1) Why this issue comes up

Many Philippine workplaces use a Daily Time Record (DTR)—biometrics, bundy clock, logs, apps, or timesheets—to track attendance and compute pay items like basic pay, overtime, night shift differential, and holiday/rest day premiums. Problems arise when an employee worked but the record is missing (forgot to clock in/out, device failure, lost timesheet, delayed submission, etc.), and payroll is threatened with a “salary hold.”

The legal question is not whether an employer may require DTRs (they generally may), but whether the employer may withhold wages that are already earned just because the DTR is incomplete.

2) Core Philippine legal principles involved

A. Wages must be paid on time

Under the Labor Code rules on wage payment, employers must pay wages regularly and on time (commonly at least twice a month at intervals not exceeding 16 days, or at least once every two weeks for certain setups). Delaying payment beyond the lawful pay schedule can expose an employer to labor standards liability.

B. “No work, no pay” applies—but only to actual non-work

The Philippine doctrine of “no work, no pay” means: if no work was performed (e.g., actual absence), the employer generally has no obligation to pay for that time (subject to paid leave laws/benefits, holiday pay rules, or company policy/CBA).

But it does not mean: “No DTR, no pay.” A missing record is an evidentiary problem, not automatically proof of absence.

C. Withholding wages (or deductions) is heavily restricted

The Labor Code has specific provisions that prohibit withholding wages and restrict deductions. In general:

An employer cannot treat wages as a hostage to force compliance with administrative requirements.
Wage deductions are allowed only in limited situations: those authorized by law (e.g., tax, SSS/PhilHealth/Pag-IBIG where applicable), those authorized in writing by the employee for a lawful purpose, and other narrow categories recognized by law/rules (with strict conditions).

A policy that says “no DTR = no salary” can function like an unlawful withholding or an unauthorized deduction, depending on how it’s implemented.

D. Record-keeping is the employer’s legal responsibility

Philippine labor regulations require employers to maintain payroll records and time/attendance records (for covered employees) and to present these records when inspected or when claims arise. Practically, employers are expected to have a reliable system to determine hours worked—not merely shift the entire burden to employees and then refuse to pay if paperwork is imperfect.

3) So, can an employer withhold pay because the DTR is missing?

General rule: No—earned wages should not be withheld solely due to missing DTR

If an employee actually worked, the employer generally must pay the wages due for that work within the lawful pay period. Using a “salary hold” as a penalty for late/missing DTR is legally risky because it resembles the prohibited practice of withholding wages.

That said, missing DTR affects proof and computation, so the practical legal answer depends on what exactly is being withheld and why.

4) The legally important distinctions

Situation 1: The employee worked; the record is missing; the employer can reasonably verify work occurred

Examples:

The employee was seen on-site / in meetings / on CCTV.
The employee’s output and system logins show work.
Supervisor and coworkers can confirm presence.
The employee was scheduled and performed tasks.

Best legal position: The employer should pay the basic wage for the period (or at least the portion that can be reasonably established), then make adjustments if needed after verification.

What not to do: Withhold the entire salary as leverage until the employee submits a corrected DTR. That is the classic “administrative compliance” salary hold that can be attacked as unlawful withholding.

Situation 2: The employee’s attendance/work cannot be verified in good faith

Examples:

No biometrics, no logs, no supervisor confirmation, no output, no credible alternative proof.
Conflicting accounts exist; the employee refuses to cooperate in verification.

Here, the employer may argue that payment cannot be made because the employee failed to establish that work was performed for the disputed time. However, two cautions matter:

Employers must apply fair procedures (allow a correction process, supervisor certification, investigation if needed).
In labor disputes, employers are still expected to keep and produce reliable time/pay records; a weak record-keeping system can backfire.

A lawful approach is usually to treat the disputed time as unpaid pending verification, but to resolve quickly and pay any confirmed wages without undue delay—ideally via an off-cycle adjustment rather than pushing it far into the future.

Situation 3: What’s withheld is not the basic wage, but variable items (overtime/premiums)

If the only uncertainty is whether the employee is entitled to:

Overtime pay
Night shift differential
Holiday/rest day premium
Other time-based premiums

…it is more defensible for an employer to pay basic pay for the confirmed regular schedule and temporarily defer only the disputed premium portion, pending correction/approval, because those items depend on exact time data.

Even then, best practice is to pay the premium as soon as verified (ideally next payroll or earlier), and not use deferral as punishment.

Situation 4: The employee is paid purely by results (piece-rate/output) or is a field employee

For certain categories (depending on facts and classification), strict hours-of-work rules and DTR practices may differ:

Field personnel (in the legal sense) who perform work away from the employer’s premises and whose actual hours cannot be determined with reasonable certainty may be treated differently for hours-of-work entitlements.
Managerial employees are commonly exempt from overtime rules.
Piece-rate workers are paid by output, though records are still required.

Even in these cases, the employer cannot simply refuse to pay an earned wage because a form is missing. The record needed may be different (deliverables, trip tickets, output reports), but the same “earned pay must be paid” principle applies.

5) Is a “No DTR, No Pay” policy automatically illegal?

A policy can be lawful in purpose (ensuring accurate payroll) but unlawful in effect (withholding earned wages as coercion).

High-risk versions of the policy:

Automatic “salary hold” for the entire pay period when DTR is late.
Automatic treatment as absence without a correction process.
Repeated delays that push payment beyond lawful pay intervals.
Using withholding to punish rather than to correct payroll accuracy.

Lower-risk, more defensible versions:

A policy requiring DTR submission by cutoff with a clear correction mechanism (e.g., time correction form, supervisor certification).
Paying base pay for scheduled/verified work, while deferring only what genuinely cannot be computed (usually OT/premiums).
Prompt off-cycle corrections once attendance is verified.

6) Disciplinary action vs wage withholding

Employers generally have management prerogative to set reasonable workplace rules, including timekeeping requirements. If an employee repeatedly fails to follow timekeeping rules, the employer may impose discipline, provided due process is followed:

Clear rule/policy
Notice and opportunity to explain (the usual twin-notice rule in disciplinary cases)
Proportionate penalty (progressive discipline is common)

Key point: Discipline is typically done through administrative sanctions (warning, reprimand, suspension, etc.), not by withholding already-earned wages.

A suspension can legally result in “no pay” for suspension days because no work is performed during the suspension—but the employer should not retroactively withhold pay for days already worked just because a DTR was missing.

7) Common payroll scenarios and safer handling

A. Missed clock-in/clock-out (but present and worked)

Safer approach:

Require a time correction form within a short period.
Supervisor verifies actual time worked.
Pay base pay as scheduled; adjust OT/premiums after validation.

B. Biometrics/device failure (system downtime)

Safer approach:

Use an alternative record: manual log, supervisor certification, security logbook, system login logs.
Employer should not penalize employees for employer-controlled system failure.

C. Remote work / telecommuting / flexible work

Telecommuting and flexible arrangements often rely on:

Online time trackers
System logs
Output-based reporting
Supervisor confirmation

The more flexible the work arrangement, the more important it is that the policy focuses on verification rather than rigid DTR formality, otherwise wage disputes increase.

D. New hires / trainees

New hires often miss procedures. A correction process plus coaching is usually better than punitive salary holds that create immediate labor standards risk.

8) Evidence: if a dispute arises, what matters?

In wage disputes, typical evidence includes:

Payroll registers, payslips, bank transfer proofs
DTRs/biometric logs/timekeeping reports
Work schedules/rosters
Supervisor approvals (OT authorizations, time corrections)
Security logs, CCTV (where available), system access logs
Emails, chats, task assignments, deliverables

A practical reality in Philippine labor cases: employers are expected to keep records. If records are missing or unreliable, decision-makers may give greater weight to credible employee evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

9) Data privacy note (biometrics/timekeeping systems)

Biometric timekeeping involves sensitive personal data. Employers should ensure compliance with the Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) principles: transparency, legitimate purpose, proportionality, and security safeguards. Data privacy compliance does not eliminate wage obligations, but poor handling can create separate legal exposure.

10) Employee remedies and employer exposure

If wages are withheld or delayed

An employee may pursue:

Workplace conciliation/mediation processes (often via DOLE’s settlement mechanisms)
DOLE labor standards enforcement (inspection/complaint route)
NLRC/Labor Arbiter claims if combined with other issues (e.g., illegal dismissal, damages) or depending on the case posture

Possible consequences for the employer can include:

Orders to pay unpaid wages and wage-related benefits (OT, premiums, etc.)
Legal interest where applicable
Potential administrative findings for labor standards violations
In some fact patterns, broader claims if withholding is part of a pattern of unfair labor treatment

11) Practical compliance checklist (Philippine setting)

For employers

Pay basic wages on time for work that is scheduled/verified, even if DTR is incomplete.
Implement a time correction process with:
- Clear deadlines
- Supervisor verification
- Documentation (audit trail)
If something truly cannot be computed by cutoff (often OT/premiums), pay what is undisputed and release the balance promptly after validation.
Avoid “salary hold” policies that act as a penalty.
Keep proper time and payroll records and retain them for the legally required period.
Use progressive discipline for repeated DTR violations—not wage withholding.

For employees

Follow the timekeeping rules and submit corrections promptly.
Keep personal backups when possible (calendar entries, emails, task logs, screenshots of system times, supervisor confirmations).
If pay is withheld despite work performed, document communications and request a written explanation of the basis and computation.

12) Bottom line

In the Philippines, an employer may require DTRs and enforce timekeeping rules, but withholding earned wages solely because a DTR is missing is generally inconsistent with Philippine wage-protection principles. Missing time records justify verification and may justify discipline for policy violations, yet they do not normally justify using wages as leverage—especially where work performed can be reasonably established and the withholding causes unlawful delay in wage payment.

This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice.