Short answer. Yes. Article 107 extends the contractor-liability rule to any person, partnership, association or corporation that contracts with an independent contractor for work, even though it is not an employer at all. Standing outside the employment relationship is not a defence to the contractor's workers' wage claims.
What the law says
The provisions of the immediately preceding article shall likewise apply to any person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an independent contractor for the performance of any work, task, job or project.
Labor Code, Article 107 — Indirect Employer. Read the full provision →
Who the indirect employer is
Article 107 is short and does one job: it closes a gap. Article 106 speaks of an employer who contracts out work, which leaves open the case of someone who employs nobody at all and simply engages a contractor. This article answers it — the same rule applies to any person, partnership, association or corporation which, not being an employer, contracts with an independent contractor. A homeowner having a house built, an association engaging a maintenance crew, a company with no staff of its own commissioning a project: each can be an indirect employer for this purpose.
What the provision borrows
By applying the immediately preceding article, Article 107 brings across its liability: where the contractor or subcontractor fails to pay its workers the wages the Code requires, the one who engaged that contractor is jointly and severally liable, to the extent of the work performed under the contract. The workers may therefore claim from the indirect employer directly. It is a liability for wage obligations arising from the contracted work — not a general assumption of everything the contractor owes anyone, and not a finding that the workers were hired by the indirect employer.
Why the law reaches someone who is not an employer
The reasoning is the same one that runs through this chapter. Workers who have done the job should not go unpaid because the entity that hired them turned out to have nothing. The party that received the benefit of the labour is placed alongside the contractor so that the risk of an insolvent middleman is not borne entirely by the people least able to absorb it. It also gives the party engaging a contractor a reason to check that its contractor actually pays, which is cheaper for everyone than a claim after the fact.
The scope of the engagement covered
The article reaches contracts for the performance of any work, task, job or project, so a one-off project is covered as much as a continuing service arrangement — there is no requirement that the engagement be regular or long-running. If you are the one who engaged a contractor, the practical protection is to know how many workers are on site, what they are being paid, and to keep proof of every release you make to the contractor. If you are the worker, identify the party that commissioned the job and keep whatever ties your work to that contract.