G.R. No. 164156 - ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. vs. Nazareno

ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (“petitioner”) operates television and radio stations under franchise and NTC license.
Respondents Marlyn Nazareno, Merlou Gerzon, Jennifer Deiparine and Josephine Lerasan were hired as Production Assistants (PAs) between 1995 and 1998 at a monthly salary of ₱4,000, issued employee IDs, and required to work eight hours daily, including Sundays and holidays, under the supervision of station managers.

PAs performed tasks such as preparing and arranging commercial broadcasts, coordinating interviews and schedules, facilitating public service announcements, and logging clerical reports.
Work schedules varied by employee but generally covered early mornings to late evenings; duties were program-specific yet continuous over years.

On December 19, 1996, ABS-CBN and its Rank-and-File Employees Union executed a CBA effective December 11, 1996 to December 11, 1999.
Petitioner excluded PAs from the bargaining unit and, by memorandum dated July 20, 2000, reassigned them to non-drama programs or different departments without CBA coverage.

October 12, 2000 – Respondents filed before the NLRC a complaint for recognition as regular employees and for underpayment of various benefits.
April 30, 2001 – Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint without prejudice for respondents’ failure to file position papers.
June 18, 2001 – On respondents’ motion, the Labor Arbiter allowed refiling and admitted their position papers.

July 30, 2001 – Labor Arbiter declared respondents regular employees and awarded ₱52,910 collectively.
November 14, 2002 – NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision, granted CBA benefits through September 30, 2002 (₱2,561,948.22) plus 233 sacks of rice and future CBA benefits.
February 10, 2004 – Court of Appeals denied petitioner’s certiorari petition, affirmed NLRC’s rulings on jurisdiction, regular status, and CBA benefits.
September 26, 2006 – Supreme Court decision under review.

Whether the NLRC and CA had jurisdiction despite respondents’ belated appeal and late position papers.
Whether respondents are regular employees or merely project/program employees or independent contractors.
Whether non-union respondents can validly claim benefits under the CBA from which they were excluded.