Short answer. Yes. The Labor Code makes the client company jointly and severally liable with the agency for unpaid wages, to the extent of the work you performed under that contract, in the same way the client would be liable to workers it hired directly.
What the law says
In the event that the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay the wages of his employees in accordance with this Code, the employer shall be jointly and severally liable with his contractor or subcontractor to such employees to the extent of the work performed under the contract, in the same manner and extent that he is liable to employees directly employed by him.
Labor Code, Article 106 — Contractor Or Subcontractor. Read the full provision →
The client company does not get to walk away
Article 106 addresses exactly this scenario: an employer — here, the client company — contracts with another person, the manpower agency, to have work performed. If that agency fails to pay its workers' wages, the law makes the client company jointly and severally liable with the agency. That means you are not limited to chasing the agency alone; you can pursue the client company directly, and it answers for the unpaid wages in the same way it would if it had hired you itself.
Liability is tied to the work you actually performed
The joint liability under Article 106 runs "to the extent of the work performed under the contract." In practice this means the client company's exposure is measured against the services you actually rendered for it under the manpower arrangement — it is not liable for wage claims unconnected to that engagement. If you worked several deployments or contracts through the same agency, the client tied to each engagement is answerable for the wages earned during that particular assignment.
Why the law does not simply let the agency absorb the risk
The provision exists because a contractor or subcontractor can be undercapitalized, close down, or simply refuse to pay, leaving workers with an empty judgment. By making the principal employer jointly and severally liable, the law ensures a worker is not left without recourse just because the entity that issued the payslip has disappeared or cannot pay. This is also why the article authorizes the Secretary of Labor and Employment to regulate or restrict contracting-out arrangements, distinguishing legitimate job contracting from arrangements designed only to shift the employer's obligations onto an under-resourced middleman.
When the agency may be treated as a mere agent
The article goes further where the agency supplying the workers has no substantial capital or investment in tools, equipment, machinery, or work premises, and the workers are doing tasks directly related to the client's main business. In that situation, the law treats the agency as merely an agent of the client company, and the client becomes responsible to you in the same manner and to the same extent as if it had employed you directly — not just jointly liable for wages, but standing in the employer's shoes. Keep your contract, deployment orders, and payslips, since they establish which company you actually worked for and under what terms.