By Mark Joseph M. Sanchez
PHILIPPINE labor groups and a lawmaker asked the Supreme Court (SC) to overturn orders by trial courts that have blocked or could block a planned wage increase in the capital, escalating a legal fight that threatens to delay higher pay for more than 1 million workers.
The petition seeks to annul a temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a Pasig regional trial court (RTC) and related orders from courts in Pasig and Navotas involving Wage Order No. NCR-27, which provides a total P85 ($1.50) daily increase for minimum-wage workers in Metro Manila.
The groups argued that regional trial courts lack authority to suspend wage orders and that challenges should instead be brought before the National Wages and Productivity Commission under procedures set by the Labor Code.
“Regional trial courts do not have the power or authority to issue status quo ante orders against a wage order,” according to a copy of the petition, adding that “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”
The wage order provides for a P60 increase that took effect on July 25 and another P25 increase scheduled for January 2027, raising the National Capital Region minimum wage from P695 to P780 a day.
Party-list Rep. Elijah R. San Fernando, who joined the lawsuit, said the Supreme Court should clarify whether lower courts could issue restraining orders against wage-board decisions, warning that allowing such intervention could open the door to similar challenges against future wage increases.
The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to annul a July 24 status quo ante order from Pasig RTC Executive Judge Achilles A.A.C. Balauitan, a July 30 restraining order from Pasig RTC Branch 152 Judge Marie Joyce P. Manongsong and an Aug. 3 order from Navotas RTC Branch 287 Judge Romana M.M.P. Lindayag Del Rosario setting a hearing on a request for another status quo ante order.
Joining the petition as co-filers were Workers and Peasants’ Party of the Philippines, UNI Global Union-Philippine Liaison Council, National Federation of Labor, Unified Filipino Service Workers, Federation of Free Workers, Partido Manggagawa, Sentro ng mga Nagkakaisa at Progresibong Manggagawa, and Council of Teachers and Staff of Colleges and Universities of the Philippines.
They said the court orders have already prevented workers from receiving about P66 million a day in additional wages, based on their estimate of the impact on roughly 1.1 million minimum-wage earners in the region.
The dispute comes as Filipino households continue to contend with elevated living costs. The legal uncertainty also puts employers in a difficult position as they await clarity over whether the higher wage rates must be implemented.
The petitioners said the companies that challenged the wage order in Pasig should have appealed to the National Wages and Productivity Commission within 10 days of its publication instead of seeking declaratory relief from a trial court.
They also argued that the Labor Code bars courts and other bodies from issuing injunctions or temporary restraining orders against proceedings before the national and regional wage boards. The petitioners said status quo ante orders should likewise be covered because they have the same practical effect of stopping a wage order.
The Supreme Court case adds another layer to a dispute that has already drawn opposition from labor groups and lawmakers. The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines has separately sought to lift the Pasig court’s TRO, arguing that it conflicts with the Labor Code.
Labor groups have also moved to intervene in a separate Navotas case challenging the wage increase, underscoring the widening legal battle over the implementation of NCR-27.
For workers, the timing of the legal proceedings is significant because the wage order was designed to provide an immediate P60 increase followed by another P25 next year. Any prolonged litigation could delay the full benefit of the increase and create uncertainty over wage payments and compliance for employers.
The plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to treat the case as one of transcendental importance, saying a ruling would establish guidance for lower courts on whether they may entertain challenges to wage orders and issue interim measures that suspend their enforcement.