6/7/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly Petitioner is solidarity liable with TEMMPC and TMCL for the death benefits under the POEA-SEC. The basis of the solidary liability of the principal with the local manning agent is found in the second paragraph of Section 10 of the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act of 1995,[55] which, in part, provides: "[t]he liability of the principal/employer and the recruitment/placement agency for any and all claims under this section shall be joint and several." This provision, is in turn, implemented by Section 1 (e)(8), Rule 2, Part II of the POEA Rules and Regulations Governing the Recruitment and Employment of Seafarers, which requires the undertaking of the manning agency to "[a]ssume joint and solidary liability with the employer for all claims and liabilities which may arise in connection with the implementation of the employment contract [and POEA-SEC]." We have consistently applied the Civil Code provisions on solidary obligations, specifically Articles 1217[56] and 1222,[57] to labor cases.[58] We explained in Varorient Shipping Co., Inc. v. NLRC[59] the nature of the solidary liability in labor cases, to wit: x x x 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. 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. He may also avail of those defenses personally belonging to his co-debtors, but only to the extent of their share in the debt. 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. xxx x x x If Varorient were to be found liable and made to pay pursuant thereto, the entire obligation would already be extinguished even if no attempt was made to enforce the judgment against Colarina. Because there existed a common cause of action against the three solidary obligors, as the acts and omissions imputed against them are one and the same, an ultimate finding that Varorient was not liable would, under these circumstances, logically imply a similar exoneration from liability for Colarina and Lagoa, whether or not they interposed any defense.[60] (Emphasis supplied.) elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62118 9/18