SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202047. June 8, 2016.]

LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT AUTHORITY , petitioner, vs. NOEL B. PILI, MEDEL

I. LIRIO, RODERICK B. JAMON, VICTORINO A. MACHICA, RONNIE C.
VALORIA, VIRGILIO M. FLORES, RENATO C. PALMA, ANGELITO V.
GUINTO, RAMIRO M. FELICIANO, ENRIQUE L. CIUBAL, ELMER P.
TABIGAN, VENANCIO T. MADRIA, MAXIMO M. VITANGCOL,
RODOLFO L. PAGUIO, ARNEL F. MAGSALIN, JULIANA N. DOLOR,
NOEL C. CRUZ, SANDY C. JARILLA, BERTITO I. SERVIDAD, ALAN R.
CORPUZ, ROBERT D. PABLO, ROBERT H. MONTEREY, HENRY L. LIAO,
ROLANDO C. CEBANICO, VELIENTE S. FANTASTICO, MA. EMILIAN S.
CRUZ, EDGARDO G. GAMBAYAN, GERARDO M. RUMBAWA, DANTE D.
PALOMARA, MA. TERESA B. DE LOS REYES, JOSE ALLAN S.
PACIFICO, RESTITUTO R. MALAPO, EARL G. PONGCO, LUCILO C.
DEL MONTE, RUEL F. MAGBALANA, MARLYN V. VILLANUEVA,
JUDITH C. BANEZ, GERMAN N. DE LUNA, FREDERICK B. DEL CORRO,
CLODUALDO B. PASIOLAN, ROLANDO I. NAVARRO, and PACIANO J.
VILLANUEVA , * respondents.

DECISION

CARPIO , Acting C.J : p

The Case
This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
Petitioner Light Rail Transit Authority (LRTA) challenges the 1 June 2011 Decision 1 and
23 May 2012 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 107593 which
set aside the 24 June 2008 Resolution 3 of the National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC) and reinstated the 27 October 2005 Decision 4 of the Labor Arbiter.
The Facts
LRTA is a government-owned and controlled corporation created under Executive
Order (EO) No. 603 5 for the "construction, operation, maintenance, and/or lease of light
rail transit systems in the Philippines." 6 It entered into a ten-year operations and
management agreement (Agreement) with Meralco Transit Organization, Inc. (MTOI)
from 8 June 1984 to 8 June 1994. MTOI, a corporation organized under the
Corporation Code, hired its own employees and thereafter entered into collective
bargaining agreements (CBAs) with the unions of its employees. However, on 7 April
1989, the Commission on Audit declared the Agreement between LRTA and MTOI void.
As a result, on 9 June 1989, LRTA purchased all the shares of stock of MTOI and
renamed MTOI to Metro Transit Organization, Inc. (Metro) and formally declared Metro
as its wholly-owned subsidiary.
The Agreement between LRTA and Metro expired on 8 June 1994, and was
thereafter extended on a month-to-month basis. On 25 July 2000, the union of rank-and-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 le employees of Metro staged a strike over a bargaining deadlock which resulted in
the paralysis in the operations of Metro. On 31 July 2000, the Agreement expired when
LRTA decided no longer to renew. On 30 September 2000, Metro ceased its operations.
Respondents 7 were employees of Metro who have been terminated upon the
expiration of the Agreement. While the rest of the respondents led cases involving
purely monetary claims in the form of separation pays, balances of separation pays,
and other unpaid claims, respondent Noel B. Pili (Pili), in addition to his monetary
claims, alleged that he was illegally dismissed.
Pili was employed by Metro on 29 November 1984, and was holding the position
of Liaison Assistant when he was dismissed on 30 September 2000, when Metro
stopped its operations. He received the rst fty percent (50%) of his separation pay in
accordance with the CBA with Metro. On 29 May 2003, he received the amount of
P63,117.65 as nancial assistance for which he was compelled to execute a Release,
Waiver and Quitclaim. Based on the foregoing, Pili argues that his dismissal was illegal
and violative of his security of tenure. He alleges that the mere fact of the expiration of
the Agreement was not suf cient to justify his dismissal. He also claims that the
Release, Waiver and Quitclaim he executed does not bar him from demanding the
bene ts to which he is legally entitled to or from contesting the legality of his
dismissal. ASEcHI

On the other hand, the rest of the respondents led cases for purely monetary
claims. They assert that under Article 4.05 of the Agreement, LRTA contractually bound
itself to shoulder and provide all "Operating Expenses" of Metro. Operating Expenses is
defined in the Agreement as:
. . . all salaries, wages and fringe bene ts (both direct and indirect) up to
the rank of Manager, and a lump sum amount to be determined annually as top
Management compensation (above the rank of Manager up to the President). 8
The respondents, except Pili, further allege that LRTA sanctioned and approved
all the CBAs Metro entered with its employees; that LRTA and Metro jointly declared the
continued implementation of the Agreement; and that there would be no interruption in
the employment of the employees of the former MTOI (now Metro). On 17 November
1997, LRTA approved the severance pay of the employees of Metro amounting to one
and a half months salary per year of service. They claim that this shows that the LRTA
bound itself solidarily liable with Metro.
On 28 July 2000, the Board of Directors of LRTA issued Resolution No. 00-44
where LRTA of cially assumed the obligation to ensure that the Metro, Inc. Employees
Retirement Fund is updated and that it fully covers all retirement bene ts payable to the
employees of Metro. Based on the foregoing, the respondents — except Pili — argue
that the LRTA is liable for their monetary claims.
LRTA, on the other hand, argues that NLRC cannot exercise jurisdiction over it as
it is a government-owned and controlled corporation, and that only the Civil Service
Commission (CSC) can take cognizance of the matter. Further, LRTA maintains that it
has a separate legal personality from Metro, and thus there can be no illegal dismissal
and no basis for the monetary claims of the employees of Metro.
The Ruling of the Labor Arbiter
On 27 October 2005, Labor Arbiter Catalino R. Laderas rendered his Decision in
favor of Pili and the rest of the respondents. The Labor Arbiter found that Pili was
illegally dismissed and that LRTA was solidarily liable with Metro for the monetary
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 claims. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
1. Ordering the respondents Metro Transit Organization and LRTA to pay
complainant Noel Pili jointly and severally the amount of P379,710 representing
backwages for eight (8) months and balance of his separation pay plus ten [sic]
(10%) of the monetary award as attorney's fee.
a. unpaid wages/salaries for August and September 2000 of:
P31,848.00 to Arnel F. Magsalin
P31,548.00 to Angelito V. Guinto
P30,928.00 to Enrique L. Ciubal
P31,538.00 to Ronnie C. Valoria
P31,046.00 to Maximo M. Vitangcol
P31,046.00 to Ramiro M. Feliciano
P31,538.00 to Virgilio M. Flores
P31,046.00 to Vena[n]cio T. Madria
P30,906.00 to Ruel F. Magbalana
P30,728.00 to Renato C. Palima
P28,004.00 to Victorino A. Machica
P27,804.00 to Rodolfo L. Paguio
P21,136.00 to Roderick B. Jamon
P18,170.00 to Elmer P. Tabigan

b. unpaid 13th month and earned leave benefits of:

P42,097.68 to Angelito V. Guinto
P25,749.91 to Enrique L. Ciubal
P36,138.16 to Ronnie C. Valoria
P36,178.90 to Ramiro M. Feliciano
P39,400.82 to Virgilio M. Flores
P28,015.96 to Vena[n]cio T. Madria
P45,626.15 to Renato C. Palima
P31,948.09 to Victorino A. Machica
P15,381.08 to Roderick B. Jamon

c. unpaid hazard pays for August and September 2000 of:

P1,400.00 to Arnel F. Magsalin
P1,400.00 to Angelito V. Guinto
P1,400.00 to Enrique L. Ciubal
P1,400.00 to Ronnie C. Valoria
P1,400.00 to Maximo M. Vitangcol
P1,400.00 to Ramiro M. Feliciano
P1,400.00 to Virgilio M. Flores
P1,400.00 to Vena[n]cio T. Madria
P1,400.00 to Ruel F. Magbalana
P1,400.00 to Renato C. Palima
P1,400.00 to Victorino A. Machica
P1,400.00 to Rodolfo L. Paguio
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 P1,400.00 to Roderick B. Jamon
P1,400.00 to Elmer P. Tabigan

d. amounts of unsupplied rice subsidiaries for August and

September 2000 of:
P2,000.00 to Arnel F. Magsalin
P2,000.00 to Angelito V. Guinto
P2,000.00 to Enrique L. Ciubal
P2,000.00 to Ronnie C. Valoria
P2,000.00 to Maximo M. Vitangcol
P2,000.00 to Ramiro M. Feliciano
P2,000.00 to Virgilio M. Flores
P2,000.00 to Vena[n]cio T. Madria
P2,000.00 to Ruel F. Magbalana
P2,000.00 to Renato C. Palima
P2,000.00 to Victorino A. Machica
P2,000.00 to Rodolfo L. Paguio
P2,000.00 to Roderick B. Jamon
P2,000.00 to Elmer P. Tabigan

e. reimbursement for over deductions for settled accountabilities

and/or 10% retention from the rst fty percent (50%) separation
pay of: ITAaHc

P45,557.33 to Ma. Theresa B. Delos Reyes

P8,471.82 to Roberto H. Monterey
P8,994.75 to Edgardo G. Gambayan

f. Fifty percent (50%) balance of separation pay of:

P455,473.32 to Ma. Theresa B. Delos Reyes
P294,703.50 to Juliana N. Dolor
P198,428.25 to Roberto H. Monterey
P201,429.92 to Rolando C. Cebanico
P193,301.85 to Edgardo G. Gambayan
P281,203.02 to Rolando I. Navarro
P189,300.00 to Jose Allan S. Pacifico
P212,148.00 to Lucilo C. Del Monte
P184,884.00 to Earl G. Ponco
P188,640.00 to Allan R. Corpuz
P188,520.00 to Ma. Emilian S. Cruz
P236,748.00 to German N. De Luna
P186,396.00 to Robert D. Pablo
P236,808.00 to Frederick B. Del Corro
P186,648.00 to Medel I. Lirio
P242,628.00 to Paciano J. Villavieja, Jr.
P224,376.00 to Noel C. Cruz
P179,061.58 to V[e]liente S. Fantastico
P185,786.68 to Sandy C. Jarilla
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 P204,556.18 to Dante D. Palomara
P177,686.46 to Henry L. Liao
P107,383.32 to Bertito I. Servidad
P105,592.08 to Gerardo M. Rumbawa
P91,719.00 to Clodualdo B. Pasiolan
P74,550.00 to Judith C. Banez
P53,866.71 to Marlyn V. Villanueva
P51,035.63 to Restituto R. Malapo

with legal interests thereon from June 1, 2001 until actually and
fully paid; and
g. severance pays of:
P406,062.00 to Arnel F. Magsalin
P378,576.00 to Angelito V. Guinto
P371,136.00 to Enrique L. Ciubal
P378,456.00 to Ronnie C. Valoria
P372,552.00 to Maximo M. Vitangcol
P359,978.37 to Ramiro M. Feliciano
P365,683.11 to Virgilio M. Flores
P358,581.30 to Vena[n]cio T. Madria
P356,964.30 to Ruel F. Magbalana
P345,690.00 to Renato C. Palima
P213,600.51 to Victorino A. Machica
P194,558.49 to Rodolfo L. Paguio
P79,260.00 to Roderick B. Jamon
P60,760.73 to Elmer P. Tabigan

with legal interest thereon from October 1, 2000 until actually and
fully paid.
Respondents are further ordered to pay solidarily to complainants an
amount equivalent to ten percent (10%) of the total awards, as and by way of
attorney's fees.
Other claims dismissed.
SO ORDERED. 9
On 5 December 2005, LRTA appealed to the NLRC. LRTA averred that the Labor
Arbiter acted with grave abuse of discretion in (1) taking cognizance of the case
against LRTA despite the fact that it is a government-owned and controlled corporation
with an original charter; (2) holding LRTA guilty of illegal dismissal despite the lack of
employer-employee relationship between LRTA and Pili; and (3) awarding separation
pay and other bene ts to the respondents despite the utter lack of factual and legal
basis. 10
The Ruling of the NLRC
On 24 June 2008, the NLRC found that there was no illegal dismissal as Pili's
dismissal was valid on account of the termination of the Agreement between Metro
and LRTA. 11 The NLRC issued a Resolution modifying in part the Decision of the Labor
Arbiter, to wit:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 WHEREFORE, premises considered the separate appeals are partly
GRANTED and the Decision dated 27 October 2005 is MODIFIED deleting the
nding of illegal dismissal and award of backwages to complainant-appellee
Pili, ordering respondents-appellants METRO and LRTA to pay complainant-
appellee Pili the balance of his separation pay in the amount of P165,398.35
plus ten percent (10%) of the award as attorney's fees and af rming the
monetary awards in the appealed Decision in its entirety including the 10%
attorney's fees to complainants-appellees Lirio, et al.
SO ORDERED. 12
The Motion for Partial Reconsideration 13 led by LRTA was denied by the NLRC.
Thereafter, LRTA led a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the CA on 10
November 2008. 14 CHTAIc

The Ruling of the CA

In a Decision dated 1 June 2011, the CA set aside the Resolution of the NLRC and
reinstated the 27 October 2005 Decision of the Labor Arbiter in toto. 15 The CA found
that Pili was illegally dismissed as the expiration of the Agreement between LRTA and
Metro was not a valid ground to terminate Pili's employment. The CA held:
Indeed, and as stated above, Article 283 allows an employer to terminate
the services of his employees in case of closure of business as a result of grave
nancial losses. But the employer must comply with the clearance or report
required under the Labor Code and its implementing rules before the
employment of the employees.
Nevertheless, employers who contemplate terminating the services of
their workers cannot be so arbitrary and ruthless as to nd imsy excuses for
their decisions. Thus must be so, considering that the dismissal of an employee
from work involves not only the loss of his position but more important, his
means of livelihood.
xxx xxx xxx
In the case at bar, private respondent Pili's employment was terminated
on account of the expiration of the management contract between petitioner
LRTA and Metro. Such cause for termination of employment is not within the
contemplation of Article 283. Further, there is no indication that Metro was
closing shop after the termination of its management contract with petitioner
LRTA. Much less, it was not proved that Metro was closing its business due to
financial losses or business reverses. Thus, the termination of Pili's employment
by Metro cannot be justified and, therefore, illegal. 16
In a Resolution dated 23 May 2012, the CA denied the Motion for
Reconsideration 17 filed by LRTA. Hence, this petition. cHDAIS

The Issues
In this petition, the LRTA seeks a reversal of the decision of the CA, and raises the
following arguments:
A. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A QUESTION OF LAW NOT
IN ACCORD WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISION OF THIS HONORABLE COURT
ON THE LACK OF JURISDICTION OF THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NATIONAL
LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION OVER PETITIONER AND THE LABOR
COMPLAINTS AGAINST PETITIONER; and
B. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT THE LABOR ARBITER AND THE NLRC HAVE
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 SUCH JURISDICTION, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS DECIDED A
QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE NOT IN ACCORD WITH THE APPLICABLE LAW AND
DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT ON ARTICLE[S] 106 AND 107 OF THE
LABOR CODE GOVERNING THE EXTENT OF LIABILITIES OF INDIRECT
EMPLOYERS. 18
The Ruling of the Court
The petition has no merit.
Jurisdiction of the NLRC over LRTA — Monetary Claims
We nd error with the NLRC taking cognizance of the cases against Metro and
LRTA as far as the monetary claims are concerned. This is despite the fact that LRTA is
a government-owned and controlled corporation with an original charter.
All of the respondents allege that they were employed by Metro. Thus, there is no
real issue as far as the employer-employee relationship is concerned — the
respondents themselves do not claim to be employed by LRTA. While Pili claims that
LRTA should also be considered his true employer based on the doctrine of piercing the
corporate veil, this argument, as discussed below is baseless and erroneous. The
employees were employed solely by Metro as Metro and LRTA each maintained their
separate juridical personalities. We have already consistently recognized, in clear and
categorical terms, that LRTA, even after it purchased all the shares of stock of Metro,
maintained and continued to have its separate and juridical personality. 19 Nonetheless,
the argument of LRTA that only the CSC may exercise jurisdiction over it — even for
monetary claims, must necessarily fail.
The NLRC acquired jurisdiction over LRTA not because of the employer-employee
relationship of the respondents and LRTA (because there is none) but rather because
LRTA expressly assumed the monetary obligations of Metro to its employees. In the
Agreement, LRTA was obligated to reimburse Metro for the latter's Operating Expenses
which included the salaries, wages and fringe bene ts of certain employees of Metro.
Moreover, the Board of Directors of LRTA issued Resolution No. 00-44 where again,
LRTA assumed the monetary obligations of Metro more particularly to update the
Metro, Inc. Employees Retirement Fund and to ensure that it fully covers all the
retirement benefits payable to the employees of Metro.
It is clear from the foregoing, and it is also not denied by LRTA, that it has
assumed the monetary obligations of Metro to its employees. As such, the NLRC may
exercise jurisdiction over LRTA on the issue of the monetary obligations. To repeat,
NLRC can exercise jurisdiction over LRTA not because of the existence of any employer-
employee relationship between LRTA and the respondents, but rather because LRTA
clearly assumed voluntarily the monetary obligations of Metro to its employees. We
therefore nd no error on the part of NLRC when it exercised jurisdiction over LRTA
which solidarily obligated itself to pay the monetary obligations of Metro.
Jurisdiction of the NLRC over LRTA — Illegal Dismissal
However, as far as the claim of illegal dismissal is concerned, we nd that NLRC
cannot exercise jurisdiction over LRTA. The NLRC and Labor Arbiter erred when it took
cognizance of such matter.
In Hugo v. LRTA, 20 we have already addressed the issue of jurisdiction in relation
to illegal dismissal complaints. In the said case, the employees of Metro led an illegal
dismissal and unfair labor practice complaint against Metro and LRTA. We held that the
Labor Arbiter and NLRC did not have jurisdiction over LRTA, to wit:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 The Labor Arbiter and the NLRC do not have jurisdiction over LRTA .
Petitioners themselves admitted in their complaint that LRTA " is a government
agency organized and existing pursuant to an original charter (Executive Order
No. 603)" and that they are employees of METRO. 21 (Emphasis and
underscoring in the original)
Pili admits that he was employed by Metro. However, in the same breath, he
argues that the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil should be applied and LRTA
should also be considered his employer. We nd this argument untenable. Pili cannot
claim to be employed by LRTA merely on the bare allegation that the corporate veil
must be pierced based on LRTA's ownership of the shares of stock of Metro. This
Court has already rejected such proposition — there is no sufficient evidence to support
the application of the doctrine of piercing the corporate veil and LRTA, even after it
purchased all the shares of stock of Metro, maintained and continued to have its
separate juridical personality. 22 ISHCcT

Worse, if LRTA was his true employer, as he claims, it is CSC which would have
jurisdiction to hear his complaint against LRTA. LRTA is a government-owned and
controlled corporation — any allegation of illegal dismissal against it by its employees
should have been brought to the CSC. However, the fact remains that Pili was an
employee of Metro alone — the Labor Arbiter and NLRC could not have acquired
jurisdiction over LRTA insofar as the illegal dismissal complaint is concerned.
Monetary Claims of the Former Employees of Metro
The respondents, except Pili, all have purely monetary claims against LRTA. They
all anchor their claims on the Agreement, more particularly the de nition of Operating
Expenses in relation to Article 4.05.1 thereof, which states that LRTA shall reimburse
Metro for the latter's Operating Expenses. Moreover, LRTA's Resolution No. 00-44
provides that LRTA assumes the obligation to ensure full payment of the
retirement/separation pay of the employees of Metro. LRTA had already paid the rst
fty percent (50%) of the separation pay to some of the employees of Metro.
Therefore, the respondents, except Pili, are merely claiming their unpaid balance, or the
unpaid separation pay, unpaid wages and other bene ts which have accrued during
their employment with Metro.

This Court has already resolved this very issue on the monetary claims of the
employees of Metro as against LRTA. In LRTA v. Mendoza , 23 we found that LRTA is
liable for the monetary claims of the employees of Metro. The respondents in the said
case were employees of Metro who, similar to the respondents in this case, have been
separated due to the expiration of the Agreement between LRTA and Metro. We held:
First. LRTA obligated itself to fund METRO's retirement fund to answer
for the retirement or severance/resignation of METRO employees as part of
METRO's "operating expenses." Under Article 4.05.1 of the O & M agreement
between LRTA and Metro, "The Authority shall reimburse METRO for x x x
OPERATING EXPENSES x x x." In the letter to LRTA dated July 12, 2001, the
Acting Chairman of the METRO Board of Directors at the time, Wilfredo Trinidad,
reminded LRTA that funding provisions for the retirement fund have always
been considered operating expenses of Metro. The coverage of operating
expenses to include provisions for the retirement fund has never been denied by
LRTA.
xxx xxx xxx
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 The clear language of Resolution No. 00-44, to our mind, established the
LRTA's obligation for the 50% unpaid balance of the respondents' separation
pay. Without doubt, it bound itself to provide the necessary funding to METRO's
Employee Retirement Fund to fully compensate the employees who had been
involuntary retired by the cessation of operations of METRO. This is not at all
surprising considering that METRO was a wholly owned subsidiary of the LRTA.
Second. Even on the assumption that the LRTA did not obligate itself to
fully cover the separation bene ts of the respondents and others similarly
situated, it still cannot avoid liability for the respondents' claim. It is solidarity
[sic] liable as an indirect employer under the law for the respondents' separation
pay. This liability arises from the O & M agreement it had with METRO, which
created a principal-job contractor relationship between them, an arrangement it
admitted when it argued before the CA that METRO was an independent job
contractor who, it insinuated, should be solely responsible for the respondents'
claim. 24
Thus, based on (1) the Agreement where LRTA bound itself to be liable for the
Operating Expenses of Metro; (2) Resolution No. 00-44 which contained LRTA's
declaration to bind itself for the payment of the separation pay of Metro's employees;
and (3) the solidary liability of an indirect employer under Articles 107 25 and 109 26 of
the Labor Code and Department Order No. 18-02, s. 2002 (which implements Articles
106-109 of the Labor Code), 27 we found LRTA liable for the monetary claims of the
respondents therein.
Accordingly, we nd that the application of the doctrine of stare decisis is in
order. The doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere means "to adhere to
precedents, and not to unsettle things which are established." 28 Under this doctrine,
when this Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of
facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are
substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the same. 29
CAacTH

The basic facts in this petition are the same as those in the case of LRTA v.
Mendoza. 30 Thus, we nd that LRTA is solidarily liable for the monetary claims of
respondents, in light of this Court's ndings in said case. It is the duty of the Court to
apply the previous ruling in LRTA v. Mendoza , 31 in accordance with the doctrine of
stare decisis. Once a case has been decided one way, any other case involving exactly
the same point at issue, as in the present case, should be decided in the same manner.
32

We nd no reversible error in the CA ruling, insofar as the monetary claims are

concerned.
WHEREFORE , we DENY the petition.
SO ORDERED .
Del Castillo, Mendoza and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Brion, ** J., is on official leave.
Footnotes
* Also referred to in the records as Paciano J. Villavieja, Jr.
** On official leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 190-204. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with Associate Justices
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring.
2. Id. at 219-222.
3. Id. at 111-126.
4. Id. at 71-90.

5. Entitled "Creating a Light Rail Transit Authority, Vesting the Same with Authority to
Construct and Operate the Light Rail Transit (LRT) Project and Providing Funds
Therefor." Issued on 12 July 1980.
6. Section 2, Article 1, EO No. 603.
7. Noel B. Pili, Medel I. Lirio, Roderick B. Jamon, Victorino A. Machica, Ronnie C. Valoria,
Virgilio M. Flores, Renato C. Palma, Angelito V. Guinto, Ramiro M. Feliciano, Enrique
L. Ciubal, Elmer P. Tabigan, Venancio T. Madria, Maximo M. Vitangcol, Rodolfo L.
Paguio, Arnel F. Magsalin, Juliana N. Dolor, Noel C. Cruz, Sandy C. Jarilla, Bertito I.
Servidad, Alan R. Corpuz, Robert D. Pablo, Robert H. Monterey, Henry L. Liao, Rolando
C. Cebanico, Veliente S. Fantastico, Ma. Emilian S. Cruz, Edgardo G. Gambayan,
Gerardo M. Rumbawa, Dante D. Palomara, Ma. Teresa B. De los Reyes, Jose Allan S.
Paci co, Restituto R. Malapo, Earl G. Pongco, Lucilo C. Del Monte, Ruel F.
Magbalana, Marlyn V. Villanueva, Judith C. Banez, German N. De luna, Frederick B.
Del Corro, Clodualdo B. Pasiolan, Rolando I. Navarro, and Paciano J. Villanueva.
8. Article 1.05, Agreement.
9. Rollo, pp. 87-90.

10. Id. at 91-108.

11. Id. at 111-126.
12. Id. at 125.
13. Id. at 127-142.
14. Id. at 148-178.

15. Id. at 203-204.

16. Id. at 202-203.
17. Id. at 205-216.
18. Id. at 23.

19. See Light Rail Transit Authority v. Venus, Jr. , 520 Phil. 233 (2006) and Hugo v. Light Rail
Transit Authority, 630 Phil. 145 (2010).
20. 630 Phil. 145 (2010).

21. Id. at 151.

22. See Light Rail Transit Authority v. Venus, Jr. , 520 Phil. 233 (2006) and Hugo v. Light Rail
Transit Authority, supra note 19.
23. G.R. No. 202322, 19 August 2015.
24. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 25. Art. 107. Indirect employer. — The provisions of the immediately preceding article shall
likewise apply to any person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being
an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of any
work, task, job or project.
2 6 . Art. 109. Solidary liability . — The provisions of existing laws to the contrary
notwithstanding, every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with
his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this Code. For
purposes of determining the extent of their civil liability under this Chapter, they shall
be considered as direct employers.
27. Section 19. . . . . — In addition, the principal shall also be solidarily liable in case the
contract between the principal and contractor or subcontractor is preterminated for
reasons not attributable to the fault of the contractor or subcontractor.

28. Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, 689 Phil. 603 (2012).
29. Id.
30. Supra note 23.
31. Supra note 23.

32. Ty v. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, supra note 28.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com