On 11 September 2026, the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board–National Capital Region (“RTWPB-NCR”) published Wage Order No. NCR-28, granting a PHP 60.00 increase in the daily minimum wage of covered private-sector workers in Metro Manila, effective 26 September 2026.
Wage Order No. NCR-28 was issued amid the pending litigation that has restrained the implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-27. In its preambular clauses, Wage Order No. NCR-28 expressly refers to the non-implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-27 as a result of successive injunctive orders, specifically a Status Quo Ante Order (“SQAO”) issued on 24 July 2026, a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”), and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction (“WPI”).
Upon the effectivity of Wage Order No. NCR-28, the daily minimum wage rate for employees in the non-agricultural sector will increase from PHP 695.00 to PHP 755.00, while the daily minimum wage rate for employees in the agricultural sector, service and retail establishments employing 15 workers or fewer, and manufacturing establishments regularly employing fewer than 10 workers will increase from PHP 658.00 to PHP 718.00. 1
The PHP 60.00 increase under Wage Order No. NCR-28 is equivalent to the first tranche of the PHP 85.00 wage increase previously granted under Wage Order No. NCR-27. For context, Wage Order No. NCR-27 provided for the implementation of the PHP 85.00 increase in two tranches: PHP 60.00 effective 25 July 2026 and an additional PHP 25.00 effective 20 January 2027. Its implementation, however, was restrained before the first tranche could take effect.
Wage Order No. NCR-28 therefore provides an independent basis for the implementation of the PHP 60.00 minimum wage increase beginning 26 September 2026 while Wage Order No. NCR-27 remains subject to injunctive orders. The issuance of Wage Order No. NCR-28, however, does not necessarily render the pending litigation involving Wage Order No. NCR-27 moot. In particular, NCR-27 provides for an additional PHP 25.00 increase that has no counterpart under NCR-28, while questions remain regarding the effect of the injunctive orders on the period preceding the effectivity of NCR-28.
Injunctive Orders Against Wage Order No. NCR-27
Before the first tranche of Wage Order No. NCR-27 could be implemented, its enforcement became subject to successive injunctive orders. A SQAO was issued on 24 July 2026, followed by a TRO issued by Branch 152 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City on 30 July 2026.
The proceedings arose from a Petition for Declaratory Relief filed by Readycon Trading and Construction Corporation and R-II Builders, Inc. (“Petitioners”), questioning the validity of Wage Order No. NCR-27.2
Upon the expiration of the TRO on 13 August 2026, the Pasig RTC issued a WPI continuing to restrain the implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-27 while the Petition for Declaratory Relief remains pending. The WPI was conditioned upon the Petitioners’ posting of a PHP 10 billion injunction bond.3 The Petitioners, however, subsequently admitted that they could not post the required bond.4
Legal Issues Attending the Injunctive Orders
The proceedings raise several legal and procedural issues, including (1) whether an RTC may enjoin the implementation of a wage order in light of Article 126 of the Labor Code; (2) whether the Petitioners were required to first avail themselves of the administrative appeal before the National Wages and Productivity Commission (“NWPC”); and (3) the effect of the Petitioners’ admitted inability to post the PHP 10 billion injunction bond required by the RTC on the issuance and effectivity of the WPI.
First, there is a legal controversy on whether the Pasig RTC may issue injunctive orders against the implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-27.
Under Article 126 of the Labor Code, no injunction or temporary restraining order may be issued by any court, tribunal, or other entity against proceedings before the NWPC or the Regional Boards. Notably, this provision specifically prohibits the issuance of injunctive orders against “proceedings before” the NWPC or the Regional Boards, and does not expressly prohibit the issuance of injunctive orders against the implementation or enforcement of an already issued wage order — such as the Pasig RTC’s injunctive orders against Wage Order No. NCR-27.
Thus, the application of Article 126 of the Labor Code to the present case would necessarily require a determination on whether the implementation of a wage order is considered part of, or a continuation of, the wage-fixing proceedings before the RTWPB-NCR or NWPC.
Second, the immediate resort to the RTC is prone to challenge, considering that the Labor Code provides for an administrative remedy against wage fixing orders.
Under Section 1, Rule V of the Revised Rules of Procedure on Minimum Wage Fixing, any party aggrieved by a wage order may file a verified appeal with the NWPC, through the Regional Board, within ten (10) days from publication. Such appeal may be based on: (a) non-conformity with prescribed guidelines or procedures; (b) questions of law; or (c) grave abuse of discretion.
Although a petition for declaratory relief may be available to determine questions concerning the construction or validity of an executive or administrative issuance before a breach or violation occurs,5 direct resort to the courts may be questioned where an adequate administrative remedy remains available or where the controversy requires the prior determination of matters falling within the competence of an administrative agency. 6
Accordingly, to the extent that the grounds raised against Wage Order No. NCR-27 fall within those cognizable in an administrative appeal, the direct resort to the RTC may be challenged for failure to first avail of the remedy before the NWPC.
Third, there is a controversy concerning the binding effect of the WPI, since the Petitioners admittedly failed to post the PHP 10 billion injunction bond. The Petitioners, however, reportedly had already posted a bond of PHP 1 million for the issuance of the TRO.7
Under Section 4(b), Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, the posting of the requisite bond is a condition for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Section 7, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court further provides that where an applicant’s bond is found insufficient and a sufficient bond is not filed forthwith, the injunction shall be dissolved.
However, the insufficiency of a bond already posted does not, by itself, automatically lead to a dissolution of the injunctive writ. In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. CA, G.R. No. 142731, 8 June 2006, the Supreme Court held that in case the bond posted is insufficient, then the applicant may be required to post the sufficient amount of bond pursuant to Section 7, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court. It is when the applicant fails to timely comply with the court’s directive for the posting of the sufficient amount of bond that the injunction may be dissolved.
Likewise, in Spouses Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147191, 27 July 2006, the Supreme Court held that once an injunctive order is issued, such must be obeyed while it remains in force until it is set aside, vacated, modified, or reversed.
All these issues, however, may eventually be resolved through appropriate judicial proceedings which are now pending before regular courts.
Wage Order No. NCR-28 Did Not Expressly Repeal Wage Order No. NCR-27
Apart from the foregoing, the issuance of Wage Order No. NCR-28 poses a considerable separate issue: what, if any, is its legal effect if the Pasig RTC’s injunctive orders were set aside?
For context, the Pasig RTC did not invalidate Wage Order No. NCR-27; it only issued injunctive orders restraining its implementation. Likewise, Wage Order No. NCR-28 contains no express provision repealing, revoking, superseding, or amending Wage Order No. NCR-27.
Thus, if both Wage Orders No. NCR-27 and NCR-28 had been validly issued and the Pasig RTC’s injunctive orders were dissolved and/or set aside, will these two (2) wage orders cumulatively and respectively direct an increase in minimum wages of PHP 85.00 and PHP 60.00, for a total of PHP 145.00?
Relevantly, in Norkis Free and Independent Workers Union vs. Norkis Trading Company, Inc., G.R. No. 157098, 30 June 2005, the Supreme Court ruled against imposing an additional wage increase when the text of the wage order fails to support that imposition.
In this case, the texts of the two (2) Wage Orders do not appear to support the proposition that a cumulative increase to the minimum wage rate had been prescribed in the NCR.
In fact, the respective Section 2 of Wage Orders No. NCR-27 and NCR-28 both prescribe the same minimum wage increase of PHP 60.00 reckoned from the same baseline minimum under Wage Order No. NCR-26 (i.e. an increase of PHP 60.00 from PHP 695 for the non-agricultural sector; and from PHP 658.00 for the agricultural sector and those engaged in service/retail with 15 workers or less, and manufacturing with less than 10 workers).
Thus, if Wage Order No. NCR-28 intended to cumulatively add to a separate minimum wage increase of PHP 60.00 under Wage Order No. NCR-27, then it could have explicitly set forth that prescribed increase therein (instead of referring to the same minimum wage baselines under the previous Wage Order No. NCR-26). Further, Wage Order No. NCR-28 does not appear to supersede or repeal the second tranche of PHP 25.00 effective 20 January 2027 onwards under Wage Order No. NCR-27. As discussed above, the Pasig RTC did not invalidate Wage Order No. NCR-27 and, thus, all its provisions remain valid and effective, subject only to the effects of the WPI.
Accordingly, both wage orders appear to be consistent with each other in providing for the same increase of PHP 60.00. However, unless Wage Order No. NCR-27 is invalidated or otherwise superseded, its second tranche of PHP 25.00 minimum wage increase appears to remain in effect and would be enforced beginning 20 January 2027.
Effect if the Injunctive Orders Against Wage Order No. NCR-27 Are Lifted
If the injunctive orders against Wage Order No. NCR-27 are lifted, then what would be the minimum wage rate applicable during the period when Wage Order No. NCR-27 was supposed to take effect from 25 July 2026 until 25 September 2026 (i.e. before Wage Order No. NCR-28 takes effect on 26 September 2026)?
On the one hand, case law confirms that TRO and/or WPIs merely suspend the implementation of substantive rights arising from judgments and/or regulatory issuances. Thus, in Zamboanga City Water District vs. Presiding Commissioner Musib M. Buat, et al., G.R. No. 104389, 27 May 1994, the Supreme Court held that a TRO merely suspended the implementation of the employees’ rights under a judgment award and did not nullify them. When the TRO was ultimately lifted and the underlying judgment in a labor case was subsequently affirmed, the employees were entitled to the wages that accrued during the period of restraint.8
Accordingly, in applying this view, if the injunctive orders against Wage Order No. NCR-27 were lifted, then the injunctive orders may be viewed as having merely suspended its implementation without extinguishing the wage entitlements arising thereunder. Thus, upon the lifting of the injunctive orders, employees may claim the PHP 60.00 daily wage differentials that accrued from its original effectivity on 25 July 2026 until 25 September 2026. Beginning 26 September 2026, employers complying with Wage Order No. NCR-28 would already be paying the same minimum wage rates contemplated under the first tranche of Wage Order No. NCR-27.
On the other hand, as discussed in Spouses Lee v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 147191, 27 July 2006, injunctive orders must be obeyed until they are dissolved. Thus, during the period covered by the TRO and/or WPI, the DOLE has not enforced Wage Order No. NCR-27 and, conversely, employers had no legal duty to comply with its provisions. Non-compliance with Wage Order No. NCR-27 during the injunction period, thus, potentially constitutes damnum absque injuria — where employers committed no legal injury to the employees in the NCR, as no wage order effectively required the minimum wage increase of PHP 60.00.
If this view is taken, however, then Wage Order No. NCR-27 must be applied prospectively upon lifting of the injunctive orders. However, considering that the same tranche of PHP 60.00 had already been implemented through Wage Order No. NCR-28, then such view would have practically rendered moot and diminished the benefits that would have accrued to the employees from 25 July 2026 until 25 September 2026.
These potential differences in interpretation, therefore, require the issuance of appropriate implementing rules and regulations from the Department of Labor and Employment (“DOLE”) and its agencies to clarify the legal efficacy of Wage Order No. NCR-27 from 25 July 2026 to 25 September 2026 — if the injunctive orders were to be lifted and/or dissolved. Relevantly, Article 4 of the Labor Code provides that in case of doubt in the implementation and interpretation of its provisions, including implementing rules and regulations as well as the wage orders of RTWPB-NCR, such must be resolved in favor of labor.
Practical Implications for Private-Sector Employers
For private-sector employers in the National Capital Region, Wage Order No. NCR-28 provides the immediate basis for compliance beginning 26 September 2026. Covered employers should adjust the applicable daily minimum wage rates to PHP 755.00 for the non-agricultural sector and PHP 718.00 for the other covered sectors.
Employers should nevertheless continue to monitor the pending litigation involving Wage Order No. NCR-27. If Wage Order No. NCR-27 is ultimately upheld as valid and given effect from its original effectivity dates, employers will be liable for PHP 60.00 daily wage differentials covering 25 July to 25 September 2026, as well as the additional PHP 25.00 second tranche scheduled for 20 January 2027.
Pending definitive resolution of these issues, employers may consider maintaining appropriate payroll records and assessing their potential exposure under Wage Order No. NCR-27.
Footnotes
1. Section 2, Wage Order No. NCR-28.
2. Gillian Villanueva, “Pasig court issues TRO on implementation of P85 NCR minimum wage hike,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 30 July 2026, https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2274559/pasig-court-issues-tro-on-implementation-of-p85-ncr-minimum-wage-hike.
3. Renalyn Ramirez, “Pasig court extends suspension of P85 Metro Manila wage hike”, Philippine Star, 14 August 2026, https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2026/08/14/2549240/pasig-court-extends-suspension-p85-metro-manila-wage-hike
4. Dianne Sampang, “Solon, DOLE chief clash over P85 wage hike implementation in Metro Manila,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, 8 September 2026, https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/2301626/solon-dole-chief-clash-over-p85-wage-hike-implementation-in-metro-manila
5. Galicto vs. Aquino III, G.R. No. 193978, 28 February 2012.
6. Ferrer, Jr., et al. vs. Roco, Jr., et al., GR. No. 174129, 5 July 2010.
7. William B. Depasupil, “Employers ask court to cut P10B bond over NCR pay hike,” Manila Times, 25 August 2026, https://www.manilatimes.net/2026/08/25/news/national/employers-ask-court-to-cut-p10b-bond-over-ncr-pay-hike/2411328
8. Zamboanga City Water District vs. Presiding Commissioner Musib M. Buat, et al., G.R. No. 104389, 27 May 1994.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
