1) Kamaya Point Hotel employed members of the Federation of Free Workers including respondent Memia Quiambao. The hotel previously granted a 13th month pay but stopped operations in January 1982 due to issues with hosting Libyan scholars.
2) In April 1984, the Federation of Free Workers filed a complaint against the hotel for illegal suspension and non-payment of 13th month pay. The executive labor arbiter ordered payment of 13th month pay for 1982 but the NLRC set aside monetary benefits under the CBA.
3) The NLRC affirmed the grant of 13th month pay, reasoning it had become a company practice. However, the Court ruled that no law mandates 13th month pay and it is
1) Kamaya Point Hotel employed members of the Federation of Free Workers including respondent Memia Quiambao. The hotel previously granted a 13th month pay but stopped operations in January 1982 due to issues with hosting Libyan scholars.
2) In April 1984, the Federation of Free Workers filed a complaint against the hotel for illegal suspension and non-payment of 13th month pay. The executive labor arbiter ordered payment of 13th month pay for 1982 but the NLRC set aside monetary benefits under the CBA.
3) The NLRC affirmed the grant of 13th month pay, reasoning it had become a company practice. However, the Court ruled that no law mandates 13th month pay and it is
1) Kamaya Point Hotel employed members of the Federation of Free Workers including respondent Memia Quiambao. The hotel previously granted a 13th month pay but stopped operations in January 1982 due to issues with hosting Libyan scholars.
2) In April 1984, the Federation of Free Workers filed a complaint against the hotel for illegal suspension and non-payment of 13th month pay. The executive labor arbiter ordered payment of 13th month pay for 1982 but the NLRC set aside monetary benefits under the CBA.
3) The NLRC affirmed the grant of 13th month pay, reasoning it had become a company practice. However, the Court ruled that no law mandates 13th month pay and it is
Facts: Respondent Memia Quiambao with thirty others who are members o pri!ate respondent Federation o Free "or#ers $FF"% were emp&oyed by petitioner as hote& 'rew( )n the basis o the proitabi&ity o the 'ompany*s business operations, mana+ement +ranted a 1,th month pay to its emp&oyees startin+ in 19-9( .n /anuary 1982, operations 'eased to +i!e way to the hote&*s 'on!ersion into a trainin+ 'enter or 0ibyan s'ho&ars( ( 1owe!er, due to te'hni'a& and inan'in+ prob&ems, the 0ibyans pre2terminated the pro+ram on /u&y -, 1982, &ea!in+ petitioner without any business, aside rom the a't that it was not paid or the use o the hote& premises and in addition had to underta#e repairs o the premises dama+ed by the 0ibyan students( 3&thou+h petitioner reopened the hote& premises to the pub&i', it was not ab&e to pi'#2up its &ost patrona+e( .n a 'oup&e o months it ee'ted a retren'hment pro+ram unti& ina&&y on /anuary -, 198,, it tota&&y '&osed its business( )n 3pri& 18, 1984, pri!ate respondent Federation o Free "or#ers $FF"%5 a &e+itimate &abor or+ani6ation, i&ed a 'omp&aint a+ainst petitioner or i&&e+a& suspension, !io&ation o the 783 and non2payment o the 1,th month pay( 9:e'uti!e 0abor 3rbiter ordered ;amaya <oint 1ote& to pay the 1,th month pay or 1982 o a&& its ran# and i&e emp&oyees and to pay the monetary e=ui!a&ent o the beneits o then e:istin+ 7o&&e'ti!e 8ar+ainin+ 3+reement whi'h wi&& e:pire on 1 /u&y 198,( >0R7 set aside the award o monetary beneits under the 783 but airmed the +rant o the 1,th month pay or the reason that it already ripened into a company practice which respondent company cannot withdraw unilaterally without violating article 100 of the Labor Code( Issue: "hether or not respondents are entit&ed the 1, th month pay in 1982? Ruling: @here is no &aw that mandates the payment o the 1,th month pay neither is there stipu&ation as to su'h e:tra remuneration in the 783( @he +rantin+ o the 1,th month pay is a mana+ement prero+ati!e whi'h 'annot be or'ed upon the emp&oyer( .t is patent&y ob!ious that 3rti'&e 100 is '&ear&y without app&i'abi&ity( @he date o ee'ti!ity o the 0abor 7ode is May 1, 19-,( .n the 'ase at bar, petitioner e:tended its 1,th month pay be+innin+ 19-9 unti& 1981( "hat is demanded is payment o the 1,th month pay or 1982( .ndubitab&y rom these a'ts a&one, 3rti'&e 100 o the 0abor 7ode 'annot app&y(