Short answer. It means both companies are each responsible for the whole obligation, not just a share of it. Article 109 makes an employer or indirect employer answerable together with the contractor or subcontractor for any Labor Code violation, so a worker owed wages or benefits can pursue either company, or both, for the full amount.
What the law says
The provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding, 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 →
Two companies, one obligation
Article 109 provides that every employer or indirect employer shall be held responsible with his contractor or subcontractor for any violation of any provision of this Code. In an arrangement where a manpower agency supplies workers to a client company, the agency is the contractor and the client is the indirect employer. Solidary liability under this article means the two are not each answerable for half of what is owed — each one is answerable for the whole obligation, as if it alone owed it.
Why 'direct employers' matters
The article goes further than joining the two companies together: it says that for purposes of determining the extent of their civil liability under this Chapter, they shall be considered as direct employers. That is what gives the solidary liability its bite. The client company is not treated as a mere bystander to the agency's Labor Code violations — for liability purposes, it stands in the same position as if it had employed the worker directly, alongside the agency that did.
What this lets a worker do
Because the liability is solidary rather than shared, a worker owed something under the Labor Code is not required to divide the claim between the agency and the client company, or to prove which of the two is really at fault. Article 109 lets the worker look to either one, or both together, for the complete amount owed. Whichever company ends up paying can then work out between themselves how the loss is ultimately shared — but that is a matter between the two companies, not something the worker has to wait on.
What Article 109 does not decide
The article establishes that the two companies answer together for any violation of any provision of this Code — it does not itself spell out what those violations are, what benefits are owed, or how a claim is pursued. It answers one question only: once a Labor Code violation exists, who can be made to pay for it, and how far each company's responsibility reaches. Everything about proving the underlying violation still has to be established on its own facts.