MOMENTS after the Pasig Regional Trial Court ruled to extend the suspension of the wage hike implementation, labor advocate groups sought refuge in the Supreme Court.
In a petition, Akbayan Rep. Percival Cendaña, along with Kamanggagawa Rep. Eli San Fernando and eight other labor groups filed a petition seeking to nullify the orders issued by the Pasig City RTC suspending the P85 wage increase for minimum wage workers in the National Capital Region (NCR).
“The Supreme Court, as the final bulwark of justice in our country, must indubitably step in and correct this ignominy that is threatening to erode the trust of the public in our wage-fixing system,” reads part of the petition.
Acting on a motion seeking judicial relief filed by two construction companies, Pasig RTC Judge Achilles Balauitan of Branch 154 issued on July 24 a status quo order against NCR Wage Order No. 27 which granted the increase, which was supposed to take effect on July 25.
The petitioners behind the so-called “judicial relief” are Readycon Trading and Construction Corp. and R-II Builders Inc.
In a statement, the labor advocates assailed Readycon Trading and Construction Corp. and R-II Builders Inc., even as they described the Pasig City RTC rulings as “social justice in reverse” for the 1.1 million minimum wage earners in Metro Manila.
“Those who have less are made to wait for [the] P60 needed today… as their ATMs are already pledged to loan sharks and lending institutions with less than satisfactory debt collection practices, while those who have more get to keep the P60 in the meantime,” said Rep. San Fernando.
Invoking Article 126 of the Labor Code, the labor groups in their 39-page petition asked the high tribunal to issue an order directing lower courts to immediately dismiss any petition against wage orders.
Article 126 of the Labor Code prohibits courts from issuing TROs or similar injunctions on the matter.
Under existing laws, wage-related concerns are under the ambit of the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board and the National Wages and Productivity Commission.
“The respondent lower courts and judges have arrogated upon themselves the settlement of an issue beyond their mandates. They neither have the authority nor the necessary knowledge, expertise and experience to ascertain the propriety and wisdom of wage orders.”
