:
o Respondents' appeal: LA's findings were affirmed,
but respondents' liability was excused by virtue of
the documents executed in favor of MBMSI. Since
MBMSI, Atty. Seril, PCCr, and Bautista were
solidarily liable, the release of MBMSI redounded
to the benefit of the others.
o Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration: LA's
findings were affirmed in so far as the complaints
of one Ayetano and one Salonga were concerned.
The awards for the other 17 complainants, on the
other hand, were superseded by their respective
• releases, waivers, and quitclaims.
CA, petition for certiorari under Rule 65: NLRC's
resolutions were affirmed.
ISSUES:
•
WON petitioners' claims against respondents were amicably
settled by virtue of the releases, waivers, and quitclaims
which they had executed in favor of MBMSI
RULING:
• 1st issue: Yes.
o First, the Court held that the releases, waivers,
and quitclaims, which it noted were duly notarized,
were valid. Petitioners' vehement denial of having
executed said documents were all self-serving and
unsubstantiated. They failed to offer concrete
proof to support their claim of forgery, and to
overcome the presumption of authenticity and due
execution of a duly notarized document. And while
there were no records of such documents in the
Notary Section of Manila, respondents should not
be penalized for the notary public's failure to
submit his Notarial Report.
o Second, the Court held that the validity of said
documents were not affected by the revocation of
MBMSI's certification as the same did terminate
 the corporation's liabilities, pursuant to Sec. 122 of
the Corporation Code.
o Third, the Court held that the NLRC and CA
correctly ruled that the releases, waivers, and
quitclaims executed by petitioners in favor of
MBMSI redounded to the benefit of PCCr,
pursuant to Art. 1217 of the New Civil Code, the
reason being that MBMSI was solidarily liable with
the respondents for the valid claims of petitioners,
pursuant to Art. 109 of the Labor Code.
▪ The basis of the solidary liability of the
principal with those engaged in labor-
only contracting is the last paragraph of
Art. 106 of the Labor Code, which is
interpreted by Sec. 19 of D.O. No. 18-
02. This was also recognized anew by
DOLE when it issued D.O. No. 18-A,
series of 2011, particularly in Sec. 27.
The same was also repeatedly
pronounced in jurisprudence, such as
PBC v. NLRC, San Miguel Corporation
v. MAERC Integrated Services, Inc.,
and 7K Corporation v. NLRC.

DISPOSITIVE: "WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED."

PROVISIONS:
• LC: Article 106: "xxx In such cases [labor-only contracting], the
person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of
the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same
manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him.
xxx."
• D.O. No. 18-02: Section 19: "The principal shall be xxx solidarily
liable with the contractor or subcontractor for whatever monetary
claims the contractual employees may have against the former in
the case of violations as provided for in Sections 5 (Labor-Only
contracting) xxx."
• D.O. No. 18-A, series of 2011: Section 27: " A finding by
competent authority of labor-only contracting shall render the
principal jointly and severally liable with the contractor to the latter's
employees xxx."