Employer Withholding Performance Evaluation Results: Is It Legal in the Philippines?

Key takeaways

No statute forces private employers to proactively hand over performance appraisals after every cycle.
But employees generally have a right to access their own evaluation records upon request under the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA) because these are “personal information.”
Withholding becomes unlawful or risky when the evaluation is used to (a) discipline or dismiss, (b) deny regularization, or (c) affect pay/promotion governed by a contract, policy, or CBA—because due process, transparency, and contract/CBA compliance are then engaged.
Employers may redact third-party data, protect trade secrets, and provide reasonable summaries, but cannot refuse outright a legitimate access request to the employee’s own data.
Government employees follow a separate civil service framework that expects feedback and appeal within the SPMS; the analysis below focuses on private sector workers.

The legal building blocks

1) Management prerogative vs. workers’ rights

Philippine law recognizes management prerogative to design performance systems, subject to the limits of law, contract, and fairness. These limits include:

Labor Code & due process: If an appraisal is used to discipline or dismiss, the employer must satisfy the twin-notice rule and give a real opportunity to be heard. The factual bases must be disclosed with enough detail for the employee to meaningfully respond. Hiding the very document relied on (e.g., a rating sheet or PIP result) undermines due process and can invalidate penalties.
Probationary employment: Standards for regularization must be made known at hiring. If the employer later cites non-compliance with standards, transparency around how the employee performed against those standards becomes critical.
Contracts, handbooks, and CBAs: If company policy or a CBA promises that results will be disclosed or that merit increases hinge on published criteria, withholding may breach those commitments and become a grievance or damages issue.

2) Data Privacy Act of 2012 (RA 10173)

Performance evaluations and PIPs are personal information about an identifiable person. As such:

Lawful processing: Employers may process evaluation data for contract performance, legal obligations, or legitimate interests, provided principles of transparency, proportionality, and legitimate purpose are followed.
Right to access (Data Subject Rights): An employee may request access to personal data processed about them—this covers ratings, written comments, PIP documents, and supporting metrics. Employers must respond within a reasonable time, explain the data, and provide copies or intelligible summaries, subject to lawful limitations.
Permissible limitations: Employers may redact (a) other employees’ personal data, (b) trade secrets or confidential commercial information not strictly necessary to understand one’s own evaluation, and (c) privileged communications (e.g., attorney-client).
Accountability: Employers should have a DSAR (data subject access request) procedure, designate responsible officers, and keep an audit trail of requests and responses. Refusal or stonewalling can lead to regulatory action and reputational risk.

So, may an employer withhold evaluation results?

Generally: No absolute right to withhold

There is no blanket legal duty to send each employee a copy proactively after every cycle, but once an employee asks, the DPA right of access is triggered.
Employers may use formats that protect others’ privacy (e.g., redact peer names in 360° feedback) or provide a clear summary if the raw form reveals non-necessary confidential content.
A categorical refusal (e.g., “we never release appraisals”) is legally fragile.

When withholding becomes especially risky or unlawful

Discipline/Dismissal (e.g., “inefficiency,” “poor performance”):
- Due process requires disclosure of the specific acts/omissions and evidence. If the appraisal is central evidence, withholding it undermines due process and may render dismissal invalid or expose the company to damages and backwages.
Probationary non-regularization:
- If the employee was not clearly apprised of standards, termination is suspect. If standards were communicated but results are withheld, the employer weakens its position that the standards were fairly and consistently applied.
Compensation, promotion, or bonus decisions promised by policy/CBA:
- If pay or promotion turns on appraisal outcomes and policy promises transparency or an appeal path, withholding can breach contract/CBA and fuel grievances.

Practical compliance for employers

Write it down
- Adopt a Performance Management Policy that states: rating scales; who sees what; timelines; feedback meetings; DSAR steps; redaction rules; and appeal/escalation paths.
Tell people early
- Provide standards at hiring (especially for probationary employees) and at each cycle’s start. Keep signed acknowledgments.
Feedback as default
- Hold post-cycle feedback discussions and give at least a written summary (even if you don’t hand the full form). Summaries should be specific, behavior-based, and reference KPIs.
Prepare for DSARs
- Name a handler (usually the DPO/HR), set reasonable timelines, and use templates for acknowledgments, clarifying questions, and final responses.
- Redact third-party data; separate opinion from fact; retain a clean, shareable copy.
Use PIPs properly
- If performance is below standard, issue a Performance Improvement Plan with clear targets, support, and check-ins. Keep documentation; share the PIP and the outcome.
Train raters
- Avoid rating errors (halo, recency, central tendency). Document objective bases. Assume anything written may be disclosed.

Practical steps for employees

Ask in writing for your evaluation or a copy/summary of the appraisal and PIP records.
Be specific: identify the cycle, teams/rater(s), and documents requested; acknowledge redaction of others’ data.
Use both tracks when needed: file a DSAR (privacy track) and, if the evaluation affects pay/promotion or discipline, use the HR/CBA grievance or labor complaint track.
Keep timelines: note when you requested and when you received (or were denied) access.

Sample request (you can copy-paste and edit):

Subject: Request for access to my performance evaluation records Dear [HR/DPO], I am requesting access to and a copy of my personal data under the Data Privacy Act, specifically my performance evaluation records for [period], including rating forms, narrative feedback, and any PIP and results. I understand you may redact third-party personal data and confidential information not necessary to understand my own evaluation. Please provide the information in an intelligible form within a reasonable time. Thank you, [Name], [Position], [Employee ID]

Frequently asked questions

1) Can an employer give only a rating (e.g., “Meets Expectations”) without comments? They can in normal cycles, but it’s poor practice and risky if the rating drives pay or discipline. If the rating is challenged or used against the employee, disclosing the underlying basis becomes important for due process and fairness.

2) Are 360° or peer comments disclosable? Yes, to the extent they are the employee’s personal data. Employers may anonymize or redact identifiers of peers and non-necessary content while providing substance sufficient for understanding the assessment.

3) Can the employer charge for copies? A reasonable cost for copies or processing may be allowed, but fees cannot be used to frustrate access.

4) What if the evaluation contains trade secrets or strategic plans? Employers should separate and withhold only what is necessary to protect legitimate secrets and provide the rest or a faithful summary.

5) What if my contract or CBA says results must be released within X days? That controls. Failure to release is a breach actionable under the grievance or contractual remedies.

Risk matrix (for employers)

Scenario	Withholding risk level	Why
Routine cycle; no request; policy silent	Low–Moderate	No proactive duty, but transparency still best practice
Employee files DSAR for their appraisal	High if refused	DPA right of access applies; must respond reasonably
Appraisal used for discipline/dismissal	High	Due process requires disclosure of factual bases/evidence
Probationary non-regularization	High	Standards must be known; transparency in application matters
CBA/policy promises disclosure	High	Contractual breach/grievance exposure
360° feedback with third-party data	Manageable if redacted	Provide substance while protecting others’ privacy

Bottom line

Proactive disclosure of performance results is a best practice, not a universal statutory mandate.
Upon request, employees are entitled to access their own appraisal data, subject to reasonable redactions and limitations.
If an evaluation affects discipline, regularization, or pay/promotion, withholding is legally perilous and often incompatible with due process and policy/CBA commitments.
A compliant, transparent, and well-documented performance system—paired with a clear DSAR process—protects both employees and employers.