THE Kampihan ng Maralita at Manggagawa (Kamanggagawa) party-list group and several other labor groups have asked the Supreme Court to immediately act on their petitions seeking to set aside the orders issued by a local court that stopped the implementation of the P85 minimum wage increase in Metro Manila.
The groups filed a manifestation before the SC seeking its urgent action on their petition citing the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction last August 13 by the Regional Trial Court in Pasig City, which indefinitely extended the temporary restraining order (TRO) it issued on July 30, pending determination of the merits of the petition for declaratory relief filed by Readycon Trading and Construction Corporation and R-II Builders, Inc.
‘More significantly, the preliminary injunction transformed what had initially been a temporary twenty-day restraint into a judicial restraint capable of continuing throughout the pendency of the principal action,’ the petitioners said.
‘The August 13 order therefore does not diminish the urgency of the present petition. It confirms it,’ they added.
The petitioners maintained that the trial court has no jurisdiction and legal authority to enjoin the wage hike approved by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board in Metro Manila in two tranches.
The first amounting to P60 took effect on July 25 and the remaining P25 will take effect on January 20, 2027.
It may be recalled a status quo ante order (SQAO) was initially issued by the Pasig RTC Executive Judge dated July 23, 2026 which was followed by a TRO issued by Pasig RTC Branch 152 which halted the wage hike.
They stressted that the trial court’s action is prohibited under Article 123 of the Labor Code which mandates that any party aggrieved by the wage order by the regional board may file an appeal before the commission within 10 days which will be decided within 60 days.
Furthermore, the petitioners said the trial courts are prohibited from issuing TROs or any injunctive relief against wage order under Article 126 of the Labor Code which states: ‘No preliminary or permanent injunction or temporary restraining order may be issued by any court, tribunal or other entity against any proceedings before the Commission or the Regional Boards.’
The manifestation also noted that the preliminary injunction was issued by the lower court despite the pendency of the motion for leave filed by labor organizations seeking to intervene in the case before the Pasig RTC.
‘The August 13 order acknowledged the burden upon millions of minimum-wage workers, yet the workers’ representatives had not first been admitted to present evidence concerning the injunction’s actual effect upon their livelihood,’ the manifestation read.
‘Due process required that workers be heard on what it means not to receive it,’ it added.
In their main petition filed before the SC, the labor groups also questioned the order issued by the RTC in Navotas on August 3, setting APFF’s application for SQAO for clarificatory hearing.
They asked the Court to prohibit the two trial courts from continuing to exercise jurisdiction over the applications for injunctive relief against the wage hike.
The labor groups also asked the SC to issue guidance for courts, workers, employers and wage boards on the proper forum and scope of judicial review of wage orders.