FACTS:

The respondents in this case are claiming regular employment status and various monetary benefits against ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation. They presented evidence such as identification cards, salary vouchers, and documents showing their program assignments. The Labor Arbiter initially dismissed the complaint due to the respondents' failure to file their position papers on time, but later granted their motion to refile and admitted their position paper. The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring them regular employees entitled to monetary benefits. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. Petitioner then appealed to the NLRC, while the respondents filed a partial appeal. The NLRC modified the Labor Arbiter's decision, ordering ABS-CBN to pay the respondents their wage differentials and other benefits under the CBA. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was also denied by the NLRC. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the CA, which affirmed the NLRC's decision. Petitioner now seeks review of the CA's decision before the Supreme Court.

The petitioner raises several issues, including the timeliness of the respondents' appeal and the reopening of the complaint by the Labor Arbiter. Petitioner argues that the appeal should not have been entertained by the CA due to the late filing. They also contend that the period to appeal should be reckoned from the receipt of a party's counsel, not from the time the party learns of the decision. Petitioner asserts that the reopening of the complaint is a violation of the NLRC Rules. On the other hand, respondents argue that their late appeal should still be given due course in the interest of substantial justice. They also maintain that the late filing of their position paper should not be a ground for dismissal. The Court agrees that the perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is mandatory and jurisdictional. However, in exceptional cases, the Court has allowed the late filing of an appeal in the interest of substantial justice.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the ruling of the NLRC finding the respondents to be regular employees.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the ruling of the NLRC awarding CBA benefits to respondents.

3. Whether the Labor Arbiter's failure to follow the reglementary period for reviving or reopening a case dismissed without prejudice violated the respondents' right to due process.

4. Whether the belated filing of the complainants' Position Paper and Supplemental Manifestation should have resulted in the dismissal of the complaint.

5. Whether the respondents were deprived of their Constitutional right to due process.

6. Whether the respondents should be considered as regular employees of the broadcasting company.

7. Whether the respondents' employment can be classified as regular or project employment.

8. Whether the respondents can be considered regular employees.

9. Whether the respondents can be considered project or program employees.

10. Whether the respondents are program employees or independent contractors.

11. Whether the respondents are entitled to the benefits provided for in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the petitioner and its rank-and-file employees.

12. Whether or not production assistants should be considered regular employees of the petitioner.

13. Whether or not production assistants are entitled to the benefits accorded to rank-and-file employees under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

RULING:

1. The Court finds no merit in the petitioner's contention. Technical rules are not binding in labor cases and are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the workingman. In exceptional cases, a belated appeal may be given due course if greater injustice may occur if an appeal is not given due course than if the reglementary period to appeal were strictly followed. In this case, the NLRC did not commit grave abuse of discretion in giving Article 223 of the Labor Code a liberal application to prevent the miscarriage of justice.

2. The Court also finds no merit in petitioner's contention that the Labor Arbiter abused his discretion in admitting respondents' belatedly filed position paper. The Labor Arbiter is mandated to use every 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. Respondents' failure to submit a position paper on time is not a ground for striking it out from the records or dismissing a complaint.

3. The failure of the Labor Arbiter to follow the reglementary period for reviving or reopening a case dismissed without prejudice did not result in a violation of the respondents' right to due process. The case can still be refiled because it has not yet prescribed and the Labor Arbiter acted within his discretion to use every reasonable means to ascertain the facts in each case speedily and objectively.

4. The belated filing of the complainants' Position Paper and Supplemental Manifestation should not have resulted in the dismissal of the complaint. Failure to submit a position paper on time is not a ground for striking out the paper from the records or dismissing a complaint.

5. The respondents were not deprived of their Constitutional right to due process as they were given the opportunity to submit their position paper, which they did.

6. The claim of the petitioner that the respondents are not regular employees of the broadcasting company is rejected, as it is belied by the evidence on record.

7. The respondents can be considered as regular employees of the broadcasting company as they have rendered at least one year of service and their work is usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer.

8. The Court ruled that the respondents should be considered as regular employees. The test in determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee and the usual business or trade of the employer. If the work undertaken is necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, then the employment is considered regular. Even if the work is for a specific project or seasonal, if the person engaged has been performing the job for at least one year, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity or desirability of that activity to the business or trade of the employer. In this case, since the respondents had continuously performed the same activities for an average of five years and the tasks assigned to them were necessary or desirable in the usual business of the petitioner, they should be considered regular employees.

9. The Court ruled that the respondents cannot be considered project or program employees. In order to be considered project employees, the duration and scope of the project must have been specified at the time of engagement. The term project may refer to a particular job or undertaking within the regular business of the employer that is distinct and separate from other undertakings, or it may refer to a job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the employer. In this case, the respondents had continuously performed the same activities for an average of five years, and there was no evidence presented to show that the duration and scope of the project were determined or specified at the time of their engagement. Therefore, they cannot be considered project employees.

10. The respondents are program employees and not independent contractors. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner itself was uncertain about how to categorize the respondents, initially classifying them as program employees and later as independent contractors. However, the Court held that the degree of control and supervision exercised by the petitioner over the respondents, the fact that the respondents did not possess unique skills, talent, or celebrity status, and their dependence on the petitioner for continued work all point to an employer-employee relationship. The Court emphasized that the presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and when the worker does not furnish an independent business or professional service, such work is a regular employment and not an independent contractor relationship.

11. As regular employees, the respondents are entitled to the benefits granted to all other regular employees of the petitioner under the CBA. The Court affirmed the ruling of the appellate court that production assistants, including the respondents, should be included in the coverage of the CBA.

12. Production assistants should be considered regular employees of the petitioner. The Court ruled that it is not the will or word of the employer that determines the nature of employment, but the nature of the activities performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer. Since the Court found that the production assistants are regular employees, their exclusion from the CBA based on the mistaken belief that they are project employees is not proper.

13. Production assistants are entitled to the benefits accorded to rank-and-file employees under the CBA. The Court emphasized that even non-member employees are entitled to the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement. To accord benefits only to union members without a valid reason would constitute undue discrimination against non-members. The Court further held that whatever benefits are given to other employees of the company must also be accorded to the production assistants who are regular employees. Lastly, the Court cited Article 1702 of the New Civil Code, which states that in case of doubt, all labor legislation and contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer.

PRINCIPLES:

• Technical rules are not binding in labor cases and are not to be applied strictly if the result would be detrimental to the workingman.

• In exceptional cases, a belated appeal may be given due course if greater injustice may occur if an appeal is not given due course than if the reglementary period to appeal were strictly followed.

• The Labor Arbiter is mandated to use every 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.

• The test in determining whether an employment should be considered regular or non-regular is the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the employee and the usual business or trade of the employer.

• Even if the work is for a specific project or seasonal, if the person engaged has been performing the job for at least one year, the law deems the repeated and continuing need for its performance as sufficient evidence of the necessity or desirability of that activity to the business or trade of the employer.

• The fact that an employee receives pre-agreed "talent fees" instead of salaries, does not observe required office hours, and is permitted to join other productions during free time, is not conclusive of the nature of their employment.

• The law overrides conditions that are prejudicial to the interest of the worker, and what determines whether an employment is regular or otherwise is the character of the activities performed in relation to the particular trade or business, taking into account all the circumstances and the length of time of its performance.

• In order to be considered project employees, the duration and scope of the project must have been specified at the time of engagement. The term project may refer to a particular job or undertaking within the regular business of the employer that is distinct and separate from other undertakings, or it may refer to a job or undertaking that is not within the regular business of the employer.

• The control test is the most important element in determining the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

• The specific selection and engagement of an individual due to unique skills, talent, or celebrity status may indicate an independent contractor relationship, but other factors must also be considered.

• The payment of wages or talent fees, negotiation of benefits, and the manner of payment do not necessarily determine the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

• The presumption is that when the work done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and when the worker does not furnish an independent business or professional service, the worker is a regular employee and not an independent contractor.

• The nature of employment is determined by the nature of the activities performed by the employee in relation to the business or trade of the employer.

• Non-member employees are entitled to benefits under a collective bargaining agreement.

• It is undue discrimination to accord benefits only to union members without a valid reason.

• Labor legislation and contracts should be construed in favor of the safety and decent living of the laborer.