1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly In this case, petitioner failed to prove that the car and driver benefits were also being enjoyed by other employees who held positions equivalent to his position, or that the benefits were given by the company itself with voluntary and deliberate intent. On the contrary, the record shows that these benefits were granted by Toyota's former President specifically to petitioner at the time he was hired, in a verbal agreement.[73] As such, the grant of the benefits may be viewed more as an accommodation given to petitioner by virtue of him being a fellow Japanese working in a foreign, and presumably unfamiliar, land. Petitioner cannot demand a right to the service car and driver indefinitely, especially under new administration, when the benefit ostensibly sprung only from the magnanimity of his former superior rather than actual company practice. As regards the Caltex card, Toyota consistently argued that the free gasoline that may be availed with it is provided only to Japanese expatriates, and not to local hires like petitioner. The latter was able to enjoy the benefit as it came with the car assigned to him.[74] On this point, there is likewise no showing that petitioner's entitlement to the Caltex card is based on an express policy, a written contract, or company practice. Considering that petitioner did not sign an employment contract, he can only anchor his claim on company practice. However, he also failed to prove that the card was being enjoyed by other employees or officials similarly situated as him, as would indicate Toyota's intention to give the benefit consistently and deliberately. Hence, petitioner cannot demand continued use of the card. Granting arguendo that the benefit amounted to company practice, there is essentially no diminution to speak of. The record bears that the Caltex card was withdrawn by Toyota prior to the withdrawal of the car and driver benefits. Petitioner did not raise this as an issue, verbally or in a written memorandum to his superior. Even then, petitioner's gasoline expenses were subject to reimbursement. Hence, at the end of the day, it was still Toyota that paid for his gasoline consumption. Finally, petitioner argues that his transfer from the Marketing, Procurement and Accounting Department to the Production Control, Technical Development and Special Project Department was an indication of constructive dismissal because he lacked technical expertise and experience for the new position. Toyota justified this move as an exercise of management prerogative which did not entail any change in the salary and benefits being enjoyed by petitioner, who was expected to exercise the same managerial functions.[75] Notably, petitioner did not raise any objections to his transfer prior to the filing of the complaint, nor did he amply demonstrate why he was unsuited for the new job. There was no proof of any verbal or written opposition to the transfer. In fact, as pointed out by respondents, he was assigned to the new department on July 1, 2008, but he did not complain of his new assignment until after more than three months, or on October 13, 2008, when he filed a complaint with the NLRC. Petitioner did not allege and prove specific facts that would indicate his inability to function fully in the new department as a result of his lack of expertise, or that his transfer constituted dear discrimination or harassment. He also did not address Toyota's assertion that his new function required https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65727 8/14