G.R. No. L-5527 January 30, 1953
SALVADOR FERNANDEZ, plaintiff and appellant, vs. PABLO GARCIA y S.F. OCAMPO, defendants and appellees.

FACTS

Pablo Garcia contracted S.F. Ocampo to build his house in Quezon City for P23,000. Salvador Fernandez was employed by contractor S.F. Ocampo as a watchman (sereno) in charge of guarding the construction materials. As his salary was not fully paid, Fernandez, with the help of the Labor Office, filed a complaint in the Municipal Court of Manila against Pablo Garcia and S.F. Ocampo, seeking to hold them jointly and severally liable for P260. The Municipal Judge ruled in favor of Fernandez. Pablo Garcia appealed. The decision became final against S.F. Ocampo, and upon execution, the Sheriff found only P136 could be collected from him. In the Court of First Instance of Manila, the parties submitted a stipulation of facts. It stated that Pablo Garcia had paid the contractor the full contract price based on the contractor’s assurance that all laborers’ wages had been paid; that paragraph 5 of the construction contract provided that the owner would not be liable for any claim for unpaid wages by the contractor; and that the contractor S.F. Ocampo did not post any bond to answer for the payment of the laborers’ wages. The sole legal question submitted was whether the case falls under Act No. 3959 , considering the plaintiff is a watchman and not a laborer, and if so, whether Pablo Garcia should be held jointly and severally liable. The Court of First Instance dismissed the complaint, ruling that a watchman is not considered a laborer under Act No. 3959 . Fernandez appealed.

ISSUE

Whether a watchman (sereno) is considered a laborer (obrero) under the terms of Act No. 3959 , thereby making the property owner jointly and severally liable with the contractor for the watchman’s unpaid wages.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of First Instance. The Court held that a watchman is a laborer within the meaning of Act No. 3959 . The law uses the term “obrero” in its broad sense, meaning one who performs work of any nature. While a watchman does not perform manual labor like a carpenter, his work of guarding construction materials is corporal work essential to the prosecution of the construction project to prevent loss and delay. The Court cited American jurisprudence declaring a watchman as a laborer. Since contractor S.F. Ocampo did not post the required bond under Act No. 3959 nor submit a sworn statement of prior wage payments, owner Pablo Garcia, having paid the contractor in full without requiring these, became jointly and severally liable with the contractor for the unpaid wages. The contractual stipulation exempting the owner from liability for unpaid wages is void as it contravenes the public policy established by Act No. 3959 to protect laborers. Pablo Garcia was ordered to pay Fernandez the unpaid balance of P124 with legal interest from the filing of the complaint, plus costs.