A party-list lawmaker and several labor groups have asked the Supreme Court (SC) to nullify Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) orders that halted the implementation of the P85 minimum wage increase in the National Capital Region (NCR).

The petitioners also asked the high court to provide guidance on whether lower courts may entertain challenges to wage orders and issue temporary restraining orders (TROs), injunctions or status quo ante orders against their implementation.

Kamanggagawa Party-list Rep. Elijah Rumbaoa San Fernando, 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 at Progresibong Manggagawa, Unified Filipino Service Workers, Partido Manggagawa and other labor groups, represented by lawyer Jose Sonny G. Matula, filed the petition.

They challenged the 24 July 2026 status quo ante order issued by Pasig RTC Executive Judge Achilles A.A.C. Balauitan and the 30 July TRO issued by Pasig RTC Branch 152 Judge Marie Joyce P. Manongsong.

The 30 July TRO temporarily halted the implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-27 until 13 August, pending a hearing on an application for a writ of preliminary injunction.

The petitioners argued that the RTC orders were “patent nullities,” saying the Labor Code expressly prohibits courts from issuing injunctions against wage orders.

RTC authority questioned

The petitioners also questioned the RTC's authority to entertain a petition for declaratory relief filed by employers challenging the wage order.

“What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly,” they said, arguing that the prohibition against injunctions should also cover status quo ante orders because they have substantially the same effect.

They asked the SC to determine whether RTCs may issue status quo ante orders, TROs and injunctions against wage orders issued by Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Boards.

The petitioners also want the high court to rule on whether employers may use a petition for declaratory relief to challenge a wage order despite the specific remedy provided under Article 123 of the Labor Code, as amended by Republic Act 6727.

They argued that Supreme Court guidance is needed to prevent similar cases seeking to suspend wage increases.

P85 wage hike

Wage Order No. NCR-27, issued on 23 June 2026, provides for a P60 daily wage increase effective 25 July, followed by another P25 increase on 10 January 2027.

The two tranches would bring the NCR minimum wage from P695 to P780 per day.

The petitioners said the initial P60 increase was intended to provide immediate relief to minimum wage earners amid rising prices and the high cost of living.

“For someone earning P695 a day, P60 is not an abstract constitutional question. It is rice, fare, medicine, electricity, or baon ng mga anak,” they said.

The groups invoked the doctrines of transcendental importance, case of first impression and patent nullity in asking the SC to directly take cognizance of the petition.

They argued that the controversy affects millions of workers and raises questions involving public welfare, social justice and the state's constitutional duty to protect labor and promote a living wage.

The petitioners also cited the Senate's unanimous adoption on 4 August of a resolution supporting the immediate lifting of the TRO and urging judicial restraint in matters entrusted by law to wage-setting authorities.

They asked the SC to annul the Pasig RTC orders and proceedings, direct the lower court to cease further action on the declaratory relief case and issue guidance on the proper legal remedy for challenging wage orders.

They also urged the high court to resolve the legal questions even if subsequent developments render the case moot, arguing that authoritative guidance is necessary to prevent similar disputes in the future.