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.