“AWOL” Annotations on a Certificate of Employment (COE) in the Philippines
A comprehensive legal look at legitimacy, risks, and best-practice drafting
1. What a Certificate of Employment is—and why it matters
A Certificate of Employment (COE) is a short document, issued on request, that states:
| Core data required by law | Optional data (employer’s discretion) |
|---|---|
| - Complete name of employee - Inclusive dates of employment - Position(s) held |
- Last salary received - Character reference or evaluation (but must be truthful, fair and made in good faith) |
Legal basis
- Labor Advisory No. 06-20 (DOLE, 4 March 2020) – reiterates the employer’s duty to issue a COE within three (3) days from request, restating a long-standing rule first recognized by the Labor Code and several earlier DOLE opinions.
- Labor Code of the Philippines, Book VI, Art. 294-305 (old Articles 282-291) – While the Code itself does not devote a separate article to COEs, DOLE has, since the 1980s, treated the obligation as implied in the employer’s statutory duty to keep personnel records and to respect the employee’s right to information about his/her employment.
- Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act 10173) – requires that only data necessary to accomplish the declared purpose be processed or disclosed.
Bottom line: A COE is intended to be a neutral service record, not a conduct report.
2. Understanding “AWOL” and “Abandonment”
| Term | Practical meaning | Statutory & case-law footing |
|---|---|---|
| AWOL | “Absent Without Official Leave” – absence without prior approval. It may be one-off or prolonged. | Not expressly defined in the Labor Code, but treated in jurisprudence as either serious misconduct or the graver offense of abandonment of work (a just cause for dismissal under Art. 297[a]). |
| Abandonment | A form of AWOL that shows (a) failure to report for work for an unreasonable period and (b) a clear intention to sever the employment relationship. | Supreme Court cases: Jaka Food Processing v. Pacot (G.R. 151378, 2005); Golden Ace Builders v. Talde (G.R. 190161, 2012); King of Kings Transport v. Mamac (G.R. 166208, 2008). Both elements must concur; mere absence is insufficient. |
Dismissal for AWOL/abandonment requires the “twin-notice” procedural due process:
- Notice to explain (why no disciplinary action should be taken)
- Notice of decision (if dismissal is decided)
Failure to observe due process may make the dismissal illegal, even if the factual ground exists.
3. Is it legal to stamp or note “AWOL” on a COE?
| Aspect | Key points |
|---|---|
| No explicit statute or DOLE issuance authorizes negative labeling. The Labor Code and Labor Advisory 06-20 only require core employment facts. | |
| Purpose test (Data Privacy Act). Any extra information must be necessary and proportional. Branding someone “AWOL” goes beyond a neutral statement of facts. | |
| Case-law trend favors neutrality. In Quebral v. Angbus Construction (G.R. 150920, 2003) the Court criticized “derogatory annotations” that made it hard for the employee to find work. Several NLRC rulings follow this view. | |
| Possible employer defenses. - Truthful statement: if employee truly abandoned work and final decision exists. - Qualified privileged communication: employer-to-employer references done in good faith. - Legitimate business interest: protecting future employers from repeat misconduct. |
|
| Risks to employer. - Illegal dismissal damages if dismissal itself infirm. - Moral damages/defamation if annotation is malicious or misleading. - Administrative fines under Data Privacy Act for unnecessary disclosure. |
Practical reading: Legality is doubtful. At best it is a risky gray area that can expose the company to labor complaints and privacy suits.
4. DOLE’s and courts’ best-practice approach
Keep the COE “bare-bones”. Stick to dates and positions.
Use separate documents for:
- Clearance or “Employee Service Record with Remarks” (internal use).
- Notice of Decision on the AWOL/abandonment case.
If employer insists on adding remarks:
- Phrase factually: “Employment ended on __ due to abandonment (AWOL) per HR Decision dated __.”
- Attach the decision, signed by employee if possible.
Observe data-minimization. Release the remark only to verified requestors who need to see it (future employer with employee’s consent).
Offer a dispute-resolution path. Employees can request correction; unresolved disputes go through SEnA (Single Entry Approach) before NLRC arbitration.
5. Remedies for the employee
| Scenario | Available action | Prescriptive period |
|---|---|---|
| COE refused or carries prejudicial AWOL mark | File a SEnA Request for Assistance at nearest DOLE-NCMB Field Office. | Preferably within 3 years (Art. 305), but sooner is better. |
| Illegal dismissal for alleged abandonment | File a complaint for illegal dismissal + money claims + damages at NLRC. | 4 years for damages (Civil Code); 3 years for money claims. |
| Defamatory annotation (when false/malicious) | Civil action for damages under Art. 19-21 Civil Code or Art. 33 RPC; administrative complaint under Data Privacy Act. | 1 year for libel; 4 years for civil tort. |
6. Employer’s compliance checklist
- 🔲 Create a COE template with only mandatory fields.
- 🔲 Institute clear AWOL/abandonment procedures (notices, hearings, documentation).
- 🔲 Decouple discipline documents from the COE.
- 🔲 Train HR staff on data-privacy principles and defamation risks.
- 🔲 Maintain personnel files to back up any disciplinary decision should the employee authorize future disclosure.
7. Key takeaways
- There is no Philippine law that requires or squarely permits the word “AWOL” on a COE.
- DOLE practice and privacy principles favor a neutral, fact-only certificate.
- Employers who choose to annotate risk labor, privacy, and defamation liability—especially when dismissal procedure was defective.
- Employees confronted with a stigmatizing COE can seek correction or file complaints; the burden is on the employer to prove good faith and factual accuracy.
- The safest route is to reserve any negative finding for a separate, duly-served Notice of Decision, releasing it only with the employee’s informed consent.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For case-specific guidance, consult a Philippine labor-law practitioner or the nearest DOLE office.