REFUSAL TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT AND HOLDING OF JOB APPLICATION: LEGAL INSIGHTS UNDER PHILIPPINE LAW

LETTER FROM A CONCERNED EMPLOYEE

Dear Attorney,

I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to seek legal guidance about a situation I am experiencing with my former employer’s management. They seem unwilling to provide me with a Certificate of Employment (COE), and there are indications that they may be interfering with my current job application. I have reason to believe that my application process has been adversely affected by their actions.

As an individual eager to secure new employment opportunities, I feel that this refusal to issue my COE—and the apparent holding back of my application—may not only infringe on my rights but also jeopardize my prospects for a better career. Could you kindly explain the legalities involved in an employer’s duty to issue a COE, and whether preventing an employee from securing future employment is actionable under Philippine law? I want to know my legal remedies and the steps I could take to address this matter.

Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns. I look forward to any advice or clarification you can provide to help me decide on my next move.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Employee

INTRODUCTION

Under Philippine law, employees are granted various rights to protect their welfare, dignity, and opportunities for gainful employment. Among these rights is the ability to obtain a Certificate of Employment (COE) from a former employer to confirm the length and nature of their service, a document often required by prospective employers during the hiring process. Additionally, any act by a former employer to undermine an employee’s future employment prospects—such as deliberately withholding documents or spreading false information—raises legal and ethical questions.

This legal article provides a comprehensive discussion of the relevant labor and civil law principles in the Philippines as they relate to the refusal to issue a COE, any possible interference in an employee’s subsequent job applications, and legal recourse available to aggrieved employees.

I. RELEVANCE AND PURPOSE OF A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT

  1. Definition and Overview
    A Certificate of Employment is a written statement from a previous or current employer confirming certain essential facts about the employment relationship—specifically, the position or positions held, the duration of employment, and sometimes the nature of the employee’s duties. Many employers request a COE during recruitment to validate a candidate’s job history.

  2. Importance in Employment Applications

    • Verification of Credentials: The COE provides reassurance to prospective employers that a job seeker’s listed credentials are accurate.
    • Professional Record: It is an official record reflecting periods of service and job responsibilities, which can weigh heavily in hiring decisions.
    • Employee’s Right to Documentation: Employees generally have a right to documentation that reflects the tenure and character of their work.

  3. Common Issues Surrounding COEs

    • Refusal to Provide: Some employers withhold COEs due to unresolved disputes or general animosity.
    • Issuance of Incomplete or Erroneous COEs: Another issue occurs when employers issue documents that lack crucial details or contain inaccuracies.
    • Delayed Release: Prolonged delays can cause missed opportunities for employees who need the COE promptly to finalize job applications.

II. LEGAL BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT

  1. Labor Code of the Philippines
    Although the Labor Code does not explicitly provide for the issuance of a Certificate of Employment in a singled-out, standalone provision, certain sections and regulations underscore the employer’s obligation to provide documents relevant to the employment relationship, especially upon separation.

  2. Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Guidelines
    DOLE has, in various advisories and clarifications, affirmed that employees have the right to a Certificate of Employment upon separation or during employment. A frequently cited DOLE issuance states that upon request by the employee, a COE must be issued within a reasonable period. The essence behind these guidelines is to facilitate the free movement of labor and prevent undue harm to an employee’s future career prospects.

  3. Jurisprudential Support
    While direct Supreme Court rulings on COEs may not be numerous, Philippine jurisprudence supports the principle that employees should not be unreasonably denied the documentation that verifies their service. Certain rulings have emphasized that withholding a COE without justifiable reason can be seen as an act of bad faith or harassment, especially if motivated by ill will.

  4. Company Policy
    Internal company policies typically require the issuance of COEs as part of clearance procedures. If a company has a specific policy regulating the issuance of COEs, such a policy must still align with the principles enshrined in law and DOLE guidelines. Employers cannot hide behind internal rules if these are contrary to public policy or the spirit of the Labor Code.

III. REFUSAL TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYMENT

  1. Potential Grounds for Refusal

    • Unsettled Obligations: In some cases, employers claim they are withholding the COE because the employee has unsettled financial obligations (e.g., salary advances, unliquidated expenses, or unreturned equipment). However, legally this is not a valid reason to refuse issuance of a COE.
    • Disciplinary Issues: Employers sometimes refuse to give a COE due to existing disputes, allegations of misconduct, or a pending disciplinary case at the time of separation. Yet, these do not justify an outright refusal; at most, the COE could reflect the nature and duration of the employment and perhaps note if the employee resigned while under investigation, provided such a statement is both truthful and non-defamatory.
    • Retaliatory Motives: Less ethically, some employers may deny the COE to retaliate against employees who resigned or complained about workplace conditions.

  2. Legal Implications of Refusal

    • Violation of Employee Rights: Refusal to issue a COE can be construed as an act of bad faith and an affront to the employee’s right to gainful employment.
    • Possible Claim for Damages: If an employee can prove that the denial of a COE caused them to lose a prospective job opportunity, they may explore the possibility of claiming damages (e.g., actual, moral, or even exemplary damages) under the Civil Code.
    • Unfair Labor Practice?: While typically, unfair labor practice (ULP) refers to acts related to union activities, certain analogous actions that impair an employee’s rights and benefits may be argued in an administrative or judicial forum as tantamount to harassment. The success of such an argument would depend on the specific facts of each case.

IV. INTERFERENCE WITH A FORMER EMPLOYEE’S FUTURE EMPLOYMENT

  1. Concept of Tortious Interference
    Under Philippine law, there is no direct statutory tort of “interference with contractual relations” identical to that recognized in other jurisdictions. However, certain principles under Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the Civil Code can be invoked if someone “willfully causes loss or injury” to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.

  2. Bad Faith and Malice
    If an employer contacts a prospective employer to convey false or malicious information about a former employee—resulting in the employee’s rejection—this conduct might be actionable under the general provisions on human relations found in the Civil Code. Demonstrating bad faith or malice would be crucial in any legal action.

  3. Data Privacy Considerations
    The Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act No. 10173) sets guidelines on the lawful processing of personal data. If an employer unlawfully uses or discloses an individual’s personal data (including negative information that is not publicly known) to sabotage their job prospects, the employer may face liability under data privacy regulations, provided the act fits into the scope of unauthorized processing or disclosure of personal information.

  4. Blacklisting or Negative Endorsements

    • Legitimate Company Communication: Employers may provide honest references about an employee’s performance if requested by a prospective employer, as long as the statements are accurate, fair, and not borne out of malice.
    • Malicious Blacklisting: If the former employer goes beyond legitimate reference-checking and spreads undue negative assertions that thwart an employee’s chances of being hired, the former employer could be liable for damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code.

V. AVAILABLE LEGAL REMEDIES AND RECOURSE

  1. Negotiation and Mediation

    • Initial Communication: The employee may begin by sending a polite request for the COE. They can cite DOLE advisories or the relevant Labor Code provisions to underscore the right to a COE.
    • DOLE Single Entry Approach (SENA): If direct negotiations fail, the employee may seek recourse under the Single Entry Approach of DOLE, which provides a mandatory 30-day conciliation-mediation period to resolve labor disputes quickly. This could encourage the employer to cooperate and release the document.

  2. Filing a Complaint with DOLE
    If mediation fails, the employee has the option of filing a formal complaint with the appropriate DOLE office. The complaint may allege that the employer has violated labor standards by refusing to issue the COE. DOLE can order the employer to comply with the issuance of the COE as a matter of fairness and labor standards enforcement.

  3. Civil Action for Damages

    • Basis Under Civil Code: Articles 19, 20, and 21 could serve as the legal foundation for a suit if the employer’s refusal or obstruction goes beyond mere neglect and enters the realm of willful or malicious injury.
    • Requirements: The employee must demonstrate the employer’s fault or negligence, the damages suffered, and the causal connection between the employer’s act and the harm endured.
    • Remedies: Potential awards include moral damages for mental anguish, actual damages if concrete pecuniary losses (e.g., loss of a job offer) can be proven, and possibly exemplary damages if the court finds that the act was attended by bad faith or done in a wanton manner.

  4. Labor Arbiter Cases

    • Jurisdiction: The Labor Arbiter of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) may have jurisdiction if the act of withholding the COE is intimately connected to the employee’s separation benefits or final pay issues, or if the refusal is perceived as harassment. In some instances, employees file illegal dismissal or money claims cases that incidentally involve the employer’s refusal to issue the COE.
    • Possible Outcomes: A Labor Arbiter may order the employer to issue the COE and pay appropriate damages if proven that the refusal caused harm to the employee.

  5. Administrative Complaints
    If the management’s actions violate specific regulations—like DOLE orders or even certain standards set out in local ordinances—employees can consider lodging administrative complaints. While these might not always lead directly to compensation, they can prompt regulatory bodies to investigate and sanction employers who flout labor laws and fair employment practices.

VI. EMPLOYER DEFENSES AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY

  1. Justifications for Withholding
    Employers might argue they withheld the COE because:

    • The employee has not completed clearance requirements or has not returned company property.
    • The employer needs time to verify and finalize the employee’s records to ensure accuracy.

    However, these reasons usually justify only a delay and not an outright refusal. The law requires that any such documentation must eventually be released, and undue delay can still be actionable.

  2. Absence of Malice or Bad Faith
    Employers may claim that they did not act out of malice but were simply following company protocols. Where no malice is present, the employee may find it difficult to recover damages for intangible harm (e.g., moral damages). The key question often focuses on the employer’s motive, reasonableness, and the time period involved.

  3. Good Faith Communication with Prospective Employers
    If the former employer provided a negative but truthful reference, it is unlikely to be liable for defamation or malicious interference. Good faith communication that outlines legitimate reasons for caution about an employee’s performance or behavior does not normally expose the employer to liability, provided these statements are well-founded.

VII. BEST PRACTICES FOR EMPLOYEES AND EMPLOYERS

  1. For Employees

    • Request the COE in Writing: Send a formal request via registered mail, email, or other traceable method. Keep a record of any correspondence.
    • Fulfill Clearance Requirements: Avoid giving the employer any justification to delay issuance (e.g., return company property, settle obligations).
    • Document Everything: Maintain records of job application timelines, communications with the former employer, and any prospective employer inquiries or rejections that suggest interference.

  2. For Employers

    • Develop a Clear Policy: Outline the process and timeline for issuing a COE. Make it part of the separation or clearance procedure.
    • Issue the COE Promptly: Comply with labor standards and avoid legal complications by releasing the COE without delay upon an employee’s request.
    • Avoid Malicious Statements: If providing references, stick to facts that can be backed up by company records. Do not provide unverified or speculative remarks.

VIII. CONCLUSION

In the Philippine labor landscape, the Certificate of Employment plays a pivotal role in advancing an employee’s pursuit of new career opportunities. When a former employer refuses to issue a COE or actively interferes with an individual’s attempts to gain employment elsewhere, this may give rise to legal liabilities grounded in labor law and civil law principles.

Key takeaways include the following:

  1. Employees are entitled to request and receive a COE after separation from service, with minimal exceptions.
  2. Refusal or unreasonable delay in issuing the COE can be challenged through DOLE intervention or potentially civil litigation for damages if losses can be proven.
  3. Interference in future employment—especially if malicious—may be actionable under the Civil Code and could merit the award of damages if proven.
  4. Negotiation, mediation, and administrative remedies are often the first steps before resorting to litigation.
  5. Both parties should act in good faith: employees by fulfilling clearance obligations, and employers by issuing truthful, timely COEs and refraining from any malicious behavior that could hinder an employee’s professional advancement.

Ultimately, respecting the rights of employees to secure proper documentation fosters a fair and conducive labor environment. By upholding the letter and spirit of Philippine labor law, both workers and employers can ensure harmonious transitions between jobs and protect legitimate business interests without resorting to unfair or unlawful practices.

(This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute specific legal advice. For personalized guidance on a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney familiar with Philippine labor laws and regulations.)

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login