G.R. No. L-24864 February 26, 1968
FORTUNATO F. HALILI (Deceased), doing business under the name and style HALILI TRANSIT (Substituted by EMILIA DE VERA VDA. DE HALILI), petitioner, vs. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS and HALILI BUS DRIVERS and CONDUCTORS UNION (PTGWO), respondents.

FACTS

On November 30, 1957, Fortunato F. Halili (Halili Transit) and the Halili Bus Drivers and Conductors Union (PTGWO) entered into a three-year Collective Bargaining Agreement. On August 20, 1958, the union filed a petition (Case No. 1099-V) with the Court of Industrial Relations (CIR), charging Halili with violating Commonwealth Act No. 444 (Eight-Hour Labor Law). The union alleged that Halili improperly deducted from the compensable hours of work the time spent for: (1) filling gas or taking the bus from the “carbarn” and vice-versa; (2) trip intervals while waiting for passengers; and (3) minor repairs. The union prayed for the fixing of compensable hours and payment for work rendered from October 1, 1956.
After trial, the CIR rendered a decision on August 7, 1961, finding Halili guilty of violating C.A. No. 444 . It ordered the CIR’s Examining Division to compute the compensable hours of work rendered by union-member drivers and conductors from October 1, 1956, until the decision date, at specified hourly rates, and directed Halili to provide access to all pertinent records. Halili filed motions for clarification and reconsideration. The CIR issued a clarificatory order on August 17, 1961, and an en banc resolution on April 6, 1962, affirming the decision but remanding the case for a judicial determination of the union membership of the claimants. Halili did not appeal the August 7, 1961 decision, the August 17, 1961 order, or the April 6, 1962 resolution.
On April 7, 1965, the CIR issued an order directing its Examiner to investigate and examine Halili’s records and compute compensable hours from January 1, 1961. Halili moved for reconsideration, which was denied by the CIR en banc on July 12, 1965. Halili then appealed by certiorari from the April 7, 1965 order and the July 12, 1965 resolution.

ISSUE

1. Whether the CIR erred in holding Halili liable for payment under C.A. No. 444 for compensable hours of work rendered by union-member drivers and conductors.
2. Whether the CIR’s August 7, 1961 decision was incomplete and interlocutory, and thus the CIR erred in enforcing it through the April 7, 1965 order and July 12, 1965 resolution.
3. Whether the CIR erred in directing its Examiner to examine Halili’s records from January 1, 1961, onward.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appealed order and resolution, with instructions.
1. The first issue was not properly raised in the appeal. Halili’s notice of appeal specified only the April 7, 1965 order and the July 12, 1965 resolution. The CIR’s decision of August 7, 1961, its clarificatory order of August 17, 1961, and the en banc resolution of April 6, 1962, had already become final and executory as Halili did not appeal from them. The finding of Halili’s liability under C.A. No. 444 was thus conclusive.
2. The August 7, 1961 decision was not interlocutory but a final adjudication on the main issue of Halili’s violation of the Eight-Hour Labor Law. An interlocutory order decides some point but is not a final decision of the whole controversy. The CIR’s decision finally resolved the issue of Halili’s liability. What remained was the execution stage—the computation of the precise compensable hours and amounts due. The Court noted that Halili could not inconsistently assail the decision’s finding of liability while also arguing it was incomplete.
3. Regarding the examination of records from January 1, 1961, the CIR ordered this for convenience and facility, as records from 1961 onward were more readily available (the law required preservation for five years). The Supreme Court clarified that the April 7, 1965 order did not implement the August 1961 decision alone but as modified by the April 6, 1962 resolution, which required a judicial determination of union membership. The order directing the Examiner did not itself compute hours for union members; it merely facilitated the examination. The trial judge, not the Examiner, must resolve the issue of union membership.
The Supreme Court affirmed the CIR’s April 7, 1965 order and July 12, 1965 resolution. It enjoined the CIR to make a judicial determination of the claimants’ union membership. The Examining Division was to proceed with computing compensable hours and compensation first for drivers and conductors admitted by both parties to be union members since October 1, 1956, and then for those claimed by the union but disputed by Halili, pending the judge’s resolution on their membership. No costs were awarded.