Entitlement to 13th month pay of managerial employees, award of moral and exemplary damages, and solidary liability of individual respondents
Summary
This Supreme Court case involves former employees of Glorious Throne Data, Inc. claiming entitlement to 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and seeking solidary liability of individual corporate officers. The petitioners, who held managerial positions, argued that 13th month pay had become company policy despite never receiving it during their tenure. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and NLRC rulings, denying all claims. The Court held that managerial employees are excluded from 13th month pay under the law, and petitioners failed to establish company policy through substantial evidence. The Court also found insufficient evidence of bad faith or oppressive conduct to warrant moral and exemplary damages or solidary liability of individual respondents. The case reinforces the statutory exclusion of managerial employees from mandatory 13th month pay and the strict evidentiary requirements for establishing company policy and bad faith in employment termination cases.
Focus of dispute
Entitlement to 13th month pay of managerial employees, award of moral and exemplary damages, and solidary liability of individual respondents
Legal facts
Petitioners Danica Y. Pesongco, Danissa Y. Pesongco, and Lindzy Resurreccion were employees of respondent Glorious Throne Data, Inc. They held managerial positions during their tenure. They claimed entitlement to 13th month pay, moral and exemplary damages, and sought to hold individual respondents Atty. Danilo V. Roleda and Leo Hwang solidarily liable with the company. Petitioners alleged that they had never received 13th month pay during their entire tenure with respondent company, but claimed it had become company policy.
Judgement and reasoning
{"Court of Appeals (CA)": "Affirmed the NLRC ruling in Resolution dated October 29, 2020, finding no grave abuse of discretion. Correctly ruled that petitioners are not entitled to 13th month pay considering they held managerial positions. Rejected their claim that grant of 13th month pay had become company policy due to absence of substantial evidence of regularity and deliberateness over significant period. Motion for reconsideration denied in Resolution dated May 31, 2021.", "National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)": "Held that petitioners Danica and Danissa are not entitled to 13th month pay, deleted the awards of moral and exemplary damages in favor of petitioners, and ruled that individual respondents should not be held solidarily liable with respondent company for petitioners' claims.", "Supreme Court (SC)": "Denied the petition and affirmed the CA Resolutions. Found that petitioners failed to sufficiently show that CA committed reversible error. Confirmed that managerial employees are not entitled to 13th month pay under the law. Ruled that petitioners failed to show requisite elements for moral and exemplary damages, lacking clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or oppressive conduct. Individual respondents cannot be held solidarily liable absent malice or bad faith."}