The Supreme Court has been asked by two construction companies and a fishing industry federation to dismiss a petition challenging the implementation of a minimum wage increase in Metro Manila, arguing that a subsequent wage order has rendered the case moot.
Readycon Trading and Construction Corp., R-II Builders Inc. and the Alliance of Philippine Fishing Federations Inc., in a consolidated comment filed with the high court, said Wage Order No. NCR-28, which took effect on September 26, granted workers a new P60 daily wage increase, overtaking the relief sought in the pending petition.
Filed on August 11, the petition by labor groups and party-list representatives challenges court orders that temporarily halted the implementation of the earlier Wage Order No. NCR-27, which provided for a P60 daily increase effective July 25 and another P25 increase scheduled for January 20, 2027.
The private respondents argued that the Supreme Court should dismiss the case because the challenged orders had lapsed and the wage board had issued a new order granting the first tranche of the increase.
Wage Order No. NCR-28 raised the daily minimum wage to P755 for nonagricultural workers and P718 for workers in agriculture, retail and service establishments employing fewer than 10 workers, and manufacturing establishments employing fewer than 10 workers.
The new order was issued on September 7 by the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board in the National Capital Region, published on September 11 and took effect 15 days later.
The wage board said it issued the new order because Wage Order No. NCR-27 had not been implemented following judicial injunctions.
The dispute stemmed from separate petitions filed by the construction companies and the fishing federation before regional trial courts in Pasig City and Navotas City, respectively.
The Pasig petitioners sought a judicial interpretation of Article 124 of the Labor Code, particularly whether the wage board was required to consider employers' capacity to pay and the practical effects of a wage increase before implementing an order of such magnitude.
They maintained that their petition did not ask the court to set wages or substitute its judgment for that of the wage board.
The Pasig Regional Trial Court granted a temporary restraining order on July 30 and, on August 13, issued a writ of preliminary injunction conditioned on the posting of a P10-billion bond.
The private respondents said the petitioners had not posted the bond as of the filing of their comment, leaving the injunction's implementation subject to further proceedings.
In the Navotas case, the fishing federation challenged the same wage order but sought only a status quo ante order. The trial court set a clarificatory hearing but had not issued a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, according to the comment.
The respondents said the two cases were distinct and should not be treated as having the same procedural history.
They also argued that the Supreme Court petition was procedurally defective because the petitioners were not parties to the underlying cases, had not sought reconsideration of the challenged orders before filing the petition and had failed to observe the hierarchy of courts.
The respondents further opposed the petitioners' request for the high court to direct lower courts to dismiss future petitions challenging wage orders, saying such a directive would go beyond the scope of a petition for certiorari and prohibition.
They asked the Supreme Court to allow the Pasig and Navotas trial courts to resolve the remaining issues before them, including the effect of Wage Order No. NCR-28 on the earlier wage order.
The consolidated comment, dated September 29, was submitted in response to the Supreme Court's August 26 resolution requiring the respondents to comment on the petition.
The high court has yet to rule on the petition, based on the document.