1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly employees.[8] When respondent Mamoru Matsunaga (Matsunaga) took over as President of Toyota, petitioner was transferred to the Production Control, Technical Development and Special Project department as Assistant Manager.[9] Respondent Kazuki Miura (Miura) took over his former post. Petitioner allegedly objected to the transfer on the ground that it is in violation of the terms of his AEP, and admitted having no knowledge, skills, and experience in production control and technical development. Nonetheless, petitioner assumed his new post on July 1, 2008.[10] On September 1, 2008, petitioner was notified that his service car and driver will be withdrawn.[11] He pleaded with Matsunaga for the benefits to be retained since he would be helpless without them. Nonetheless, Matsunaga allegedly brushed aside his plea and told him that he must shoulder his own transportation expenses.[12] On October 13, 2008, Toyota terminated the services of petitioner's driver. Since petitioner could not report for work, he considered himself constructively dismissed.[13] On the same day, he filed a complaint with the NLRC tor constructive dismissal. illegal diminution of benefits, illegal transfer of department, harassment, and discrimination against Toyota, Matsunaga, Miura, and Joseph Ledesma (Ledesma), corporate officers of Toyota (collectively, respondents).[14] Respondents denied petitioner's allegations, arguing that petitioner was entitled to the service car and driver only for a period of one year, after which he was expected to drive himself to and from work. The driver assigned to petitioner was discharged due to the termination of his employment contract.[15] Moreover, the free gasoline that may be availed with the Caltex card is a benefit exclusively given to Japanese expatriates, which petitioner was not, being a local hire. The reason why petitioner was able to use the card is that the service car he used was previously assigned to an expatriate and it had an accompanying Caltex card.[16] Petitioner also purportedly abused the Caltex card by using it for personal trips.[17] Respondents denied that petitioner was given the oldest company car, as in fact he was given a year 2000 Toyota Corolla model.[18] They denied excluding petitioner from any meeting, stating that the only meeting he was excluded from was the one exclusively for top corporate officers. Finally, petitioner's transfer to another department was an exercise of management prerogative. Petitioner had skills in planning, development, and special projects, and was thus competent for his new position. Toyota allegedly had no intention of dismissing petitioner, as it actually later sent him two notices to return to work.[19] On November 25, 2009, Labor Arbiter Michaela A. Lontoc (LA) issued a Decision[20] holding that petitioner was constructively dismissed. Consequently, she directed the latter's reinstatement to his old department without loss of seniority rights, and ordered respondents to pay him backwages, moral and exemplary damages for their "dishonorable, unrighteous and despicably oppressive" acts toward petitioner,[21] and attorney's fees. However, the LA denied petitioner's claim for pro rata 13th month pay and other benefits for not having been raised in the complaint, as well as his claim for https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65727 2/14