1) What a COE is (and why it matters)

A Certificate of Employment (COE) is a document issued by an employer confirming that a person is or was employed with the company. In the Philippines, it is routinely required for:

new employment applications
bank loans and credit cards
visas and travel
rentals and other proof-of-income transactions (sometimes paired with payslips)
government transactions and benefits (in some cases)

Because a COE can affect mobility, livelihood, and access to services, Philippine labor policy generally treats it as a basic employment document that should be issued upon request and without unnecessary barriers.

2) Legal foundations in Philippine labor law

A) Employer duty to issue proof of employment

Philippine labor law and labor policy recognize the employee’s right to obtain proof of employment and the employer’s corresponding duty to provide it. This is often anchored on the concept of a service certificate: a document stating the fact of employment and the nature/duration of service.

Even when employment has already ended, the obligation to issue a certificate confirming employment history is treated as part of fair labor standards and proper employment records practice.

B) Administrative guidance (DOLE practice)

In practice, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has long treated COE issuance as a compliance expectation: employers should release it within a reasonable period after request, and should not use it as leverage against an employee (for example, to force clearance, to collect money, or to pressure withdrawal of a complaint).

A common rule-of-thumb in DOLE practice is that COEs should be released promptly (often framed as within a few working days), because delays can directly prejudice the worker’s job search or transactions.

3) The short answer: can an employer charge a “processing fee” for a COE?

General rule: Charging a fee for a standard COE is not lawful or is highly disfavored

As a rule, an employer should not charge employees or former employees for the issuance of a basic, standard COE. The COE is part of the employer’s duty to provide employment documentation—charging a “processing fee” effectively turns a labor standard obligation into a paid service, which conflicts with the protective policy of labor law.

If the fee is a condition before release, it is even more problematic. It can be viewed as an unlawful exaction or an unfair labor practice in the broad sense of an employer using control over employment documents to obtain money from the worker.

Why this is the general rule

A COE is typically generated from existing company records (HRIS, payroll, 201 files). It is not a discretionary “premium” service.
Employees already rendered service; the employer’s record-keeping and certification are ordinary incidents of running a business.
Charging for it can impair the employee’s right to seek work and can be used coercively.

4) Important nuance: situations where money may come up (and what is actually allowed)

While a “COE fee” is generally improper, there are scenarios where an employer might incur optional costs. The key is whether the employer is charging for the COE itself (generally improper) versus charging for an optional add-on requested by the employee (sometimes defensible, but still sensitive).

A) Standard COE (should be free)

A basic COE commonly includes:

employee name
position/title
inclusive dates of employment (start date; and end date if separated)
employment status (e.g., regular, probationary) when relevant
company name and address
signature of authorized representative

For this standard COE, charging a fee is generally unjustifiable.

B) Notarization / authentication (optional add-on)

If the employee specifically requests a notarized COE (for example, certain immigration or foreign employers ask for notarized documents), notarization involves a third party (notary public) and a notarial fee.

Best practice and safest legal posture: the employer issues the COE free, and if the worker wants notarization, either:

the employer notarizes at company expense (many do), or
the employee shoulders the notary fee only if the employee is the one requesting notarization as an additional feature and the employer is not making notarization a requirement for release.

Red flag: the employer refuses to issue any COE unless the employee pays a “notary” fee, even when notarization is not requested.

C) Courier / special delivery (optional add-on)

If the employee requests delivery (especially to a distant address), it may be reasonable for the employee to pay the courier directly or reimburse actual courier costs—again, only if delivery is optional and the employer is willing to provide pickup or electronic release at no cost.

Red flag: “No payment, no COE,” even when pickup or email would cost the employer nothing meaningful.

D) Certified true copies / multiple copies beyond the first

Employers can provide at least one original copy free. For multiple additional originals, an employer might argue administrative cost; however, in labor-protective interpretation, it is still safer for employers to provide reasonable additional copies free, because the document is derived from their records and needed for livelihood transactions.

If any payment is asked, it should be strictly limited to actual, reasonable reproduction costs and should never be used as a gatekeeping mechanism.

E) “Clearance” and accountability checks (often abused)

Some employers tie COE release to:

return of company property
exit clearance
settlement of accountabilities

While employers can enforce legitimate accountability processes, withholding a COE as leverage is widely viewed as improper, especially when the COE merely states facts of employment. A COE is not a “reward” for clearance; it is a certification of historical fact.

Best practice: issue the COE regardless, and separately pursue property/accountability issues through appropriate internal or legal channels.

5) When charging (or withholding) becomes legally risky

Employers create legal exposure when COE issuance is used to extract money, pressure the worker, or misstate facts.

A) Unlawful exaction / coercive collection

If a fee is demanded as a condition to release the COE, it can be characterized as an improper exaction, particularly if:

the worker has no real alternative source of proof,
the employer is exploiting urgency (new job, visa deadline),
the fee is arbitrary or excessive.

B) Retaliation / interference with job mobility

Refusing or delaying a COE can be viewed as conduct that interferes with the worker’s ability to find employment. This is especially concerning when linked to:

pending labor complaints,
refusal to sign a quitclaim,
refusal to “waive” claims,
disputes about final pay.

C) Misrepresentation and reputational harm

Improper content can also create liability exposure:

stating the cause of separation (e.g., “terminated for cause”) without request or necessity
inserting negative remarks
implying misconduct as a condition for release

A COE is primarily a neutral factual certification unless the employee specifically asks for additional details.

6) What a proper COE should (and should not) contain

Items that should generally be avoided (unless requested or required)

cause of separation (resigned/terminated/laid off), unless the employee requests it or it is required for a specific purpose and the employee consents
performance evaluations or disciplinary history
salary, unless the employee asks for it and the employer is willing to certify (some employers instead issue a separate compensation certificate)

7) Data privacy considerations

A COE contains personal information and sometimes sensitive context (employment status, sometimes compensation). Employers should observe basic privacy principles:

release only to the employee (or an authorized representative with written authorization and identity verification)
avoid including unnecessary personal data (e.g., home address, government IDs) unless required
adopt consistent templates and access controls to prevent unauthorized issuance
keep a record of issued certifications to prevent fraud

8) Practical guidance: what employees can do if asked to pay

If you are required to pay a “COE fee,” consider these practical steps:

Ask for the basis in writing (policy, memo, breakdown of costs).
Offer alternatives: request a standard COE via email/pickup without notarization/delivery.
Document your request: send a clear written request stating what you need and when you requested it.
Escalate internally: HR head, compliance officer, or management—many disputes are resolved once elevated.
File a complaint with DOLE if the employer refuses to issue unless paid or unreasonably delays issuance. COE issuance issues are typically treated as a labor standards concern suitable for administrative assistance and compliance action.

9) Practical guidance: what employers should do (to stay compliant and reduce disputes)

Maintain a written COE issuance policy: who signs, processing time, request channels.
Provide at least one original copy free of charge.
Separate COE issuance from clearance/accountabilities.
Use a neutral template; do not include separation cause unless requested.
Provide electronic release options (PDF with e-signature where appropriate) to reduce friction.
If the employee requests notarization or courier delivery, treat these as optional add-ons and charge only actual third-party costs (preferably paid directly to the provider or fully receipted reimbursement), never as a blanket “processing fee.”

10) Bottom line

A standard COE should be issued upon request and should not be subject to a processing fee.
Employers may recover actual third-party costs only for optional add-ons (like notarization or courier delivery) if the employee specifically requests them—and the employer should still provide a free standard COE without conditions.
Withholding a COE to force payment, clearance, or waiver of claims is legally risky and contrary to labor-protective policy in the Philippines.

Charging a Fee for Certificate of Employment: Is It Legal in the Philippines?