Sunteți pe pagina 1din 1

79. ARICA v NLRC (Mika) 4.

The NLRC upheld the LA's decision, saying that the customary functions
February 28, 1989 | J. Paras | Hours of Work referred to in the provision of the agreement includes the long-standing
practice and institutionalized non-compensable assembly time.
5. On January 15, 1987, Arica and the others filed an MR. The NLRC denied
Petitioner: TEOFILO ARICA, DANILO BERNABE, MELQUIADES DOHINO,
it. Thus, the case was raised to the SC.
ABONDIO OMERTA, GIL TANGIHAN, SAMUEL LABAJO, NESTOR NORBE,
RODOLFO CONCEPCION, RICARDO RICHA, RODOLFO NENO, ALBERTO  Arica, et al. claim that it was compensable because the activities
BALATRO, BENJAMIN JUMAMOY, FERMIN DAAROL, JOVENAL ENRIQUEZ, were necessarily and primarily for STANFILCO’s benefit.
OSCAR BASAL, RAMON ACENA, JAIME BUGTAY, and 561 OTHERS, HEREIN  STANFILCO bases its claim on previous case Associated Labor
REPRESENTED BY KORONADO B. APUZEN Union (ALU) v. STANFILCO, involving the same circumstances,
Respondents: NLRC, HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, HONORABLE issue, and claims the Minister of Labor held that the 30-minute
CONRADO B. MAGLAYA, HONORABLE ROSARIO B. ENCARNACION, and assembly time was not primarily intended for the interests of the
STANDARD (PHILIPPINES) FRUIT CORPORATION employer, but ultimately for the employees to indicate their availability
or non-availability for work during every working day.
SUMMARY:
Arica, et al. were workers of STANFILCO. Before starting with work, at around ISSUE/S:
5:30-6AM, they would hold preliminary activities in the assembly area. This 1. W/N the 30-minutes of the petitioners before the scheduled working time is
included a roll call, getting their work assignments, and travelling to the field. They compensable under the Labor Code. - NO
deemed it as compensable working time, however, STANFILCO didn’t agree.
RATIO:
The issue is W/N the 30-minute preliminary activities count as compensable On whether or not the 30-minutes of petitioners before the scheduled working
 The Court said NO. time is compensable - NO
1. The case is barred by res judicata.
Based on the previous case of ALU v. STANFILCO, which involved the same  Petitioners are merely reiterating the very same claim which they filed
parties, same circumstances, issue, and claims, (DOCTRINE) the 30-minute through the ALU and which records show had already long been
assembly time was not primarily intended for the interests of the employer, but considered terminated and closed.
ultimately for the employees to indicate their availability or non-availability for work  In this connection account should be taken of the cognate principle
during every working day. The case at hand is barred by res judicata. that res judicata operates to bar not only the relitigation in a
subsequent action of the issues squarely raised, passed upon and
adjudicated in the first suit, but also the ventilation in said subsequent
FACTS: suit of any other issue which could have been raised in the first but
1. Arica, et al. were workers of STANFILCO. Before starting with work, at was not.
around 5:30-6AM, they would hold preliminary activities in the assembly  As a rule, the findings of facts of quasi-judicial agencies which have
area. They deemed it as compensable working time, however, STANFILCO acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific
didn’t agree. matters are accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such
 The activities (w/c last for 30 mins) include: findings are supported by substantial evidence.
i. Roll call + getting individual work assignments from the foreman DISPOSITION:
ii. Individually required to accomplish the Laborer’s Daily PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision
Accomplishment Report  Often made to explain their of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED.
accomplishments the following day
iii. Travel to the field with tools, equipment, and materials
2. A complaint was filed on April 1984 against STANFILCO for assembly time,
moral damages, and attorney's fees.
3. Labor Arbiter Ramos decided in favor of STANFILCO, holding that the 30-
minute assembly time long practiced cannot be considered waiting time or
work time and, therefore, not compensable.