Facts:

The case involves ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (petitioner) and four respondents: Marlyn Nazareno, Merlou Gerzon, Jennifer Deiparine, and Josephine Lerasan. The events leading to the case began when the respondents were employed as production assistants (PAs) at ABS-CBN's Cebu Broadcasting Station, with employment dates ranging from 1995 to 1996. They were assigned to various radio programs and received a monthly salary of P4,000. The respondents were issued employee identification cards and were required to work a minimum of eight hours daily, including weekends and holidays. Their duties included preparing and arranging commercial broadcasts, coordinating interviews, and logging reports.

On December 19, 1996, ABS-CBN entered into a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with its rank-and-file employees, but the respondents were excluded from this agreement as they were not recognized as part of the bargaining unit. On July 20, 2000, ABS-CBN issued a memorandum reas...

Facts:

Background of the Parties

• ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (petitioner) is engaged in the broadcasting business and operates television and radio stations.
• The company holds the necessary franchise, license, and authority to operate from the National Telecommunications Commission.
• Respondents—Marlyn Nazareno, Merlou Gerzon, Jennifer Deiparine, and Josephine Lerasan—were initially employed by ABS‑CBN as Production Assistants (PAs) assigned to various radio and news programs.

Nature of Employment and Work Assignments

• Respondents were hired as production assistants with a monthly compensation of ₱4,000.
• They were issued ABS‑CBN employee identification cards and were required to work for at least eight hours daily, including Sundays and holidays.
• Their tasks included:
• Coordinating and preparing schedules for programs and interviews.
• Arranging commercials, public service announcements, and news reporting.
• Recording logs, clerical reports, and providing technical assistance during broadcasts.
• The respondents were supervised directly by Assistant Station Manager Dante J. Luzon and News Manager Leo Lastimosa.

Developments and Changes in Assignment

• On December 19, 1996, a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) was entered into between ABS‑CBN and the ABS‑CBN Rank-and-File Employees Union, effective until December 1999.
• ABS‑CBN refused to include the respondents (PAs) in the bargaining unit.
• On July 20, 2000, ABS‑CBN issued a memorandum that reassigned the PAs to non-drama programs and adjusted their schedules and duties accordingly.
• Despite revised assignments, the underlying issue of employment classification remained unsettled.

Filing of the Complaint and Procedural History

• On October 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint before the NLRC for:
• Recognition of Regular Employment Status
• Claims for underpayment of overtime, holiday pay, premium pay, service incentive pay, sick leave pay, and 13th month pay, plus moral damages.
• Due to respondents’ failure to initially submit required position papers within the reglementary period, the Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint without prejudice on April 30, 2001.
• Respondents later filed an Earnest Motion to Refile and admit a belated position paper on June 11, 2001, which was subsequently granted by the Labor Arbiter on June 18, 2001.
• Petitioner filed its position paper contesting the regularity of the respondents, arguing that as Production Assistants or “program employees,” their engagement was tied only to specific programs with fixed durations.

Subsequent Developments and Decisions

• On July 30, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment declaring the respondents as regular employees and awarded them monetary benefits.
• A motion for reconsideration was filed by petitioner and later appealed to the NLRC.
• On November 14, 2002, the NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter’s decision by:
• Ordering ABS‑CBN to pay wage differentials and other CBA-derived benefits amounting to ₱2,561,948.22.
• Directing the delivery of 233 sacks of rice as part of the rice subsidy under the CBA.
• Granting all benefits of the CBA to the respondents after September 30, 2002.
• The Court of Appeals later affirmed the NLRC ruling and the Labor Arbiter’s findings regarding the respondents’ status, despite issues raised by the petitioner on procedural lapses and the interpretation of the CBA.

Issue:

Jurisdictional and Procedural Concerns

• Whether the NLRC had jurisdiction to entertain and rule on respondents’ appeal despite the late filing of their position paper and appeal.
• Whether the reopening or revival of the dismissed complaint was procedurally proper given the lapse of the reglementary period.

Substantive Employment Classification

• Whether the respondents should be classified as regular employees or merely project/program employees based on the nature of their work and employment conditions.
• Whether the functions performed by the respondents were integral, necessary, and desirable to ABS‑CBN’s usual business operations.
• Whether the payment mechanism and work arrangements (such as “talent fees” versus salaries) support an independent contractor status or an employer-employee relationship.

Award of Benefits Under the CBA

• Whether it was proper for the NLRC and subsequently the CA to grant and compute monetary benefits under the 1996‑1999 CBA for respondents who were not originally included in the bargaining unit.
• Determining if exclusion from the CBA on the basis of misclassification as project employees was justified.

Due Process and Opportunity to Be Heard

• Whether petitioner’s due process rights were violated by the Labor Arbiter’s admission of the belatedly filed position paper.
• Whether technical lapses in filing procedures should preclude the substantive determination of employment status.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)