1/4/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly of going back to work. In fact, despite receipt of notices to report for work, petitioner failed to do so. He is considered to have abandoned his job or voluntarily terminated his employment relations with Toyota.[36] Moreover, the primary and immediate cause of petitioner's claim of constructive dismissal is the withdrawal of the car and driver assigned to him, which he considered essential requisites for his continued employment.[37] To make it appear that he was constructively dismissed, petitioner made various allegations, but he failed to support them with substantial evidence.[38] Further, his transfer to another department was an exercise of Toyota's management prerogative. His position remained the same and there was no diminution of his benefits. He also agreed to the transfer and assumed his new post.[39] As regards the alleged diminution of benefits, the NLRC gave credence to Toyota's claim that the service car and driver benefits were limited to one year. Also, considering that the benefit was not embodied in an employment contract and the driver's contract of employment had expired, the privilege may be withdrawn anytime without amounting to a diminution of benefits.[40] Finally, the NLRC believed Toyota's explanation that petitioner was not entitled to the Caltex card because the benefit is extended to Japanese expatriates only and not to local hires.[41] Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but NLRC denied it. Hence, he filed a petition for certiorari[42] with the Court of Appeals (CA). On October 24, 2011,the CA rendered the assailed Decision[43] denying the petition. It held that it is not the function of certiorari proceedings to review the factual findings of the NLRC, which findings are binding on the court if supported by substantial evidence. [44] Moreover, even if petitioner claimed that the NLRC gravely abused its discretion in reversing the Decision of the LA, he nonetheless failed to allege that it was done capriciously or whimsically. He merely claimed that the NLRC was "not correct" in deciding the issues. Thus, he conceded that the NLRC merely committed errors in judgment and not errors in jurisdiction, which is the exclusive concern of a Rule 65 petition. The petition was dismissible on this premise alone. Even if the petition were to be treated as an appeal, the CA held that it is still dismissible. Petitioner insisted that he claimed damages and attorney's fees in his complaint, but he failed to attach a certified true copy of the complaint which would have proved his point.[45] On the issues of constructive dismissal, abandonment and not reporting for work when required, the CA merely adopted the findings of the NLRC on the rationale that it is not the function of certiorari proceedings to review findings of fact of the NLRC.[46] Petitioner tiled a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its Resolution[47] dated April 3, 2012. He thus filed the present petition on the following grounds: 1. Whether or not the Honorable Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction in ruling that petitioner failed to allege capriciousness or whimsicality in the issuance https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/65727 4/14