Philippines services
Update (September 15, 2026): NCR-27 remains on hold, still pending the Pasig RTC’s ruling on the underlying case. Separately, the wage board issued Wage Order NCR-28 to deliver the same ₱60 through an order the injunction doesn’t reach, effective September…
Update (September 15, 2026): NCR-27 remains on hold, still pending the Pasig RTC’s ruling on the underlying case. Separately, the wage board issued Wage Order NCR-28 to deliver the same ₱60 through an order the injunction doesn’t reach, effective September 26, 2026. The ₱695 floor described below applies specifically to NCR-27; it does not override the ₱755 rate now required under Wage Order NCR-28.
Wage Order NCR-27’s ₱85 increase has been in legal limbo for weeks. Here’s the full timeline: how it got paused, what happened at each hearing, and where it stands now that the original TRO has been replaced by an indefinite injunction.
The NCR wage hike suspension took effect on July 30, 2026, when the Pasig City Regional Trial Court, Branch 152, issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) halting implementation of Wage Order No. NCR-27, the ₱85 daily minimum wage increase for private-sector workers in Metro Manila.
Judge Marie Joyce P. Manongsong granted the TRO after two construction firms, Readycon Trading and Construction Corp. and R-II Builders, Inc., petitioned the court to halt enforcement. Their argument: the Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board-NCR (RTWPB-NCR) didn’t give proper weight to employers’ capacity to pay under Article 124 of the Labor Code.
The TRO enjoined the RTWPB-NCR and the National Wages and Productivity Commission (NWPC) from implementing Wage Order NCR-27 for 20 days, until August 13, 2026. Petitioners were ordered to post a ₱1 million bond.
This put every NCR employer that had already adjusted payroll for the first ₱60 tranche (which took effect July 25) in an unusual position: the increase they’d just implemented was now judicially suspended, and the underlying legal question was still unresolved.
At the August 3 hearing, the court set a comment period rather than ruling on the petitioners’ request to convert the TRO into a preliminary injunction, so the conversion question remained open going into the TRO’s expiry date.
A second, separate petition then emerged. The Alliance of Philippine Fishing Federations, Inc. filed a petition for declaratory relief against RTWPB-NCR and NWPC before the Regional Trial Court in Navotas, Branch 287. The court set a clarificatory hearing for August 6, scheduled by Presiding Judge Romana M. Lindayag Del Rosario in an order dated August 3, after the petitioner complied with the court’s earlier directives.
This case moved on a different track than the Pasig TRO. The Navotas court called for a hearing before ruling on the petition itself.
The Federation of Free Workers and other Nagkaisa Labor Coalition affiliates contested the court’s jurisdiction outright in both cases. They cite Article 126 of the Labor Code and the Buenaflor vs Ramirez ruling, which bars courts from issuing injunctions against wage board proceedings.
For employers, the takeaway at this point: NCR-27 was contested on two separate court cases at once, though neither had changed the applicable rate. The ₱695 floor applied while the Pasig TRO stood, and its expiry date, August 13, was the one that mattered.
The TRO reached its 20-day limit on August 13, and under Rule 58, a regional trial court’s TRO of that kind can’t simply be extended. But that’s not what happened here. Before the window closed, the Pasig RTC issued a separate, 14-page order granting the petitioners’ request for a writ of preliminary injunction.
The injunction bars RTWPB-NCR and NWPC from implementing Wage Order NCR-27 “pending this court’s determination of the merits of the petition for declaratory relief” with no fixed end date. Petitioners were ordered to post a sharply higher bond: ₱10 billion, up from the original TRO’s ₱1 million.
As of August 30, that bond had not been posted, which labor groups cite in arguing the injunction never took effect and the hike is already in force.
In its order, the court pointed to the risk of job terminations if the wage hike proceeded, calling the pause “in the best interest of all stakeholders.” Labor groups pushed back hard. The Nagkaisa Labor Coalition called the injunction a “legal bombshell” and is maintaining that courts have no jurisdiction to enjoin wage board proceedings at all under Article 126 of the Labor Code.
The result: Wage Order NCR-27 remains suspended, but on a different legal basis and a different timeline than before. The TRO ran out but the injunction replaced it. The underlying petition for declaratory relief still hasn’t been decided.
| What’s Affected | How It’s Affected |
|---|---|
| Rate status as of August 13, 2026 (under the preliminary injunction) | Enforcement remains suspended; the legally compellable floor stays at ₱695/day, with no fixed end date |
| Second tranche (₱25, scheduled Jan 20, 2027) | Not affected by this order. Not yet before the court |
| Wage Order NCR-27 itself | Not voided. Only its enforcement is paused pending the court’s ruling on the underlying petition for declaratory relief |
The distinction matters: this is not a repeal of the wage order. RTWPB-NCR and NWPC are barred from enforcing it while the preliminary injunction stands, but the order itself remains on the books, and its full ₱85 increase (bringing the daily minimum to ₱780) is still the endpoint if the court ultimately rules in the wage board’s favor.
Readycon and R-II Builders filed a petition for declaratory relief, arguing that the ₱85 increase, the largest single nominal adjustment in NCR wage-setting history, didn’t adequately account for employers’ capacity to pay and fair return on capital, citing compounding cost pressures including the recent run-up in fuel prices.
The court found the petitioners had sufficiently established the “extreme urgency” required to justify a TRO, and later found grounds to convert that into a preliminary injunction.
Worth flagging for anyone tracking this closely: both the TRO’s and the injunction’s validity remain contested. The Federation of Free Workers (FFW) and the NAGKAISA labor coalition have publicly argued that the Labor Code bars courts from issuing injunctions against wage board proceedings in the first place, an argument that now applies to the injunction just as it did to the TRO.
How this affects you depends on where you are in your payroll cycle, and it’s worth separating the payroll question from the labor-law question, since they call for different kinds of advice.
If you already ran payroll at the ₱60 higher rate (July 25–30 cycle): the injunction confirms ₱695 as the applicable floor going forward. Decide with labor counsel whether and how to revert the rate you’d already applied. That’s a labor-relations call.
The payroll administration task here is straightforward: document which rate you applied, when, and on what legal basis, so your records stay defensible regardless of which way the case goes.
If you haven’t yet run an affected payroll cycle: apply ₱695. The preliminary injunction confirms this as the operative floor, and unlike the original TRO, it has no fixed expiry and it holds until the court rules on the underlying case or lifts it sooner. Note this is separate from Wage Order NCR-28, which independently requires ₱755 from September 26, 2026 onward regardless of how the NCR-27 case proceeds.
If you’re a PH subsidiary of an international group: this is no longer a short-term suspension with a pending hearing date. It’s an indefinite hold tied to ongoing litigation. Flag that distinction in cost projections. The ₱780 full increase is on hold, not cancelled, and could still take effect if the case is ultimately decided against the petitioners
For the broader picture on how NCR wage adjustments interact with 13th month pay, overtime, and other statutory pay components, see CloudCFO’s guide to wages and compensation compliance in the Philippines.
Wage Order NCR-27 is now suspended indefinitely while the underlying case plays out, not paused for a fixed window. That changes the calculus: instead of preparing for a single rate flip on a known date, employers need a position that holds up for as long as the litigation takes, and one they can unwind cleanly if the case eventually resolves against the petitioners.
If you want a second set of eyes on your payroll numbers under either outcome, or help documenting your current position so it holds up regardless of how the case resolves, get in touch with CloudCFO.
Is Wage Order NCR-27 cancelled?
No. The order itself hasn’t been voided. Its enforcement is paused by a Pasig RTC preliminary injunction while the court decides the underlying case.
What minimum wage rate should I apply right now?
For NCR-27 specifically: ₱695/day, the floor while the injunction stands. Separately, Wage Order NCR-28 independently requires ₱755/day (non-agriculture) from September 26, 2026, regardless of NCR-27’s status.
When will the suspension end?
There’s no fixed date. The injunction holds until the Pasig RTC rules on the merits of the case or lifts the injunction sooner.
I already ran payroll at the higher ₱755 rate. What do I do?
Talk to labor counsel before deciding. Rolling back a paid rate raises a diminution-of-benefits question. Some employers are holding the higher rate, others are reverting. Whichever you choose, document the rate and the legal basis behind it.
Let CloudCFO run your payroll end to end: SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG and withholding tax computed, filed and paid on time.
Explore this service →or book a free consultation
Questions about how this affects your business? Our team replies within one business day.
![BIR Form 2303 or the Certificate of Registration: The Key Tax Compliance Document for PH Businesses [2026 Update]](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/6abb649ace693a5b89cd1f0d/6acdaa89487fec15bcf8b451_6acda4b16be660d665036059_blog-bir-certificate-of-registration.jpeg)
