Case Summary (G.R. No. 201396)
Petitioner
Kondo was hired on September 26, 2007 as Assistant General Manager for Marketing, Procurement and Accounting with a net monthly salary of P90,000.00 (to rise to P100,000.00 after six months). He received assurances of various benefits, and was provided a service car and local driver by the then-President, Fuhimiko Ito. Toyota caused issuance of his Alien Employment Permit (AEP).
Respondents
Toyota and the named corporate officers contested petitioner’s allegations. They denied constructive dismissal and asserted that benefits like the car, driver, and Caltex card were limited or improperly used; they maintained the transfer of petitioner was a valid exercise of management prerogative and that petitioner voluntarily ceased reporting to work.
Key Dates and Procedural History
Petitioner assumed employment in late September 2007. Transfer to another department occurred July 1, 2008. Driver’s employment was terminated October 13, 2008, after which petitioner stopped reporting for work and filed an NLRC complaint alleging constructive dismissal and related claims. Labor Arbiter rendered decision in petitioner’s favor (November 25, 2009). NLRC reversed and dismissed the complaint (May 24, 2010). CA denied petitioner’s certiorari petition (October 24, 2011; resolution April 3, 2012). The Supreme Court denied the petition for review.
Applicable Law and Standards
The decision was rendered under the 1987 Constitution. Controlling labor principles applied in the case include: burden on employee to prove dismissal by substantial evidence; doctrine and elements for constructive dismissal; elements for diminution of benefits (four-part test); requisites for abandonment (two-part test); and the distinction between errors of judgment (correctable by appeal under Rule 45) and grave abuse of discretion or lack/excess of jurisdiction (the limited concern of certiorari under Rule 65).
Facts: Performance Evaluations and Alleged Hostilities
Petitioner received a “perfect” performance evaluation after three months and a lower rating two months later, which he protested. He alleged that after Japan headquarters discovered anomalies by Ito, he was assigned the oldest company car, denied use of other cars and his Caltex card, constrained by security personnel, excluded from meetings, and ultimately transferred to a different department under the incoming president, Matsunaga.
Facts: Transfer, Withdrawal of Benefits, and Complaint
After the change in presidency, petitioner was transferred to Production Control, Technical Development and Special Project as Assistant Manager and Miura took his former post. Petitioner objected, citing alleged violation of his AEP and lack of suitable skills, but assumed the post July 1, 2008. On September 1, 2008, he was notified that his service car and driver would be withdrawn; the driver’s employment was terminated on October 13, 2008. Petitioner stopped reporting to work and filed a complaint for constructive dismissal, diminution of benefits, harassment, discrimination, and related claims.
Respondents’ Defenses
Respondents asserted the car and driver were provided only for one year and could be withdrawn; the Caltex card and free gasoline were benefits for Japanese expatriates (petitioner was a local hire) and its presence with petitioner’s car was incidental; petitioner allegedly abused the Caltex card; the transfer was a valid exercise of management prerogative without diminution of salary or benefits; and Toyota sent notices to petitioner to report which he ignored.
Labor Arbiter’s Findings and Reliefs
The Labor Arbiter found constructive dismissal based on withdrawal of the car, driver and Caltex card and the transfer, concluding these acts made work conditions unbearable and violated the public policy against diminution of employee benefits. The Arbiter ordered reinstatement to the old department without loss of seniority, and awarded backwages, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees; claims not raised in the complaint or unsubstantiated were denied.
NLRC Decision and Rationale
The NLRC reversed and dismissed the Arbiter’s decision. It held there was no constructive dismissal, finding petitioner effectively abandoned his position after he stopped reporting to work despite notices. The NLRC credited respondents’ claim that the car and driver benefits were limited to one year and that the Caltex card was intended for expatriates; it also considered the transfer as within management prerogative since salary and benefits remained unchanged.
CA Proceedings and Ruling
The CA denied relief on procedural grounds, emphasizing that certiorari under Rule 65 is not the proper vehicle to review factual findings of the NLRC. The CA found petitioner failed to allege capriciousness or whimsicality to sustain a Rule 65 claim and treated the asserted issues as errors of judgment rather than grave abuse of discretion. The CA also noted petitioner’s failure to provide a certified true copy of his complaint to prove some claims.
Supreme Court Procedural Analysis
The Supreme Court observed petitioner’s initial mischaracterization of remedies (confusion between Rule 45 and Rule 65). It reiterated the fundamental distinction: Rule 45 (petition for review) addresses errors of judgment, while Rule 65 (certiorari) is confined to grave abuse of discretion or lack/excess of jurisdiction. The Court excused petitioner’s erroneous allegation but limited review to whether the CA correctly found no grave abuse by the NLRC.
Supreme Court Evidentiary and Substantive Analysis: Burden of Proof
The Court reiterated that the employee bears the burden to prove dismissal by substantial evidence; claims unsupported by overt or positive acts proving dismissal are self-serving. Constructive dismissal requires proof that continued employment was rendered impossible or so unbearable as to negate voluntariness in separation.
Diminution of Benefits: Company Practice and Contractual Basis
Applying the four-part test for diminution of benefits, the Court held petitioner failed to prove the service car, driver, or Caltex card were founded on express policy, written contract, or ripened company practice. Evidence indicated the car and driver were a verbal accommodation personally granted by former President Ito at hiring rather than a company-wide, deliberate, long-standing practice. The Caltex card likewise lacked proof of company policy or deliberate practice entitling
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 201396)
Case Caption, Citation, and Panel
- G.R. No. 201396; Decision penned by Justice J. Jardeleza for the First Division; reported at 862 Phil. 592; decided September 11, 2019.
- Title of case as petition before the Supreme Court: Yushi Kondo, Petitioner, v. Toyota Boshoku (Phils.) Corporation, Mamoru Matsunaga, Kazuki Miura, and Joselito Ledesma, Respondents.
- Concurrence noted: Bersamin, C.J. (Chairperson), Perlas-Bernabe (Working Chairperson), Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concur.
Parties and Their Roles
- Petitioner: Yushi Kondo, a Japanese citizen employed by Toyota Boshoku (Phils.) Corporation (Toyota).
- Private Respondents: Toyota Boshoku (Phils.) Corporation and corporate officers Mamoru Matsunaga, Kazuki Miura, and Joselito (Joseph) Ledesma.
- Public Respondents (in related CA proceedings): National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Third Division and named NLRC Commissioners in their official capacities (reference in appellate record).
Employment Engagement and Terms
- Petitioner hired by Toyota on September 26, 2007 as Assistant General Manager for Marketing, Procurement and Accounting.
- Initial net monthly salary P90,000.00, to be increased to P100,000.00 after six months.
- Assurances of other benefits: 13th month bonus, financial assistance before Christmas, 15 days each of sick leave and vacation leave per year.
- Petitioner was provided a service car and a local driver by Toyota’s then-President Fuhimiko Ito.
- Toyota caused issuance of petitioner’s Alien Employment Permit (AEP).
Petitioner’s Work Performance and Evaluations
- After three months of employment, petitioner underwent a performance evaluation with result “perfect.”
- Two months later, a second evaluation rated petitioner only slightly above average; petitioner protested, finding it impossible to drop so quickly.
- Petitioner implemented policy and procedural changes in his department, which were approved by Ito.
Alleged Hostile Acts and Restrictions Before Separation
- Petitioner alleges: reassignment to the oldest company car and prevention from using other company cars for business travels.
- Alleged withdrawal of Caltex card privileges for gasoline, and instruction to pay out-of-pocket subject to reimbursement.
- Allegedly restrained by security personnel from leaving office even for official duties and prevented from attending an employee evaluation meeting.
- Discovery by Toyota’s Japan headquarters of anomalies committed by Ito reportedly coincided with the adverse treatment.
Change in Management and Transfer of Duties
- Mamoru Matsunaga assumed the presidency of Toyota; petitioner was transferred to Production Control, Technical Development and Special Project Department as Assistant Manager.
- Kazuki Miura assumed petitioner’s former post.
- Petitioner objected to transfer on ground of alleged violation of his AEP and lack of requisite knowledge, skills, and experience in production control and technical development.
- Despite objections, petitioner assumed the new post on July 1, 2008.
Withdrawal of Car, Driver, and Caltex Card; Constructive Dismissal Claim
- On September 1, 2008, petitioner was notified that his service car and driver would be withdrawn.
- Petitioner pleaded with Matsunaga to retain benefits; Matsunaga allegedly told him to shoulder his own transportation expenses.
- On October 13, 2008, Toyota terminated services of petitioner’s driver; petitioner could not report for work and considered himself constructively dismissed.
- On the same day petitioner filed an NLRC complaint alleging constructive dismissal, illegal diminution of benefits, illegal transfer of department, harassment, and discrimination against Toyota and the corporate officers.
Respondents’ Denials and Defenses at the Labor Level
- Respondents’ central defenses:
- Service car and driver were provided only for one year; after which petitioner expected to drive himself.
- Driver was discharged due to expiration/termination of driver’s employment contract.
- Free gasoline via Caltex card is a benefit exclusively for Japanese expatriates; petitioner was a local hire: his access resulted from the car having been previously assigned to an expatriate.
- Petitioner purportedly abused the Caltex card for personal trips (allegation raised by respondents).
- Petitioner was not given the “oldest” car; he was given a year 2000 Toyota Corolla.
- Exclusion from meetings was limited to meetings exclusively for top corporate officers.
- Transfer to another department was an exercise of management prerogative; petitioner had skills in planning, development, and special projects and was competent for the new position.
- Toyota had no intention to dismiss petitioner and later sent him two notices to return to work.
Labor Arbiter (LA) Decision — Findings and Relief Granted
- Labor Arbiter Michaela A. Lontoc issued a Decision on November 25, 2009 holding petitioner constructively dismissed.
- Relief ordered:
- Reinstatement to his old department without loss of seniority rights.
- Payment by respondents of backwages, moral and exemplary damages described as for “dishonorable, unrighteous and despicably oppressive” acts, and attorney’s fees.
- LA denied claims for pro rata 13th month pay and other benefits for not being raised in complaint; actual damages denied as unsubstantiated.
- LA’s factual findings and reasoning:
- Toyota failed to prove the one-year limitation on car and driver benefits; no respondent had personal knowledge of extent/limitation and no attempt to secure Ito’s statement.
- Withdrawal of the benefit unjustified and unwarranted.
- No valid justification shown for withdrawal of Caltex card; policy shown by respondents applied to assistant manager and up who use own vehicle, whereas petitioner used a company service car.
- Respondents failed to submit complete copy of Toyota’s manual of operations; policy statement suggested benefit not exclusive to expatriates.
- Allegation of petitioner’s abuse of Caltex card was presumed without mathematical computation.
- Transfer lacked justification; petitioner had no technical knowledge for the new post; transfer not management prerogative because petitioner not appropriately trained — characterized as a scheme to engineer mistakes and justify termination and deportation.
- Transfer should have been approved by Secretary of Labor and Employment pursuant to Article 41 of the Labor Code (Prohibition against Transfer of Employment for aliens).
- Removal of service car, driver, and Caltex card amounted to violation of public policy of non-diminution of employee benefits.
- Circumstances made work conditions unbearable and amounted to constructive dismissal.
- Respondents held jointly liable for ordered monetary awards.
NLRC Decision — Reversal and Dismissal
- NLRC rendered Decision on May 24, 2010 reversing the LA decision and dismissing petitioner’s complaint.
- NLRC’s key rationales:
- Damages and attorney’s fees should be deleted pursuant to NLRC Rules of Procedure since not asked for in complaint.
- No constructive dismissal because petitioner claimed to have been “forced to resign” and manifested no intention of returning to work; despite notices to report, petitioner failed to do so and was considered to have abandoned his job or voluntarily terminated employment.
- Primary cause of claimed constructive dismissal was withdrawal of car and driver which petitioner deemed essential; petitioner made various allegations but failed to support them with substantial evidence.
- Transfer was an exercise of management prerogative: petitioner’s position remained the same with no diminution of benefits; petitioner agreed to and assumed the transfer.
- Service car and driver be