Fake Diploma Found in a Foreign Employee's AEP Application: What the Employer Should Do

Verify first: genuinely fake, or a misunderstanding?

Before drawing conclusions, confirm that the document really is false. Some apparent fakes turn out to be misunderstandings: the school changed its name, merged or closed and the records are hard to find; the certificate is genuine but the translation contains errors; the authentication format is simply different from what you expected. Others are indeed forged or purchased. The two lead to entirely different handling, so this step matters.

Ways to verify: write to the issuing school or institution through its official channels, not the phone number or email printed on the document, which may belong to whoever produced it; use an accredited verification or authentication provider; and compare the timeline against the other documents the employee submitted at hiring. The company should make the inquiry itself, with the employee's written consent where appropriate, and should not ask someone to check informally.

Preserve the material at the same time: copies of what was submitted to DOLE and the Bureau of Immigration, the company's own onboarding file, the names of the staff and agency that handled the application, and payment receipts. Do not let anyone alter the file or prepare a new version. Do not hold the employee's original documents; photocopies are enough.

During verification the employee may keep working, or be temporarily reassigned under company rules, but no conclusion should be shared with the team. If the result is a misunderstanding, tell the employee in writing that the check is complete and nothing is wrong, and correct any internal notes so the episode does not follow them in later reviews or promotions.

Could the AEP and 9G be affected?

Work permits and work visas are granted on the basis of the application documents. If a key document is shown to be false, the authorities may revisit what was granted; whether and how they do so is for DOLE and the Bureau of Immigration to decide, and this article does not predict outcomes.

Two points matter for the company. First, the permits were applied for by the company. Although the truthfulness of personal documents is first the employee's responsibility, the company as applicant may be asked how it checked them at the time. Second, what the company does after discovering the problem largely determines its position: an employer deceived by an employee that acted lawfully once it found out, or an employer that knew and kept quiet.

For some positions, such as those requiring a professional qualification, education or experience is central to the approval. For others it may not be decisive. How much the false document influenced the approval affects how serious the follow-up is likely to be, and that assessment belongs with a lawyer who can look at the specific position and application record.

If the company used an agency and the agency suggested or prepared the document, the situation is more complex and may involve the agency's own responsibility; see liability when company HR used a fixer for how employers usually approach that. Keep every exchange with the agency, including messages and invoices, because they may become central to the assessment. For your specific case, consult a licensed Philippine lawyer; this article is not legal advice.

Handle the employment through due process

Even with clear evidence of forgery, termination should follow due process: a written notice asking the employee to explain, an opportunity to be heard, and a written decision. The same applies to foreign employees; a false document does not justify walking someone out the same day.

The notice should set out the facts the company verified, the evidence relied on, and the company rule or contract term that may have been breached, for example an undertaking at hiring that all documents were true. Give a reasonable time for a written reply. How employees are advised to respond is covered in how to reply to a Notice to Explain, which helps the company check that its own notice is clear and specific.

Record the hearing. The employee may admit it, may say the agency handled it, or may produce new proof, in which case verify again. If the employee needs to be kept away from work during the inquiry, arrange it in a way the company rules and the law allow; see preventive suspension for the general approach and its limits.

The final written decision should match the facts, the company rules and the contract. Falsified documents are serious misconduct under most company policies, but whether they amount to a valid ground for dismissal and whether the procedure was complete are for a lawyer to judge. Once employment ends, cancel the AEP and 9G promptly and link the timing to the written decision.

Throughout, keep the employee informed of where the process stands and what is expected of them next. A fair, transparent process is not only a legal requirement; it also reduces the chance of a prolonged dispute later.

Should the company inform DOLE or the Bureau of Immigration?

This is the step that most needs a lawyer. The company should not conceal what it found, but the timing, method and scope of any disclosure should be decided with legal advice. On one side, the company is the applicant, and carrying on as if nothing happened after learning the documents were false is the riskiest course. On the other, making accusations before verification can create a separate dispute over reputation.

A common approach is to close the matter through the normal cancellation after verification and the employment decision, attaching a factual explanation where the lawyer considers it necessary. If the employee is to stay and the company wants to keep them on a compliant basis, assess first whether a new application with genuine documents is possible. The company should not leave the existing permit in place while knowing it rests on false documents.

Any explanation should state facts, not speculation: when the company found out, how it verified, what the result was and what it did. It should neither defend the employee nor widen the accusations beyond what was verified, and it should be reviewed by the company's lawyer before it is submitted anywhere.

Whether or not a disclosure is made, keep a complete internal file of the whole process. If the authorities discover the issue on their own and ask, being able to show the discovery date and the steps taken puts the company in a far better position than having to reconstruct events from memory. For your specific case, consult a licensed Philippine lawyer; this article is not legal advice.

Things not to do

Do not quietly swap in a genuine document to replace the old one. Whether by asking the employee to obtain one now or by having someone produce a new file, tampering with an application record that has already been submitted turns the employee's problem into the company's problem, and a much more serious one.

Do not use the discovery as leverage. Telling the employee to accept a pay cut or face a report changes the nature of the matter, and the company may find itself facing a labour dispute or worse allegations of its own. Keep the handling strictly procedural and documented.

Do not hold the employee's passport or documents, do not restrict their movement, and do not withhold wages that are due as a way of offsetting any loss. If the company believes it suffered a loss, recovery should go through lawful channels with proper advice, not through deductions or pressure at the exit.

Do not announce the matter in company group chats. Keep it to HR, management and the lawyer, and tell other staff only that the company is following its procedures. Discretion protects the company if the facts turn out to be more complicated than they first appeared, and it protects the employee's right to a fair process.

Equally, do not sit on the discovery and keep it in reserve for a future disagreement. Once the company knows, delay itself weakens its position: if the authorities ask, the company becomes an applicant that knew the documents were doubtful and carried on regardless. Act through the proper process and keep a full record of the outcome.

Prevention, and how YIXING can help

The key is to check documents before filing, not after the permit is granted. At hiring, verify diplomas and professional certificates through official channels or an accredited provider, confirm work history with previous employers where possible, keep copies of everything, and have the employee sign a declaration that all documents submitted are true and complete.

When using an agency, choose only properly accredited providers, require that all personal documents come from the employee and are checked by the company, and never accept an agency offering to prepare certificates or references. Separate the person who handles the filing from the person who reviews it before submission, so that a single staff member cannot let a doubtful document through unchecked.

Add document verification as a line item in the annual review of foreign staff. After taking over a company or completing an acquisition, if past applications have no verification record, use the full audit to check them; see taking over a company and finding expired permits for how such an audit is usually organised.

YIXING can review foreign employees' application documents, process work permits and visas through the proper channels, or handle cancellations when employment ends, via our Visa & HR service. YIXING is a privately owned consultancy registered with the SEC (CS202009551), accredited by the Bureau of Immigration (BI Accreditation No. CA-202624381-1, valid until 2027-06-30) and by DOLE. We are not affiliated with any government office and we do not promise any approval outcome. Whether to terminate, and whether and how to inform the authorities, should be decided with a licensed lawyer.