Philippine context

Improper payroll deductions are one of the most common labor complaints in the Philippines because they sit at the intersection of wages, management prerogative, debt collection, benefits administration, and statutory compliance. Employers often assume that once an employee has signed a loan form, payroll authorization, salary deduction slip, handbook acknowledgment, or company policy, deductions automatically become lawful. That assumption is wrong. Under Philippine labor law, not every deduction from wages or benefits is valid, and even a facially authorized deduction may still be illegal if it violates the Labor Code, Department of Labor and Employment regulations, Civil Code principles on consent, or special rules governing minimum wage, final pay, social legislation, and due process.

This article explains what improper payroll deductions are, when deductions from benefits and loans are allowed, when they become unlawful, and what remedies employees may pursue.

I. The governing legal principle: wages enjoy special protection

Philippine labor law treats wages as a specially protected form of property. The basic rule is simple: an employer may not deduct from an employee’s wages except in cases allowed by law. This rule reflects the State policy of protecting labor and ensuring that wages are paid in full and on time.

Why the law is strict:

wages are for the employee’s and family’s subsistence;
the employer is the stronger party in the employment relationship;
“consent” to deductions is often obtained through unequal bargaining power;
deductions can be used to shift business losses or collection risks to workers.

Because of that, the law does not start from “deductions are allowed unless prohibited.” It starts from the opposite: deductions are prohibited unless there is a clear legal basis.

II. Main legal sources in the Philippines

The topic is governed primarily by these bodies of law and rules:

1. Labor Code of the Philippines The Labor Code contains the central restrictions on wage deductions, non-interference in disposal of wages, deposits for loss or damage, withholding of wages, unlawful deductions, and payment of wages.

2. Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Labor Code The IRR clarifies how deductions, facilities, deposits, and wage-related practices are treated.

3. DOLE regulations and labor advisories DOLE issuances explain pay rules, final pay, labor standards enforcement, and complaint mechanisms.

4. Civil Code principles These matter on consent, contracts, compensation or set-off, damages, and obligations. But where employment wages are concerned, labor law rules prevail over ordinary contractual arrangements.

5. Special laws and social legislation These include laws and regulations on SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG, withholding taxes, and other mandatory deductions.

6. Jurisprudence Philippine Supreme Court decisions repeatedly emphasize that deductions from wages are strictly construed against the employer when they fall outside statutory exceptions.

III. What counts as a payroll deduction

A payroll deduction is any amount withheld, set off, retained, recouped, or automatically applied by the employer against sums otherwise payable to the employee.

This includes deductions from:

regular salary or wages;
overtime pay;
holiday pay;
premium pay;
service incentive leave commutation;
13th month pay, in some contexts;
commissions that have already become wage-like or demandable;
bonuses that have already vested or become enforceable;
separation pay or final pay;
monetary benefits in the payroll system;
reimbursements, if the employer treats them as payroll offsets.

The label used by the employer does not control. Whether called “salary adjustment,” “administrative set-off,” “cash shortage recovery,” “benefit correction,” “loan amortization,” “company receivable offset,” or “temporary withholding,” it is still a deduction if it reduces what the employee should otherwise receive.

IV. Lawful deductions: the narrow exceptions

Deductions are not always illegal. The question is whether the deduction falls within a recognized legal exception.

A. Deductions required by law

These are the clearest valid deductions, such as:

withholding tax;
employee shares in SSS contributions;
PhilHealth contributions;
Pag-IBIG contributions;
other deductions expressly mandated by statute or regulation.

These are generally lawful because the employer is legally bound to collect and remit them.

B. Deductions authorized by law or regulation and properly implemented

Examples may include:

union dues, where validly check-off authorized or allowed under labor relations rules;
deductions under wage orders or implementing regulations;
deductions for insurance premiums or cooperative obligations when allowed by law and supported by valid authorization.

C. Deductions with the employee’s written authorization for the employee’s own benefit

This is a key category, but it is also the one most abused.

A deduction may be valid where:

the employee gave knowing and voluntary written authorization;
the deduction is for a lawful purpose;
it is primarily for the employee’s benefit or with real employee consent; and
it does not violate minimum labor standards.

Common examples:

salary loan amortizations;
cooperative dues;
savings programs;
insurance;
salary advances;
repayment of cash loans extended by the employer.

But written authorization alone does not cure everything. An authorization can still be invalid if it is forced, vague, blanket, misleading, contrary to law, or used to circumvent wage protections.

D. Court-ordered or legally compelled deductions

If a court, lawful garnishment process, or other competent authority directs a deduction, the employer may comply within legal limits.

E. Deductions for facilities, if legally classifiable as facilities

This is a technical area. In labor law, there is a distinction between facilities and supplements. Only facilities, under strict rules, may in some cases be deducted from wages. The item must be primarily for the employee’s benefit and accepted under lawful conditions. Many employers wrongly classify business expenses or work-related necessities as deductible “facilities.” They are often not.

Meals or lodging may be deductible only if they qualify under labor standards rules. Tools, uniforms, mandatory work gear, or items mainly benefiting the employer are often not deductible as facilities.

F. Deductions for loss or damage, only in tightly restricted cases

The Labor Code is especially suspicious of deductions for losses, cash shortages, inventory discrepancies, damaged property, and breakage.

As a rule, these are not freely deductible. The employer must satisfy strict requirements, including fairness, proof, and due process. Blanket deductions for every shortage, missing item, or damaged property are highly vulnerable to challenge.

V. Improper deductions involving employee loans

Loans are where legal and illegal payroll deductions most often blur. A valid debt does not automatically authorize unilateral payroll deduction.

1. Salary loans vs. employer set-off

An employer may lend money to an employee and agree on payroll amortization. That can be lawful. But several things can make the deduction improper:

there is no clear written authorization;
the authorization was signed as a condition of hiring or continued employment, with no meaningful choice;
the employer imposes interest, penalties, or collection fees not agreed upon;
the amount deducted exceeds the agreed amortization;
the employer accelerates the whole debt without contractual basis;
the employer deducts from benefits not covered by the authorization;
the employer applies final pay to alleged loan balances without accounting or due process;
the loan itself is fictitious, inflated, or already paid.

2. Blanket payroll authorizations

Employers often use broad clauses such as:

“I authorize the company to deduct from my salary, wages, benefits, final pay, incentives, and any sums due me all liabilities, shortages, penalties, or obligations.”

Clauses like this are legally risky. Labor law disfavors blanket waivers and broad deductions that allow the employer to become investigator, judge, and collector at the same time. The more indefinite and one-sided the clause, the weaker it is.

3. Loans tied to resignation or termination

A common practice is for employers to deduct the entire outstanding balance of an employee loan from final pay upon resignation, retrenchment, end of contract, or dismissal.

This may be valid only if supported by:

a clear and specific loan agreement;
valid payroll or final pay authorization;
a correct and itemized accounting;
deductions consistent with labor standards and not contrary to law;
no dispute as to the existence or amount of the debt.

It becomes improper where the employer:

withholds all final pay indefinitely;
deducts contested liabilities without proof;
includes charges never disclosed to the employee;
offsets against benefits that are legally protected;
uses the debt as leverage to prevent resignation or release documents.

4. Usurious or abusive loan structures

Even where payroll deductions are authorized, the employer may still face liability if the loan scheme is oppressive, unconscionable, deceptive, or structured to keep employees in a cycle of debt dependency. Labor law will not favor devices that indirectly compel labor through indebtedness.

VI. Improper deductions involving benefits

Benefits create a separate problem because not all benefits have the same legal status.

A. Statutory benefits

These include legally mandated benefits such as:

13th month pay;
service incentive leave commutation, when due;
holiday pay;
overtime pay;
night shift differential;
premium pay;
other statutory wage-related benefits.

As a rule, the employer cannot simply deduct from these to satisfy internal claims unless a clear legal basis exists. In many cases, these benefits are treated as part of the employee’s protected monetary entitlements.

B. Company-granted benefits

These include:

productivity bonuses;
incentives;
allowances;
commissions;
retention pay;
year-end gifts;
benefit conversion programs.

If the benefit remains discretionary and has not vested, the employer may have more flexibility. But once the benefit has ripened into a demandable company practice, contractual benefit, or earned compensation, it cannot be reduced through arbitrary deductions.

C. Final pay and separation-related sums

This is one of the most litigated areas. Final pay often includes:

unpaid salary;
pro-rated 13th month pay;
unused leave conversion, if applicable;
tax refund adjustments;
other accrued benefits;
separation pay, where legally or contractually due.

Employers sometimes treat final pay as a general collection fund. That is dangerous. They still need legal basis for each deduction. “Company clearance” does not automatically legalize every withheld amount.

D. Separation pay and protected entitlements

If separation pay is legally due, deductions against it must be approached with caution. Unilateral offsets for unproven liabilities may be struck down. The employer cannot use final pay processing to impose deductions that would not survive legal scrutiny in a labor case.

VII. Common forms of illegal or questionable deductions

Below are the most frequent categories of improper deductions in Philippine workplaces.

1. Deductions for cash shortages

Common in retail, food service, fuel stations, and cashier positions. These are often illegal where:

the shortage is not clearly proven;
there was no inventory control or audit transparency;
several employees had access to the cash drawer;
the deduction is automatic, regardless of fault;
the employee was not heard before deduction;
the loss is part of normal business risk.

2. Deductions for damaged equipment or lost company property

Examples:

broken dishes;
missing tools;
damaged gadgets;
motor vehicle incidents;
inventory losses.

These become improper where negligence is assumed without investigation, or where the employee is made to bear ordinary wear and tear, business losses, or risks inherent in the enterprise.

3. Deductions for uniforms, IDs, training, or onboarding costs

These are often invalid when the items are required by the employer for business operations. If the expense primarily benefits the employer or is necessary for the job, deducting it from wages is suspect.

Training bonds raise separate legal issues. A valid training agreement is not the same as an automatic right to deduct from wages. The employer must still establish the legal basis and reasonableness of the charge.

4. Deductions for tardiness or policy violations beyond lawful wage effects

An employer may apply lawful no-work-no-pay or proportionate deductions for time not worked. But deductions turn improper when the employer imposes extra monetary penalties unrelated to actual unpaid work time.

Example: deducting the equivalent of one full day’s wage for a 15-minute lateness, on top of disciplinary sanctions, may be unlawful unless specifically justified under valid policy and within labor standards limits.

5. Deductions labeled as “penalties,” “fines,” or “administrative sanctions”

Employers generally cannot impose monetary penalties by simply docking wages, unless the deduction falls under a recognized legal ground. Internal rules cannot create a free-standing power to fine employees through payroll.

6. Deductions for customer complaints, refunds, or bad orders

A business cannot automatically transfer commercial losses to workers merely because a customer returned goods, canceled an order, or complained. That is often a business risk issue, not a wage deduction issue.

7. Deductions for benefits overpayment without consent or accounting

Overpayments do happen, but recovery still requires lawful handling. The employer should show:

the specific overpayment;
how it occurred;
the exact amount;
the period involved;
the legal basis for recovery;
a reasonable repayment arrangement.

Automatic and unexplained deductions for “benefit correction” are vulnerable to challenge.

8. Deductions from commissions already earned

If commissions have already vested based on completed sales or contracts, employers cannot arbitrarily claw them back unless the governing incentive plan clearly allows it and the rule is lawful, reasonable, and consistently applied.

9. Deducting from the minimum wage

One of the clearest warning signs of illegality is when deductions reduce take-home pay below the minimum wage without lawful basis. Employers cannot use private arrangements to defeat minimum wage laws.

VIII. The role of employee consent: necessary, but not always sufficient

Many disputes turn on consent. Employers often defend deductions by producing signed forms. But labor law asks deeper questions.

For consent to matter, it should be:

written;
specific;
informed;
voluntary;
not contrary to law;
not extracted through coercion or unequal pressure.

Consent is weak or invalid where:

the form is blank or incomplete when signed;
the deduction categories are overly broad;
the employee had no real option but to sign;
the employee was not told the amount or basis;
the form authorizes deductions for future unknown liabilities;
the authorization is buried in a handbook or onboarding packet;
the employee is made to pre-waive claims to wages;
the deduction violates labor standards anyway.

An employee cannot validly waive rights in a way that defeats mandatory labor protections. Waivers and quitclaims are construed strictly, and the same caution applies to wage deduction authorizations.

IX. Due process before deductions for loss, shortages, or liabilities

Even where an employer believes a deduction is justified, due process matters.

At minimum, fair practice requires:

clear notice of the alleged liability;
disclosure of supporting records;
opportunity for the employee to explain or contest;
impartial consideration;
correct computation;
limitation to lawful amounts.

An employer that simply deducts first and explains later is exposed to claims for illegal deduction and labor standards violations.

Where the deduction is tied to misconduct, negligence, dishonesty, or property accountability, the employer should distinguish between:

disciplinary liability, and
monetary liability.

These are not automatically the same. An employee may be disciplined but not automatically monetarily liable, or vice versa, depending on proof and legal basis.

X. Deposits for loss or damage: heavily restricted

The law is particularly strict about requiring employees to make deposits for tools, equipment, or possible losses. As a rule, employers may not simply require deposits except in situations recognized by regulation and under conditions that protect workers.

Why this matters:

a deposit withheld from wages functions like a deduction;
it shifts the burden of enterprise risk to labor;
it is prone to abuse in sectors with cash handling or delivery operations.

Any “cash bond,” “damage deposit,” “uniform deposit,” or “accountability reserve” should be examined carefully. Many such schemes are legally dubious.

XI. Non-diminution and benefit protection

Sometimes the problem is not a one-time deduction but a recurring payroll practice that reduces established benefits. If a company has regularly granted a benefit over time and it ripens into company practice, the employer may be barred from withdrawing or reducing it under the principle of non-diminution of benefits.

This can arise where the employer starts to:

deduct charges from a previously net benefit;
convert a free benefit into a partly deductible one;
impose payroll recoupment for items historically absorbed by the company;
unilaterally change benefit computation to recover “costs.”

If the benefit has become established, the employer may face both deduction claims and non-diminution issues.

XII. Minimum wage, take-home pay, and anti-circumvention concerns

Employers sometimes try to avoid wage rules by nominally paying the proper gross amount and then subtracting multiple deductions. Labor law looks at substance, not just form.

Red flags include:

workers receiving less than legal minimum after deductions not authorized by law;
deductions swallowing most of the salary;
repeated payroll entries that employees do not understand;
deductions being used as hidden discipline;
deductions effectively making employees pay for operating expenses.

A deduction scheme that circumvents minimum labor standards can be struck down even if embedded in policy manuals or contracts.

XIII. Special concern: deductions from final pay

Final pay disputes deserve separate treatment because employees often discover improper deductions only after separation.

What usually appears in final pay computations

last unpaid salary;
pro-rated 13th month pay;
leave conversions, if applicable;
tax adjustment;
refundable deposits, if valid;
deductions for accountabilities, loans, shortages, benefits overpayment, or property not returned.

Problems commonly encountered

no itemized statement;
delayed release pending “clearance” for months;
deduction of unverified accountabilities;
charging items unrelated to employment;
using final pay to enforce training bonds or damages without due basis;
no supporting receipts or computations;
inclusion of penalties or interest not previously disclosed.

Clearance procedures are not a license to indefinitely withhold final pay or impose arbitrary deductions. Clearance may be used to verify property return and compute lawful obligations, but it does not override labor standards.

XIV. Remedies available to employees

An employee facing improper payroll deductions has both administrative and judicial/quasi-judicial remedies, depending on the nature of the claim and whether reinstatement or other relief is involved.

1. Internal demand and payroll clarification

Before filing a case, many employees begin by requesting:

a copy of payroll records;
deduction authorizations;
loan ledger;
final pay computation;
supporting basis for shortages or losses;
policy relied upon by HR or payroll.

This step is often useful because many deductions collapse once the employer is asked to document them.

2. Complaint before DOLE for labor standards violations

If the issue is nonpayment, underpayment, or unlawful deduction of wages and benefits, the employee may seek relief through the Department of Labor and Employment, especially where the claim is essentially a labor standards matter.

DOLE mechanisms may address:

unpaid wages due to illegal deductions;
underpayment caused by unlawful offsets;
nonrelease of final pay components;
wage distortion through unauthorized deductions;
labor inspection and compliance issues.

3. Money claim before the appropriate labor tribunal

Where the employee seeks recovery of unlawfully deducted amounts, damages, attorney’s fees, and possibly other relief tied to the employment relationship, a money claim may be filed before the proper labor forum.

Depending on the case posture, the claim may be pursued before the labor arbiter if it involves money claims arising from employment, often especially where accompanied by:

illegal dismissal issues;
claims for damages;
reinstatement;
separation pay disputes.

4. Illegal dismissal case, if deductions accompany coercive resignation or dismissal

Sometimes payroll deductions are not isolated acts. They may be part of a larger pattern:

forcing employees to resign over alleged shortages;
suspending workers until they “settle” liabilities;
dismissing employees and automatically charging losses to final pay;
coercing quitclaims before release of benefits.

In such cases, the employee may have claims not only for illegal deductions but also for constructive dismissal or illegal dismissal, depending on facts.

5. Recovery of damages

An employee may seek damages where the employer acted in bad faith, oppressively, or in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy. Examples include:

fabricated liabilities;
humiliating collection methods;
withholding wages to force settlement;
deliberately opaque payroll practices;
retaliatory deductions after complaints.

6. Attorney’s fees

In labor cases, attorney’s fees may be awarded in proper cases where the employee was compelled to litigate or incur expenses to recover wages and benefits.

7. Criminal exposure in extreme cases

Not every improper deduction is criminal, but some conduct may create criminal implications if accompanied by fraud, coercion, falsification, or other punishable acts. Usually, however, the primary remedy remains labor and civil in character unless there are distinct criminal elements.

XV. What an employee should prove

To challenge improper deductions effectively, the employee should gather and preserve:

payslips;
payroll screenshots or bank credit records;
loan agreements;
deduction authorization forms;
handbook provisions;
emails, memos, or chats from HR/payroll;
notices of shortages or liabilities;
inventory or audit reports, if available;
final pay computation;
quitclaim, if any;
comparative payslips showing the deduction pattern.

Useful factual questions include:

What exactly was deducted?
From what pay item?
On what dates?
Under what written authority?
Was the amount explained?
Was there notice and opportunity to contest?
Did the deduction push pay below lawful minimum?
Was the deduction for the employer’s business risk?

The employee need not prove every legal theory at the start. Clear payroll evidence often shifts the burden to the employer to justify the deductions.

XVI. Employer defenses and how they are assessed

Employers commonly raise the following defenses:

“The employee signed an authorization.”

This helps only if the authorization is valid, specific, informed, voluntary, and lawful in content and execution.

“The employee owed the company money.”

A debt alone does not automatically permit unilateral payroll deduction. The method of collection must still comply with labor law.

“This is company policy.”

Company policy cannot override the Labor Code or mandatory labor standards.

“The deduction was for damages caused by the employee.”

Then the employer must show proof, causation, fault, due process, and legal basis for wage deduction rather than ordinary civil recovery.

“The employee accepted the final pay.”

Acceptance is not always a waiver, especially where there was pressure, unequal bargaining power, incomplete disclosure, or invalid quitclaim language.

“The deduction was just an adjustment/correction.”

Then the employer should be able to show a transparent accounting and lawful basis. Unexplained “adjustments” are not self-validating.

XVII. Quitclaims, waivers, and release forms

Many employees sign quitclaims when claiming final pay. Under Philippine law, quitclaims are not automatically valid. Courts examine whether they were:

voluntary;
based on full understanding;
supported by reasonable consideration;
not contrary to law, morals, or public policy.

A quitclaim does not necessarily bar recovery of illegal deductions, especially where:

the employee did not know the full computation;
the amount paid was unconscionably low;
release was required to obtain undisputed pay;
the employer concealed the basis for deductions.

XVIII. Distinguishing lawful time-based deductions from unlawful penalties

Not all payroll reductions are “deductions” in the prohibited sense. Some are lawful because they reflect unpaid time.

Examples:

no work, no pay;
proportionate reduction for absences;
correct timekeeping adjustments for tardiness or undertime.

But the line is crossed when the employer adds extra amounts beyond the pay corresponding to time not worked.

Example:

deducting 30 minutes of pay for 30 minutes late may be lawful if correctly computed;
deducting half-day pay plus a “disciplinary fine” for the same lateness is suspect.

That distinction matters in many payroll complaints.

XIX. Industry-specific patterns

Retail and food service

Cash shortages, inventory losses, breakage, customer refund deductions, and “charge to crew” practices are common sources of illegality.

BPO and office settings

Laptop damage, headset loss, badge penalties, training recovery, and final pay offsets arise frequently.

Logistics and delivery

Short remittances, damaged parcels, fuel discrepancies, and vehicle-related deductions are common.

Manufacturing

Uniforms, tools, defective output charges, materials wastage, and alleged negligence-related deductions appear often.

Private schools and hospitals

Benefit recoupment, tuition discounts, salary loans, shortages, and bond-related deductions may surface.

The legal test stays the same: Is there a lawful basis, valid consent where needed, fair process, and compliance with labor standards?

XX. Remedies where deductions are tied to benefits administered by a third party

Some payroll deductions involve third-party programs:

cooperative loans;
bank salary loans;
HMO upgrades;
insurance premiums;
salary deduction cards or financing plans.

Issues arise when the employer continues deductions after cancellation, misremits amounts, or deducts more than authorized. In such cases, the employee may have:

a labor claim against the employer for unlawful deduction or misremittance;
a separate contractual or consumer issue with the third party;
a records-access problem requiring payroll audit.

The employer cannot escape responsibility for deductions it actually made from payroll just by saying the arrangement involved a third party.

XXI. Prescription and timeliness

Money claims arising from employer-employee relations are subject to prescriptive periods under labor law. Delay can weaken evidence and collection prospects. Employees should act promptly, especially when:

the deductions are recurring;
the employee is about to resign;
final pay has been withheld;
records may no longer be accessible.

Even where a claim is not yet prescribed, long delay may make proof harder. Payroll records and payslips should be preserved early.

XXII. Practical legal framework for determining if a deduction is improper

A useful way to analyze any deduction is to ask seven questions:

1. What exact sum was deducted?

Identify the amount, date, and payroll item affected.

2. What is the employer’s claimed basis?

Law, policy, loan agreement, shortage report, benefit correction, or final pay clearance?

3. Is the basis recognized by labor law?

If not, the deduction is presumptively invalid.

4. Is there specific written authorization?

General or blanket forms are weak. Oral consent is weaker.

5. Was there due process?

Especially important for shortages, damage, negligence, and contested liabilities.

6. Did the deduction impair minimum standards?

If yes, that is a strong sign of illegality.

7. Is the deduction really shifting business risk to the employee?

If yes, courts and labor authorities are likely to scrutinize it closely.

XXIII. High-risk employer practices

The following practices are especially vulnerable under Philippine labor law:

automatic salary deduction for any shortage discovered by management;
mandatory cash bond deducted from wages;
deductions for uniforms or tools required by the job;
broad onboarding authorizations covering “all liabilities”;
full offset of final pay without employee accounting review;
indefinite withholding of final pay pending clearance;
payroll “fines” for policy infractions;
deduction of customer complaints and refunds from employee pay;
recoupment of benefits through unexplained payroll adjustments;
deductions that bring take-home pay below the lawful minimum.

XXIV. What employers should be doing instead

A legally cautious employer should:

limit deductions to those clearly allowed by law;
obtain specific written consent when needed;
provide itemized payroll entries;
investigate losses before assigning liability;
avoid using payroll as a disciplinary weapon;
separate business risk from employee fault;
document loan balances and amortizations clearly;
give employees access to records;
process final pay with transparency and within legal expectations;
avoid broad waivers and one-sided authorizations.

That is not just good HR practice. It is legal risk management.

XXV. Conclusion

In the Philippine setting, improper payroll deductions from benefits and loans usually become unlawful in one of four ways: there is no legal basis, there is no valid consent, there is no due process, or the deduction defeats labor standards protections. The presence of a handbook policy, signed payroll form, or outstanding employee debt does not automatically save the employer. Wages and wage-related benefits remain protected by law, and ambiguities are generally resolved in favor of labor.

For employees, the most important point is this: a deduction is not lawful merely because it appears on the payslip. If the amount was withheld from salary, benefits, or final pay without clear legal authority, proper authorization, transparent accounting, and fair procedure, the employee may seek recovery through labor remedies.

For employers, the lesson is equally clear: payroll is not a private collection mechanism unconstrained by law. Loan recovery, loss accountability, and benefit correction must all operate within the strict limits imposed by the Labor Code and related regulations. Once the employer crosses those limits, the deduction may be struck down and the company may be ordered to return the amounts, pay damages, and answer for labor standards violations.

In the end, Philippine labor law protects the basic proposition that the employee’s wage is not an open fund from which the employer may freely help itself.