FACTS:
ABS-CBN employed respondents Nazareno, Gerzon, Deiparine, and Lerasan as production
assistants (PAs). They were assigned at the news and public affairs, for various
radio programs in the Cebu Broadcasting Station, with a monthly compensation of
P4,000. They were issued ABS-CBN identification cards and they were required to
work for a minimum of eight hours a day, including Sundays and holidays.
On December 19, 1996, petitioner and the ABS-CBN Rank-and-File Employees executed a
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) however, petitioner refused to recognize PAs
as part of the bargaining unit, hence, respondents were not included to the CBA.
On July 20, 2000, petitioner, through Dante Luzon, issued a Memorandum informing
the PAs that effective August 1, 2000, they would be assigned to non-drama
programs, and that the DYAB studio operations would be handled by the studio
technician.
On October 12, 2000, respondents filed a Complaint for Recognition of Regular
Employment Status, Underpayment of Overtime Pay, Holiday Pay, Premium Pay, Service
Incentive Pay, Sick Leave Pay, and 13th Month Pay with Damages against the
petitioner before the NLRC. The Labor Arbiter directed them to submit position
papers but failed to do so within the reglementary period, which resulted to the
dismissal of the complaint.
They filed another motion alleging that they were enagaged by ABS-CBN as regular
and full-time employees for already 5 years with a monthly salary of P4,000.
Respondents insisted that they belonged to a "work pool" from which petitioner
chose persons to be given specific assignments at its discretion, and were thus
under its direct supervision and control regardless of nomenclature.
Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that PAs occasionally "sideline" for other
programs they produce. As program employees, a PA’s engagement is coterminous with
the completion of the program, and may be extended/renewed provided that the
program is on-going. As such program employees, their compensation is computed on a
program basis. Petitioner also alleged that the Labor Arbiter had no jurisdiction
to involve the CBA and interpret the same, especially since respondents were not
covered by the bargaining unit.
The Labor Arbiter ruled on that respondents are regular employees and ordered
petitioner to pay them monetary benefits. However, the Labor Arbiter did not award
money benefits as provided in the CBA on his belief that he had no jurisdiction to
interpret and apply the agreement, as the same was within the jurisdiction of the
Voluntary Arbitrator as provided in Article 261 of the Labor Code.
