TEOFILO ARICA, DANILO BERNABE, MELQUIADES DOHINO, ABONDIO OMERTA, GIL

TANGIHAN, SAMUEL LABAJO, NESTOR NORBE, RODOLFO CONCEPCION, RICARDO

RICHA, RODOLFO NENO, ALBERTO BALATRO, BENJAMIN JUMAMOY, FERMIN
DAAROL, JOVENAL ENRIQUEZ, OSCAR BASAL, RAMON ACENA, JAIME BUGTAY, and
561 OTHERS, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY KORONADO B. APUZEN, petitioners
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON,
HONORABLE CONRADO B. MAGLAYA, HONORABLE ROSARIO B. ENCARNACION, and
STANDARD (PHILIPPINES) FRUIT CORPORATION,respondents.
PARAS, J. G.R. No. 78210 February 28, 1989
FACTS:
Teofilo Arica et al and 561 others sued Standard Fruits Corporation (STANFILCO) Philippines
for allegedly not paying the workers for their assembly time which takes place every work day
from 5:30am to 6am. The assembly time consists of the following:
(a) First there is the roll call. This is followed by getting their individual work assignments from
the foreman.
(b) Thereafter, they are individually required to accomplish the Laborer's Daily Accomplishment
Report during which they are often made to explain about their reported accomplishment the
following day.
(c) Then they go to the stockroom to get the working materials, tools and equipment.
(d) Lastly, they travel to the field bringing with them their tools, equipment and materials.
Labor Arbiter: Dismissed the petition holding that that the pronouncement in that earlier case,
i.e. the thirty-minute assembly time long practiced cannot be considered waiting time or work
time and, therefore, not compensable, has become res-judicata.
NLRC: Upheld the dismissal of the LA.
The workers alleged that this is necessarily and primarily for STANFILCOs benefit.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the 30-minute activity of the petitioners before the scheduled working time is
compensable under the Labor Code?
HELD:
No. The very same claim has been brought against respondent by the same group of rank and
file employees in ALU vs. STANFILCO filed way back April 27, 1976 when ALU was the
bargaining agent of respondent's rank and file workers. The case involved a claim for "waiting
time", as the complainants purportedly were required to assemble at a designated area at least
30 minutes prior to the start of their scheduled working hours "to ascertain the work force
available for the day by means of a roll call, for the purpose of assignment or reassignment of
employees to such areas in the plantation where they are most needed. The Minister of Labor,
then already made significant findings of facts and conclusions on the matter. As explained then:
the thirty minute assembly time long practiced and institutionalized by mutual consent of the
parties under Article IV, Section 3, of the Collective Bargaining Agreement cannot be considered
as waiting time within the purview of Section 5, Rule I, Book III of the Rules and Regulations

Implementing the Labor Code. The employees are not subject to the absolute control of the
company during this period. The thirty (30)-minute assembly time was not primarily intended for
the interests of the employer, but ultimately for the employees to indicate their availability or
non-availability for work during every working day. Their houses are situated right on the area
where the farm are located, such that after the roll call, which does not necessarily require the
personal presence, they can go back to their houses to attend to some chores.
This constitutes the controlling legal rule or decision between the parties and remains to be the
law of the case making this petition without merit.
The petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision of the National Labor Relations
Commission is AFFIRMED.
SARMIENTO, J., Dissenting:
The petition should be granted.
Res judicata is not a bar in this case. It is precisely the petitioners' contention that the assembly
time in question had since undergone dramatic changes. The petitioners had since been placed
under a number of restrictions. My considered opinion is that the thirty-minute assembly time
had become, in truth and fact, a "waiting time" as contemplated by the Labor Code.