I. Overview

Workplace drug testing is now common in the Philippines, especially in large companies, safety-sensitive industries, and government service. A frequent but poorly understood situation is when a “positive” drug test result is treated or recorded as a “pending case” against a worker or applicant.

This raises hard questions:

Does a positive result automatically mean there is a case against the person?
Can an employer refuse to hire or terminate employment solely on that basis?
Is it lawful to “tag” someone in records, clearances, or databases as having a “pending drug case”?
How do the Labor Code, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165), and the Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) interact?

This article walks through the legal framework and practical implications in the Philippine context, focusing on employment and privacy. It is general information, not legal advice for a specific situation.

II. Legal Framework

1. Constitutional principles

Several constitutional guarantees frame how drug testing and “pending case” flags must be handled:

Right to privacy of communication and correspondence
Right to due process and security of tenure (for employees, especially regular ones)
Right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty
Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures

Any system that effectively brands a person as a drug user, offender, or “case” based solely on an internal test result must be measured against these rights.

2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (RA 9165)

Key points from RA 9165 and its implementing rules (IRR):

Authorized drug testing is allowed for certain groups (e.g., drivers, police, military, some students, and in some contexts, employees).
Drug tests must follow DOH-approved procedures, normally involving:
- a screening test, and
- if that is non-negative, a confirmatory test done by a DOH-accredited confirmatory laboratory.
Only a valid confirmatory positive result should be treated as “positive” in the legal sense.
The law penalizes use or possession of dangerous drugs, not merely a lab result. A positive test may be used as evidence, but it does not, by itself, automatically create a criminal “case” unless it is connected to a formal complaint and prosecution.

3. DOLE and workplace drug-free policies

For private sector workers, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) has long issued guidelines (often referred to under DOLE Department Order No. 53-03 and related issuances) covering:

Drug-free workplace policies
Conditions for pre-employment and random drug testing
Requirements that:
- There must be a written company policy, duly explained to employees;
- Testing must be done by accredited laboratories;
- There must be confidentiality in handling test results;
- Employees must be afforded due process (notice and hearing) before disciplinary action.

4. Civil Service rules (public sector)

For government employees:

Civil Service Commission (CSC) issuances recognize drug use as a ground for administrative liability, including dismissal, if properly proven.
Government agencies may conduct random or mandatory testing, but they must likewise observe:
- legal authority and written policies,
- proper testing standards, and
- administrative due process (formal charges, opportunity to explain, etc.).

5. Data Privacy Act (RA 10173)

RA 10173 is crucial when discussing “pending case” tags:

Drug test results are “sensitive personal information” because they involve health and, often, alleged offenses.
Processing sensitive personal information has stricter rules. Typical lawful bases include:
- legal obligations,
- protection of lawful rights and interests,
- medical treatment, and
- consent (with strict requirements).
Data controllers (employers, labs, background-check agencies) must ensure:
- fair and lawful processing,
- transparency (data subject is informed),
- data minimization (collect only what is necessary),
- purpose limitation (use data only for declared, lawful purposes),
- security measures,
- limited retention, and
- respect for data subject rights (access, correction, erasure, objection).

A blanket or long-term “pending case” label shared across multiple employers or agencies is very likely to raise privacy and data-protection issues.

III. What a “Positive” Drug Test Really Means

1. Screening vs confirmatory test

In practice:

A screening test (often immunoassay) is quick and relatively cheap but not conclusive. It can produce false positives.
If the screening is non-negative, the sample must be sent for a confirmatory test, usually using more precise techniques (e.g., GC/MS).
Under health and legal standards, only the confirmatory test should be treated as final proof of drug use.

Therefore:

Treating a mere screening positive as a “case” is legally and scientifically flawed.

2. Chain of custody and reliability

To be valid, especially if used in disciplinary or legal proceedings:

The sample must be collected following proper procedures (identification, sealing, labeling).
The chain of custody must be intact (no chance of switching or tampering).
The test must be done at a DOH-accredited laboratory, with results signed by authorized personnel.

If these requirements are weak or undocumented, the result’s reliability—and thus its ability to support a “case”—can be challenged.

IV. What Does “Pending Case” Actually Mean?

The phrase “pending case” is not a technical term in RA 9165 itself. It may have several possible meanings depending on context:

1. Criminal “pending case”

In criminal law, a “pending case” usually means:

A complaint has been filed with the prosecutor’s office (inquest or regular complaint), or
An information has been filed in court, and the case is active.

A positive drug test alone does not automatically become a pending criminal case. There must be:

a formal complaint,
identification of the offense (e.g., use under RA 9165), and
action by the prosecutor or court.

If a person’s record or clearance states “pending drug case” but no such case exists in the prosecution or court system, there may be misrepresentation or wrongful labeling.

2. Administrative “pending case”

For employees (especially in government or regulated sectors), employers or agencies might say a matter is a “pending case” when:

an administrative investigation is ongoing,
formal charges may have been issued, or
results are being verified and evaluated.

Even then, the label should be used carefully and accurately. For instance, “administrative case for violation of company drug policy, pending investigation” is more precise than “drug case” (which people often interpret as criminal).

3. Internal HR “pending case” flag

Some companies or third-party background-check services create internal codes such as:

“positive drug test — pending case”
“flagged” / “watchlist” / “not eligible for rehire”

Common problems:

The label may outlive the real basis, e.g., the employee is later cleared after a negative confirmatory test, but the “pending case” flag remains.
The label may be shared with other companies or agencies, effectively blacklisting the person without due process.
The term “case” implies guilt or formal charges, which may not exist at all.

This is where labor law, defamation principles, and the Data Privacy Act come into play.

V. Employment Implications

1. Pre-employment stage

Can an employer refuse to hire someone based on a positive drug test?

If the drug test is part of a lawful, written company policy, properly disclosed to applicants, and the confirmatory result is positive, employers usually invoke management prerogative to refuse employment.
There is generally no security of tenure yet at the pre-employment stage, so legal protection is weaker than for regular employees.

However:

The employer must still comply with RA 9165, DOH/DOLE guidelines, and data privacy rules in handling and storing results.
It is problematic if:
- the applicant was denied solely on a screening positive, without confirmatory test, or
- the applicant is tagged and reported as having a “pending drug case” to third parties, despite no actual case.

Tagging an applicant in an industry-wide database as having a “pending drug case” can expose the employer or reporting entity to liability if the information is inaccurate, excessive, or poorly justified.

2. Probationary and regular employees

For existing employees, consequences are more complex.

Grounds for dismissal under the Labor Code include:

serious misconduct,
willful disobedience of lawful orders,
gross and habitual neglect,
fraud or breach of trust,
commission of a crime against the employer or its representatives, and
other analogous causes.

A valid company drug policy typically provides that confirmed drug use is a form of serious misconduct or policy violation. To dismiss an employee on this ground:

There must be a lawful, reasonable, and known policy (of which the employee was informed);
There must be substantial evidence (not mere suspicion), normally:
- a valid confirmatory positive, AND/OR
- other evidence (e.g., admission, possession of drugs at work, etc.);
The employee must be given due process:
- First notice (notice to explain),
- Opportunity to be heard (hearing or written explanation), and
- Second notice (written decision).

A mere internal note that an employee has a “pending drug case” based only on a screening result, without confirmatory testing and due process, is weak and may not justify termination. It could lead to an illegal dismissal finding.

3. Preventive suspension and “pending cases”

While a case is under investigation, an employer may resort to preventive suspension if the employee’s continued presence poses a serious and imminent threat to the company or coworkers (e.g., in safety-sensitive roles).

Issues to watch:

Preventive suspension must be for a limited period and not used as a penalty.
If the “pending case” based on a positive result drags on beyond reasonable periods—especially if the worker is effectively barred from work and pay—it can be challenged as constructive dismissal.
If the confirmatory test later turns out negative, the employer may face claims for lost wages and damages.

4. Non-renewal, project-based, and contractual workers

For fixed-term or project-based employees, employers sometimes simply do not renew contracts after a positive drug test, without formally documenting it as a dismissal.

Legally:

Non-renewal can still be questioned if it is shown to be a scheme to avoid security of tenure or if the fixed-term arrangement itself is defective.
However, in practice, it is harder for workers in precarious employment to challenge decisions tied to “pending drug cases,” especially when everything is framed as “non-renewal” rather than “dismissal.”

VI. Privacy and Data Protection Dimensions

Flagging a person as having a “pending drug case” squarely raises Data Privacy Act concerns.

1. Sensitive personal information

Drug test data are sensitive because they reveal:

health condition (e.g., suspected substance use), and
possible involvement in illegal activities.

As sensitive personal information:

They require stricter conditions for collection and processing.
Unauthorized disclosure can result in administrative and even criminal liability.

2. Lawful basis for processing

For employers and laboratories, lawful processing may be justified by:

compliance with RA 9165 and DOLE/CSC rules (legal obligation),
protection of lawful rights and interests (e.g., safety & security), and
in some cases, consent (although in employment settings, consent is often not considered fully “freely given”).

However, even with a lawful basis, processing must still be:

Proportionate (no over-collection or over-sharing),
Purpose-limited (used only for declared purposes like fitness for work, not for blacklisting), and
Time-bound (no indefinite retention of old flags with no current relevance).

A broad industry database tagging people as having “pending drug cases” for many years is very likely incompatible with data privacy principles.

3. Disclosure to third parties

Common privacy risks:

Laboratories sharing names of positive individuals with multiple employers without a clear legal mandate.
Employers contacting each other informally: “This person has a pending drug case here,” without verifying if a true case exists or if the person has been cleared.
Background-check companies compiling and selling profiles listing “pending drug cases” based only on internal HR remarks or rumors.

Such disclosures can be:

Unauthorized processing under RA 10173, and/or
Defamatory, if they damage a person’s reputation based on false or incomplete information.

4. Rights of the data subject

Under RA 10173, individuals have rights to:

Be informed about how their data are collected and used;
Access their personal data (e.g., to see their test results and how they are labeled);
Correct or erase inaccurate or outdated data (“rectification” and “erasure”);
Object to processing that is unlawful or excessive;
File a complaint and seek damages for violations.

If someone remains flagged as having a “pending drug case” even after being cleared or when no formal case exists, they may invoke these rights.

VII. Due Process in Handling a “Pending Case” Tag

A legally safer approach for employers and institutions is to follow a structured process:

Policy and consent stage
- Have a clear written drug-free workplace policy, agreed with employees/union where applicable.
- Inform employees/applicants about when and how testing occurs, and how results will be used and stored.
Testing and initial result
- Conduct the test in accordance with RA 9165 / DOH accreditation standards.
- If the screening result is non-negative,
  - Do not immediately label it as “positive” or “drug case”.
  - Internally note it as “non-negative screening result; confirmatory test pending.”
Confirmatory testing
- Send the sample promptly to a confirmatory lab.
- Inform the employee/applicant of his or her right to request retesting or to challenge irregularities (e.g., chain of custody).
Notification and explanation
- If the confirmatory result is positive:
  - Inform the person in writing.
  - Provide an opportunity to explain, including medical circumstances if relevant (e.g., legitimate prescription drugs that might affect results).
Administrative process
- If disciplinary action is considered:
  - Issue a notice to explain, clearly stating the charges (violation of drug-free policy, etc.).
  - Give the employee time and opportunity to respond and present evidence.
  - Hold a hearing if required by company policy or union CBA.
Decision and record-keeping
- Issue a written decision (e.g., dismissal, suspension, rehabilitation program, or no sanction).
- Records should be kept secure and accessible only to authorized persons, with clear retention limits.
- Any internal “pending case” tag should be lifted or updated once the case is resolved.

VIII. Criminal-Law Angle and Clearances

1. From drug test to criminal case

While RA 9165 allows drug tests to be used as evidence, moving from a lab report to an actual criminal case usually requires:

investigation by law enforcement,
the filing of a complaint, and
action by the prosecutor or court.

A private employer or laboratory cannot, by itself, turn a positive result into a criminal case unless it files a complaint and the authorities proceed.

2. NBI / police clearances and “pending case” entries

When people apply for NBI or police clearances, they may see remarks like “with pending case” if:

there is an actual criminal case or derogatory record under their name.

If a person is told that they cannot get a clearance because of a “pending drug case” but actually:

no information has been filed in court, and
no case exists in prosecution dockets,

then the issue may be:

mistaken identity, or
misreporting of internal or administrative matters as criminal.

In such scenarios, the person may seek clarification or correction from the relevant agency, and, where applicable, consider legal remedies against those who caused the wrongful tagging.

IX. Liability Risks for Employers, Labs, and Background-Check Firms

Entities that mishandle positive drug test results or “pending case” labels may face:

Labor law liability
- Illegal dismissal, if termination is based on:
  - a mere screening test,
  - lack of due process, or
  - an unreasonable or unpublished policy.
- Employer may be ordered to pay backwages, reinstatement or separation pay, and damages.
Data Privacy Act violations
- Administrative penalties and possible criminal sanctions for:
  - unauthorized disclosure of sensitive personal information,
  - processing without lawful basis, or
  - failure to implement adequate security measures.
Civil liability (damages)
- Under the Civil Code for:
  - defamation (if a person is publicly branded as having a “pending drug case” without factual basis),
  - invasion of privacy, or
  - other quasi-delicts (torts) leading to damage to reputation, livelihood, or mental health.
Regulatory sanctions
- DOLE, CSC, DOH, or other regulators may impose sanctions for failures to comply with their respective rules and issuances.

X. Practical Guidance for Employers

To reduce legal and ethical problems:

Define “pending case” clearly and narrowly
- Use more precise terms like “ongoing investigation for alleged violation of company drug policy.”
- Avoid language that implies a criminal case unless such a case actually exists.
Rely only on confirmatory results
- Do not treat a screening positive as final.
- Ensure that only confirmed positives are the basis for any sanction.
Limit who sees the information
- Need-to-know basis only (HR, legal, authorized managers).
- Train staff on confidentiality and data protection.
Avoid unofficial blacklists and broad disclosures
- Do not share names of “positive” or “pending case” individuals with other companies or agencies, unless there is a clear, lawful basis.
- If using third-party background-check services, ensure data processing agreements are in place and compliant with data privacy rules.
Offer assistance where feasible
- In some workplaces, especially where unions are present, employers may offer rehabilitation programs or Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs) rather than automatic dismissal, particularly on first offense and lower-risk roles.

XI. Practical Guidance for Workers and Applicants

If you are told you have a positive drug test and a “pending case”:

Ask for documentation
- Get a copy of your lab results (screening and confirmatory).
- Ask for written explanation of what “pending case” means in your situation.
Check if a confirmatory test was actually done
- If not, insist on your right to a proper confirmatory test at an accredited lab.
Exercise your right to explain
- Submit a written explanation if there are legitimate reasons (e.g., medication, testing irregularities).
Invoke data privacy rights
- Ask who has access to your test results.
- If you suspect improper sharing or inaccurate labels, you may demand correction or erasure of inaccurate data.
Consider legal remedies
- For employment disputes, complaints may be brought before DOLE/NCMB or the NLRC (for illegal dismissal, etc.).
- For privacy violations, complaints may be filed before the data protection authority.
- For defamatory labeling as having a “pending drug case” when none exists, civil or even criminal actions for damages or libel may be explored with a lawyer.

XII. Unsettled and Grey Areas

Despite the laws and guidelines, several issues remain fluid in practice:

Cross-company sharing of “pending drug case” tags: how far can employers go in warning other employers?
Retention period for drug test records: how long is “necessary” and “proportionate”?
Balancing safety and privacy: high-risk industries (e.g., transport, construction, healthcare) have strong safety imperatives, but still must respect individual rights.
Stigma and rehabilitation: law and policy often emphasize punishment more than rehabilitation, though international best practice encourages treatment and reintegration.

These areas are likely to evolve through future legislation, regulations, and court decisions.

XIII. Conclusion

A positive drug test flagged as a “pending case” sits at the intersection of employment law, criminal law, and data privacy in the Philippines. Key takeaways:

A screening positive is not the same as a legal “case.”
Even a confirmed positive result does not automatically create a criminal case; it may only support one if properly filed with authorities.
Employers must anchor their actions on:
- a lawful, written policy,
- confirmatory testing, and
- due process.
Drug test data are sensitive personal information, and careless “pending case” flags, especially when shared or retained indefinitely, can violate the Data Privacy Act and expose organizations to significant liability.
Workers and applicants are not powerless; they have rights to information, fairness, and privacy that can be asserted when their reputation or livelihood is threatened by vague or unjustified “pending case” labels.

Anyone facing a concrete situation should consult a Philippine lawyer or appropriate authorities, bringing along all documents (test results, notices, contracts) to get advice tailored to their specific case.