A COALITION of major labor organizations has asked the Pasig City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 152 to allow them to intervene in the legal battle over the P85 minimum wage increase in Metro Manila, while seeking the lifting of the temporary restraining order (TRO) that suspended its implementation.
The labor groups argued that the RTC has no jurisdiction to suspend or invalidate NCR Wage Order No. 27, insisting that the Labor Code provides an exclusive administrative process for challenging wage orders through the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC), not through an original action before a trial court.
They cited Article 126 of the Labor Code, which expressly states that no court may issue a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order against proceedings before the NWPC or Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards, saying the TRO directly contradicts the law.
The coalition accused the petitioners of bypassing the mandatory appeal process under Article 123 of the Labor Code, arguing that employers challenging a wage order should first elevate their objections to the NWPC rather than seek immediate judicial intervention.
Describing the suspended wage increase as far from a living wage, the labor groups said the TRO has effectively deprived more than 1.1 million Metro Manila minimum wage earners of income already granted through the statutory wage-fixing process.
“A street snatcher steals once, but if the TRO is not lifted, this legal snatching will happen every working day.” The motion stressed that the P85 increase to be implemented in two tranches of P60 beginning July 25, 2026 and P25 on Jan. 20, 2027 would raise the daily minimum wage from P695 to P780, but would remain roughly P520 below the estimated P1,300 family living wage in Metro Manila.
Rejecting claims that the increase is “unprecedented,” the labor coalition said the total 12.23 percent adjustment is smaller than several previous wage increases in Metro Manila, including 39.06 percent in 1989, 19.10 percent in 1990, 14.41 percent in 1993, and 13.79 percent in 1996, based on historical records of the NWPC.
The intervenors further argued that employers have no vested right to continue paying the old minimum wage and that businesses claiming financial hardship already have an administrative remedy by applying for exemptions before the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board, rather than asking courts to halt an entire wage order.
The coalition also faulted the petitioners for failing to include labor organizations and workers as parties to the case, despite the TRO directly affecting the wages and statutory rights of minimum wage earners who stand to lose income while the order remains in force.
Invoking the Constitution’s guarantee of full protection to labor and the right to a living wage, the labor groups maintained that the answer to an inadequate wage increase is to improve it through the wage-fixing process — not to erase it through an injunction that they say the Labor Code expressly prohibits.
