Case Summary (G.R. No. 16763)
Collective Bargaining Exclusion
When ABS-CBN executed the 1996–1999 CBA with its rank-and-file union, it refused to include production assistants in the bargaining unit, thus denying them union membership and CBA benefits.
Initial Procedural History
After a 2000 memorandum reassigned their duties, respondents filed before the NLRC a complaint for recognition as regular employees and unpaid benefits. The Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint without prejudice for failure to file position papers but later granted their motion to refile and admitted the belated position papers.
Labor Arbiter’s Decision
On July 30, 2001, the Labor Arbiter declared respondents regular employees entitled to ₱52,910 in benefits, but declined to award CBA-based benefits, opining these lay within the Voluntary Arbitrator’s jurisdiction.
NLRC’s Ruling
The NLRC on November 14, 2002, set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ordered ABS-CBN to pay ₱2,561,948.22 in wage differentials and CBA benefits through September 2002, plus rice subsidies and future CBA benefits, holding that:
• The Labor Arbiter properly reopened the case under Article 223 of the Labor Code.
• Respondents, though not union members, filed in their individual capacities under Article 217(6).
• Interpretation of the CBA was unnecessary for granting monetary relief to regular employees.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The CA dismissed ABS-CBN’s certiorari petition, ruling that:
• The late appeal did not deprive the NLRC of jurisdiction, since ABS-CBN’s timely appeal conferred jurisdiction.
• Failure to timely submit a position paper is not grounds to dismiss a complaint.
• Production assistants performed activities necessary to ABS-CBN’s business and thus were regular employees.
• Regular status entitles respondents to all CBA benefits, as the exclusion was based on a mistaken classification.
Issues on Certiorari
ABS-CBN challenged the CA’s affirmation of the NLRC on:
- Jurisdiction over late appeals and belated position papers
- Due process compliance
- Classification of respondents as regular employees
- Award of CBA benefits to non-union members
Jurisdiction over Belated Appeal
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that perfecting an appeal within ten days is jurisdictional but recognized exceptions when strict application would cause greater injustice. Here, ABS-CBN’s timely appeal validated the NLRC’s jurisdiction to resolve the case.
Admissibility of Position Paper and Due Process
The Court held that the Labor Arbiter properly admitted the belated position papers, invoking Article 221 of the Labor Code to eschew technicalities. ABS-CBN suffered no deprivation of due process, having ample opportunity to be heard and to file motions for reconsideration or replies.
Regular Employment Status
Relying on Article 280 of the Labor Code and established jurisprudence, the Court applied the “necessary or desirable” test:
• Respondents’ duties were integral to ABS-CBN’s broadcasting business.
• They rendered continuous service exceeding one year.
• No determinable project scope existed
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 16763)
Facts and Antecedents
- ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation (“petitioner”) operates radio and television stations under franchise and NTC license, selling and utilizing its airtime.
- Four production assistants (PAs)—Marlyn Nazareno, Merlou Gerzon, Jennifer Deiparine, and Josephine Lerasan—were hired between 1995 and 1998 at a fixed monthly compensation of ₱4,000.
- PAs worked minimum eight-hour days (including Sundays and holidays), received company IDs, and performed tasks such as arranging commercial broadcasts, coordinating interviews, scheduling reporters, handling public service announcements, assisting in program anchoring, and logging clerical reports.
- Detailed work schedules revealed shifts ranging from early morning to late evening and weekend assignments under the supervision of station management.
- A Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between ABS-CBN and its rank-and-file union (1996–1999) excluded PAs from coverage as petitioner refused to recognize them as part of the bargaining unit.
- In July 2000, a company memorandum reassigned PAs to non-drama programs and modified their schedules; Gerzon was made full-time PA for the TV news department.
Procedural History
- October 2000: Respondents filed before the NLRC a Complaint for Recognition of Regular Employment Status and claims for various unpaid benefits.
- April 30, 2001: Labor Arbiter dismissed the complaint without prejudice for respondents’ failure to file position papers.
- June 18, 2001: Upon an earnest motion, the Labor Arbiter admitted respondents’ delayed position papers and reopened the case.
- July 30, 2001: Labor Arbiter declared respondents regular employees and awarded ₱52,910 collectively, without CBA benefits, believing CBA interpretation beyond his jurisdiction.
- Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied and treated as an appeal; both parties appealed to the NLRC.
- November 14, 2002: NLRC set aside the Labor Arbiter’s decision and ordered payment of ₱2,561,948.22 in wage differentials and other CBA benefits, delivery of 233 sacks of rice, and future CBA entitlements.
- Petitioner’s NLRC motion for reconsideration was denied; it then filed a Rule 65 petition in th