The Labor Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice modified, through the ruling SL913-2026, of July 29, 2026, the interpretation given to the moratory compensation under Article 65 of the Substantive Labor Code. This change has a direct practical effect for any employer that ends an employment relationship without paying wages or social benefits, and for the employee who decides to claim those amounts through judicial action some time after the termination of the contract.
I. What Is the Moratory Compensation Under Article 65 of the CST?
Article 65 of the Substantive Labor Code, as amended by Law 789 of 2002, provides that if the employer does not pay the employee the wages and benefits owed when the contract ends, it must recognize, as compensation, one day's wages for each day of delay. For employees earning more than one monthly legal minimum wage, this sanction applies during the first twenty-four (24) months counted from the termination of the contract; once that period has elapsed, if the employee has not gone to court, the employer only has to pay default interest at the maximum free-allocation credit rate until payment is made.
II. The Rule That Used to Apply: the 24-Month “Time-Bar”
Under the traditional interpretation of the Labor Chamber, if an employee earning more than one minimum wage filed the claim after those 24 months had elapsed, they lost the right to collect the full moratory compensation for that first period and were limited to default interest, a considerably lower amount. In practice, this acted as an incentive for some employers to prolong disputes over final settlements, knowing that the passage of time reduced their financial exposure if the former employee took a long time to sue.
III. What Ruling SL913-2026 Changes
According to the analysis published by the Department of Labor and Social Security Law of Universidad Externado de Colombia and coverage from various specialized media outlets, the Supreme Court of Justice changed its criterion in ruling SL913-2026: filing the judicial claim after the 24 months following termination of the contract no longer automatically eliminates the employee's right to the moratory compensation accrued during that first period, provided it is shown that the employer's failure to pay was not due to justifiable reasons (that is, that it did not act in good faith).
In other words, the employee's mere delay in going to the labor courts is, by itself, no longer grounds to exempt the employer from the full sanction for the first 24 months.
IV. The Case That Gave Rise to the Change in Criterion
According to reports from outlets such as Infobae and Pulzo, the case that led to SL913-2026 involved an employee (identified in those news reports as Anderson Jiménez Villegas) against several energy-sector companies, including Energía Integral Andina S.A. (in restructuring), Edatel S.A., and UNE EPM Telecomunicaciones S.A. The employment contract reportedly ended on May 22, 2018, with unpaid social benefits of approximately $1,550,280 Colombian pesos, and the Court, applying the new criterion, reportedly set moratory compensation of close to $45.5 million Colombian pesos. This information comes from press coverage of the ruling; Iniciativa Legal did not have access to the full text of the decision at the time of this publication and recommends that anyone with a similar case verify the exact case number with the Supreme Court of Justice.
V. What This Means for Employers
- The financial risk of an unpaid or underpaid final settlement increases: it is no longer enough to wait 24 months without the former employee suing in order to reduce the exposure to mere default interest.
- It reinforces the importance of correctly and promptly settling and paying wages, social benefits, and other labor obligations when ending any employment contract.
- The employer's good faith remains a central element of analysis: having clear support for the reasons for non-payment (for example, a genuine dispute over the amount owed) remains relevant to the defense.
VI. What This Means for Employees
- In practice, this broadens protection for those who take time to go to the labor courts after their contract ends without receiving full payment of what they are owed.
- It is still advisable not to unnecessarily delay starting legal action, both for evidentiary reasons and because of the statute of limitations on other labor rights.
VII. Recommendations from Iniciativa Legal
- If you are an employer, review your contract settlement processes to ensure timely and full payment of wages and benefits, and properly document any legitimate reason for delay.
- If you are an employee and have unpaid wages or benefits from an employment relationship that has already ended, it is advisable to seek legal advice as soon as possible to assess the viability of a claim and the amounts you may be entitled to.
- At Iniciativa Legal, we assist both companies and employees in assessing and handling this type of labor claim in Colombia.
Sources consulted
- Substantive Labor Code, Article 65 (as amended by Law 789 of 2002) — Secretariat of the Senate of the Republic
- Universidad Externado de Colombia, Department of Labor and Social Security Law, “Moratory Compensation under Article 65 of the CST after SL913-2026” — derlaboral.uexternado.edu.co
- Infobae Colombia, “Millions of Workers in Colombia Could Get More Money When Their Salary Payment Is Delayed: There Is a New Condition” — infobae.com
- Pulzo, “Workers Could Get More Money If Their Salary Payment Is Delayed; Court Announces Change” — pulzo.com
- Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia, Labor Cassation Chamber — Case Reports and Bulletins — cortesuprema.gov.co
This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any particular case. If you have a situation related to the payment of wages, social benefits, or labor settlements, contact us for a specific assessment of your case.