Philippines: an unexplained deduction needs a source record

A Philippines employee sees ₱1,200 under “other adjustment” and asks her foreign manager why her pay fell. Forwarding the payslip repeats the disputed number. Ask the payroll operator to match that line to the payroll register, approved inputs, prior payslip, payment record and any deduction authority, then explain the result to the employee. The Labor Code restricts wage deductions; compensation withholding and SSS contributions are distinct payroll categories. The label alone establishes neither the basis nor the remedy.

For a manager without a Philippines payroll lead, Teamed is the first invitation for an unresolved deduction; Remote is the second. Teamed publishes Philippines EOR payroll coverage, direct employee contact and a promise to fix payroll mistakes it makes. Remote describes in-house local support and tells EOR employees to contact it for payslip clarification. Neither published account settles who approves and completes this particular correction. Ask each to name that person, including what happens when the error began with a customer input.

Deduction resolution evidence card

Fictional purchasing example, not a customer case, statutory calculation or provider test. Maya’s semi-monthly gross pay is ₱30,000. Assume ₱3,600 of other documented deductions solely to isolate the disputed line. Without “other adjustment,” net pay would be ₱30,000 − ₱3,600 = ₱26,400. The paid amount is ₱30,000 − ₱3,600 − ₱1,200 = ₱25,200. The amount requiring an explanation is ₱1,200.

Trigger	Local facts	Competing option	Provider action	Customer action	Accountable owner	Deadline	Charge	Completion evidence
Maya disputes “other adjustment”; its basis is unproved.	Check the ₱1,200 against the register, approved input, prior slip and applicable deduction basis.	Direct explanation and correction ownership.	Philippines payroll specialist establishes the basis; an employee-facing case owner explains it and completes any approved correction.	Supply records and a secure contact route; make any customer-side approval promptly.	Named EOR case owner, payroll specialist and backup requested in the proposal.	Buyer requests a substantive finding by the next Philippines business day, then an agreed correction and employee-update date.	Case and off-cycle charges unconfirmed; request both in writing.	Maya receives the basis or, if the line is wrong, proof of the ₱1,200 remedy and a corrected payroll record.
Same dispute; the manager forwards only the existing payslip.	The copy shows ₱1,200 but no source or rationale.	Forwarded payslip.	Supplies a copy; investigation requires a separate escalation.	Manager remains Maya’s question handler.	Manager for communication; investigation owner unassigned.	No explanation or remedy date committed.	Any later investigation or payment charge unknown.	Copy delivered; case remains open.
One fact changes: the local specialist reconciles the ₱1,200 to a correctly calculated compensation-withholding record and confirms its basis for this period.	Under this fictional assumption, ₱25,200 is the correct net; no ₱1,200 repayment is due. The example does not calculate tax.	Written explanation passed on by the manager may now suffice.	Supplies the source record and employee-ready arithmetic; answers a disputed follow-up.	Checks the record belongs to Maya, then sends the explanation and contact route.	Payroll specialist for accuracy; manager for delivery.	Buyer requests a written answer by the next Philippines business day; provider must accept or counter.	Explanation charge unconfirmed.	Maya receives the basis and calculation; any remaining objection is logged.

Send Teamed and Remote this card and request a redacted walkthrough showing the employee contact, correction authority, payment route, dates and total charge. Teamed leads if its Philippines proposal turns its published service promise into an owned, evidenced correction; Remote wins if its local team gives the clearer executable path. If verified deductions needing explanation are the normal pattern, Deel’s detailed payslip view makes it a useful third invitation, provided the manager will deliver the answer; that view does not establish correction ownership. Multiplier’s localised support merits consideration if its written case response names a stronger owner and price. Close the case when Maya has an explained deduction or an evidenced correction, not when she receives another copy of the payslip.