1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly actual damages for being unsubstantiated. First, the LA held that Toyota failed to prove that petitioner was entitled to the service car and driver for a limited period of one year. None of the respondents had personal knowledge of the extent and limitation of the benefits granted to petitioner, who was hired by Toyota's former President, Ito. Respondents did not even attempt to obtain Ito's statement to support their allegation.[22] They merely assumed that the benefits have a duration based on the limited employment contract of petitioner's driver. Hence, the withdrawal of the benefit was without justification, and thus unwarranted.[23] Second, there was no valid justification for the withdrawal of petitioner's Caltex card. According to respondents, petitioner was not entitled to the benefit in the first place, and that he abused his use of the card.[24] However, the LA concluded that the gasoline allowance policy showed by respondents does not apply to petitioner as it applies only to employees occupying the rank of assistant manager and up, who use their own vehicle in reporting to work. Petitioner was not using his own vehicle but the service car provided by Toyota. Respondents also tailed to submit the complete copy of Toyota's manual of operations, which supposedly contains the policy that only expatriates are entitled to a Caltex card. On the contrary, there is a statement in the policy which indicates that the benefit is not exclusive to expatriates.[25] The LA further ruled that respondents' assessment of abuse of the Caltex card was only presumed and not based on any mathematical computation.[26] Third, the LA held that petitioner's transfer from the Marketing, Procurement and Accounting Department to the Production Control, Technical Development and Special Project Department of Toyota lacked justification. Petitioner did not have the technical knowledge, skills and experience for his new post, as his background pertains to trading, brokering and business consultancy.[27] His transfer was not an exercise of management prerogative as he was not appropriately trained for his new functions. Rather, it was a scheme for him to commit mistakes and create a valid reason for his subsequent termination and deportation.[28] Moreover, petitioner's transfer should have been approved by the Secretary of Labor and Employment pursuant to Article 41[29] of the Labor Code. The LA concluded that the foregoing circumstances amount to constructive dismissal as they made petitioner's work conditions unbearable.[30] Further, the removal of his service car, driver and Caltex card amounted to a violation of the public policy of nondiminution of employee benefits.[31] Consequently, the LA adjudged respondents to be jointly liable to pay the abovementioned monetary awards to petitioner.[32] Respondents appealed to the NLRC which, on May 24, 2010 rendered a Decision[33] reversing and setting aside the LA Decision and dismissing petitioner's complaint. It held that the award for damages and attorney's fees should be deleted pursuant to the NLRC Rules of Procedure since these were not asked for in the complaint.[34] Moreover, there was no constructive dismissal to speak of since petitioner claimed to have been "forced to resign" as a result of respondents' acts.[35] Hence, he had no more intention https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65727 3/14