LABOR groups have petitioned the Supreme Court to nullify temporary restraining orders (TROs) issued by Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) in Pasig and Navotas that halted the implementation of Metro Manila’s P85 minimum wage increase.
In a 39-page petition, the Kampihan ng Maralita at Manggagawa (Kamanggagawa) Partylist, represented by Rep. Elijah Rumbaoa San Fernando and eight other labor organizations, argued that the lower courts had no jurisdiction to stop the implementation of a wage order and warned that allowing such injunctions could undermine future wage increases nationwide.
“We are here at the Supreme Court to prevent and put an end to this bad precedent before TROs start being issued
across the country,” San Fernando said. The petitioners said the injunctions are affecting more than 1.1 million minimum wage workers, who they estimated are losing about P66 million in wages each day that the increase remains suspended.
“This injunction isn’t just a legal delay. It is inflicting real, irreparable damage on over 1.1 million minimum wage workers who are being robbed of roughly P66 million in pay every single day,” San Fernando said.
The petition asked the Court to annul the status quo ante order and temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by RTCs in Pasig City and to stop a similar move pending before an RTC in Navotas.
The petitioners include the Workers and Peasants’ Party of the Philippines, Uni Global Union-Philippine Liaison Council, Federation of Free Workers, National Federation of Labor, Sentro ng Nagkakaisa Progresibong Manggagawa (Sentro), United Filipino Service Workers, Partido Manggagawa, and Council of Teachers and Employees in Schools, Colleges and Universities in the Philippines, represented by Jose Sonny Matula.
They are challenging three RTC actions: a July 24 status quo ante order issued by Pasig RTC Executive Judge Achilles A.A.C. Balauitan; a July 30 TRO issued by Judge Marie Joyce Manongsong; and an Aug. 3 order by Navotas RTC Judge Romana M.M.P. Lindayag Del Rosario setting a hearing on a bid to block the wage order.
The labor groups said the RTCs committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, pointing to the Labor Code’s express prohibition against courts issuing injunctions or restraining orders against proceedings involving wage orders.
At the center of the controversy is Wage Order NCR-27, issued by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board-NCR on June 23.
The order grants P85 daily wage increase — P60 effective July 25, 2026, and another P25 on Jan. 20, 2027. Once fully implemented, the Metro Manila minimum wage would rise from P695 to P780 a day.
But instead of taking the wage dispute through the administrative appeal process under the Labor Code, Readycon Trading and Construction Corp. and R-II Builders Inc. filed a petition for declaratory relief before the Pasig RTC on July 23, questioning the validity of Wage Order NCR-27 and seeking injunctive relief.
The next day, the Pasig RTC executive judge issued a status quo ante order halting the wage increase. A subsequent order issued July 30 extended the restraint until Aug. 13.
Another challenge followed when the Alliance of Philippine Fishing Federations Inc. went to the Navotas RTC, prompting the court to set a hearing on a possible status quo ante order.
Petitioners argued that these moves effectively bypassed Article 123 of the Labor Code, which provides an administrative remedy for parties aggrieved by a wage order: an appeal to the National Wages and Productivity Commission within 10 calendar days from publication.
They also invoked Article 126, which bars any court, tribunal or other entity from issuing a preliminary or permanent injunction or TRO against proceedings before the commission or regional wage boards.
“What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly,” the petitioners said, arguing that a status quo ante order cannot be used to achieve the same result prohibited by law — stopping a wage order from taking effect.
They accused the private respondents of using a petition for declaratory relief as a substitute for the administrative appeal they allegedly failed to pursue, citing a 2007 Supreme Court ruling involving Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. and the National Wages and Productivity Commission, which they said underscored the need to first exhaust the statutory administrative process in challenging wage orders.
Allowing RTCs to stop wage orders through injunctions, they warned, could undermine the authority of the wage boards and encourage employers to bring every future wage increase before ordinary courts, claiming that the financial impact is already mounting.
For the petitioners, however, the case is bigger than the money, saying that the dispute involves social justice and constitutional protection for workers, citing the Constitution’s recognition of labor as a primary social and economic force and its mandate to protect workers and promote their welfare, including their right to a living wage.
“For someone earning P695 a day, P60 is not an abstract constitutional question,” the petition said. “It is rice, fare, medicine, electricity or baon ng mga anak (allowances for children).”
