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
Petitioner: 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
Respondents: NLRC, HONORABLE FRANKLIN DRILON, HONORABLE
CONRADO B. MAGLAYA, HONORABLE ROSARIO B. ENCARNACION, and
STANDARD (PHILIPPINES) FRUIT CORPORATION
SUMMARY:
Arica, et al. were workers of STANFILCO. Before starting with work, at around
5:30-6AM, they would hold preliminary activities in the assembly area. This
included a roll call, getting their work assignments, and travelling to the field. They
deemed it as compensable working time, however, STANFILCO didn’t agree.
The issue is W/N the 30-minute preliminary activities count as compensable
 The Court said NO.
Based on the previous case of ALU v. STANFILCO, which involved the same
parties, same circumstances, issue, and claims, (DOCTRINE) the 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. The case at hand is barred by res judicata.
FACTS:
1. Arica, et al. were workers of STANFILCO. Before starting with work, at
around 5:30-6AM, they would hold preliminary activities in the assembly
area. They deemed it as compensable working time, however, STANFILCO
didn’t agree.
 The activities (w/c last for 30 mins) include:
i. Roll call + getting individual work assignments from the foreman
ii. Individually required to accomplish the Laborer’s Daily
Accomplishment Report  Often made to explain their
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.
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
it. Thus, the case was raised to the SC.
 Arica, et al. claim that it was compensable because the activities
were necessarily and primarily for STANFILCO’s benefit.
 STANFILCO bases its claim on previous case Associated Labor
Union (ALU) v. STANFILCO, involving the same circumstances,
issue, and claims the Minister of Labor held that the 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.
ISSUE/S:
1. W/N the 30-minutes of the petitioners before the scheduled working time is
compensable under the Labor Code. - NO
RATIO:
On whether or not the 30-minutes of petitioners before the scheduled working
time is compensable - NO
1. The case is barred by res judicata.
 Petitioners are merely reiterating the very same claim which they filed
through the ALU and which records show had already long been
considered terminated and closed.
 In this connection account should be taken of the cognate principle
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
suit of any other issue which could have been raised in the first but
was not.
 As a rule, the findings of facts of quasi-judicial agencies which have
acquired expertise because their jurisdiction is confined to specific
matters are accorded not only respect but at times even finality if such
findings are supported by substantial evidence.
DISPOSITION:
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision
of the National Labor Relations Commission is AFFIRMED.