1. G.R. No.

78210 February 28, 1989

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.
FACTS: Petitioners filed a complaint against Stanfilco claiming
compensation for the 30-minute assembly time which activities include
to ascertain the work force available for the day by means of a roll call
and for the purpose of assignment or reassignment of employees to
such areas in the plantation where they are most needed. They
contended that it is considered waiting time or work time.
ISSUE: Is the 30-minute assembly time considered as waiting time,
therefore compensable?
HELD: No. The thirty (30)-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.
Furthermore, the thirty (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. This, therefore,
demonstrates the indubitable fact that 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 nonavailability for work during every working day.