Facts:

• Fortunato F. Halili operated a business named "Halili Transit."
• On November 30, 1957, Halili and the Halili Bus Drivers and Conductors Union (PTGWO) signed a three-year Collective Bargaining Agreement, designating the union as the exclusive bargaining representative for drivers and conductors.
• The agreement included hourly rates for regular and overtime work.
• On August 20, 1958, the union filed a petition with the Court of Industrial Relations, later amended on December 9, 1958, claiming Halili violated Commonwealth Act No. 444, the Eight-Hour Labor Law.
• The union alleged improper deductions from work hours, including time spent on refueling, retrieving buses, waiting for passengers, and minor repairs.
• The union sought a court order to determine compensable work hours and compel Halili to pay for hours worked from October 1, 1956, until the petition was filed.
• Halili submitted an amended answer on December 22, 1958.
• On August 7, 1961, the Court of Industrial Relations found Halili guilty of violating the Eight-Hour Labor Law and ordered the computation of compensable hours at specified rates.
• Halili's motion for clarification on August 14, 1961, questioned the definition of compensable hours and the actual compensation received by employees.
• The court clarified on August 17, 1961, affirming Halili's liability.
• Halili's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the decision was affirmed on April 6, 1962, with a remand for determining union membership of claimants.
• Halili did not appeal this decision.
• On April 7, 1965, the Court of Industrial Relations ordered an investigation into Halili's records to compute compensable hours from January 1, 1961, onward.
• Halili's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 12, 1965, leading to his appeal on three issues regarding liability and the court's authority.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The trial court did not err in holding Halili liable for the payment of compensable hours under Commonwealth Act No. 444.
• The decision dated August 7, 1961, is not incomplete or interlocutory; thus, the respondent court did not err in enforcing it.
• The respo...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court ruled that Halili's appeal regarding liability was improperly raised, as he had not appealed earlier decisions that had become final and executory.
• ...continue reading