Teofilo Arica et al.
v NLRC the bargaining agent of the STANFILOs rank and file
Feb. 28, 1989; Paras, J
Facts:
Teofilo et. al. filed a case in the LA claiming that the 30 minute
assembly prior to their work day should be compensated.
LA dismissed the case on the basis of res judicata. (Note: res
judicata is when there has already been a prior ruling of the court
about the case with the same cause of action and parties).
NLRC also dismissed the case.
They contend that the preliminary activities conducted by the
workers of STANFILO in the assembly area should be compensable
as working time (from 5:30 to 6:00 oclock in the morning) since
these preliminary activities are necessarily and primarily for
STANFILOs benefit.
The preliminary activities of that the workers practice are:
o First there is the roll call. This is followed by getting their
individual work assignments from the foreman.
o Thereafter, they are individually required to accomplish the
Laborers Daily Accomplishment Report during which they
are often made to explain about their reported
accomplishment the following day.
o Then they go to the stockroom to get the working materials,
tools and equipment.
o Lastly, they travel to the field bringing with them their tools,
equipment and materials.
All these activities take 30 minutes to accomplish.
STANFILO, on the other hand, alleges that the complaint is not new.
o Insists on res judicata.
o It was the very same claim brought against STANFILO by the
same group of rank and file employees in the case of
Associated Labor Union (ALU) and Standard Fruit
Corporation which was filed in April 27, 1976 when ALU was
workers.
o The case involved a claim for waiting time, as the workers
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.
o The Minister of Labor in this case held that the 30 minute
assembly time cannot be considered as waiting time.
It was long practiced and institutionalized by
mutual consent of the parties.
The 30 minute assembly is a deeply-rooted,
routinary practice of the employees and the
proceedings attendant thereto are not infected
with complexities as to deprive the workers the
time to attend to other personal pursuits.
They are not new employees as to require the
company to delivery long briefings regarding their
respective work assignments.
Workers houses are situated right on the area
where the farms are located, thus after the roll call,
which does not necessarily require the personal
presence, they can go back to their houses to
attend to some chores.
Thus, they are not subject to the absolute control
of the company during this period, otherwise, their
failure to report in the assembly time would justify
the company to impose disciplinary measures.
The CBA does not contain any provision about this.
Thus, it demonstrated the fact that the 30 minute
assembly time was not primarily intended for the
interests of the employer, but ultimately for the
 employees to indicated their availability or non-
availability for work during every working day.

Issue: WoN the 30 minute activity of the petitioners before their schedules
working time is compensable under the Labor Code - NO

Held: Ruling of the Minister of Labor is Affirmed.

Dispositive: PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of

merit and the decision of the National Labor Relations Commission is
AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.