Atty. Sonny Matula, Defender ng Manggagawa

15/09/2026

CAGAYAN de Oro City — As the Philippines moves closer to a framework deal for Pax Silica, a labor leader is pressing the government to answer a basic question: What will workers and communities actually gain from the project?

Federation of Free Workers (FFW) President Atty. Sonny Matula raised the issue at the United Nations Responsible Business and Human Rights Forum in Bangkok on Sept. 15, saying workers, farmers, Indigenous Peoples and affected communities should have a meaningful voice in trade and investment decisions.

https://mindanaogoldstardaily.com/pax-silica-what-does-mindanao-get?fbclid=IwcGRvZgNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA80Mzc2MjYzMTY5NzM3ODgAAR6OtNiC29aR6V4AgB93lIL2olAhxfuIjzmu_EhvbooGikrKLLonROwKPRAegA_aem_Ehx9F8f2hROGRwx4RH-uFg

Labor groups and local leaders urge government to secure value-added processing and job protections for Mindanao under the Pax Silica initiative.

15/09/2026

Sonny G. Matula, president of the Federation of Free Workers and chairman of the Nagkaisa Labor Coalition, said Wage Order (WO) No. 28 should not be treated as a replacement for WO 27.

THE P60 wage increase in the National Capital Region (NCR) will provide immediate relief to workers but does not settle their claims under an earlier P85 increase, as questions remain over the legal status of the previous wage order, analysts said.

14/09/2026

All FFW local presidents in Metro Manila

13/09/2026

Palayain!

SEVEN YEARS FOR A TRADE UNION LEADER: NAGKAISA CONDEMNS LEE CHEUK-YAN’S IMPRISONMENT

Nagkaisa Labor Coalition strongly condemns the sentencing and continued imprisonment of veteran Hong Kong trade union leader Lee Cheuk-yan, who was sentenced on September 11 to seven years in prison under Hong Kong’s National Security Law. We likewise condemn the seven-year-and-three-month sentence imposed on barrister and democracy advocate Chow Hang-tung.

Lee is a lifelong trade unionist and former General Secretary of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions (HKCTU) who devoted decades to defending workers’ rights and freedom of association.

His imprisonment is therefore not only an attack on Hong Kong’s civic freedoms. It is a direct assault on the independence of the trade union movement.

Peaceful advocacy is not subversion

For more than three decades, the Hong Kong Alliance organized peaceful commemorations of the victims of the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen crackdown.

Yet Lee and Chow were prosecuted under the National Security Law, with the Alliance’s advocacy—including its call to “end one-party dictatorship”—used as evidence of subversion. There was no allegation that they advocated or carried out violence.

A political position, however unpopular with those in power, is not a crime. Peaceful assembly is not violence. Remembering victims is not subversion.

The use of national-security legislation to criminalize such activities sets a dangerous precedent: it transforms legitimate civic and political expression into a security offense and places independent civil society under threat.

An attack on trade union freedom

For workers, Lee’s imprisonment carries an especially chilling message.

Freedom of association cannot be separated from the freedom of workers and their organizations to speak, organize and participate in public life. Trade unions cannot effectively defend workers if their leaders can be imprisoned for peacefully expressing views on the political and social conditions affecting working people.

What happens to Lee Cheuk-yan can happen to trade unionists anywhere when governments weaponize national security to silence dissent.

Nagkaisa therefore calls on the Hong Kong authorities to:

* Immediately and unconditionally release Lee Cheuk-yan and Chow Hang-tung;
* Quash their convictions and sentences;
* End the use of national-security legislation to criminalize peaceful trade union, civic and human-rights activities; and
* Guarantee freedom of association, freedom of expression and the right of workers to organize independent trade unions.

We call on trade unions worldwide to join the international labor movement in speaking out, writing to Hong Kong authorities and Chinese diplomatic missions, and supporting the global trade union petition for their release.

The international labor movement must not remain silent when a trade union leader is imprisoned for peacefully exercising fundamental freedoms.

Lee Cheuk-yan has spent his life standing with workers.

Now, workers everywhere must stand with Lee.

Free Lee Cheuk-Yan!
Free Chow Hang-Tung!
Defend Trade Union Freedom!
Defend Freedom of Association!

12/09/2026

Saludo, Kasamang Ferdi.

Sumakabilang-buhay ka sa Iloilo—ang lugar kung saan nadadrive kayo sa nagtrabaho, samatalang buong pusong namuno sa unyon.

Sa bawat rali, picket line, at negosasyon, hindi ka kailanman umurong sa pagtatanggol sa dignidad, kapakanan, at karapatan ng mga manggagawa. Sa bawat paninindigan mo, dama namin ang tapang ng isang lider na hindi lamang nagsalita para sa mga kasama, kundi tunay na nakiramay, nakipaglaban, at tumindig kasama nila.

Higit ka pa sa isang lider-unyon. Ikaw ay naging kaibigan, kapatid, sandigan, at inspirasyon ng marami. Sa iyong walang sawang paglilingkod, iniwan mo sa amin ang isang halimbawa ng katapatan sa prinsipyo, malasakit sa kapwa, at tapang na harapin ang anumang pagsubok. Ang iyong tinig ay maaaring manahimik na, ngunit ang mga salitang ipinaglaban mo at ang mga buhay na iyong naantig ay mananatiling buhay sa aming mga puso.

Ngayon, panahon na upang ikaw naman ay magpahinga sa piling ng mapagmahal na Diyos. Matapos ang mahabang pakikibaka at walang pagod na paglilingkod, nawa’y matagpuan mo ang kapayapaan at pahingang tunay mong karapat-dapat matanggap.

Sa iyong pamilya, mga kaibigan, at mga kasama sa unyon, taos-puso naming ipinapaabot ang aming pinakamalalim na pakikiramay. Alam naming walang salitang sapat upang punan ang puwang na iniwan ni Kasamang Ferdi. Nawa’y bigyan kayo ng Diyos ng lakas, kapanatagan, at pag-asa sa gitna ng matinding dalamhati. Hindi ninyo kailangang harapin ang lungkot nang mag-isa—narito ang inyong mga kasama at kapatid sa FFW, handang makiramay at umalalay sa bawat hakbang ng pagdadalamhati.

Pahinga ka na, kasama. Salamat sa iyong tapang, malasakit, at walang pag-iimbot na paglilingkod. Mananatiling buhay ang iyong alaala, gayundin ang mga adhikaing ipinaglaban mo. Kami na muna ang magpapatuloy sa susunod na martsa, tangan ang iyong halimbawa, tapang, at paninindigan. Sa bawat rali, sa bawat pakikibaka, at sa bawat tagumpay ng mga manggagawa, kasama ka namin.

Hindi ka namin malilimutan, Kasamang Ferdi. Mananatili kang bahagi ng aming kasaysayan, pakikibaka, at puso.

Nawa’y pagpalain at palakasin tayong lahat ng Diyos.

https://www.facebook.com/share/1GhHEN6tvf/?mibextid=wwXIfr

10/09/2026

Federation of Free Workers (FFW) president and NAGKAKAISA Labor Coalition chairperson Sonny Matula made the call after learning that, during the budget hearing at the House of Representatives on September 8, the DOLE revealed WO 28 was recently approved to implement a P60 wage increase in NCR as a solution to the impasse before the Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) which ordered the stop in the implementation of WO 27.

“Nagkaisa's legal fight for Wage Order 27 (WO 27) — the P85 NCR minimum wage increase — stands. It is not overtaken by the approval of Wage Order 28,” declared the lawyer.

Read more at: https://tribune.net.ph/2026/09/09/labor-group-urges-dole-to-fight-for-p85-ncr-wage-hike

Read more Daily Tribune stories at: https://tribune.net.ph/

Follow us on our social media
Facebook:
Youtube:
Twitter:
Instagram:
TikTok:

Breaking news, business, sports, lifestyle, and opinion from Daily Tribune — the Philippines' leading digital newspaper.

10/09/2026

2026 Bar Labor Law Question No. 2

Uno Service Providers, Inc. (Uno) is a registered service provider under Department Order No. 174. Uno has a legitimate contracting arrangement with Pharmacare, wherein Uno provides Pharmacare with 50 workers to man its drugstores across Metro Manila. Unfortunately, Uno was unable to pay the retirement benefits of five of its retiring workers, forcing the latter to file a labor complaint against Uno and Pharmacare. Pharmacare argued that it cannot be held liable for the retirement benefits of the retiring workers because its arrangement with Uno is legitimate and the latter is a registered service provider. May Pharmacare be held liable for the workers’ money claims? Explain.

Suggested answer:

Yes. Pharmacare may be held solidarily liable with Uno.

Though characterized as legitimate contracting arrangement, it waves several red flags of labor-only contracting: Uno merely supplied workers to operate Pharmacare’s drugstores; no distinct undertaking or special expertise appears; and Uno’s inability to pay retirement benefits casts serious doubt on its substantial capital. Its DOLE registration is merely a badge—not a bulletproof vest. It is not conclusive proof of legitimate independent contracting under Luces v. Coca-Cola⁠.

If Uno is a labor-only contractor, Pharmacare is deemed the workers’ employer and Uno appears to be its agent. Even assuming the arrangement is legitimate, Pharmacare may still be solidarily liable for covered labor claims under Articles 106, 107, and 109 of the Labor Code.

As Aliviado v. Procter & Gamble⁠ reminds us, contracting cannot be used to defeat security of tenure—a property right protected by due process and the fundamental law as shown in Callanta v. Carnation⁠.

Contractualization may be some employers’ daily cup of coffee, but workers are not commodities to be brewed, used, and discarded. The commodification of labor must be struck-down.

09/09/2026

2026 Bar Question in Labor Law and our suggested answer

Question No. 1

On January 5, 2026, First Vault Bank (Bank) hired Mabel as a probationary teller. At the time of engagement, Mabel was given the complete set of reasonable standards for regularization, which were thoroughly explained by the Bank. However, by July 2, 2026, it had become readily apparent that Mabel did not meet the standards for regularization. Hence, on the same day, the Bank’s human resource manager asked Mabel if she wished to extend her probationary period for another 30 days, so she could demonstrate her potential to become a regular employee. Mabel accepted the proposal, expressed her gratitude to the management, and signed a memorandum extending her probationary period for another month.

However, before the end of the extended period, the Bank terminated Mabel’s employment for her consistent failure to meet the standards for regularization. Mabel argued that the termination is illegal since the original 180 days have lapsed, and the extension of probationary employment is not allowed under Philippine labor laws. Was Mabel illegally dismissed? Explain.

Suggested Answer

No. Mabel was not illegally dismissed.

The Bank gave her a second chance—not a trap disguised as a calendar.

True, the law generally limits probationary employment to six months. However, in Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. v. Leogardo, Jr., the Supreme Court held that the employer and employee may voluntarily and reasonably extend the probationary period to give the employee another opportunity to qualify for regular employment.

Here, the Bank made the standards clear from day one. When Mabel failed to meet them, the Bank could have shown her the door to the sea of unemployment and uncertainty. Instead, it threw her a lifeline: another 30 days to prove herself. Mabel voluntarily accepted the second chance and agreed to its terms in writing.

The rope that was thrown as a lifeline cannot now be used to strangle the helping hands that extended the second chance. Mabel cannot accept the additional opportunity, then reject the clock that came with it. A grace period is not an automatic regularization period.

As Justice Andres R. Narvasa aptly explained:

“The law, surely, was never meant to produce such an inequitable result.”

Thus, the extension was valid. Mabel’s termination for her continued failure to meet the previously disclosed standards was lawful, provided that the Bank gave her the required written notice.

Mariwasa Manufacturing, Inc. v. Leogardo, Jr., G.R. No. 74246, January 26, 1989; Narvasa, J., ponente.