1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 201396, September 11, 2019 ] YUSHI KONDO, PETITIONER, VS. TOYOTA BOSHOKU (PHILS.) CORPORATION, MAMORU MATSUNAGA, KAZUKI MIURA, AND JOSELITO LEDESMA, RESPONDENTS. DECISION JARDELEZA, J.: In this case, We reiterate that the employee bears the burden to prove by substantial evidence the fact of his dismissal from employment. Absent any showing of an overt or positive act proving that the employer had dismissed the employee, the latter's claim of illegal dismissal cannot be sustained as it would be self-serving, conjectural, and of no probative value.[1] Yushi Kondo (petitioner), a Japanese citizen, applied with and was hired by respondent Toyota Boshoku Philippines Corporation (Toyota) on September 26, 2007 as Assistant General Manager for Marketing, Procurement and Accounting. His net monthly salary was P90,000.00, to be increased to P100,000.00 after six months.[2] He was assured of other benefits such as 13th month bonus, financial assistance to be given before Christmas, and 15 days each of sick leave and vacation leave per year. Petitioner was also provided a service car and a local driver by Toyota's President at the time, Fuhimiko Ito (Ito).[3] Toyota caused the issuance of petitioner's Alien Employment Permit (AEP).[4] As Assistant General Manager, petitioner implemented policy and procedural changes in his department, which have been approved by Ito.[5] After working for three months, petitioner was subjected to a performance evaluation, the result of which was "perfect." Two months later, he was again subjected to another performance evaluation. This time, his performance rating was only slightly above average. Petitioner protested the result of this evaluation, reasoning that it was impossible to get that rating after only two months from the initial evaluation.[6] The evaluation supposedly coincided with the discovery by Toyota's Japan headquarters of the anomalies committed by Ito.[7] Petitioner was thereafter allegedly assigned the oldest company car and prevented from using other company cars tor business travels. He was also prevented from further using his Caltex card tor gasoline expenses, and instructed to pay for gas expenses with his own money, subject to reimbursement. He was restrained by Toyota's security personnel from going out of the office even if it were for the purpose of performing his official duty, and prevented from attending the meeting for the evaluation of https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65727 1/14

Select target paragraph3