Pesongco v. Glorious Throne Data, Inc.

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 256696. September 13, 2021.]

DANICA Y. PESONGCO, DANISSA Y. PESONGCO, AND LINDZY RESURRECCION, petitioners,vs. GLORIOUS THRONE DATA, INC., ATTY. DANILO V. ROLEDA, AND LEO HWANG, respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 September 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 256696 (Danica Y. Pesongco, Danissa Y. Pesongco, and Lindzy Resurreccion v. Glorious Throne Data, Inc., Atty. Danilo V. Roleda, and Leo Hwang). — The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners Danica Y. Pesongco (Danica), Danissa Y. Pesongco (Danissa), and Lindzy Resurreccion's (collectively, petitioners) motion 1 for extension of thirty (30) days from the expiration of the reglementary period within which to file a petition for review on certiorari.

After a judicious study of this case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 2 and AFFIRM the Resolutions dated October 29, 2020 3 and May 31, 2021 4 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 165401, for failure of petitioners to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in finding no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the National Labor Relations Commission in holding that petitioners Danica and Danissa are not entitled to 13th month pay, deleting the awards of moral and exemplary damages in favor of petitioners, and ruling that respondents Atty. Danilo V. Roleda and Leo Hwang (individual respondents) should not be held solidarily liable with respondent Glorious Throne Data, Inc. (respondent company) for petitioners' claims.

As correctly ruled by the CA, petitioners Danica and Danissa are not entitled to 13th month pay considering the undisputed fact that they held managerial positions. 5 Their claim that the grant of 13th month pay to them had become company policy was correctly rejected by the CA in the absence of substantial evidence of regularity and deliberateness in the grant of such benefit over a significant period of time, 6 especially in light of their allegation that they had never received 13th month pay during their entire tenure with respondent company.

Petitioners likewise failed to show the requisite elements for the award of moral and exemplary damages in their favor, there being dearth of clear and convincing evidence showing that individual respondents acted in bad faith, or that their dismissal constitutes an act oppressive to labor, or done in a manner contrary to good morals, good customs or public policy, or in a wanton, oppressive, or malevolent manner. 7 Since the acts imputed to individual respondents do not support a finding of malice or bad faith, they cannot be held solidarily liable with respondent Company for petitioners' claims.

SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021).

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 3-7.

2. See Petition for Review on Certiorari dated July 28, 2021; id. at 11-32.

3.Id. at 42-59. Penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr. with Associate Justices Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.

4.Id. at 61-62.

5. Memorandum Order No. 28, entitled 'MODIFYING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 851 REQUIRING ALL EMPLOYERS TO PAY THEIR EMPLOYEES A 13TH MONTH PAY,' (August 13, 1986) as implemented by the Revised Guidelines on the Implementation of the 13th Month Pay Law dated November 16, 1987.

6. See Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 208027, April 1, 2019, citing Vergara, Jr. v. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc., 707 Phil. 255, 262-263 (2013).

7. See Gimalay v. CA, G.R. Nos. 240123 and 240125, June 17, 2020.