Short answer. It can. Where the contractor supplying you has no substantial capital or investment in tools, equipment, machinery or work premises, and you perform work directly related to the principal's main business, Article 106 treats the contractor as a mere agent and the principal as responsible to you as a direct employer.
What the law says
the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers recruited and placed by such person are performing activities which are directly related to the principal business of such employer
Labor Code, Article 106 — Contractor Or Subcontractor. Read the full provision →
What the law says
the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him
Labor Code, Article 106 — Contractor Or Subcontractor. Read the full provision →
Both elements have to be present
Article 106 describes labour-only contracting as the situation where the person supplying workers to an employer does not have substantial capital or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others, and the workers placed by that person perform activities directly related to the principal's business. Read it as two conditions rather than one. A contractor with genuine plant and equipment is not converted into a mere supplier simply because its people work on the principal's core operations, and a shell contractor supplying workers for something peripheral does not fit the description either.
What 'substantial capital or investment' is looking for
The article points at the physical means of doing the job — tools, equipment, machineries, work premises, among others. The open ending matters, because the real question is whether the contractor runs a business of its own or merely furnishes bodies. Ask who owns the machines you operate, whose premises you report to, who supplies the materials, and whether the contractor carries any risk if the job goes badly. Paid-up capital on a registration certificate is not the same thing as investment in the work, which is why the provision names assets rather than a figure.
The consequence is larger than a wage claim
Where the description fits, the person or intermediary shall be considered merely as an agent of the employer who shall be responsible to the workers in the same manner and extent as if the latter were directly employed by him. That is not simply a second party to sue for unpaid wages. The principal stands as your employer, and the obligations that go with that status attach to it. So questions about your status, your continued engagement and the treatment you received are directed at the principal, not at an intermediary the law has already looked past.
How the question is actually settled
It is decided on how the arrangement worked, not on what the service agreement calls it. Contracts routinely recite that the contractor is independent and exercises exclusive control; that recital is evidence, not a conclusion. Keep whatever shows the day-to-day reality — who gave you instructions, who signed your time records, whose supervisors disciplined you, whose equipment you used, and how long you have been doing work the principal cannot operate without. The article also empowers the Secretary of Labor and Employment to restrict contracting-out by regulation, so registration requirements applying to your contractor are worth checking too.