Short answer. Yes. Article 109 of the Labor Code makes the company you are assigned to solidarily liable with your staffing agency for any violation of the Code, not only unpaid wages. That can cover illegal deductions, denied benefits, or unsafe conditions. For liability purposes, the company is treated as your direct employer.
What the law says
every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this Code
Labor Code, Article 109 — Solidary Liability. Read the full provision →
Article 109 is not limited to wages
Article 109 states that every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this Code. The wording is deliberately broad — "any violation of any provision of this Code" — so it is not confined to the wage-recovery chapter it sits near. Illegal dismissal, denied statutory benefits, unsafe working conditions, and unlawful deductions are all Labor Code violations, and the same solidary responsibility applies to them as applies to unpaid pay.
What "solidary" and "indirect employer" mean
"Solidary" liability means the worker is not required to pursue the agency first and the company second. Either one can be made to answer for the full violation, and whichever pays is left to sort out reimbursement between themselves — that is their problem, not yours. The company that engaged your agency to supply your labor is the "indirect employer" under this article; your agency, as the entity that directly hired and deploys you, is the contractor.
There is a further possibility worth separating out. Article 106 treats an arrangement as labor-only contracting where the agency merely supplies workers, without substantial capital or investment, to perform activities directly related to the principal's main business. Where that is the true picture, the principal is treated as the employer of those workers outright, which reaches further than the solidary liability Article 109 imposes.
Why the law treats the company as a direct employer
The article closes by saying that, for purposes of determining the extent of their civil liability under this Chapter, the company and the agency shall be considered as direct employers. That legal fiction exists precisely so a company cannot escape responsibility by pointing to the staffing arrangement on paper. It does not erase the agency's own duties, and it does not by itself make you a regular employee of the client — it addresses civil liability for Labor Code violations specifically.
What this means for building a claim
Keep records that tie the violation to both entities — payslips, schedules, memos or instructions that came from the client company, and anything from the agency acknowledging the issue. Because liability runs to both, you are not left choosing the wrong party to complain against; the harder practical question is usually evidence, not which entity to name. Where the facts are contested, discuss the paper trail with a lawyer before filing.
Two limits are worth keeping in view. Article 109 fixes civil liability for violations of the Code; it is not a general warranty that the client answers for everything the agency does, and it does not let the agency off. And it does not, on its own, make you the client's regular employee — that turns on who actually hires, pays, disciplines and controls your work, which is a separate enquiry with its own evidence.