Nicolas v. Dacara
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, numbering 47, were security guards employed by various firms, with 30 affiliated with Enriquez Detective and Protective Agency, Inc. (Enriquez Agency). Respondents Fulgencio Dacara and companions were also security guards affiliated with the same agency and belonged to the Free Special Watchmen and Special Police Union. Respondents filed an unfair labor practice case against the Enriquez Agency for dismissing them. The Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) found the agency guilty and ordered it to pay back wages amounting to approximately P53,000 and to reinstate the complainants. Procedural History: The CIR's order became final and executory. The clerk of court issued an order for execution, directing the sheriff to collect P53,498.67 from the respondent agency or to garnish its properties. The sheriff collected P8,512.77 and P4,664.57 from customers of the Enriquez Agency, which were deposited with the CIR. Petitioners filed a motion to withdraw these amounts, claiming they represented their salaries. The CIR denied the motion, holding that the movants were not parties to the case, no insolvency proceedings were filed, and the garnished money belonged to the respondent agency. The Petition: The CIR's denial was reconsidered and denied. Subsequently, the respondent union secured an order authorizing Dacara and his co-respondents to withdraw the collected sums. Petitioners filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with the Supreme Court to prevent the CIR from enforcing the withdrawal order and to compel the court to release the moneys to them. A preliminary injunction was issued.
Issue(s)
Whether the amounts collected by the sheriff from the clients of the Enriquez Detective and Protective Agency, Inc., which petitioners claim represent their wages, can be garnished for the debts of the agency. Whether the wages earned by security guards, collected by a detective agency, constitute funds belonging to the detective agency subject to garnishment for its debts.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the court below and ordered the delivery of the wages due to the petitioners, after deducting the ordinary fees collectible by the detective and protective agency.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of garnishment of wages: The Court held that the amounts collected by the sheriff, which petitioners claim represent their wages, cannot be attached or garnished for the debts of the Enriquez Detective and Protective Agency, Inc. The Court reasoned that these moneys are salaries earned by the petitioners from their respective employers, not funds belonging to the detective agency. It was unlawful for the sheriff to have levied upon these amounts as if they belonged to the respondent agency. The Court emphasized that the detective agency merely recruits or furnishes security guards and does not act as an independent contractor for the services rendered by the guards. Therefore, the wages earned by the petitioners do not belong to the detective agency, and consequently, the fund for said wages cannot be attached to pay the judgment secured against the agency. The Court further clarified that even if the detective agency receives the salaries of the petitioners, an implied trust would arise to pay the petitioners their wages, subject to the agency's right to deduct its service fees. This implied trust, as per Article 1453 of the Civil Code, means the wages do not truly belong to the agency, thus rendering them unattachable for the agency's debts. On whether the wages constitute funds belonging to the detective agency: The Court found merit in the petitioners' contention that the amounts represent their earned salaries. The Court reiterated its ruling in Maligaya Ship Watchmen Agency, et al. vs. Associated Watchmen and Security (PTWO), 103 Phil., 920, which held that labor agencies securing watchmen are not independent contractors but merely recruit or furnish the guards. In the present case, the unchallenged claim of the petitioners was that the sum represented wages due them from companies that employed their services. Therefore, these wages could not be considered as moneys belonging to the respondent detective agency. The Court concluded that the order of the court below was erroneous in authorizing the withdrawal and payment of these funds to the agency's creditors, as only the agency's share in the funds could be subjected to the judgment.
Main Doctrine
Wages earned by security guards from their employers, even if collected by a detective agency, cannot be garnished for the debts of the detective agency, as these wages do not belong to the agency but are held in trust for the guards.