Quick answer

If an inventory receiving report carries a signature you did not make or authorize, immediately deny the signature in writing, demand that the report be placed on hold, preserve the original document and related records, and notify the responsible company officers. Do not alter, annotate, or surrender the only original.

If the report has been used to release payment, conceal missing inventory, charge you with shortages, or support disciplinary or legal action, consult a Philippine lawyer promptly and consider filing a complaint with the police, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), or the appropriate prosecution office.

A forged signature can amount to falsification under Articles 171 and 172 of the Revised Penal Code. However, the precise offense and remedy depend on the document’s purpose, who made or used it, whether it is a commercial, private, public, or electronic document, and what harm or intended harm resulted.

First steps to take

1. Issue a clear written denial

Send a dated notice to the company’s records custodian and the relevant officers—such as the warehouse manager, finance head, internal auditor, compliance officer, or HR department. State only facts you can truthfully confirm:

Identify the report by number, date, supplier, purchase order, delivery, and amount.
State that the signature is not yours and that you did not authorize anyone to sign for you.
State whether you were absent, off duty, assigned elsewhere, or otherwise unable to receive the goods, if supported by records.
Ask that no payment, inventory adjustment, disciplinary finding, or other action be based on the report while it is disputed.
Request preservation of the original report and all related physical and electronic evidence.
Ask for written confirmation that your objection has been recorded.

If the matter is serious, execute a notarized affidavit describing when and how you discovered the signature, why it is not yours, and what records support your account. Do not accuse a particular person unless you have a factual basis.

Keep proof that the notice was received. An email from your official account, a receiving copy, or a traceable courier record is better than a verbal report alone.

2. Stop further reliance on the report

Ask authorized management—not through unauthorized self-help—to place a documented hold on:

Supplier payment or reimbursement;
Posting of the delivery to inventory;
Disposal, transfer, or consumption of the listed goods;
Destruction of CCTV footage or access logs;
Replacement or alteration of the disputed report; and
Disciplinary conclusions based solely on the document.

If payment has already been released, ask finance and legal personnel to preserve the payment voucher, invoice, approval history, bank reference, and recipient details. Do not personally cancel payments or access systems beyond your authority.

3. Secure the original without tampering

The original report bearing the questioned signature is especially important. The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that forgery is not presumed and ordinarily must be established through clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The disputed instrument itself and reliable genuine signatures used for comparison are central evidence. See Heirs of Severa P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 222369 and 222502, November 16, 2020.

Request that the custodian:

Place the original in a secure evidence envelope or controlled file;
Record who possessed or handled it and when;
Avoid stapling through, laminating, tracing, marking, or writing on the signature;
Make high-resolution color scans of both sides;
Preserve attachments in their original order; and
Document every transfer of custody.

If someone refuses to release the original, do not seize it. Request a certified or authenticated copy, identify the custodian in your affidavit, and let investigators or counsel use lawful processes to obtain the original.

Evidence to preserve

Collect records lawfully and without deleting, editing, or overwriting anything.

The transaction records

Preserve or request copies of:

The inventory receiving report and all versions or duplicates;
Purchase order, sales invoice, delivery receipt, inspection report, and acceptance documents;
Stock cards, warehouse ledgers, bin records, and inventory-system entries;
Payment voucher, check, bank-transfer record, and approval trail;
Gate passes, vehicle logs, delivery schedules, and guard logbooks;
Supplier communications and acknowledgments;
Records showing the quantities actually delivered, inspected, rejected, or returned; and
Written policies identifying who was authorized to receive and sign.

Records showing where you were

Useful evidence may include:

Daily time records, leave forms, travel orders, or work assignments;
Access-card, biometric, security, or visitor logs;
Contemporaneous emails, messages, calendars, and meeting records;
CCTV footage from the receiving area, office, gate, or warehouse; and
Witness statements from people with personal knowledge.

CCTV systems often overwrite footage quickly. Send a written preservation request as soon as possible.

Genuine signature specimens

Gather reliable signatures made reasonably near the date of the disputed report, such as those on:

Official company records whose authenticity is undisputed;
Government-issued or bank documents, subject to lawful disclosure;
Earlier receiving reports you personally signed;
Notarized records; and
Documents signed in the presence of identifiable witnesses.

Do not create repeated signatures solely to make them resemble—or appear different from—the disputed signature. A questioned-document examiner should receive originals or properly verified specimens, not unexplained images collected from uncertain sources. The Supreme Court has cautioned that an expert comparison loses weight when the source of the specimen signatures is not verified. See Philippine National Bank v. Spouses Mega Prime Realty and Holdings Corporation, G.R. No. 216491, August 23, 2017.

A handwriting expert is not legally indispensable in every case, but expert examination can be valuable, particularly when the differences are not obvious. Ultimately, a court must evaluate the signatures and the surrounding evidence rather than accept an expert’s conclusion automatically.

What Philippine criminal law may apply

Falsification of a commercial document

Article 172(1), in relation to Article 171, may apply when a private individual—or a public officer who did not take advantage of official position—falsifies a public, official, or commercial document by an act such as:

Counterfeiting or imitating a signature;
Making it appear that a person participated in an act when that person did not;
Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts, when the legal requirements for that mode of falsification are present; or
Altering genuine dates, amounts, or other material information.

Commercial documents generally include instruments used by merchants or businesses to promote or facilitate trade or credit transactions. The Supreme Court has recognized that ordinary business forms, including order slips and delivery-charge invoices, may acknowledge that a commercial transaction occurred. See Alid v. People, G.R. Nos. 186329, 186584–86 and 198598, August 2, 2017.

An inventory receiving report used to establish delivery, update stock, or authorize supplier payment may therefore be treated as a commercial document. That classification is not automatic: its actual function, issuer, contents, and use must be examined.

For falsification of a public, official, or commercial document, actual financial damage is not necessarily an element. Under Article 172 as amended by Republic Act No. 10951, the prescribed penalty for the principal offense is prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods—two years, four months and one day to six years—and a fine of up to ₱1,000,000. The court determines the lawful penalty only after conviction and after considering the applicable circumstances. See Republic Act No. 10951.

Falsification of a private document

If the report is legally classified as a private rather than commercial document, Article 172(2) may apply. For this form of falsification, damage to another person or intent to cause such damage is an additional element. The label printed on the document is not decisive; prosecutors and courts examine its nature and use.

Knowing use of a falsified document

A person who did not create the forged report may still face liability under Article 172 if that person knowingly uses it in a judicial proceeding, to another’s damage, or with intent to cause damage, subject to the particular requirements of the law.

Knowledge matters. Mere possession, transmission, clerical processing, or innocent reliance on a document later shown to be false does not by itself establish knowing criminal use.

Estafa or another property offense

If the forged report was used to obtain payment, goods, reimbursement, or another financial benefit, the facts may also support estafa or another property offense. Depending on how the offenses were committed, falsification and estafa may be charged separately or treated as a complex crime. The amount, representations made, timing of the deceit, recipient of the proceeds, and actual damage must all be established.

Do not assume that every inventory discrepancy is estafa. Poor controls, mistakes, unauthorized substitutions, and criminal fraud require different proof.

If a government officer or government transaction is involved

Article 171 may apply when a public officer, employee, or notary falsifies a document by taking advantage of official position. Government procurement, inspection, acceptance, and property-accountability records may also raise administrative, audit, anti-graft, or procurement issues.

If public funds or government property are involved, obtain advice on reporting to the agency’s internal audit or legal office, the Commission on Audit, the Office of the Ombudsman, or the appropriate law-enforcement agency. The correct forum depends on the persons involved and the offense supported by the evidence.

If the forgery was electronic

If someone pasted a scanned signature into an electronic report, altered data in an inventory system, or used your account or electronic credentials without authority, the conduct may fall under the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

Section 4(b)(1) of Republic Act No. 10175 covers unauthorized input, alteration, or deletion of computer data resulting in inauthentic data intended to be treated as authentic for legal purposes, as well as knowing use of such data for a fraudulent or dishonest design. Other provisions may apply to illegal access, data interference, computer-related fraud, or identity theft. See Republic Act No. 10175.

Preserve:

The native electronic file, not only a screenshot or printout;
File metadata and version history;
User-account and audit logs;
Email headers and original message files;
IP, device, access, and authentication records;
Cloud or enterprise-system activity logs; and
The device on which the report was created or altered, if lawfully under company control.

Do not open another person’s account, install surveillance software, or secretly extract protected data. Investigators may need warrants or formal disclosure processes. Electronic evidence must also be properly authenticated under the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

Internal investigation and employment consequences

A company should investigate the transaction, not merely compare the two signatures by sight. A fair inquiry should address:

Who prepared and printed the report;
Who physically received the goods;
Whether the goods entered the premises;
Who had access to the blank form, signature image, stamp, or user account;
Who posted the transaction to the inventory system;
Who approved or received payment;
Whether the same irregularity appears in other reports; and
Whether controls or shared credentials made unauthorized signing possible.

If you receive a notice to explain, answer within the stated period. Clearly deny the signature, attach supporting records, identify evidence the company should preserve, and request a copy of the document and the evidence relied upon. Do not ignore the notice simply because the signature is forged.

Forgery, fraud, or falsification may support serious workplace discipline when properly established, but an employer must still observe the substantive and procedural requirements applicable to termination. If you are being blamed for missing stock or threatened with dismissal, consult labor counsel or seek assistance from the Department of Labor and Employment. Avoid signing a confession, settlement, resignation, or salary-deduction authorization you do not understand.

Filing a criminal complaint

You may first seek investigative assistance from the local police or the NBI, particularly its fraud, questioned-documents, or cybercrime units. The NBI publishes an online complaint page and information on investigative assistance for victims of fraud.

A criminal complaint may ultimately be filed with the prosecution office having jurisdiction over the place where the offense or an essential part of it occurred. Venue can become complicated when the document was prepared in one city, transmitted elsewhere, and used to release payment in another.

Prepare:

A detailed complaint-affidavit based on personal knowledge;
Witness affidavits;
The original or the best available authenticated copy;
Verified genuine signature specimens;
Transaction, payment, inventory, access, and location records;
A chronology identifying who did what, where, and when;
The respondent’s complete address, if known; and
Copies required by the receiving office.

Article 172 offenses carrying a maximum of six years ordinarily fall within the DOJ-NPS rules for offenses punishable by up to six years, including expedited preliminary-investigation procedures where applicable. The assigned prosecutor determines the correct procedure and whether the admissible, credible, and preservable evidence establishes the required prima facie case with reasonable certainty of conviction. Current DOJ issuances should be checked on the DOJ issuances page before filing.

A police blotter or internal incident report documents that you reported the matter, but it does not by itself prove forgery or automatically start a prosecution.

Deadlines and delay

Do not wait for the internal audit to finish if evidence may disappear or a legal deadline may run. Prescription depends on the exact offense, prescribed penalty, date of commission or discovery, later use of the document, and when proceedings were properly instituted. Electronic, continuing, repeated, or multiple-document conduct can create additional issues.

Prompt filing also matters because CCTV footage and digital logs may be overwritten, witnesses may leave, records may be destroyed under retention policies, and payments or goods may become harder to trace. Ask a lawyer to calculate the applicable prescriptive period from the actual documents and events rather than relying on a general estimate.

Protecting yourself from liability

A forged receiving report does not automatically make you responsible for the goods or bind you to every statement in it. But a bare denial may be inadequate when the document appears regular and other records point to your participation. Courts generally require the party alleging forgery in a civil dispute to support the allegation with clear, positive, and convincing evidence.

Your strongest protection is a prompt, consistent, documented response supported by independent records. Continue cooperating with lawful inquiries, but:

Do not backdate or “correct” the disputed report;
Do not sign a replacement stating that you received goods you did not receive;
Do not accept responsibility merely to complete an audit;
Do not delete messages or dispose of records;
Do not coordinate stories with witnesses;
Do not publish accusations on social media; and
Do not threaten or privately bargain with a suspected forger.

If the report is being presented as a contract, waiver, acknowledgment of debt, or authorization, its legal effect requires document-specific analysis. A forged signature normally cannot supply the signer’s consent, but the surrounding transaction, actual authority, later ratification, and separate genuine documents may affect the parties’ rights.

Common mistakes

Relying only on visual differences

Natural signatures vary. A convincing case combines the disputed original, verified specimens, witness evidence, custody records, transaction data, and surrounding circumstances.

Writing “forged” on the original

This can contaminate evidence and create disputes about alteration. Put your objection in a separate letter or affidavit.

Reporting only verbally

A conversation may later be denied or misunderstood. Follow it with a dated written notice and keep proof of receipt.

Allowing records to be overwritten

CCTV, email, access, and enterprise-system logs may be retained only briefly. Send a preservation request immediately.

Naming a suspect without evidence

Knowing who benefited does not necessarily prove who forged the signature. Distinguish facts, reasonable investigative leads, and conclusions.

Treating an internal settlement as the end of criminal exposure

Repayment, correction, resignation, or an affidavit of desistance does not automatically extinguish a public offense. The prosecutor and court retain authority over criminal proceedings.

Obtaining evidence unlawfully

Unauthorized account access, covert interception, or taking confidential files may create separate legal and employment problems. Use lawful requests, company procedures, counsel, or investigators.

When legal help is urgent

Seek immediate assistance if:

A supplier has already been paid or goods are missing;
The report involves a large amount, repeated transactions, or public funds;
You have received a notice to explain, suspension order, demand letter, subpoena, or criminal complaint;
Someone asks you to replace, backdate, destroy, or “regularize” the report;
CCTV or digital records are about to be overwritten;
Your electronic account or signature image was compromised;
Management refuses to preserve the original;
You are being pressured to resign, reimburse the company, or admit liability;
Several people or locations are involved, making venue and evidence custody unclear; or
There are threats, retaliation, intimidation, or an immediate risk that property or evidence will disappear.

The Public Attorney’s Office may assist qualified indigent persons, subject to its mandate and requirements. Company counsel represents the company, not necessarily the employee whose signature was forged.

Frequently asked questions

Is an inventory receiving report automatically a commercial document?

No. It is likely to be considered commercial when it is used in the ordinary course of business to prove delivery, update inventory, facilitate payment, or acknowledge a transaction. Its legal classification still depends on its actual nature and use.

Must I prove who forged my signature?

To protect yourself, you should prove as clearly as possible that you neither signed nor authorized the signature. A criminal case against a particular respondent also requires evidence identifying that person as the maker, participant, or knowing user. Showing that your signature is false does not automatically identify the forger.

Is my affidavit denying the signature enough?

It is useful but may not be enough by itself. Support it with the original report, genuine specimens, location and access records, witnesses, delivery evidence, system logs, and any proof showing who prepared or used the document.

Do I need a handwriting expert?

Not always. Courts may determine forgery from the original signatures and other competent evidence, but a qualified questioned-document examiner can materially strengthen a disputed or technically difficult case.

Can I ask the company to destroy or replace the report?

No. The disputed report should be preserved. A separate corrective record may be created through proper controls, but it should not erase, conceal, or alter the original evidence.

What if someone signed my name believing it was allowed?

Authority is a factual issue. Obtain the policy, delegation, prior instructions, and witness evidence. Signing “for” another person with actual authority is different from imitating that person’s signature or falsely making it appear that the person personally received the goods.

What if the goods were actually delivered?

Actual delivery may affect the financial loss and available remedies, but it does not automatically make an unauthorized signature genuine. The reason the signature was made, the document’s classification, materiality, intent, and subsequent use still matter.

Can I file even if no money was lost?

Possibly. Actual damage is not necessarily an element of falsification of a public, official, or commercial document. Damage or intent to cause damage is required for falsification of a private document and for certain forms of knowing use. The proper charge depends on the facts.

Official legal sources

This article provides general Philippine legal information, not legal advice or a prediction of any case’s outcome. The correct remedy depends on the original document, transaction records, persons involved, venue, and available admissible evidence. Sources and procedures were checked as of July 27, 2026.