[Letter to Attorney]

Dear Attorney,

I am writing to seek your guidance regarding a concern I am currently facing. I recently signed a contract under the understanding that I would be performing technical support services. However, upon commencement of my duties, I found that my employer is primarily requiring me to engage in what appears to be intensive hard selling of products or services, rather than providing the technical support services I was initially led to believe would form the core of my responsibilities.

My key questions and concerns include:

Whether the disparity between my signed contract, which I understood to involve technical support, and the actual tasks assigned to me, which involve aggressive sales, constitutes a form of misrepresentation or breach of contract under Philippine law.
Whether I have any legal remedies, such as contract rescission, damages, or grounds for constructive dismissal or illegal employment practices claims, if my employer continues to insist on tasks that differ substantially from those initially stipulated.
What the legal standards and evidentiary requirements are in pursuing a claim and how best to proceed to either rectify the situation or to disengage from the contract without facing penalties.

As a concerned individual who values clarity and fairness, I would appreciate any insights you can provide on the relevant legal provisions, the appropriate administrative or judicial forums for dispute resolution, and practical steps to take moving forward.

Respectfully,
A Concerned Worker

Comprehensive Legal Article on the Philippine Law Aspects of Misrepresentation, Breach, and Remedies When Actual Work Differs from Stated Contractual Duties

Introduction
In the Philippine context, contracts and employment agreements are governed by a confluence of statutes, regulations, and principles derived from the Civil Code, the Labor Code, and administrative issuances. The scenario where an employee signs an agreement for a specific role—such as technical support—but is later asked to perform a substantially different set of functions—such as aggressive sales—is not uncommon. It raises questions about the binding nature of the contract, the existence of potential misrepresentation, the applicability of consumer or employee protection laws, and the remedies available to an aggrieved party.

This article will dissect the legal principles relevant to such a scenario, focusing first on the concept of contractual obligations under Philippine law, followed by the doctrines governing misrepresentation and breach of contract. It will then consider labor law protections, including the possibility of constructive dismissal, and conclude with guidance on pursuing potential remedies, whether before administrative bodies or the regular courts.

I. Governing Law: Civil Code and Employment Statutes
Philippine law respects the principle of “autonomy of contracts,” as established in Article 1306 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Under this principle, parties to a contract are generally free to stipulate terms and conditions as they see fit, provided these do not run contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Once validly formed, contracts are binding between the parties and must be complied with in good faith (Article 1159, Civil Code).

In the employment context, the Labor Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 442, as amended) and various Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) regulations come into play. Employers have a duty to comply with the terms and conditions of employment contracts. Both private law (the Civil Code) and public law (the Labor Code) provide frameworks for addressing breaches and unfair practices. While the Civil Code focuses on obligations and contracts in general, the Labor Code addresses the relationship between employers and employees, ensuring minimum standards and providing remedies for wronged workers.

II. Formation and Interpretation of Employment Contracts
An employment contract typically outlines the specific position, job description, duties, compensation, and other conditions of employment. Its interpretation adheres to the same rules as other contracts, but it is tempered by the public policy considerations integral to labor law. An employment contract must clearly state the nature of the work and should not mislead the employee. If the contract states “technical support,” the employer’s right to assign work should be reasonably related to the employee’s duties and should not radically differ from the nature of the tasks that the employee agreed to perform.

III. Misrepresentation in Contract Formation
Misrepresentation occurs when one party induces another to enter into a contract by making a false statement about a material fact. Under Philippine law, misrepresentation can be either fraudulent or innocent. Fraudulent misrepresentation, as contemplated by the Civil Code, can render a contract voidable. If an employee was induced to sign an employment contract under the premise of performing technical support duties, but the employer never intended that the employee would actually carry out such tasks, this may be considered a form of fraudulent misrepresentation.

Articles 1330 to 1335 of the Civil Code address vices of consent (error, fraud, intimidation, undue influence) that can cause a contract to be voidable. Fraud as a vice of consent, if proven, gives the innocent party the right to seek annulment of the contract and claim damages. For fraud to be actionable, the misrepresentation must be material and must have directly influenced the consent of the aggrieved party.

IV. Breach of Contract and Enforcement
Even absent proven fraud, a significant deviation from the stipulated terms of the employment agreement may constitute a breach of contract. Article 1159 of the Civil Code provides that contracts have the force of law between the parties and must be complied with in good faith. Article 1167 and 1170 deal with breaches: if a party fails to do what is required by the agreement, or does something contrary to the tenor thereof, that party may be held liable for damages.

If the employer assigns tasks entirely unrelated to the technical support functions described in the agreement—particularly if these tasks require a skill set, risk exposure, or job function wholly different from what was promised—this may be considered a substantial or fundamental breach. The law generally allows the innocent party to demand either specific performance or to rescind the contract, with damages in appropriate cases.

V. Nature of Employment Contracts and Managerial Prerogative
Employers do have what is known as “managerial prerogative,” allowing them to exercise a certain degree of flexibility in assigning tasks. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has often recognized that employers can reassign employees to handle related tasks, as long as the reassignment is not done in bad faith, does not result in a diminution of pay and benefits, and remains reasonably related to the employee’s original job description.

However, managerial prerogative is not absolute. If the original job description is for technical support, requiring the employee to pivot entirely to hard selling tasks—wherein the employee must perform sales pitches, meet quotas, and engage in a line of work utterly different from technical assistance—may go beyond the scope of reasonable managerial flexibility. The courts and quasi-judicial labor tribunals (e.g., the National Labor Relations Commission or NLRC) will consider the nature of the tasks, the initial agreement, and whether the employer’s action amounts to a breach of contract or an unfair labor practice.

VI. Constructive Dismissal and Related Labor Remedies
Under Philippine labor law, any act of the employer that substantially alters the conditions of employment to the prejudice of the employee may amount to constructive dismissal. Constructive dismissal occurs when, without a valid cause and due process, an employer makes an employee’s continued employment so untenable that the employee is forced to resign.

If the tasks assigned are so radically different that the employee feels pressured to leave rather than continue under misrepresented conditions, the employee may file a complaint for constructive dismissal before the NLRC. An employee who proves constructive dismissal may be entitled to reinstatement without loss of seniority rights and the payment of backwages, or, if reinstatement is not feasible, separation pay and other monetary benefits.

VII. Burden of Proof and Evidentiary Considerations
In contesting the discrepancy between the contract and actual work, the employee (complainant) generally bears the burden of proving the existence of the contract and the employer’s breach. Documentary evidence, such as the signed employment contract, the stated job description, internal company communications, training materials, work assignment memos, and witness testimonies, can help establish that the employer deviated from the agreed terms.

If the employee claims fraud or misrepresentation, evidence that the employer explicitly promised one set of tasks but immediately or consistently assigned entirely different tasks will be crucial. Proof may include pre-hiring advertisements, job postings, interview transcripts or notes, emails, and the official job offer stating the role as “technical support.”

VIII. Legal Remedies: Rescission, Damages, and Labor Complaints

Rescission of the Contract:
The employee may seek to annul or rescind the contract if it was entered into due to fraud or misrepresentation. Articles 1390 to 1394 of the Civil Code deal with voidable contracts, which can be annulled at the instance of the injured party. Rescission may free the employee from any obligation to continue working and may also entitle the employee to damages.
Damages:
Under Articles 2201 to 2235 of the Civil Code, a party who suffers damage due to breach of contract may recover such damages. Damages could include actual damages (lost wages, expenses incurred in reliance on the promised job), moral damages (if there was bad faith or malicious intent in misleading the employee), and sometimes even exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent to willful breaches.
Filing a Labor Complaint (Constructive Dismissal or Illegal Dismissal):
If the discrepancy effectively forces the employee out of the job, or if the employer’s actions are tantamount to constructive dismissal, the employee may file a complaint with the NLRC. A successful claim may result in backwages, reinstatement, or separation pay. It may also open the door for claims of unfair labor practices if the employer’s conduct is proven to violate labor standards.
Alternative Dispute Resolution:
The DOLE encourages conciliation and mediation through its Single Entry Approach (SEnA) program to resolve disputes quickly and amicably. The employee may attempt to settle the matter by requesting a conference with the employer, in the presence of a neutral conciliator-mediator, to clarify job responsibilities or renegotiate the contract terms. If this fails, the employee can proceed with formal litigation or arbitration before the NLRC.

IX. The Role of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
Contract law in the Philippines incorporates the principles of good faith and fair dealing. Both employer and employee are expected to act honestly and not to take unfair advantage of the other. If an employee demonstrates that the employer never intended to honor the agreed job description, or that the change in tasks was executed to force the employee to resign or accept inferior conditions, this lack of good faith can bolster the employee’s legal position, strengthening claims for damages or for a finding of constructive dismissal.

X. The Importance of Documentation and Timely Action
Employees facing such a scenario should document every interaction and directive from their employer. Written instructions that differ from the job description, emails encouraging aggressive sales targets, and performance evaluations focused solely on sales goals rather than technical support benchmarks can serve as evidence that the employer deviated from the contract.

The employee should also act promptly. The Civil Code provides prescriptive periods within which actions for annulment or rescission must be filed. For labor claims, the Labor Code and related regulations also have prescriptive periods. Consulting a lawyer or labor law expert early can help the employee understand the timetable and ensure that no deadline lapses, depriving them of a remedy.

XI. Potential Defenses for Employers and How They Are Evaluated
Employers might defend themselves by arguing that the tasks are “related” or “incidental” to the employee’s job description, or that changing business conditions necessitated a shift in roles. The employer might also point to a broad “management prerogative” clause in the contract. However, courts and tribunals will look at whether the tasks are indeed related, whether the shift is reasonable, and whether the employer has gone beyond permissible bounds, effectively substituting the original job with a completely different one.

XII. Balancing the Interests of Both Parties
Philippine law strives to maintain a balance between an employer’s right to manage and direct the workforce and an employee’s right to fair and honest treatment. While it is recognized that economic conditions and market demands can require employers to adapt roles, such adaptations cannot equate to misrepresentation or breach. The employee’s consent was obtained for a specific kind of work, and any radical departure from that understanding undermines the principle of mutuality in contracts.

XIII. Case Law and Judicial Precedents
Philippine jurisprudence offers guidance. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that job descriptions, while not always rigid, must not be altered to the point that they contradict the very essence of the original agreement. If such contradictions arise, and the employer’s actions appear to have been deliberate or in bad faith, the courts have been inclined to provide remedies to employees. Although each case depends on its facts, these precedents stand as warnings to employers that misrepresenting job functions can lead to liability.

XIV. Practical Considerations for Affected Employees
For employees who find themselves in such a predicament, the following steps are advisable:

Review the Employment Contract and Related Documents:
Confirm the duties and responsibilities stipulated in your signed agreement and gather all supplementary documents such as job offers, emails, or postings.
Communicate Concerns in Writing:
Before taking formal legal action, try to clarify the matter with management. State your concerns in writing, expressing that the current tasks differ markedly from the agreed-upon technical support role.
Seek Legal Counsel:
Consult with an experienced labor lawyer or approach the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) if qualified. Early legal advice can clarify your rights and outline possible remedies.
Consider Filing a Labor Complaint if Necessary:
If the employer refuses to rectify the situation or if the discrepancy remains unresolved, you may file a complaint for illegal dismissal, constructive dismissal, or breach of employment contract before the DOLE or NLRC.
Keep Detailed Records:
Maintain a record of all communications, assignments, directives, and work output. Such evidence can be invaluable in proving your case should it go to arbitration or trial.

XV. Conclusion
Under Philippine law, an employment contract is not merely a piece of paper; it embodies a meeting of the minds, reflecting the mutual agreement between employer and employee on the nature of the work and corresponding obligations. When the actual work demanded from an employee deviates substantially from what was originally agreed upon—such as shifting from technical support to hard selling—this discrepancy can give rise to claims of misrepresentation, breach of contract, or constructive dismissal.

The employee’s legal remedies include seeking annulment of the contract, claiming damages, or filing a labor complaint. The overarching legal standard is that employers must act in good faith, respect the agreed contractual terms, and avoid misleading employees about the nature of their work. When these standards are met, harmonious working relationships can be maintained. When they are not, Philippine law provides the necessary safeguards and remedies to protect the rights and interests of the aggrieved party.