1) Why this topic matters

Two workplace moves often happen together—especially during probation:

an employee is assigned duties that don’t match the job description; and/or
the employer “extends” the probationary period.

Both situations sit at the intersection of management prerogative (the employer’s right to run the business) and the employee’s constitutional and statutory right to security of tenure, fair labor standards, and humane conditions of work. In Philippine law, the outcome usually depends on what was agreed, what standards were communicated, what actually happened in practice, and whether the employer acted in good faith.

2) Key Philippine legal foundations (high level)

A. Security of tenure (core principle)

Employees cannot be removed except for just or authorized cause and with due process. This applies even to probationary employees (probation affects how regularization is determined, not whether basic rights exist).

B. Probationary employment (Labor Code rule)

Philippine labor law recognizes probationary employment, generally limited to a maximum of six (6) months, unless a specific exception applies. The big legal requirement:

The standards for regularization must be made known to the employee at the time of engagement. If the employer later terminates the probationary employee for “failure to meet standards” that were not clearly communicated at hiring, the dismissal is vulnerable to being declared illegal.

C. Management prerogative (transfer/assignment)

Employers generally have the right to:

assign tasks,
reorganize work,
transfer employees,
adjust roles,

but not without limits. A transfer or reassignment becomes unlawful (or actionable) if it is:

a demotion in rank or status,
a diminution of pay or benefits,
unreasonable or overly burdensome,
done in bad faith (e.g., punishment, retaliation, harassment),
discriminatory, or
results in constructive dismissal.

3) Job description misassignment: what it is (and what it isn’t)

A. “Misassignment” can mean different things

Common real-world forms:

Out-of-scope tasks: duties materially different from the role offered.
Role substitution: being made to do a different position’s core job (e.g., hired as analyst, assigned as full-time receptionist).
Higher-role duties without promotion/pay: doing managerial work without reclassification or compensation where applicable.
Lower-role or menial tasks: being “downgraded” in substance while title remains.
Hazardous/illegal assignments: tasks that violate safety rules, professional licensing, or law.

B. The employer can assign “incidental” duties

In Philippine practice, a job description is rarely treated as a rigid box. Employers may assign reasonable, related, or incidental tasks, especially when needed by operations.

Misassignment becomes legally meaningful when the new duties are materially inconsistent with what was agreed, or when the assignment triggers prohibited outcomes (demotion, diminution, bad faith, or constructive dismissal).

4) The legal tests that usually decide misassignment disputes

A. Was there demotion, diminution, or a humiliating change?

A move is suspect if it:

lowers rank/status,
reduces authority or supervisory scope,
cuts pay/benefits, incentives, commissions, allowances tied to the role,
deprives the employee of meaningful work (being “floated” with no real duties),
is obviously punitive or humiliating.

B. Was it reasonable and in good faith?

Good faith indicators:

clear business reason (reorganization, staffing needs, project change),
same pay and substantially equivalent status,
reasonable transition/training,
no singling out, no retaliation, no harassment.

Bad faith indicators:

reassignment right after complaints, union activity, leave requests, or whistleblowing,
moving the employee to an impossible role to force failure,
inconsistent explanations, lack of documentation,
singling out without objective basis.

C. Did it amount to constructive dismissal?

Constructive dismissal happens when continued employment becomes unreasonable, unlikely, or impossible, or when the employer effectively forces the employee out through:

demotion,
pay/benefit loss,
harassment,
discriminatory treatment,
punitive transfers,
intolerable working conditions.

If misassignment is used to corner an employee into resigning, the legal risk rises sharply.

5) Special issue: misassignment during probation

Probation is where misassignment can become legally explosive because of the rule on communicated standards.

A. Standards must match the job you were hired for

If you were hired for Position A with certain standards, but during probation you are effectively placed in Position B:

The employer cannot fairly evaluate you using Position B’s standards unless those standards were properly communicated and the role was clearly redefined with your informed consent.

B. Moving the goalposts can invalidate a “failed probation” termination

A common pattern:

employee is hired as X,
assigned as Y,
later terminated for “not meeting standards” based on Y’s expectations.

Where the employer cannot prove that the relevant standards were made known at hiring (or at a properly documented, mutually understood change), dismissal can be challenged as illegal.

C. “Probation” is not a free pass

Probationary employees still have:

labor standards protections (wages, hours, OT, holiday pay, leaves as applicable),
statutory benefits (SSS, PhilHealth, Pag-IBIG),
safety and health protections,
protection from discrimination and retaliation,
due process rights for termination.

6) Probationary period extension: when it is allowed (and when it backfires)

A. General rule: probation cannot exceed 6 months

In most ordinary employment, probationary employment should not go beyond six (6) months. If the employee continues working after the probationary period without a valid separation, the employee is typically treated as regular by operation of law.

B. Common “extension” scenarios and legal risk

Unilateral extension by employer (employee just told “extended”):
- Legally risky. An employer cannot simply extend probation beyond the statutory cap as a matter of convenience.
Extension by employee “consent” (employee signs):
- Still risky if it functions as a waiver of security of tenure or circumvents the six-month rule.
- Consent may be scrutinized: Was it voluntary? Was there real choice? Was it informed? Was there consideration?
Extension due to employee’s absence or inability to complete evaluation:
- Employers sometimes argue fairness requires additional time (e.g., extended leave prevented assessment).
- The legality depends heavily on facts, documentation, proportionality, and whether the approach is consistent with labor-protective policy.
Switching contracts / “resetting” probation by changing job title:
- High risk. If the employee’s service is continuous and the “reset” is a device to avoid regularization, it can be attacked as circumvention.

C. The “safe” legal framing employers try to use (and what employees should check)

When an employer proposes extension, employees should check:

Exact start date and exact 6th-month date.
Whether the extension would exceed 6 months of actual work.
Whether the employer is trying to change the position/standards midstream.
Whether there is a clear, documented performance evaluation with previously communicated metrics.
Whether the extension is being used to pressure resignation or justify termination without proper basis.

D. If you worked beyond the probation limit

In many cases, continued employment beyond the probationary limit without valid separation supports an argument that the employee became regular. That has major consequences:

dismissal then requires just/authorized cause and full due process,
“failure of probation” is no longer available as the basis.

7) Terminating a probationary employee: valid grounds and required process

A. Grounds

A probationary employee may be terminated for:

Just causes (misconduct, willful disobedience, gross neglect, fraud, etc.), or
Failure to meet reasonable standards made known at time of engagement.

B. Due process still matters

Probation does not erase procedural fairness. At minimum:

the employee should be informed of the issues and basis,
be given opportunity to explain,
receive written notice of the decision.

(For just causes, the well-known “twin notice” model is commonly applied in practice, and weak procedure can create liability even if a substantive ground exists.)

C. The employer’s burden

In disputes, the employer generally carries the burden to show:

what the standards were,
that they were communicated on time,
how performance was measured,
why the employee failed,
and that the action was in good faith and procedurally fair.

8) Refusing out-of-scope work: what employees can and can’t do safely

A. Refusal can be risky if framed as insubordination

Willful disobedience is a just cause when:

the order is lawful and reasonable,
related to duties,
and the refusal is willful.

So a flat refusal (“I won’t do it”) without documentation can be dangerous.

B. Safer approach: comply under protest + request clarification

When the assignment is questionable:

ask for written clarification of role, reporting line, scope, and evaluation standards,
document concerns politely (email/message),
request alignment with your employment terms,
raise safety/licensing concerns if applicable.

This preserves your position while reducing the risk the employer labels it as misconduct.

C. If the task is illegal, unsafe, or violates professional rules

An employee has stronger footing to refuse where:

the order is unlawful,
violates OSH standards,
requires a professional license you don’t have,
involves falsification or fraud,
breaches data privacy or other laws.

Document the reason and propose lawful alternatives.

9) Practical red flags that strengthen an employee’s claim

These patterns often appear in strong complaints:

You were hired for Role A, but consistently assigned Role B’s core duties.
The employer never gave written standards at hiring, yet terminated for “poor performance.”
Your “extension” pushed you beyond 6 months of work.
Reassignment followed immediately after a complaint, leave, or protected activity.
Transfer came with reduced pay/benefits, loss of title, or humiliating conditions.
You were set up to fail: impossible KPIs, no training, contradictory instructions.
The employer pressured resignation instead of issuing a lawful notice.

10) Evidence that matters in Philippine labor disputes

A. Documents to gather

employment contract, offer letter, job description
onboarding materials or probation standards/KPIs
performance evaluations, coaching memos
emails/chats showing actual tasks assigned
org charts, reporting lines, reassignment notices
payslips (to show pay/benefit changes or status)
attendance/leave records (re extension arguments)
incident reports, witness statements if harassment/punitive reassignment occurred

B. “Actual duties” can outweigh titles

Philippine labor forums often look beyond titles. If you can show what you truly did day-to-day, that can be decisive.

11) Remedies and forums (Philippine process overview)

A. Internal resolution

HR grievance or management escalation (paper trail helps).
Request for role clarification and standards in writing.

B. DOLE assistance (labor standards / money claims / compliance)

Depending on the nature of the claim (e.g., wage underpayment, benefits, OSH), DOLE mechanisms may be relevant.

C. Illegal dismissal / constructive dismissal claims

Where termination occurred (or resignation was forced), claims are typically pursued through the labor dispute system (often involving conciliation-mediation before adjudication). Potential outcomes can include:

reinstatement (in appropriate cases) and/or
backwages,
separation pay in lieu of reinstatement (depending on circumstances),
damages and attorney’s fees where warranted by law and facts.

The appropriate forum and remedy depend on whether the issue is primarily a labor standards violation, an illegal dismissal case, or both.

12) Common scenarios and how Philippine law typically treats them

Scenario 1: “I was hired as Marketing Associate but assigned as Sales Agent.”

If sales tasks are occasional/supportive: often allowed.
If sales became the core job and marketing work disappeared: stronger misassignment argument.
If termination is based on sales targets never disclosed at hiring: stronger illegal dismissal risk for employer.

Scenario 2: “They extended my probation to 8 months because I didn’t ‘fit’ yet.”

High legal risk for the employer.
Working beyond the statutory probation cap without valid separation commonly supports regularization.

Scenario 3: “They changed my KPIs midway and used that to fail my probation.”

If KPIs were not communicated at hiring (or properly documented as a mutually understood change), termination is vulnerable.

Scenario 4: “I was transferred to a far location with the same pay.”

May be valid under management prerogative if reasonable and in good faith.
Can be unlawful if punitive, discriminatory, or unduly burdensome (e.g., impossible commute) and effectively forces resignation.

13) Template language for requesting clarification (non-confrontational)

Subject: Clarification on Role Scope and Probation Standards “Hi [Name/HR], I would like to request written clarification on my current role scope, primary responsibilities, reporting line, and the standards/KPIs that will be used to evaluate my probationary performance. This will help me align my output with the company’s expectations. Thank you.”

(Keep it factual, calm, and focused on performance alignment.)

14) Key takeaways

Employers can assign related tasks and transfer employees, but not in a way that amounts to demotion, pay/benefit loss, bad faith treatment, or constructive dismissal.
Probationary employment is generally capped at six months, and regularization standards must be made known at hiring.
Misassignment during probation can undermine the employer’s ability to lawfully terminate for “failure to meet standards,” especially when standards were unclear or changed to match a different job.
“Extending probation” beyond the legal limit is a common flashpoint; continuous work beyond the cap often strengthens a regularization argument.
Outcomes are fact-driven; documentation of what was agreed, what standards were disclosed, and what work was actually performed is usually decisive.