Akbayan asks SC to look into Pasig court's TRO vs. wage hike

Akbayan Representative Percival "Perci" Cendaña and labor leaders on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court (SC) to look into a Pasig court's decision that issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the implementation of an ₱85-increase in minimum wages in Metro Manila.

Cendaña said their "love letter" to the SC and the Judicial Integrity Office is calling the court's attention to a major violation of workers' rights. He said it seems as if the RTC is stealing ₱60 per day from minimum wage earners.

"Dahil sa TRO na ito, ninanakawan ng RTC ng ₱60 everyday ang ating mga minimum wage earners. Sa 20 days, magkano ito kung hindi pa mali-lift agad ang TRO?" he said.

(Because of this TRO, the RTC is effectively stealing ₱60 every day from minimum wage earners. Over 20 days, how much would that be if the TRO is not lifted immediately?)

"Hindi dapat maging takbuhan ng mga kumpanyang malalaki itong mga korte para ipagkait sa mga manggagawa ang dagdag-sahod na kailangang-kailangan nila sa panahong ito na napakataas ng presyo ng bilihin," he added.

(Large companies should not use the courts as a means to deny workers the wage increase they badly need at a time when the prices of goods are so high.)

Last July, a Pasig court granted the prayer of two corporations for a TRO on the implementation of National Capital Region (NCR) Wage Order 27, "pending the resolution of the petition for declaratory relief."

"Nakikita natin na napakamapanganib itong ginawa ni judge na paglalabas ng TRO sapagkat ang puwedeng gawin lamang ng iba pang may-ari ng negosyo, may-ari ng kumpanya, sa susunod na gumawa ng wage hike order ay tumakbo sa korte para pigilan ito," Cendaña said.

(We can see that what the judge did in issuing the TRO is very dangerous, because what other business owners and company owners can do the next time that a wage hike order is issued, go to the courts to stop it.)

In their letter, Cendaña and labor leaders asked the SC to issue an administrative circular providing guidance to first and second-level courts on the application of 126 of the Labor Code and the procedural requirements on interim injunctive relief.

Article 126 states that 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.

They asked the SC to remind all judges of first and second-level courts of the prohibition under Article 126; clarify that the prohibition attaches to the substance and not the caption of an order, and therefore extends to any order, including one styled as a status quo ante order; among others.

“We write as concerned citizens and labor organizations with a direct and continuing interest in the integrity of the wage-fixing machinery established by Congress under Republic Act No. 6727, and in ensuring that the statutory safeguards governing the implementation and review of wage orders are observed,” the letter read.

“Principally, we respectfully request that your Office conduct such evaluation or fact-finding as it may consider warranted,” it added.

Meanwhile, Cendaña said he has filed a House resolution seeking to investigate the implementation of wage hikes and the process to ensure that workers receive their wages. — VDV, GMA News