Allegation of forgery in the event of a notice of dismissal signed unwittingly: it is up to the employee to take action to invalidate the company document produced in court

An employee claimed that he was dismissed verbally. The company affirmed that it notified the dismissal in writing, providing a copy of the dismissal letter signed by the employee “for receipt”. The latter denied any link between his signature and his actual knowledge of the employer’s notice of termination, asserting that he signed various documents without being aware that the dismissal letter was amongst them. Since the employee, as the signatory of the document, denied its content (either because it was signed in blank or because its content was unknown to the signatory or not agreed by the individual), according to the Supreme Court the employee should have brought a complaint of forgery. In the absence of such a complaint from the employee, the company could use the document in court.

A challenge to a private document that concerns the entire content of the document and its very formation, as well as the actual knowledge of the document terminating the employment relationship, is subject to a complaint of forgery under Article 221 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the burden of bringing such a complaint lies with the person who signed the document. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court, Labour Section, in Order No. 17089 of 31 May 2026, confirming the decision of the Court of Appeal of Salerno, which declared that a challenge to an allegedly verbal dismissal was non-actionable.

In the case at hand, the employee claimed that he was dismissed verbally. The company, however, in its defence brief, stated that the dismissal was notified in writing, producing a copy of the dismissal letter signed by the employee “for receipt”. With regard to the signature “for receipt”, the employee denied any link between his signature and his actual knowledge of the employer’s notification of termination, asserting that he signed various documents without being aware that the dismissal letter was amongst them.

The Court of Salerno, upholding the employee’s claim, held that he disputed both the document’s conformity with the original pursuant to Article 2719 of the Civil Code and the very authenticity of the signature at the end of the document pursuant to Articles 214 and 215 of the Code of Civil Procedure; therefore, the burden of submitting the relevant application for verification was on the company’s side. The company’s failure to fulfil this obligation thus rendered the produced document inadmissible.

The Court of Appeal completely overturned the first-instance judgment, and its interpretation of the facts was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court of Appeal held that, where the party against whom a document is produced denies having signed it, the procedure for verifying the signature under Articles 214 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure must apply and, consequently, the burden lies with the party seeking to rely on the document to bring an application for verification. Conversely, where the person who signed the document denies its content (either because it was signed in blank or because its content was unknown to the signatory or not agreed by the individual), a complaint of forgery must be brought, and this burden rests with the person who signed the document. In particular, according to the Court of Appeal, the employee did not merely deny the signature but contested the very creation of the document. In such a case, the procedural burden remained with the employee, who should have brought an action for forgery to invalidate the procedural validity of the document submitted by the company, as evidence that written notification of dismissal had been given.

It should also be noted that, according to the prevailing case law of the Supreme Court, the verification of the conformity of the copy with the original and the verification of the authenticity of the latter are two distinctly different matters: the disavowal referred to in Article 2719 of the Civil Code regarding the conformity between the document and the copy produced in court does not have the same effects as the disavowal of a private deed provided for in the aforementioned Articles 214 et seq. of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, whilst the latter, in the absence of verification, precludes the admissibility of the document, the challenge referred to in Article 2719 of the Civil Code does not prevent the court from ascertaining the conformity of the copy with the original, also by way of other means of evidence, including presumptions (Supreme Court no. 1324/2022).

Key Action Points for Human Resources and In-house Counsel

• An employee claimed that he had been dismissed verbally. The company affirmed that it had notified the dismissal in writing, providing copy of the dismissal letter signed by the employee “for receipt”. The employee denied any link between his signature and his actual knowledge of the employer’s notice of termination, asserting that he signed various documents without being aware that the dismissal letter was amongst them.
• Since the employee, signatory of the document, denied its content (either because it was signed in blank or because its content was unknown to the signatory or not agreed by the individual), it was up to the employee to bring a complaint of forgery. In the lack of such a complaint from the employee, the company could use the document in court.