Dear Attorney,

I hope this message finds you well. I am writing on behalf of a friend who works as an on-call employee under a local agency, which then deploys him to a logistics company. He recently received a notice from his agency about a potential administrative or disciplinary matter involving his attendance record. Specifically, there is an allegation that he tampered with his daily time record (DTR) to reflect off-site attendance hours.

According to him, the agency contacted him by phone, and he went to the agency’s office on the same day. However, no one was there to address his concerns. He later discovered that his account or work status was “frozen,” and he believes it might be connected to this attendance or DTR issue.

He is worried about the process and wants to understand his rights and possible defenses. Could you please provide insights on what he should do next, how he can respond to any show-cause order or administrative charge, and what relevant laws, rules, or regulations he should consider to protect his interests?

Thank you for your guidance and expertise.

Respectfully,
A Concerned Friend

3. LEGAL ARTICLE: A METICULOUS ANALYSIS BY THE BEST LAWYER IN THE PHILIPPINES

This legal article aims to comprehensively discuss the concepts of on-call employment, agency deployment, attendance discrepancies, and the alleged tampering of daily time records (DTRs) within the context of Philippine labor laws. The issues presented involve potential disciplinary proceedings, due process in the workplace, and applicable statutes and regulations that govern both workers and agencies. This detailed exploration will provide guidance on how concerned workers can protect their rights and comply with lawful processes while also preventing legal pitfalls.

I. Preliminary Considerations on Employment Arrangements in the Philippines

A. Nature of On-Call Work

Under Philippine labor practices, “on-call” work typically involves employment where the worker’s services are utilized on an as-needed basis. While not specifically codified under a single statutory scheme, the concept can be interpreted in conjunction with various provisions of the Labor Code. Employment contracts may specify an on-call arrangement, especially in industries that experience fluctuating demands. It is important to highlight that an on-call worker should still enjoy the rights granted to a regular employee if the circumstances of engagement—such as continuous deployment, repeated renewals of on-call contracts, or the presence of employer control—qualify the worker as a regular employee under Article 295 of the Labor Code of the Philippines (formerly Article 280).

B. Hiring Through Agencies and The Concept of Labor-Only Contracting vs. Legitimate Job Contracting

Workers in the Philippines are frequently deployed to principal companies via agencies or subcontractors. The Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has promulgated Department Order No. 174, series of 2017 (DO 174), which provides guidelines on contracting and subcontracting. Under DO 174, the arrangement must not fall under “labor-only contracting,” where the contractor or agency merely recruits workers without substantial capital or control over the performance of the employees. When the agency is a legitimate contractor, it shoulders employer obligations, and the worker is considered its direct employee.

Nevertheless, whether the arrangement is legitimate or not, a worker is entitled to due process in any disciplinary proceeding or complaint for alleged misconduct. This includes the right to be given a formal notice of the charges and the opportunity to explain and defend oneself.

II. Attendance Regulations and Off-Site Work Arrangements

A. The Daily Time Record (DTR) as Evidence of Work Hours

The DTR remains the primary documentary proof of an employee’s actual work hours in the Philippines. While alternative methods such as biometric systems and digital logs exist, the DTR is often required for payroll preparation and monitoring attendance. Any discrepancies found in the DTR can trigger possible administrative or even criminal liability if such discrepancy amounts to fraud or tampering.

B. Off-Site Attendance

Given the realities of remote work or field work, some employees may not be working strictly at the principal place of employment. In such circumstances, the employer or agency may impose additional verification protocols, such as requiring employees to send emails confirming their whereabouts or requiring location-based digital attendance logs. Where the standard DTR is not feasible, it is crucial for an employee to diligently follow official instructions to verify work hours outside the office premises.

Failure to comply with these protocols may be construed as an attendance violation. Moreover, attempts to forcibly align actual working hours with a traditional time-in/time-out system without the appropriate method or tool might be misconstrued as falsification or tampering of documents.

III. Potential Liabilities for DTR Tampering

A. Administrative Liability Under Company Policies

Company handbooks and policies generally classify acts involving dishonesty, such as falsification or tampering of official records, as a grave offense that can lead to serious disciplinary measures, including termination from employment. An employee alleged to have committed such an offense must be afforded procedural due process. This typically requires:

A first written notice stating the nature of the offense and the proposed penalty.
The employee’s opportunity to be heard.
A final notice of the employer’s decision.

When an on-call or agency-deployed worker is involved, the agency also has the responsibility to issue the notice and conduct the disciplinary proceeding. If the principal (the logistics company) is the one initiating the complaint, it should coordinate with the agency to ensure that due process is observed.

B. Criminal Liability for Falsification of Public or Private Documents

While falsification typically pertains to public documents under the Revised Penal Code, private documents such as attendance logs or records can also be subject to criminal prosecution if there is fraudulent intent that causes damage or potential damage. However, criminal prosecution of employees for alleged tampering of DTRs is not as common, as many disputes are resolved internally or through labor litigation. Nevertheless, the possibility remains, and employees should be aware of the seriousness of such allegations.

IV. Due Process Requirements in Administrative Proceedings

Under Philippine jurisprudence, the Supreme Court consistently holds that due process in a labor context is far less stringent than in criminal proceedings, yet it still requires the fundamental elements of notice and the opportunity to be heard. The two-notice rule, as formulated in several labor cases, mandates that:

The first notice must inform the employee of the particular acts or omissions for which dismissal is sought.
The employee must be given the opportunity to respond in writing and, if requested, to be heard in a hearing or conference.
The second notice must advise the employee of the employer’s decision, stating clearly the facts and grounds upon which it is based.

An employee who fails to receive this level of due process has a valid defense in the event of a labor complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).

V. Freezing of Work Accounts or Preventive Suspension

Some employers or agencies, when faced with suspected serious misconduct, may choose to suspend or freeze an employee’s account pending investigation. This is conceptually akin to a “preventive suspension” authorized under the Labor Code. Although not explicitly referred to as “preventive suspension” in the question, the act of freezing the worker’s account effectively prevents him from reporting to work or receiving assignments.

Under DOLE regulations, a preventive suspension, if not expressly provided in the employee handbook, must still observe certain maximum periods (often 30 days, subject to extension when the offense is serious). If an employee is placed on an indefinite freeze or indefinite suspension without a formal charge or proceeding, the worker may question the legality of such action.

VI. Constructive Dismissal vs. Voluntary Resignation

A worker whose account is frozen or who is effectively barred from working might argue constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal arises when an employer’s actions are tantamount to severing the employment relationship, even without a formal notice of termination. This might include placing an employee on indefinite forced leave, significantly reducing wages without just cause, or refusing to give them any work without valid reason.

On the other hand, if the employer (or agency) is engaged in a legitimate fact-finding process and the worker has not been formally dismissed, then the arrangement could be consistent with a valid preventive suspension. The distinction is crucial, and employees who believe they have been constructively dismissed may file a complaint at the NLRC.

VII. Advising a Worker Facing Allegations of DTR Tampering

When an employee is confronted with possible administrative or disciplinary charges for DTR tampering or any other misconduct, the following steps are advisable:

Promptly Respond to the Notice
- If the worker has received a formal or informal notice indicating allegations of DTR tampering, they should respond in writing. This response should include factual statements about their attendance, copies of relevant documents (emails, text messages, etc.), and explanations of why any perceived irregularity is not tampering but may have been a misunderstanding.
Gather Supporting Evidence
- The worker should compile proof that their off-site attendance was authorized or that they were acting within the scope of their duties. This might include electronic logs, location data, or any formal instructions from supervisors about how to record attendance for field work.
Request a Proper Hearing
- In cases involving serious offenses, an employee has the right to a hearing or conference. If the agency or principal employer does not schedule one, the worker can formally request it in writing. A hearing allows for clarification of the alleged misconduct, presentation of evidence, and direct discussion with decision-makers.
Consider Filing a Grievance
- Some companies have a grievance machinery under their collective bargaining agreement (if the worker is unionized) or in their employee handbook. Initiating a grievance can help resolve the matter internally prior to the filing of any external complaint.
Consult Legal Counsel
- In more complex cases, especially where there is a risk of termination or legal liability, seeking professional legal advice is highly recommended. Lawyers can help determine if the disciplinary procedure is fair, if there is a valid defense against the charges, and if the worker should file any complaint for illegal dismissal or unfair labor practice.

VIII. Procedural Safeguards Under the Labor Code and Jurisprudence

A. The Right to Security of Tenure

Article 294 (formerly Article 279) of the Labor Code provides that employees, regular or not, are entitled to security of tenure. This means they cannot be dismissed without just or authorized cause, following due process. If found guilty of serious misconduct, such as falsification of official records, an employer has just cause to dismiss. However, the employer or agency must still comply with procedural requirements.

B. The Penalties for Dishonesty

Dishonesty or fraud is one of the just causes for termination under Article 297 (formerly Article 282). Falsification of DTRs falls within this ground, provided there is substantial evidence. Substantial evidence means that the employer must prove the misconduct by more than mere allegation or suspicion. Without substantial evidence, a dismissal may be ruled illegal.

C. The NLRC Complaint Process

If an employee believes they were illegally dismissed, they may file a complaint before the NLRC or the DOLE’s regional office, depending on the relief sought. Upon filing, mandatory conciliation and mediation through the Single Entry Approach (SEnA) process may be initiated. If the dispute remains unresolved, the parties proceed with the formal NLRC process, which includes position papers, mandatory conferences, and potentially a labor arbiter decision subject to appeal.

IX. Agency Liability and the Role of the Principal

Where the worker is employed by an agency but deployed to a principal, both the agency and the principal may be held solidarily liable in the event of illegal dismissal or other labor infractions, particularly if the arrangement is deemed labor-only contracting. However, in legitimate contracting, the agency bears the primary obligation for the employee’s wages, benefits, and due process. The principal has secondary liability only if the agency fails to pay.

Nevertheless, an employee who is unsure whether the agency or the principal is truly the employer can file a complaint against both. The labor tribunal or courts will ultimately determine the correct employer.

X. Practical Guidance and Recommendations

Clarify the Employment Arrangement
- A worker should clarify whether they are genuinely under an “on-call” arrangement with the agency or if, by the very nature of the working relationship (continuous deployment, direct control by the principal), they qualify as a regular employee.
Document All Communications
- If the agency calls the worker to report for a meeting, the worker should record the date and time and, if feasible, send a follow-up email. In case the office is closed upon arrival, the worker should keep evidence (e.g., photos, videos, or any log of communication attempts).
Cooperate with Investigations
- Showing good faith by responding promptly and cooperatively can help the worker protect their rights. However, cooperation does not mean giving up valid defenses. It simply means that the employee is committed to transparency and fairness in the resolution of the matter.
Seek the Intervention of DOLE or the NLRC, If Necessary
- If the worker is prevented from working indefinitely without formal charges or if the disciplinary process is blatantly unfair, the worker has the right to seek redress with the DOLE or file a complaint with the NLRC for illegal suspension or constructive dismissal.
Preserve Evidence of Actual Work Performed
- In an era of digital logs, messaging applications, and GPS-based attendance tracking, an employee can present alternate records to prove that they were indeed working off-site. This evidence can refute any claim of fraudulent entries on the DTR.

XI. Conclusion

Under Philippine labor law, an allegation of tampering with one’s DTR is a serious matter that can warrant disciplinary action, including termination, if proven. However, no adverse action can be legally sustained without the observance of due process—notice of the charge, the opportunity to respond, and a final notice reflecting the employer’s or agency’s decision. Additionally, an on-call or agency-deployed worker retains the right to security of tenure, the right to question indefinite suspensions or freezing of work accounts, and the right to lodge a complaint for illegal dismissal if the disciplinary measure lacks just cause or is tainted with procedural infirmity.

When facing such allegations, the worker should gather all relevant evidence, formally request a fair hearing, and maintain open communication. Consulting an independent legal counsel can ensure that the individual’s rights are safeguarded, that the alleged tampering is properly evaluated, and that any administrative process follows the statutory and jurisprudential requirements.

Ultimately, while an employer or agency has the prerogative to discipline employees, this prerogative must be balanced by respect for the worker’s rights and the principle of fair play. The interplay of these rights and responsibilities forms the cornerstone of the Philippine labor system, championing both productivity and social justice within the workplace.

Disclaimer: The above article is not intended as specific legal advice. It provides general information on Philippine labor law applicable to on-call agency workers and issues involving attendance records and potential tampering. Individuals facing similar situations are urged to consult a licensed attorney for advice tailored to their particular circumstances.