Is It Misconduct to Edit an Approved Leave of Absence Form With Correction Tape in the Workplace

I. Introduction

In many Philippine workplaces, the humble leave of absence (LOA) form looks deceptively simple. But once it is approved, it becomes an official company record. Editing it after approval—especially with correction tape—raises legal and disciplinary questions:

  • Is this automatically dishonesty or falsification?
  • Can it be a ground for dismissal?
  • What if the employee just wanted to correct a simple mistake?

This article explains, in a Philippine legal context, when altering an approved leave form with correction tape may amount to misconduct, and when it may be a minor, correctible lapse. It focuses on private-sector employment, with notes on government service.

II. Legal Framework in the Philippines

1. Labor Code: Just Causes for Dismissal

Under Article 297 (formerly Article 282) of the Labor Code, an employer may terminate employment for “just causes,” including:

  1. Serious misconduct
  2. Willful disobedience of lawful orders
  3. Gross and habitual neglect of duties
  4. Fraud or willful breach of trust
  5. Commission of a crime against the employer or their family
  6. Other causes analogous to the foregoing

Altering an approved leave form can intersect with several of these, especially:

  • Serious misconduct
  • Fraud or falsification of company records
  • Willful breach of trust, particularly for employees in positions of trust (HR, payroll, supervisors, managers, cash handlers, etc.)

2. Company Policies and Codes of Conduct

Most companies formalize rules on:

  • Use and processing of leave forms
  • Prohibition of falsification or tampering of records
  • Documentation standards (e.g., “no erasures” on official forms, or “any correction must be countersigned”)

If a rule says, for example, “Employees shall not alter approved leave forms without HR approval; any changes must be made by HR or via a new form,” then using correction tape after approval can be a clear policy violation, strengthening management’s disciplinary position.

3. Civil and Criminal Law Context (Revised Penal Code & Civil Code)

While employment cases are usually administrative, the conduct may overlap with criminal law:

  • Falsification of private documents under the Revised Penal Code may be implicated when an employee materially alters a document to cause damage or prejudice, or to gain a benefit.
  • Civil Code principles on good faith, obligations, and honesty in performance of contracts support the general expectation that employees will not tamper with company records.

Employers often don’t pursue criminal cases for “small” document alterations, but they may still use the same facts as grounds for administrative discipline or termination.

III. What Is a Leave of Absence Form, Legally Speaking?

A leave of absence form is:

  • A written request by the employee to be excused from work for specific dates, with specific nature (vacation leave, sick leave, emergency leave, etc.).

  • Once approved and signed, it becomes an official company record, used for:

    • Payroll processing (e.g., paid vs. unpaid leave),
    • Attendance / timekeeping,
    • Compliance with company policies,
    • Evidence in audits or disputes.

Because of this, any alteration after approval directly affects official records, which is why it’s sensitive.

IV. The Core Question: Is Using Correction Tape Misconduct?

The short answer: it can be, depending on circumstances.

Philippine labor law focuses less on the tool used (correction tape, pen, marker) and more on:

  1. Nature of the change
  2. Timing of the change
  3. Intent of the employee
  4. Effect on the employer’s rights or interests
  5. Company rules on document handling

Let’s break these down.

V. Key Legal Factors

1. Timing of the Alteration

  • Before approval or submission

    • If an employee uses correction tape to fix a date or type of leave before the supervisor or HR signs, this is usually harmless, especially if the company doesn’t strictly prohibit erasures.
    • This is generally not misconduct unless there is clear intent to mislead (e.g., making the form look like it was filed earlier than it actually was).

  • After approval

    • This is where legal risk rises. Once approved, the form represents a final, official decision.
    • Altering it after approval without authorization can be seen as tampering with company records, potentially serious misconduct or fraud, especially if it benefits the employee (extra days, changing unpaid to paid leave, etc.).

2. Nature and Materiality of the Change

  • Minor / clerical change

    • Example: Correcting a small error in the employee’s department code or adding a middle initial, properly countersigned.
    • If transparent and cleared with HR, this is often treated as a minor issue.

  • Material change Changes are “material” when they affect rights, obligations, or key facts, such as:

    • Dates of leave (e.g., 3 days changed to 5 days),
    • Type of leave (e.g., “LWOP” changed to “Vacation Leave With Pay”),
    • Number of leave credits charged,
    • Status (approved vs. pending).

    Material alterations are much more likely to be construed as misconduct or fraud, especially if done secretly.

3. Intent: Mistake vs. Deceit

For serious misconduct or fraud, wrongful intent (animus) is vital. Labor tribunals look at:

  • Was the employee trying to deceive the company?
  • Did the employee gain an advantage (more paid leave, avoidance of absence without leave)?
  • Did the employee try to conceal the alteration (e.g., using correction tape over original text without annotation)?

If there is no credible explanation, the act may be seen as indicative of dishonesty.

4. Effect on the Employer

The more the alteration harms or risks harm to the employer, the more it looks like just cause for discipline. For example:

  • Payroll processed based on the altered form (employer pays more than it should).
  • Attendance records become inaccurate.
  • HR audits or external audits are compromised.

Even if no actual loss occurred, the potential for harm and the breach of trust can still support disciplinary action, especially for employees in positions of trust.

5. Existing Company Policies and Training

If employees have been clearly informed that:

  • No correction tape/erasures are allowed on approved forms, or
  • Any correction must be done by HR or via a new form,

then violating this can be a willful disobedience of a lawful order, in addition to possible misconduct.

VI. When Is It Likely to Be Considered Serious Misconduct or Fraud?

Using Philippine labor principles, alteration of an approved LOA form with correction tape is more likely to be considered serious misconduct and/or fraud when:

  1. The change is material, such as:

    • Extending the leave period without authorization,
    • Converting unpaid leave to paid leave,
    • Backdating the leave to make an absence appear authorized.

  2. The alteration is done after approval and without the knowledge or countersignature of the approving officer or HR.

  3. The act is intentional, as shown by:

    • Concealing the original entry with correction tape,
    • Failing to report the correction to HR or supervisors,
    • Gaining a clear personal benefit from the alteration.

  4. The employee’s role requires high trust, such as HR personnel, supervisors, managers, payroll or timekeeping staff. Courts generally apply stricter standards of honesty to them.

  5. Company policies explicitly prohibit tampering with records, and the employee knew or should have known the rule.

In these scenarios, employers may have reasonable grounds to impose serious disciplinary sanctions, including dismissal, provided due process is followed.

VII. When Might It Be Treated as a Minor Infraction?

On the other hand, the same act might be treated as a less serious offense if:

  1. The correction is clearly minor and not beneficial to the employee (e.g., correcting a misspelled name, ticking a box that reflects the already agreed type of leave, etc.).
  2. The employee immediately informs HR or the supervisor, explains the mistake, and allows them to confirm or countersign.
  3. There is no history of dishonesty, and the employee’s explanation is credible and consistent.
  4. Company policy on corrections is unclear or not well communicated, and there is no explicit rule that forbids using correction tape.

In such cases, it may be more proportionate to impose:

  • A verbal or written warning,
  • Short suspension, or
  • Require additional training or a reiteration of policies, rather than jumping directly to dismissal.

VIII. Misconduct vs. Falsification vs. Breach of Trust

It helps to distinguish:

  1. Misconduct

    • An improper or wrongful conduct that is willful and connected with the employee’s work, showing unfitness to continue in service.
    • Example: Secretly altering an approved leave form to reflect more paid leave than authorized.

  2. Fraud or Falsification of Company Records

    • Involves intentional deception to gain an advantage or cause damage.
    • Example: Tampering with the dates to make an absence appear properly authorized when it was not.

  3. Breach of Trust (Loss of Trust and Confidence)

    • Applies especially to employees in positions of trust (managerial, supervisory, key custodial or financial roles).
    • Even a single incident of document tampering may justify loss of trust, depending on the gravity and evidence.

An employer may rely on one or several of these grounds simultaneously in a dismissal case, as long as they are clearly alleged in the first notice and supported by substantial evidence.

IX. Due Process Requirements (Private Sector)

Even if the act appears serious, an employer must still observe procedural due process:

  1. First Notice (Notice to Explain)

    • A written notice specifying:

      • The specific act (e.g., “You used correction tape to change your leave dates on an already approved LOA form dated…”),
      • The company policies allegedly violated,
      • The possible sanction (including dismissal),
      • A reasonable period to submit a written explanation.

  2. Opportunity to be Heard

    • The employee must be given a chance to:

      • Submit a written explanation, and/or
      • Attend a hearing or conference to present their side, bring evidence, and respond to allegations.

  3. Second Notice (Notice of Decision)

    • A written notice stating:

      • The findings,
      • The basis for the decision (facts and policies),
      • The penalty to be imposed.

Failure to observe proper procedure can make an otherwise valid dismissal procedurally defective, potentially entitling the employee to indemnity or nominal damages, even if the misconduct is proven.

X. Public Sector (Government Employees)

For government employees, the Civil Service Law and Civil Service Commission (CSC) rules apply. In that context:

  • Tampering with official records, including leave forms, may be classified as:

    • Dishonesty,
    • Falsification of official documents,
    • Or other grave administrative offenses.

These can carry penalties as severe as dismissal from the service, forfeiture of benefits, and perpetual disqualification from public office, depending on gravity and circumstances.

The rules and procedures differ from DOLE-based systems but share the same underlying principle: honesty in managing official records is non-negotiable.

XI. Practical Guidance for Employees

If you are an employee in the Philippines:

  1. Avoid altering approved leave forms yourself.

    • If you spot a mistake after approval, do not just use correction tape.
    • Instead, approach HR or your supervisor and ask how to correct it.

  2. Ask for a new form or official correction.

    • The safest approach is often to:

      • Cancel/void the original form (with proper notation), and
      • Re-submit a corrected one, with clear dates and approvals.

  3. Be transparent.

    • If you made a mistake, explain it honestly and early.
    • Transparency can be a strong factor in your favor if issues arise later.

  4. Know your company’s policies.

    • Check your employee handbook or HR memos about:

      • Handling mistakes on official forms,
      • Use of erasures or correction tape,
      • Disciplinary procedures for falsification or dishonesty.

  5. If accused of misconduct:

    • Carefully read the notice to explain,
    • Submit a clear, truthful written explanation,
    • Attach supporting documents (emails, chat logs, earlier versions of forms),
    • Consider consulting a labor lawyer or union representative, especially if dismissal is possible.

XII. Practical Guidance for Employers & HR

If you are an employer or HR practitioner:

  1. Have clear written policies.

    • State expressly:

      • Whether erasures/correction tape are allowed on unapproved forms,
      • That approved forms must not be altered by employees, and any corrections must go through HR or via a new form,
      • That falsification or tampering with records is a serious offense.

  2. Standardize document handling.

    • For example:

      • Any correction after approval must be annotated, dated, and countersigned by both the employee and the approving officer.
      • Voided forms are stamped “CANCELLED” and retained for audit, with a replacement form attached.

  3. Investigate thoroughly and fairly.

    • Before imposing any sanction:

      • Verify how the change was made (check original copies, digital records, time stamps),
      • Interview the concerned employee and immediate supervisor,
      • Consider the employee’s explanation and record of service.

  4. Match sanctions to gravity and intent.

    • Reserve dismissal for clearly intentional, material alterations that harm or seriously threaten the employer’s interests.
    • For honest mistakes with no clear intent to deceive, consider progressive discipline (warnings, short suspensions) and policy reinforcement.

  5. Observe due process.

    • Use the twin-notice rule and an opportunity to be heard.
    • Ensure just causes are clearly stated and supported by substantial evidence.

XIII. Summary: Is It Misconduct?

Editing an approved leave of absence form with correction tape in the Philippine workplace can be misconduct, and in some cases serious misconduct or fraud, when:

  • The alteration is material (dates, type of leave, paid/unpaid status),
  • It is done after approval, without authority,
  • It is executed in a way that conceals the original entry,
  • It gives or is intended to give the employee an unauthorized benefit,
  • It violates clear company policies, and
  • Evidence suggests intent to deceive.

However, not every use of correction tape is automatically a just cause for dismissal. Minor, transparent corrections made in good faith and promptly disclosed may be treated as less serious infractions, best addressed by policy reminders or lighter disciplinary measures.

Ultimately, Philippine labor law balances:

  • The employer’s legitimate interest in accurate, trustworthy records, and
  • The employee’s right to security of tenure and due process.

Both sides are well served when policies are clear, corrections are handled transparently, and disputes are resolved based on facts, intent, and proportionality—not just on the presence of correction tape.

Disclaimer: This content is not legal advice and may involve AI assistance. Information may be inaccurate.

Privacy Policy

Terms of Use

Lawyer Login

 
 
Privacy Policy         Terms of Use         Lawyer Login