71. Kamaya Point Hotel vs.

NLRC GR 86200, Feb 25, 1992

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(