FIRST DIVISION

ABS-CBN BROADCASTING G.R. No. 164156

CORPORATION,
Petitioner, Present

PANGANIBAN, C.J., Chairperson,

YNARES-SANTIAGO,
- versus - AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR., and
CHICO-NAZARIO, JJ.

MARLYN NAZARENO, Promulgated:

MERLOU GERZON,
JENNIFER DEIPARINE,
and JOSEPHINE LERASAN,
Respondents. September 26, 2006
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

DECISION

CALLEJO, SR., J.:

BeforeusisapetitionforreviewoncertiorarioftheDecision[1]oftheCourt
ofAppeals(CA)inCAG.R.SPNo.76582andtheResolutiondenyingthemotion
forreconsiderationthereof.TheCAaffirmedtheDecision [2]andResolution[3]of
theNationalLaborRelationsCommission(NLRC)inNLRCCaseNo.V000762
2001 (RAB Case No. VII1016612001) which likewise affirmed, with
modification,thedecisionoftheLaborArbiterdeclaringtherespondentsMarlyn
Nazareno,MerlouGerzon,JenniferDeiparineandJosephineLerasanasregular
employees.
TheAntecedents

PetitionerABSCBNBroadcastingCorporation(ABSCBN)isengagedin
thebroadcastingbusinessandownsanetworkoftelevisionandradiostations,
whose operations revolve around the broadcast, transmission, and relay of
telecommunicationsignals.Itsellsanddealsinorotherwiseutilizestheairtimeit
generates from its radio and television operations. It has a franchise as a
broadcastingcompany,andwaslikewiseissuedalicenseandauthoritytooperate
bytheNationalTelecommunicationsCommission.

PetitioneremployedrespondentsNazareno,Gerzon,Deiparine,andLerasan
asproductionassistants(PAs)ondifferentdates.Theywereassignedatthenews
andpublicaffairs,forvariousradioprogramsintheCebuBroadcastingStation,
withamonthlycompensationofP4,000.TheywereissuedABSCBNemployees
identificationcardsandwererequiredtoworkforaminimumofeighthoursaday,
includingSundaysandholidays.Theyweremadetoperformthefollowingtasks
andduties:

a) Prepare, arrange airing of commercial broadcasting based on the daily

operationsloganddigicartofrespondentABSCBN;

b) Coordinate,arrangepersonalitiesforairinterviews;

c) Coordinate,preparescheduleofreportersforschedulednewsreportingand
leadinorincomingreports;

d) Facilitate, prepare and arrange airtime schedule for public service
announcementandcomplaints;

e) Assist,anchorprograminterview,etc;and

f) Record,logclericalreports,manbasedcontrolradio.[4]

Theirrespectiveworkinghourswereasfollows:

NameTimeNo.ofHours
1.MarleneNazareno4:30A.M.8:00A.M.7
8:00A.M.12:00noon
2.JenniferDeiparine4:30A.M.12:00M.N.(sic)7
3.JoySanchez1:00P.M.10:00P.M.(Sunday)9hrs.
9:00A.M.6:00P.M.(WF)9hrs.
4.MerlouGerzon9:00A.M.6:00P.M.9hrs.[5]
The PAs were under the control and supervision of Assistant Station
ManagerDanteJ.Luzon,andNewsManagerLeoLastimosa.

OnDecember 19, 1996, petitioner and the ABSCBN RankandFile
EmployeesexecutedaCollective BargainingAgreement(CBA) tobeeffective
duringtheperiodfromDecember11,1996toDecember11,1999.However,since
petitionerrefusedtorecognizePAsaspartofthebargainingunit,respondentswere
notincludedtotheCBA.[6]

OnJuly20,2000,petitioner,throughDanteLuzon,issuedaMemorandum
informingthePAsthateffectiveAugust1,2000,theywouldbeassignedtonon
dramaprograms,andthattheDYABstudiooperationswouldbehandledbythe
studiotechnician.Thus,theirrevisedscheduleandotherassignmentswouldbeas
follows:

MondaySaturday
4:30A.M.8:00A.M.MarleneNazareno.
MissNazarenowillthenbeassignedattheResearchDept.
From8:00A.M.to12:00

4:30P.M.12:00MNJenniferDeiparine

Sunday
5:00A.M.1:00P.M.JenniferDeiparine
1:00P.M.10:00P.M.JoySanchez

Respondent Gerzon was assigned as the fulltime PA of the TV News

DepartmentreportingdirectlytoLeoLastimosa.

 OnOctober 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of
Regular Employment Status, Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay,
PremiumPay,ServiceIncentivePay,SickLeavePay,and13 thMonthPaywith
DamagesagainstthepetitionerbeforetheNLRC.TheLaborArbiterdirectedthe
partiestosubmittheirrespectivepositionpapers.Uponrespondentsfailuretofile
their position papers within the reglementary period, Labor Arbiter Jose G.
Gutierrez issued an Order dated
April30,2001,dismissingthecomplaintwithoutprejudiceforlackofinterestto
pursue the case.Respondents received a copy of the Order onMay 16, 2001.
[7]
InsteadofrefilingtheircomplaintwiththeNLRCwithin10daysfromMay16,
2001,theyfiled,onJune11,2001,anEarnestMotiontoRefileComplaintwith
MotiontoAdmitPositionPaperandMotiontoSubmitCaseForResolution. [8]The
LaborArbitergrantedthismotioninanOrderdatedJune18,2001,andforthwith
admittedthepositionpaperofthecomplainants.Respondentsmadethefollowing
allegations:

1.ComplainantswereengagedbyrespondentABSCBNasregularand
fulltimeemployeesforacontinuousperiodofmorethanfive(5)yearswitha
monthlysalaryrateofFourThousand(P4,000.00)pesosbeginning1995upuntil
thefilingofthiscomplaintonNovember20,2000.

Machine copies of complainants ABSCBN Employees Identification
Cardandsalaryvouchersareheretoattachedasfollows,thus:

I. JenniferDeiparine:
ExhibitAABSCBNEmployeesIdentificationCard
ExhibitB,ABSCBNSalaryVoucherfromNov.
ExhibitB1&1999toJuly2000atP4,000.00
ExhibitB2
Dateemployed:September15,1995
Lengthofservice:5years&nine(9)months

II.MerlouGerzonABSCBNEmployeesIdentificationCard
ExhibitC
ExhibitD
ExhibitD1&
ExhibitD2ABSCBNSalaryVoucherfromMarch
1999toJanuary2001atP4,000.00
Dateemployed:September1,1995
Lengthofservice:5years&10months

 III. MarleneNazareno
ExhibitEABSCBNEmployeesIdentificationCard
ExhibitEABSCBNSalaryVoucherfromNov.
ExhibitE1&1999toDecember2000
Exhibit:E2
Dateemployed:April17,1996
Lengthofservice:5yearsandone(1)month

IV. JoySanchezLerasan
ExhibitFABSCBNEmployeesIdentificationCard
ExhibitF1ABSCBNSalaryVoucherfromAug.
ExhibitF2&2000toJan.2001
ExhibitF3
ExhibitF4CertificationdatedJuly6,2000
Acknowledgingregularstatusof
ComplainantJoySanchezLerasan
SignedbyABSCBNAdministrative
OfficerMayKimaHife
Dateemployed:April15,1998
Lengthofservice:3yrs.andone(1)month[9]


Respondents insisted that they belonged to a work pool from which
petitionerchosepersonstobegivenspecificassignmentsatitsdiscretion,andwere
thus under its direct supervision and control regardless of nomenclature.They
prayedthatjudgmentberenderedintheirfavor,thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Honorable Arbiter is most
respectfullyprayed,toissueanordercompellingdefendantstopaycomplainants
thefollowing:

1.OneHundredThousandPesos(P100,000.00)each
andbywayofmoraldamages;
2.Minimumwagedifferential;
3.Thirteenthmonthpaydifferential;
4.Unpaidserviceincentiveleavebenefits;
5.Sickleave;
6.Holidaypay;
7.Premiumpay;
8.Overtimepay;
9.Nightshiftdifferential.

 Complainants further pray of this Arbiter to declare them regular and
permanentemployeesofrespondentABSCBNasaconditionprecedentfortheir
admissionintotheexistingunionandcollectivebargainingunitofrespondent
companywheretheymayassuchacquireorotherwiseperformtheirobligations
theretoorenjoythebenefitsduetherefrom.

Complainantsprayforsuchotherreliefsasarejustandequitableunderthe
premises.[10]


Foritspart,petitionerallegedinitspositionpaperthattherespondentswere
PAswhobasicallyassistintheconductofaparticularprogramranbyananchoror
talent.Amongtheirdutiesincludemonitoringandreceivingincomingcallsfrom
listenersandfieldreportersandcallsofnewssources;generally,theyperformleg
work for the anchors during a program or a particular production. They are
consideredintheindustryasprogramemployeesinthat,asdistinguishedfrom
regular or station employees, they are basically engaged by the station for a
particularorspecificprogrambroadcastedbytheradiostation.Petitionerasserted
that as PAs, the complainants were issued talent information sheets which are
updatedfromtimetotime,andarethusmadethebasistodeterminetheprograms
to which they shall later be called on to assist. The program assignments of
complainantswereasfollows:

a. ComplainantNazarenoassistsintheprograms:
1) NagbagangBalita(earlymorningedition)
2) InforHayupan
3) Arangkada(morningedition)
4) NagbagangBalita(middayedition)

b. ComplainantDeiparineassistsintheprograms:
1) Unzanith
2) SerbisyodeArevalo
3) Arangkada(eveningedition)
4) BalitangK(localversion)
5) AbanteSubu
6) PangutanaLang

c. ComplainantGerzonassistsintheprogram:
1) OnMondaysandTuesdays:
(a) Unzanith
(b) SerbisyodeArevalo
(c) Arangkada(eveningedition)
 (d) BalitangK(localversion)
(e) AbanteSugbu
(f) PangutanaLang
2) OnThursdays
NagbagangBalita
3) OnSaturdays
(a)NagbagangBalita
(b)InfoHayupan
(c)Arangkada(morningedition)
(d) NagbagangBalita(middayedition)
4) OnSundays:
(a) SiestaSerenata
(b) SundayChismisan
(c) TimbangansaHustisya
(d) SayriangLungsod
(e) Haranahan[11]


 PetitionermaintainedthatPAs,reporters,anchorsandtalentsoccasionally
sideline for other programs they produce, such as drama
talents in other productions.As program employees, a PAs engagement is
coterminouswiththecompletionoftheprogram,andmaybeextended/renewed
providedthattheprogramisongoing;aPAmayalsobeassignedtonewprograms
uponthecancellationofoneprogramandthecommencementofanother.Assuch
programemployees,theircompensationiscomputedonaprogrambasis,afixed
amountforperformanceservicesirrespectiveofthetimeconsumed.Atanyrate,
petitionerclaimed,asthepayrollwillshow,respondentswerepaidallsalariesand
benefitsduethemunderthelaw.[12]

PetitioneralsoallegedthattheLaborArbiterhadnojurisdictiontoinvolve
theCBAandinterpretthesame,especiallysincerespondentswerenotcoveredby
thebargainingunit.

OnJuly 30, 2001, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the
respondents,anddeclaredthattheywereregularemployeesofpetitioner;assuch,
theywereawardedmonetarybenefits.Thefalloofthedecisionreads:

WHEREFORE,theforegoingpremisesconsidered,judgmentishereby
rendereddeclaringthecomplainantsregularemployeesoftherespondentABS
CBN Broadcasting Corporation and directing the same respondent to pay
complainantsasfollows:


IMerlouA.GerzonP12,025.00
IIMarlynNazareno12,025.00
IIIJenniferDeiparine12,025.00
IVJosephineSanchezLerazan12,025.00
_________
P48,100.00

plusten(10%)percentAttorneysFeesoraTOTALaggregateamountofPESOS:
FIFTYTWOTHOUSANDNINEHUNDREDTEN(P52,910.00).

RespondentVenerandaC.Syisabsolvedfromanyliability.

SOORDERED.[13]

However,theLaborArbiterdidnotawardmoneybenefitsasprovidedinthe
CBAonhisbeliefthathehadnojurisdictiontointerpretandapplytheagreement,
asthesamewaswithinthejurisdictionoftheVoluntaryArbitratorasprovidedin
Article261oftheLaborCode.

Respondents counsel received a copy of the decision onAugust 29,

2001.Respondent Nazareno received her copy onAugust 27, 2001, while the
otherrespondentsreceivedtheirsonSeptember8,2001.Respondentssignedand
filedtheirAppealMemorandumonSeptember18,2001.

Foritspart,petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichtheLabor
Arbiterdeniedandconsideredasanappeal,conformablywithSection5,RuleV,
oftheNLRCRulesofProcedure.Petitionerforthwithappealedthedecisiontothe
NLRC,whilerespondentsfiledapartialappeal.

Initsappeal,petitionerallegedthefollowing:

1.ThattheLaborArbitererredinrevivingorreopeningthiscasewhichhad
long been dismissed without prejudice for more than thirty (30) calendar
days;

2. ThattheLaborArbitererredindeprivingtherespondentofitsConstitutional
righttodueprocessoflaw;

3. That the Labor Arbiter erred in denying respondents Motion for
Reconsiderationonaninterlocutoryorderonthegroundthatthesameisa
prohibitedpleading;

4. ThattheLaborArbitererredwhenheruledthatthecomplainantsareregular
employeesoftherespondent;

5. ThattheLaborArbitererredwhenheruledthatthecomplainantsareentitled
to13thmonthpay,serviceincentiveleavepayandsalarydifferential;and

6. ThattheLaborArbitererredwhenheruledthatcomplainantsareentitledto
attorneysfees.[14]


OnNovember 14, 2002, the NLRC rendered judgment modifying the
decisionoftheLaborArbiter.Thefalloofthedecisionreads:

 WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thedecisionofLaborArbiterJose
G.Gutierrezdated30July2001isSETASIDEandVACATEDandanewone
is enteredORDERINGrespondent ABSCBN Broadcasting Corporation, as
follows:

1. To paycomplainants oftheir wage differentials and otherbenefits arising
fromtheCBAasof30September2002intheaggregateamountofTwo
MillionFiveHundred,SixtyOneThousandNineHundredFortyEightPesos
and22/100(P2,561,948.22),brokendownasfollows:
a.Deiparine,JenniferP716,113.49
b.Gerzon,Merlou716,113.49
c.Nazareno,Marlyn716,113.49
d.Lerazan,JosephineSanchez413,607.75
TotalP2,561,948.22

2. TodelivertothecomplainantsTwoHundredThirtyThree(233)sacksofrice
asof30September2002representingtheirricesubsidyintheCBA,broken
downasfollows:
a.Deiparine,Jennifer60Sacks
b.Gerzon,Merlou60Sacks
c.Nazareno,Marlyn60Sacks
d.Lerazan,JosephineSanchez53Sacks
Total233Sacks;and

3. TogranttothecomplainantsallthebenefitsoftheCBAafter30September
2002.

SOORDERED.[15]



The NLRC declared that the Labor Arbiter acted conformably with the
LaborCodewhenitgrantedrespondentsmotiontorefilethecomplaintandadmit
theirpositionpaper.AlthoughrespondentswerenotpartiestotheCBAbetween
petitioner and the ABSCBN RankandFile Employees Union, the NLRC
neverthelessgrantedandcomputedrespondentsmonetarybenefitsbasedonthe
1999CBA,whichwaseffectiveuntilSeptember2002.TheNLRCalsoruledthat
theLaborArbiterhadjurisdictionoverthecomplaintofrespondentsbecausethey
actedintheirindividualcapacitiesandnotasmembersoftheunion.Theirclaim
formonetarybenefitswaswithinthecontextofArticle217(6)oftheLaborCode.
Thevalidityofrespondentsclaimdoesnotdependupontheinterpretationofthe
CBA.

 TheNLRCruledthatrespondentswereentitledtothebenefitsunderthe
CBA because they were regular employees who contributed to the profits of
petitionerthroughtheirlabor.TheNLRCcitedtherulingofthisCourtinNew
PacificTimber&SupplyCompanyv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission.[16]

Petitionerfiledamotionforreconsideration,whichtheNLRCdenied.

PetitionerthusfiledapetitionforcertiorariunderRule65oftheRulesof
CourtbeforetheCA,raisingbothproceduralandsubstantiveissues,asfollows:(a)
whether the NLRC acted without jurisdiction in admitting the appeal of
respondents;(b)whethertheNLRCcommittedpalpableerrorinscrutinizingthe
reopeningandrevivalofthecomplaintofrespondentswiththeLaborArbiterupon
duenoticedespitethelapseof10daysfromtheirreceiptoftheJuly30,2001
OrderoftheLaborArbiter;(c)whetherrespondentswereregularemployees;(d)
whether the NLRC acted without jurisdiction in entertaining and resolving the
claim of the respondents under the CBA instead of referring the same to the
VoluntaryArbitratorsasprovidedintheCBA;and(e)whethertheNLRCacted
withgraveabuseofdiscretionwhenitawardedmonetarybenefitstorespondents
undertheCBAalthoughtheyarenotmembersoftheappropriatebargainingunit.


OnFebruary10,2004,theCArenderedjudgmentdismissingthepetition.It
heldthattheperfectionofanappealshallbeupontheexpirationofthelastdayto
appealbyallparties,shouldtherebeseveralpartiestoacase.Sincerespondents
received their copies of the decision onSeptember 8, 2001(except respondent
NazarenowhoreceivedhercopyofthedecisiononAugust27,2001),theyhad
untilSeptember 18, 2001within which to file their Appeal Memorandum.
Moreover,theCAdeclaredthatrespondentsfailuretosubmittheirpositionpaper
ontimeisnotagroundtostrikeoutthepaperfromtherecords,muchlessdismiss
acomplaint.
Anentthesubstantiveissues,theappellatecourtstatedthatrespondentsare
notmereprojectemployees,butregularemployeeswhoperformtasksnecessary
anddesirableintheusualtradeandbusinessofpetitionerandnotjustitsproject
employees.Moreover,theCAadded,theawardofbenefitsaccordedtorankand
fileemployeesunderthe19961999CBAisanecessaryconsequenceoftheNLRC
rulingthatrespondents,asPAs,areregularemployees.


 Findingnomeritinpetitionersmotionforreconsideration,theCAdenied
thesameinaResolution[17]datedJune16,2004.

Petitionerthusfiledtheinstantpetitionforreviewoncertiorariandraises
thefollowingassignmentsoferror:

1.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITHOUT
JURISDICTIONANDGRAVELYERREDINUPHOLDINGTHENATIONAL
LABORRELATIONSCOMMISSIONNOTWITHSTANDINGTHEPATENT
NULLITYOFTHELATTERSDECISIONANDRESOLUTION.

2. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
AFFIRMING THE RULING OF THE NLRC FINDING RESPONDENTS
REGULAREMPLOYEES.

3. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
AFFIRMINGTHERULINGOFTHENLRCAWARDINGCBABENEFITSTO
RESPONDENTS.[18]


Consideringthattheassignmentsoferrorareinterrelated,theCourtshall
resolvethemsimultaneously.

 Petitionerassertsthattheappellatecourtcommittedpalpableandserious
error of law when it affirmed the rulings of the NLRC, and entertained
respondentsappealfromthedecisionoftheLaborArbiterdespitetheadmitted
lapse of the reglementary period within which to perfect
thesame.Petitionerlikewisemaintainsthatthe10dayperiodtoappealmustbe
reckonedfromreceiptofapartyscounsel,notfromthetimethepartylearnsofthe
decision,thatis,noticetocounselisnoticetopartyandnottheotherwayaround.
Finally, petitioner argues that the reopening of a complaint which the Labor
ArbiterhasdismissedwithoutprejudiceisaclearviolationofSection1,RuleVof
theNLRCRules;suchorderofdismissalhadalreadyattainedfinalityandcanno
longerbesetaside.


Respondents,ontheotherhand,allegethattheirlateappealisanonissue
becauseitwaspetitionersowntimelyappealthatempoweredtheNLRCtoreopen
thecase.Theyassertthatalthoughtheappealwasfiled10dayslate,itmaystillbe
givenduecourseintheinterestofsubstantialjusticeasanexceptiontothegeneral
rulethatthenegligenceofacounselbindstheclient.Ontheissueofthelatefiling
oftheirpositionpaper,theymaintainthatthisisnotagroundtostrikeitoutfrom
therecordsordismissthecomplaint.

Wefindnomeritinthepetition.

Weagreewithpetitionerscontentionthattheperfectionofanappealwithin
thestatutoryorreglementaryperiodisnotonlymandatory,butalsojurisdictional;
failuretodosorenderstheassaileddecisionfinalandexecutoryanddeprivesthe
appellatecourtorbodyofthelegalauthoritytoalterthefinaljudgment,muchless
entertain the appeal. However, this Court has time and again ruled that in
exceptionalcases,abelatedappealmaybegivenduecourseifgreaterinjustice
mayoccurifanappealisnotgivenduecoursethanifthereglementaryperiodto
appealwerestrictlyfollowed.[19]TheCourtresortedtothisextraordinarymeasure
evenattheexpenseofsacrificingorderandefficiencyifonlytoservethegreater
principlesofsubstantialjusticeandequity.[20]
Inthecaseatbar,theNLRCdidnotcommitagraveabuseofitsdiscretion
in giving Article 223[21]of the Labor Code a liberal application to prevent the
miscarriageofjustice.Technicalityshouldnotbeallowedtostandinthewayof
equitablyandcompletelyresolvingtherightsandobligationsoftheparties. [22]We
haveheldinacatenaofcasesthattechnicalrulesarenotbindinginlaborcasesand
arenottobeappliedstrictlyiftheresultwouldbedetrimentaltotheworkingman.
[23]

Admittedly,respondentsfailedtoperfecttheirappealfromthedecisionof
the Labor Arbiter within the reglementary period therefor.However, petitioner
perfected its appeal within the period, and since petitioner had filed a timely
appeal,theNLRCacquiredjurisdictionoverthecasetogiveduecoursetoits
appealandrenderthedecisionofNovember14,2002.Caselawisthattheparty
whofailedtoappealfromthedecisionoftheLaborArbitertotheNLRCcanstill
participateinaseparateappealtimelyfiledbytheadversepartyasthesituationis
consideredtobeofgreaterbenefittobothparties.[24]

WefindnomeritinpetitionerscontentionthattheLaborArbiterabusedhis
discretionwhenheadmittedrespondentspositionpaperwhichhadbeenbelatedly
filed.ItbearsstressingthattheLaborArbiterismandatedbylawtouseevery
reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively,
without technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due process.
[25]
Indeed, as stressed by the appellate court, respondents failure to submit a
positionpaperontimeisnotagroundforstrikingoutthepaperfromtherecords,
much less for dismissing a complaint.[26]Likewise, there is simply no truth to
petitioners assertion that it was denied due process when the Labor Arbiter
admittedrespondentspositionpaperwithoutrequiringittofileacommentbefore
admitting said position paper. The essence of due process in administrative
proceedingsissimplyanopportunitytoexplainonessideoranopportunityto
seekreconsiderationoftheactionor rulingcomplainedof.Obviously,thereis
nothing in the records that would suggest that petitioner had absolute lack of
opportunity to be heard.[27]Petitioner had the right to file a motion for
reconsiderationoftheLaborArbitersadmissionofrespondentspositionpaper,
andevenfileaReplythereto.Infact,petitionerfileditspositionpaperonApril2,
2001.ItmustbestressedthatArticle280oftheLaborCodewasencodedinour
statute books to hinder the circumvention by unscrupulous employers of the
employeesrighttosecurityoftenurebyindiscriminatelyandabsolutelyrulingout
all written and oral agreements inharmonious with the concept of regular
employmentdefinedtherein.[28]

WequotewithapprovalthefollowingpronouncementoftheNLRC:

 Thecomplainants,ontheotherhand,contendthatrespondentsassailedthe
Labor Arbiters order dated18 June 2001as violative of the NLRC Rules of
Procedureandassuchisviolativeoftheirrighttoproceduraldueprocess.That
while suggesting that an Order be instead issued by the Labor Arbiter for
complainantstorefilethiscase,respondentsimpliedlysubmitthatthereisnotany
substantial damage or prejudice upon the refiling, even so, respondents
suggestionacknowledgescomplainantsrighttoprosecutethiscase,albeitwiththe
burdenofrepeatingthesameprocedure,thus,entailingadditionaltime,efforts,
litigation cost and precious time for the Arbiter to repeat the same process
twice.Respondents suggestion, betrays its notion of prolonging, rather than
promotingtheearlyresolutionofthecase.

AlthoughtheLaborArbiterinhisOrderdated18June2001whichrevived
and reopened the dismissed case without prejudice beyond the ten (10) day
reglementaryperiodhadinadvertentlyfailedtofollowSection16,RuleV,Rules
ProcedureoftheNLRCwhichstates:

A party may file a motion to revive or reopen a case
dismissed without prejudice within ten (10) calendar days from
receiptofnoticeoftheorderdismissingthesame;otherwise,his
onlyremedyshallbetorefilethecaseinthearbitrationbranchof
origin.

thesameisnotaseriousflawthathadprejudicedtherespondentsrighttodue
process.Thecasecanstillberefiledbecauseithasnotyetprescribed.Anyway,
Article221oftheLaborCodeprovides:

InanyproceedingsbeforetheCommissionoranyofthe
LaborArbiters,therulesofevidenceprevailingincourtsoflawor
equityshallnotbecontrollinganditisthespiritandintentionof
this Code that the Commission andits members and the Labor
Arbitersshalluseeveryandallreasonablemeanstoascertainthe
factsineachcasespeedilyandobjectivelyandwithoutregardto
technicalities of law or procedure, all in the interest of due
process.

TheadmissionbytheLaborArbiterofthecomplainantsPositionPaper
andSupplementalManifestationwhichwerebelatedlyfiledjustonlyshowsthat
heactedwithinhisdiscretionasheisenjoinedbylawtouseeveryreasonable
meanstoascertainthefactsineachcasespeedilyandobjectively,withoutregard
totechnicalitiesoflaworprocedure,allintheinterestofdueprocess.Indeed,the
failuretosubmitapositionpaperontimeisnotagroundforstrikingoutthepaper
from the records, much less for dismissing a complaint in the case of the
 complainant.(UniversityofImmaculateConceptionvs.UICTeachingandNon
TeachingPersonnelEmployees,G.R.No.144702,July31,2001).

In admitting the respondentsposition paper albeit late,
the Labor Arbiter acted within her discretion.In fact, she is
enjoinedbylawtouseeveryreasonablemeanstoascertainthe
factsineachcasespeedilyandobjectively,withouttechnicalities
oflaworprocedure,allintheinterestofdueprocess.(Panliliovs.
NLRC,281SCRA53).

The respondents were given by the Labor Arbiter the opportunity to
submitpositionpaper.Infact,therespondentshadfiledtheirpositionpaperon2
April2001.Whatismaterialinthecomplianceofdueprocessisthefactthatthe
partiesaregiventheopportunitiestosubmitpositionpapers.

Dueprocessrequirementsaresatisfiedwheretheparties
aregiventheopportunitiestosubmitpositionpapers.(Laurence
vs.NLRC,205SCRA737).

Thus,therespondentwasnotdeprivedofitsConstitutionalrighttodue
processoflaw.[29]


Wereject,asbarrenoffactualbasis,petitionerscontentionthatrespondents
are considered as its talents, hence, not regular employees of the broadcasting
company.Petitionersclaimthatthefunctionsperformedbytherespondentsare
notatallnecessary,desirable,orevenvitaltoitstradeorbusinessisbeliedbythe
evidenceonrecord.


CaselawisthatthisCourthasalwaysaccordedrespectandfinalitytothe
findingsoffactoftheCA,particularlyiftheycoincidewiththoseoftheLabor
Arbiter and the National Labor Relations Commission, when supported by
substantialevidence.[30]Thequestionofwhetherrespondentsareregularorproject
employeesorindependentcontractorsisessentiallyfactualinnature;nonetheless,
theCourtisconstrainedtoresolveitduetoitstremendouseffectstothelegionsof
productionassistantsworkinginthePhilippinebroadcastingindustry.

Weagreewithrespondentscontentionthatwhereapersonhasrenderedat
leastoneyearofservice,regardlessofthenatureoftheactivityperformed,or
wheretheworkiscontinuousorintermittent,theemploymentisconsideredregular
aslongastheactivityexists,thereasonbeingthatacustomaryappointmentisnot
indispensable before one may be formally declared as having attained regular
status.Article280oftheLaborCodeprovides:

ART.280.REGULARANDCASUALEMPLOYMENT.Theprovisions
ofwrittenagreementtothecontrarynotwithstandingandregardlessoftheoral
agreementoftheparties,anemploymentshallbedeemedtoberegularwherethe
employeehasbeenengagedtoperformactivitieswhichareusuallynecessaryor
desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer except where the
employmenthasbeenfixedforaspecificprojectorundertakingthecompletionor
terminationofwhichhasbeendeterminedatthetimeoftheengagementofthe
employeeorwheretheworkorservicestobeperformedisseasonalinnatureand
theemploymentisforthedurationoftheseason.


InUniversal Robina Corporation v. Catapang,[31]the Court reiterated the
testindeterminingwhetheroneisaregularemployee:

 Theprimarystandard,therefore,ofdeterminingregularemploymentisthe
reasonableconnectionbetweentheparticularactivityperformedbytheemployee
inrelationtotheusualtradeorbusinessoftheemployer.Thetestiswhetherthe
former is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the
employer. The connection can be
determinedbyconsideringthenatureofworkperformedanditsrelationtothe
schemeoftheparticularbusinessortradeinitsentirety.Also,iftheemployeehas
been performing the job for at least a year, even if the performance is not
continuousandmerelyintermittent,thelawdeemsrepeatedandcontinuingneed
foritsperformanceassufficientevidenceofthenecessityifnotindispensability
ofthatactivitytothebusiness.Hence,theemploymentisconsideredregular,but
onlywithrespecttosuchactivityandwhilesuchactivityexists.[32]


As elaborated by this Court inMagsalin v. National Organization of
WorkingMen:[33]

Even while the language of law might have been more definitive, the
clarity of its spirit and intent,i.e.,to ensure a regular workers security of
tenure,however,canhardlybedoubted.Indeterminingwhetheranemployment
shouldbeconsideredregularornonregular,theapplicabletestisthereasonable
connectionbetweentheparticularactivityperformedbytheemployeeinrelation
totheusualbusinessortradeoftheemployer.Thestandard,suppliedbythelaw
itself, is whether the work undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual
businessortradeoftheemployer,afactthatcanbeassessedbylookingintothe
natureoftheservicesrenderedanditsrelationtothegeneralschemeunderwhich
thebusinessortradeispursuedintheusualcourse.Itisdistinguishedfroma
specific undertaking that is divorced from the normal activities required in
carrying on the particular business or trade.But, although the work to be
performedisonlyforaspecificprojectorseasonal,whereapersonthusengaged
hasbeenperformingthejobforatleastoneyear,eveniftheperformanceisnot
continuousorismerelyintermittent,thelawdeemstherepeatedandcontinuing
need for its performance as being sufficient to indicate the necessity or
desirability of that activity to the business or trade of the employer.The
employmentofsuchpersonisalsothendeemedtoberegularwithrespecttosuch
activityandwhilesuchactivityexists.[34]


Notconsideredregularemployeesareprojectemployees,thecompletion
orterminationofwhichismoreorlessdeterminableatthetimeofemployment,
suchasthoseemployedinconnectionwithaparticularconstructionproject,and
seasonal employees whose employment by its nature is only desirable for a
limitedperiodoftime.Eventhen,anyemployeewhohasrenderedatleastone
yearofservice,whethercontinuousorintermittent,isdeemedregularwithrespect
totheactivityperformedandwhilesuchactivityactuallyexists.


Itisofnomomentthatpetitionerhiredrespondentsastalents.Thefact
thatrespondentsreceivedpreagreedtalentfeesinsteadofsalaries,thattheydid
notobservetherequiredofficehours,andthattheywerepermittedtojoinother
productions during their free time are not conclusive of the nature of their
employment. Respondents cannot be considered talents because they are not
actorsoractressesorradiospecialistsormereclerksorutilityemployees.Theyare
regular employees who perform several different duties under the control and
directionofABSCBNexecutivesandsupervisors.

Thus,therearetwokindsofregularemployeesunderthelaw:(1)those
engaged to perform activities which arenecessary or desirablein the usual
business or trade of the employer; and (2) those casual employees who
haverenderedatleastoneyearofservice,whethercontinuousorbroken,
withrespecttotheactivitiesinwhichtheyareemployed.[35]

Thelawoverridessuchconditionswhichareprejudicialtotheinterestofthe
workerwhoseweakbargainingsituationnecessitatesthesuccoroftheState.What
determineswhetheracertainemploymentisregularorotherwiseisnotthewillor
wordoftheemployer,towhichtheworkeroftentimesacquiesces,muchlessthe
procedureofhiringtheemployeeorthemannerofpayingthesalaryortheactual
timespentatwork.Itisthecharacteroftheactivitiesperformedinrelationtothe
particulartradeorbusinesstakingintoaccountallthecircumstances,andin
somecasesthelengthoftimeofitsperformanceanditscontinuedexistence.[36]Itis
obviousthatoneyearaftertheywereemployedbypetitioner,respondentsbecame
regularemployeesbyoperationoflaw.[37]

 Additionally, respondents cannot be considered as project or program
employeesbecausenoevidencewaspresentedtoshowthatthedurationandscope
oftheprojectweredeterminedorspecifiedatthetimeoftheirengagement.Under
existing jurisprudence,projectcould refer to two distinguishable types of
activities.First,aprojectmayrefertoaparticularjoborundertakingthatiswithin
theregularorusualbusinessoftheemployer,butwhichisdistinctandseparate,
andidentifiableassuch,fromtheotherundertakingsofthecompany.Suchjobor
undertakingbeginsandendsatdeterminedordeterminabletimes.Second,theterm
project mayalsorefer toaparticular joborundertakingthatisnotwithinthe
regular business of the employer. Such a job or undertaking must also be
identifiablyseparateanddistinctfromtheordinaryorregularbusinessoperations
oftheemployer.Thejoborundertakingalsobeginsandendsatdeterminedor
determinabletimes.[38]

Theprincipaltestiswhetherornottheprojectemployeeswereassignedto
carryoutaspecificprojectorundertaking,thedurationandscopeofwhichwere
specifiedatthetimetheemployeeswereengagedforthatproject.[39]

Inthiscase,itisundisputedthatrespondentshadcontinuouslyperformed
thesameactivitiesforanaverageoffiveyears.Theirassignedtasksarenecessary
ordesirableintheusualbusinessortradeofthepetitioner.Thepersistingneedfor
theirservicesissufficientevidenceofthenecessityandindispensabilityofsuch
servicestopetitionersbusinessortrade.[40]Whilelengthoftimemaynotbeasole
controlling test for project employment, it can be a strong factor to determine
whethertheemployeewashiredforaspecificundertakingorinfacttaskedto
performfunctionswhicharevital,necessaryandindispensabletotheusualtradeor
businessof the employer.[41]We note further that petitioner did not report the
termination of respondents employment in the particular project to the
DepartmentofLaborandEmploymentRegionalOfficehavingjurisdictionover
theworkplacewithin30daysfollowingthedateoftheirseparationfromwork,
usingtheprescribedformonemployeestermination/dismissals/suspensions.[42]

Asgleanedfromtherecordsofthiscase,petitioneritselfisnotcertainhow
tocategorizerespondents.Initsearlierpleadings,petitionerclassifiedrespondents
asprogramemployees,andinlaterpleadings,independentcontractors.Program
employees, orproject employees, are different from independent contractors
becauseinthecaseofthelatter,noemployeremployeerelationshipexists.

 Petitioners reliance on the ruling of this Court inSonza v. ABSCBN
BroadcastingCorporation[43]ismisplaced.Inthatcase,theCourtexplainedwhy
JoseSonza,awellknowntelevisionandradiopersonality,wasanindependent
contractorandnotaregularemployee:

A.SelectionandEngagementofEmployee

ABSCBNengagedSONZASservicestocohostitstelevisionandradio
programs because of SONZAS peculiar skills, talent and celebrity
status.SONZAcontendsthatthediscretionusedbyrespondentinspecifically
selecting and hiring complainant over other broadcasters of possibly similar
experience and qualification as complainant belies respondents claim of
independentcontractorship.

Independentcontractorsoftenpresentthemselvestopossessuniqueskills,
expertise or talent to distinguish them from ordinary employees.The specific
selectionandhiringofSONZA,becauseofhisuniqueskills,talentandcelebrity
statusnotpossessedbyordinaryemployees,isacircumstanceindicative,butnot
conclusive,ofanindependentcontractualrelationship.IfSONZAdidnotpossess
suchuniqueskills,talentandcelebritystatus,ABSCBNwouldnothaveentered
intotheAgreementwithSONZAbutwouldhavehiredhimthroughitspersonnel
departmentjustlikeanyotheremployee.

In any event, the method of selecting and engaging SONZA does not
conclusivelydeterminehisstatus.Wemustconsiderallthecircumstancesofthe
relationship,withthecontroltestbeingthemostimportantelement.

B.PaymentofWages

ABSCBNdirectlypaidSONZAhismonthlytalentfeeswithnopartof
hisfeesgoingtoMJMDC.SONZAassertsthatthismodeoffeepaymentshows
thathewasanemployeeofABSCBN.SONZAalsopointsoutthatABSCBN
grantedhimbenefitsandprivilegeswhichhewouldnothaveenjoyedifhewere
trulythesubjectofavalidjobcontract.

All the talent fees and benefits paid to SONZA were the result of
negotiationsthatledtotheAgreement.IfSONZAwereABSCBNsemployee,
therewouldbenoneedforthepartiestostipulateonbenefits suchas SSS,
Medicare,xxxand13thmonthpaywhichthelawautomaticallyincorporatesinto
every employeremployee contract.Whatever benefits SONZA enjoyed arose
fromcontractandnotbecauseofanemployeremployeerelationship.

 SONZAstalentfees,amountingtoP317,000monthlyinthesecondand
third year, are so huge and out of the ordinary that they indicate more an
independent contractual relationship rather than an employeremployee
relationship.ABSCBNagreedtopaySONZAsuchhugetalentfeesprecisely
becauseofSONZASuniqueskills,talentandcelebritystatusnotpossessedby
ordinary employees.Obviously, SONZA acting alone possessed enough
bargaining power to demand and receive such huge talent fees for his
services.Thepowertobargaintalentfeeswayabovethesalaryscalesofordinary
employeesisacircumstanceindicative,butnotconclusive,ofanindependent
contractualrelationship.

ThepaymentoftalentfeesdirectlytoSONZAandnottoMJMDCdoes
not negate the status of SONZA as an independent contractor.The parties
expresslyagreedonsuchmodeofpayment.UndertheAgreement,MJMDCisthe
AGENTofSONZA,towhomMJMDCwouldhavetoturnoveranytalentfee
accruingundertheAgreement.[44]


Inthecaseatbar,however,theemployeremployeerelationshipbetween
petitionerandrespondentshasbeenproven.

First.Intheselectionandengagementofrespondents,nopeculiarorunique
skill,talentorcelebritystatuswasrequiredfromthembecausetheyweremerely
hiredthroughpetitionerspersonneldepartmentjustlikeanyordinaryemployee.

Second.The socalled talent fees of respondents correspond to wages
givenasaresultofanemployeremployeerelationship.Respondentsdidnothave
thepowertobargainforhugetalentfees,acircumstancenegatingindependent
contractualrelationship.

Third.Petitioner could always discharge respondents should it find their
workunsatisfactory,andrespondentsarehighlydependentonthepetitionerfor
continuedwork.

Fourth.Thedegreeofcontrolandsupervisionexercisedbypetitionerover
respondents through its supervisors negates the allegation that respondents are
independentcontractors.

Thepresumptionisthatwhentheworkdoneisanintegralpartofthe
regularbusinessoftheemployerandwhentheworker,relativetotheemployer,
doesnotfurnishanindependentbusinessorprofessionalservice,suchworkisa
regularemploymentofsuchemployeeandnotanindependentcontractor.[45]The
Courtwillperusebeyondanysuchagreementtoexaminethefactsthattypifythe
partiesactualrelationship.[46]

Itfollowsthenthatrespondentsareentitledtothebenefitsprovidedforin
theexistingCBAbetweenpetitioneranditsrankandfileemployees.Asregular
employees,respondentsareentitledtothebenefitsgrantedtoallotherregular
employeesofpetitionerundertheCBA.[47]Wequotewithapprovaltheruling
oftheappellatecourt,thatthereasonwhyproductionassistantswereexcluded
fromtheCBAispreciselybecausetheywereerroneouslyclassifiedandtreatedas
projectemployeesbypetitioner:

 xxxTheawardinfavorofprivaterespondentsofthebenefitsaccorded
to rankandfile employees of ABSCBN under the 19961999 CBA is a
necessaryconsequenceofpublicrespondentsrulingthatprivaterespondentsas
productionassistantsofpetitionerareregularemployees.Themonetaryawardis
notconsideredasclaimsinvolvingtheinterpretationorimplementationofthe
collective bargaining agreement.The reason why production assistants were
excludedfromthesaidagreementispreciselybecausetheywereclassifiedand
treatedasprojectemployeesbypetitioner.

As earlier stated, it is not the will or word of the employer which
determines the nature of employment of an employee but the nature of the
activitiesperformedbysuchemployeeinrelationtotheparticularbusinessor
trade of the employer.Considering that We have clearly found that private
respondents are regular employees ofpetitioner, their exclusion from the said
CBAonthemisplacedbeliefofthepartiestothesaidagreementthattheyare
projectemployees,isthereforenotproper.Findingsaidprivaterespondentsas
regularemployeesandnotasmereprojectemployees,theymustbeaccordedthe
benefitsdueunderthesaidCollectiveBargainingAgreement.

Acollectivebargainingagreementisacontractenteredintobytheunion
representingtheemployeesandtheemployer.However,eventhenonmember
employeesareentitledtothebenefitsofthecontract.Toaccorditsbenefitsonly
to members of the union without any valid reason would constitute undue
discrimination against nonmembers.A collective bargaining agreement is
bindingonallemployeesofthecompany.Therefore,whateverbenefitsaregiven
to the other employees of ABSCBN must likewise be accorded to private
respondentswhowereregularemployeesofpetitioner.[48]


Besides,onlytalentartistswereexcludedfromtheCBAandnotproduction
assistantswhoareregularemployeesoftherespondents.Moreover,underArticle
1702oftheNewCivilCode:Incaseofdoubt,alllaborlegislationandalllabor
contractsshallbeconstruedinfavorofthesafetyanddecentlivingofthelaborer.

INLIGHTOFALLTHEFOREGOING,thepetitionisDENIEDforlack
ofmerit.TheassailedDecisionandResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCA
G.R.SPNo.76582areAFFIRMED.Costsagainstpetitioner.
SO ORDERED.