G.R. No. 201396 - Kondo vs. Toyota Boshoku Corp.

Yushi Kondo (petitioner), a Japanese citizen, was hired by 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, with a promised increase to P100,000.00 after six months. He was also provided with a service car, a local driver, and other benefits such as a 13th-month bonus, financial assistance, and 15 days each of sick leave and vacation leave annually.

After three months, petitioner received a "perfect" performance evaluation. However, two months later, his rating dropped to slightly above average, which he protested. This coincided with the discovery of anomalies committed by Toyota's former President, Fuhimiko Ito. Subsequently, petitioner was allegedly assigned the oldest company car, prevented from using other company cars for business travels, and barred from using his Caltex card for gasoline expenses. He was also restricted from leaving the office and excluded from employee evaluation meetings.

When Mamoru Matsunaga became Toyota's President, petitioner was transferred to the Production Control, Technical Development, and Special Project department as Assistant Manager. Petitioner objected, citing a lack of knowledge and experience in the new department, but he assumed the position on July 1, 2008.

On September 1, 2008, petitioner was notified that his service car and driver would be withdrawn. Despite his pleas, the benefits were removed, and his driver's employment was terminated on October 13, 2008. Petitioner considered this as constructive dismissal and filed a complaint with the NLRC for illegal dismissal, diminution of benefits, illegal transfer, harassment, and discrimination.

Respondents argued that the service car and driver were only provided for one year, and the driver's termination was due to the expiration of his contract. They also claimed that the Caltex card was exclusively for Japanese expatriates and that petitioner had abused it for personal trips. They denied any discriminatory actions and stated that petitioner's transfer was an exercise of management prerogative.

Whether petitioner was constructively dismissed due to the withdrawal of his service car, driver, and Caltex card, and his transfer to another department.
Whether the NLRC committed grave abuse of discretion in reversing the Labor Arbiter's decision and dismissing petitioner's complaint.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the NLRC's decision.