Topic WAITING TIME

Case No. G.R. No. 78210 / February 28, 1989

Case Name ARICA vs. NLRC
Ponente PARAS, j.

RELEVANT FACTS
 April 9, 1984 - The workers of Stanfilco filed a complaint against the company for assembly time, moral
damages and attorney’s fees.
 This case stemmed from the practice of the company wherein the workers are asked to go to the
assembly area from 5:30 to 6:00 in the morning to do some preliminary activities. Petitioners say that
these activities are as follows:
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 the, their tools, equipment and materials.
 There was an earlier case of ALU vs. STANFILCO filed on April 27, 1976 by Associated Labor Union,
bargaining agent of Stanfilco’s rank and file workers, which also involved a claim for “waiting time.” In
that case, 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 workforce available for the day by
means of a roll call, for the purpose of assignment or reassignment of employees. The Minister of Labor
ruled in Stanfilco’s favor.
 In light of the earlier case, the Labor Arbiter decided in favor of Stanfilco saying that the pronouncement
in that case has become the law of the case. Petitioners’ claim is barred by RES JUDICATA.
 NLRC affirmed the Labor Arbiter. Motion for Reconsideration was denied.
 Hence, petitioners went to SC.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue
W/N the 30-minute activity
of the petitioners before the
scheduled working time is
compensable under the
Labor Code?
Ratio
NO.
1. In the earlier case, the Minister of Labor held that the 30-minute
assemble time is not compensable because of the ff. reasons:
 The 30-minute assembly time is a deeply-rooted, routinary practice of
the employees. It doesn’t have any complexities as to deprive the
workers to attend to other personal pursuits.
 The workers’ houses are situated right on the area where the farm
was located, such that after the roll call, which does not necessarily
require personal presence, they can go back to their houses to attend
to some chores.
 The workers are not subject to the absolute control of the company
during this period. Failure to report in the assembly time will not
subject them to disciplinary measures.
  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.

2. The Minister of Labor’s decision had long acquired the character of

finality. It already resolved that the 30-minute assembly time is not
compensable.

3. SC held that res judicata applies in this case.

RULING

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit and the decision of the National Labor
Relations Commission is AFFIRMED.

SEPARATE OPINION

SARMIENTO, J., Dissenting:

Res judicata is not a bar. He argues that the decision in the earlier case of ALU vs STANFILCO is not a controlling
precedent mainly because the assembly time had since undergone dramatic changes.

The earlier decision was predicated on the absence of any insinuation of obligatoriness in the course or after the
assembly activities on the part of the employees. However, as indicated by petitioners, things had since
changed, and remarkably so, and the latter had since been placed under a number of restrictions.

Justice Sarmiento believes that the 30-minute assembly time had become in truth and in fact, a “waiting time”
as contemplated by the Labor Code.