the employer-employee relationship.[24] By legal mandate, the interest of Colarina
in this case, arising as it does from the employer-employee relationship, is
intertwined with that of Varorient.
We must examine the legal nature of the obligation for which Colarina is
being held liable in the present case. The POEA Rules holds her, as a corporate
officer, solidarily liable with the local licensed manning agency. Her liability is
inseparable from those of Varorient and Lagoa. If anyone of them is held liable
then all of them would be liable for the same obligation. Each of the solidary
debtors, insofar as the creditor/s is/are concerned, is the debtor of the entire
amount; it is only with respect to his co-debtors that he/she is liable to the extent of
his/her share in the obligation.[25] Such being the case, the Civil Code allows each
solidary debtor, in actions filed by the creditor/s, to avail himself of all defenses
which are derived from the nature of the obligation and of those which are personal
to him, or pertaining to his share.[26] He may also avail of those defenses personally
belonging to his co-debtors, but only to the extent of their share in the debt.
[27]
Thus, Varorient may set up all the defenses pertaining to Colarina and Lagoa;
whereas Colarina and Lagoa are liable only to the extent to which Varorient may
be found liable by the court. The complaint against Varorient, Lagoa and Colarina
is founded on a common cause of action; hence, the defense or the appeal by
anyone of these solidary debtors would redound to the benefit of the others.[28]
De Leon v. Court of Appeals[29] featured a husband and wife who were sued
jointly for a sum of money. After the trial court had ruled against the spouses, the
husband through counsel timely filed a notice of appeal, while the wife, through
another counsel, attempted to submit a separate notice of appeal which was
belatedly filed. The wifes notice of appeal was denied by the Court of Appeals on
account of its belatedness. Commenting on these circumstances, the Court, through
Justice Quisumbing, observed:
x x x Respondent spouses having been jointly sued under a common cause of
action, an appeal made by the husband inures to the benefit of the wife. The