Solidary Liability. If the Tenant is comprised of more than one person or corporation, each of them shall be solidarily liable for the performance of the obligations set forth in this Lease.
Solidary Liability. If several persons have signed this lease, their liability is solidary, so that each person shall be liable for all of the obligations under this Lease, without division and discussion benefits.
Solidary Liability. If more than one person executes this Guaranty as Guarantor, each such persons shall be liable for the obligations hereunder on a SOLIDARY basis. Not in limitation of the forgoing, LHC, in its reasonable discretion, may:
Solidary Liability. EACH BORROWER ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT IT IS SOLIDARILY (JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY) LIABLE WITH THE OTHER BORROWER FOR THE PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE OF ALL OBLIGATIONS FROM TIME TO TIME OWING HEREUNDER AND UNDER THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS EXECUTED BY EITHER OR BOTH OF THE BORROWERS.
Solidary Liability. Where several Grantors have signed the present Deed or further become liable for the obligations of the Grantor, each such person shall be solidarily (jointly and severally) liable toward the Trustee for the performance of all the Secured Obligations. “
Solidary Liability. Guarantor agrees that its liability and obligations in favor of Creditor shall be joint, several and in solidor with Client and all other guarantors of the Guaranteed Obligations, and that a separate action or actions may be brought and prosecuted against Guarantor to enforce Creditor's rights under this Guaranty, whether action is brought against Client or whether Client is joined in any such action or actions. Guarantor agrees that any releases which may be given by Creditor to Client or any other guarantor shall not release it from this Guaranty.
Solidary Liability. If Borrower consists of more than one natural persons and/or entities, the liability of each of them for Borrower’s obligations under the MRLF Legal Documents shall be solidary.
Solidary Liability. The Guarantor shall assume solidary liability with the Customer with respect to the Obligations and shall waive the benefit of discussion and division, as well as any notice of exercise by the Beneficiary of any right or security.
Solidary Liability. 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. For purposes of determining the extent of their civil liability under this Chapter, they shall be considered as direct employers.
Solidary Liability. The principal shall be deemed as the direct employer of the contractual employees and therefore, solidarily liable with the contractor or subcontractor for whatever monetary claims the contractual employees may have against the former in the case of violations as provided for in Sections 5 (LaborOnly contracting), 6 (Prohibitions), 8 (Rights of Contractual Employees) and 16 (Delisting) of these Rules. In addition, the principal shall also be solidarily liable in case the contract between the principal and contractor or subcontractor is preterminated for reasons not attributable to the fault of the contractor or subcontractor. 68 Noblejas v. Italian Maritime Academy Phils., Inc., G.R. No. 207888, June 9, 2014. Recall that Memo 2010-19 dated August 7, 2010 indefinitely suspended Xxxxx from work. This is in hew with Xxxxx’s allegation in his complaint that on even date, he was prevented by WM MFG’s security guard from proceeding to his work station, and was told to withdraw his belongings from his locker. Noteworthy, however, is that while Memo 2010- 19 merely imposed an indefinite period of suspension, WM MFG’s true intention––to sever its ties with Dalag––is brought to the fore by its letter dated August 9, 2010, informing Golden Rock that it no longer requires respondent Xxxxx’s services.69 We cannot subscribe to petitioner’s contrary view that Xxxxx was never terminated, legally or otherwise, and that it was he who abandoned his employment. On this point, the teaching in MZR Industries v. Colambot70 is apropos: In a number of cases, this Court consistently held that to constitute abandonment of work, two elements must be present: first, the employee must have failed to report for work or must have been absent without valid or justifiable reason; and second, there must have been a clear intention on the part of the employee to sever the employer-employee relationship manifested by some overt act. In the instant case, other than Xxxxxxxx’s failure to report back to work after suspension, petitioners failed to present any evidence which tend to show his intent to abandon his work. It is a settled rule that mere absence or failure to report for work is not enough to amount to abandonment of work. There must be a concurrence of the intention to abandon and some overt acts from which an employee may be deduced as having no more intention to work. On this point, the CA was correct when it held that: Mere absence or failure to report for work, even after notice t...
