A certificate of employment (COE) sounds simple on paper, but it becomes tricky when the employee has been accused of theft or dismissed for loss of trust. In the Philippine setting, though, the core rule is straightforward:

An accusation of theft does not erase the employee’s right to a Certificate of Employment.

Below is a structured, Philippine-context legal article on everything you should understand about employer obligations in this situation.

1. What is a Certificate of Employment?

A Certificate of Employment (COE) is a document issued by the employer stating basic facts about the employee’s tenure. Typically, it includes:

Name of the employee
Name of the employer
Position(s) held
Inclusive dates of employment
Sometimes: salary/wage, depending on company policy or specific request

Legally and in practice, a COE is not:

A clearance form
A character reference or recommendation
A certification of the employee’s honesty or integrity

It is primarily proof that an employment relationship existed and for how long, and sometimes what work was done.

2. Legal Basis for the Right to a COE (Philippine Context)

While exact article numbers and DOLE issuances evolve, certain fixed principles are well-recognized in Philippine labor law and practice:

Right to COE is recognized as part of labor standards. The Labor Code and DOLE issuances treat the COE as a basic right of an employee—similar in spirit to a payslip or service record. Employers generally cannot refuse to issue it without a valid, legal justification.
It applies to ALL employees, not just “good leavers.”
- Regular, probationary, project-based, seasonal, casual, and fixed-term employees
- Employees who resigned
- Employees terminated for just or authorized cause
- Even those dismissed for alleged or proven theft
The right exists whether the employee is still employed or already separated. A current employee can request a COE. A separated employee retains the right to request one even after leaving the company.
The COE is usually required to be issued within a short or “reasonable” period. DOLE guidance and common practice often use a window of a few days (around 3 working days is a frequent standard) from the time of request. Employers cannot simply delay indefinitely.

3. Employer’s Core Obligations When Issuing a COE

Even when theft is alleged, the employer’s basic obligations remain:

Issue a COE upon request. The employer has a duty to provide a COE when the employee or former employee formally asks for it.
Provide truthful and accurate information. The employer must correctly state:
- Correct spelling of the employee’s name
- Correct employment dates
- Actual position(s) held
- Other factual data (e.g., last salary) if the company includes that information
Issue it without unreasonable conditions. Common problem areas:
- Requiring the employee to drop complaints (e.g., waiving claims or signing a quitclaim) before issuing the COE – this is improper.
- Withholding COE until clearance is completed – while clearance is common practice, using it to block issuance of the COE can be challenged when it effectively deprives the employee of their statutory right.
Avoid defamatory or unnecessary negative statements. A COE is not the proper venue to write:
- “Dismissed due to theft”
- “Terminated for dishonesty”
- “Subject to ongoing criminal case”
Doing so may expose the employer to defamation or unjust vexation claims and to issues under the Data Privacy Act of 2012, especially if the information is disclosed to third parties without proper basis or consent.

4. Does a Theft Accusation Change the Right to a COE?

4.1. General Rule: No, it does not.

The right to a COE is tied to the fact of employment, not to whether the separation was “clean” or contentious. Thus:

Accusation only (no formal finding): The employee still has full right to a COE. The employer should not condition issuance on the “settlement” of the accusation.
Termination for just cause (e.g., theft, fraud, serious misconduct, loss of trust): Even when the employer terminates an employee for theft after due process, the employment relationship still existed for a certain period. The COE must still reflect the employee’s tenure up to the date of termination.

4.2. Presumption of innocence and due process

From a labor-law standpoint:

Administrative liability in employment is separate from criminal liability.
Even if an internal investigation concludes theft and results in dismissal, that does not give the employer a blanket right to ruin the employee’s reputation in a COE.
For criminal cases, the employee remains presumed innocent until convicted. Mentioning “theft” as fact in a COE, especially if no conviction exists, is risky.

5. What Should (and Should Not) Be Written in a COE in Theft Scenarios

5.1. Standard, neutral contents

Safer, legally sound COEs generally stick to neutral, factual statements such as:

“This is to certify that Juan Dela Cruz was employed with ABC Corporation from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2024 as Warehouse Supervisor.”

Optionally, some employers add:

“His/her last basic monthly salary was Php xx,xxx.xx.”

Crucially, they do not state:

Reason for termination
Disciplinary history
Pending or past accusations

5.2. If employer insists on mentioning separation status

Some companies include a neutral note like:

“As of the date of this certificate, he/she is no longer employed with the company.”
“Employment ended on [date].”

They still should avoid explicitly writing:

“Dismissed for theft”
“Terminated for serious misconduct”

If they truly believe such a note is necessary (for example, in tightly regulated industries), they should:

Ensure there was proper investigation and due process
State only verified facts, not accusations
Limit circulation to appropriate parties, and
Ideally obtain legal advice due to defamation and data-privacy risks

6. Interaction with Clearance, Final Pay, and Theft Allegations

6.1. Clearance vs. COE

Clearance is an internal document certifying that the employee has no outstanding obligations (e.g., return of tools, settlement of loans, accountabilities).
COE simply certifies that employment existed.

In practice, some companies refuse to issue a COE until clearance is signed, especially when theft or loss is alleged. From a labor-standards standpoint, however:

Clearance may validly be required for release of final pay or for good standing notations.
But using clearance to completely block the issuance of a basic COE may be challenged as a violation of labor standards.

6.2. Final pay and theft accusation

Employers can set off proven, liquidated claims (e.g., clearly documented shortages or losses) against final pay, subject to legal rules.
This is separate from the duty to issue the COE, which must still be fulfilled.

7. Data Privacy and Defamation Concerns

When theft is in the picture, the employer’s biggest legal risk regarding COEs is often not labor law, but:

Defamation (libel/slander) If an employer states in a COE or reference letter that the employee is a thief, without a court conviction or solid factual basis, and this is communicated to third parties, the employee may claim that:
- The statement is false or at least not sufficiently established.
- The statement injured his/her reputation.
- The statement was made in bad faith or with negligence.
Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA) Allegations of theft or suspected wrongdoing are sensitive personal information about a data subject (the employee). Under the DPA:
- Personal data must be relevant, accurate, and limited to the declared purpose.
- Sharing such information to third parties requires a lawful basis (e.g., consent, legal obligation, legitimate interest, etc.).

Because the purpose of a COE is usually to prove employment history (for new employment, loan applications, etc.), adding accusations of theft may be considered unnecessary and excessive, creating privacy exposure.

8. Employer Obligations When There Is an Ongoing Criminal or Administrative Case

8.1. During ongoing internal investigation (still employed)

If the employee is still formally employed while under investigation:

The employer must still issue a COE if requested, reflecting that the employee is currently employed as of the date of issuance.
The employer should not write “under investigation for theft” in the COE.

Example wording:

“This is to certify that Maria Santos is currently employed with XYZ Corporation as Cashier since 15 March 2022.”

8.2. After termination, with ongoing case

If the employee has been terminated and a criminal complaint has been filed:

The COE should still state past employment facts only.
The ongoing criminal case is separate and should not be casually mentioned in the COE.

If another employer specifically asks about the case, the old employer should handle that request carefully, ideally with legal advice and with regard to the DPA and possible defamation claims.

9. Remedies If an Employer Refuses to Issue a COE

If an employer flatly refuses to give a COE—especially citing theft as the reason—an employee generally has several options in the Philippine system:

Formal written request
- The employee should first make a clear written request (email or letter), specifying:
  - That they are requesting a Certificate of Employment
  - When they need it
- This written request serves as evidence that the employer was asked.
Labor standards complaint with DOLE Regional Office
- The refusal to issue a COE can be treated as a labor standards violation.
- DOLE typically uses Single-Entry Approach (SEnA) first—an administrative/conciliation process where parties are called to discuss and settle.
Filing a case before the NLRC or appropriate body
- If the refusal to issue a COE forms part of a broader dispute (e.g., illegal dismissal, non-payment of benefits), the employee may raise the issue along with other claims.
- The COE issue can be included as part of the reliefs sought.
Possible claims for damages
- In extreme cases where an employer’s refusal or defamatory COE has clearly harmed the employee (e.g., losing job offers because of malicious statements), the employee may explore claims for moral and exemplary damages through proper actions.

10. Practical Guidelines for Employers

When facing theft allegations and COE requests, employers in the Philippines should keep these practical rules in mind:

Always issue a COE upon request. No matter how contentious the separation is, the basic obligation stands.
Keep the COE neutral and factual.
- Stick to employment dates, position, and maybe salary.
- Avoid stating reasons for termination, especially alleged theft, unless there is a compelling legal reason and solid basis—and ideally legal advice.
Separate internal accountability from COE.
- Use internal clearance forms, incident reports, and HR records to document findings and losses.
- Do not “load” the COE with narrative.
Be mindful of data privacy.
- Do not share more information than is necessary for the COE’s purpose.
- Limit access to those with legitimate reason to see the COE.
Document the process.
- Record the request date and issuance date.
- If there is delay, have a reasonable explanation (e.g., HR staff availability) and still act promptly.

11. Practical Guidelines for Employees Accused of Theft

For employees:

Request your COE in writing.
- State that you are requesting a certificate of employment indicating your employment dates and position(s).
- Keep a copy of your email or letter.
Do not argue reasons in the COE request.
- Focus on the right to the document, not on arguing whether the theft accusation is true or not. That is handled in separate proceedings.
If employer refuses, escalate properly.
- Ask HR/management for a written explanation.
- If they still refuse, consider filing a complaint with DOLE.
Check the content of the COE.
- If it contains defamatory or highly prejudicial statements (e.g., labeling you a thief), keep a copy. This may support legal action if those statements damage your prospects.
Consult a lawyer or labor rights advocate if your livelihood is affected.
- Especially if you are being effectively blacklisted or if employers cite a defamatory COE as reason for rejection.

12. Key Takeaways

A Certificate of Employment is a basic labor right in the Philippines, premised on the fact that an employment relationship existed.
Accusations or findings of theft do not extinguish the employee’s right to a COE.
Employers are obligated to issue a COE upon request, usually within a short, reasonable time.
The COE should be neutral, factual, and limited to employment details; inserting accusations of theft can expose the employer to defamation and data privacy issues.
If an employer refuses to issue a COE—or issues one with malicious statements—the employee may seek relief through DOLE and appropriate legal action.

This is general legal information based on Philippine labor-law principles and practice. Specific situations can be nuanced, especially where there are pending criminal or administrative cases, so it’s wise to seek tailored legal advice for particular cases.