Case Digest: Korean Air & Suk Kyoo Kim v. Yuson G.R. No. 170369 : June 16, 2010
KOREAN AIR CO., LTD AND SUK KYOO KIM, Petitioners, v. ADELINA A.S. YUSON, Respondent.
CARPIO,J.:
FACTS:
In July 1975, Korean Air Co., Ltd. (Korean Air) hired Adelina A.S. Yuson (Yuson) as reservations agent.Korean Air promoted Yuson to assistant manager in 1993, and to passenger sales manager in 1999.
Korean Air had an International Passenger Manual (IPM) which contained, among others, travel benefit to its employees.However, Korean Air never implemented the travel benefit under the manual.Instead, Korean Air granted all its employees travel benefit as contained in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).Yuson availed of the travel benefit under the CBA during her stay in the company.
In 2000, Korean Air suffered a net loss of over $367,000,000.Consequently, Korean Air reduced its budget for 2001 by 10 percent.
In April 2001, Yuson requested Korean Air that she be transferred from the passenger sales department to the cargo department.Yuson wanted to be exposed to the operations of the cargo department because she intended to pursue a cargo agency business after her retirement.On 4 June 2001, Korean Air temporarily transferred Yuson to the cargo department as cargo dispatch.Yuson continued to receive the same compensation andexercise the same authority as passenger sales manager.
In order to cut costs, Korean Air offered its employees an early retirement program (ERP).
In a letterdated 23 August 2001 and addressed to Korean Airs Philippine general manager Suk Kyoo Kim (Suk), Yuson accepted the offer for early retirement.
In a letter dated 24 August 2001, Suk informed Yuson that she was excluded from the ERP because she was retiring on 8 January 2002.In a letterdated 1 September 2001 and addressed to Suk, Yuson claimed that Korean Air was bound by the perfected contract and accused the company of harassment and discrimination.
In a memorandum dated 20 September 2001, Korean Air informed its employees that application for the ERP ended on 15 September 2001 and that only the applications of eligible employees shall be forwarded to the head office for approval.
On 28 November 2001, Yuson filed with the arbitration branch of the NLRC a complaint against Korean Air and Suk for payment of benefit under the ERP, moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorneys fees.
On 8 January 2002, her 60th birthday, Yuson availed of the optional retirement under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended.
On 12 March 2002, Yuson filed with the Makati Prosecution Office a criminal complaint against Korean Air officials Tae Sang Kim (Tae), Kwan Hee Lee (Lee), and Benedicto Cajucom for violation of Article 287.A corresponding information was filed with Branch 146 of the Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC).
Yuson filed with the Bureau of Immigration a complaint for deportation against Korean Air officials Tae, Lee, Byung Jo Kim, Ja Chool Koo, Yoo Jin Kim, Cho Mahn Hung, Kim Seong Ung, Evi Sung Hwang, and Park Jin Suk.In a Resolution dated 30 July 2002, the Bureau dismissed the complaint.
In his 31 January 2003 Decision, Labor Arbiter Santos denied for lack of merit Yusons claims for benefit under the ERP, for moral and exemplary damages, and for attorneys fees.
On 14 February 2003, Tae and Yuson entered into a compromise agreementand amicably settled the criminal case.
Yuson filed with the NLRC an appeal memorandumdated 10 March 2003 challenging Labor Arbiter Santos 31 January 2003 Decision.The NLRC referred the case to Labor Arbiter Cristeta D. Tamayo (Labor Arbiter Tamayo) for report and recommendation.
In its 30 January 2004 Decision, the NLRC adopted the report and recommendations of Labor Arbiter Tamayo to order Korean Air and Suk to pay Yuson her benefit under the ERP and to give her 10 Korean Air economy tickets.
In its 28 June 2005 Decision, the Court of Appeals set aside the NLRCs 30 July 2004 Resolution and affirmed the commissions 30 January 2004 Decision.Hence, the present petition.
ISSUES: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in:
[1] Failing to consider that Yuson's claim for benefit under the ERP became moot when she availed of the optional retirement under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended;
[2] Ruling that Yuson may claim benefit under the ERP; and
[3] Awarding Yuson 10 Korean Air economy tickets.
HELD: The petition is meritorious.
LABOR LAW:
On 8 January 2002, Yuson availed of the optional retirement under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended.The third paragraph of Article 287 states that:
In the absence of a retirement plan or agreement providing for retirement benefits of employees in the establishment, an employee upon reaching the age of sixty (60) years or more, but not beyond sixty-five (65) years which is hereby declared the compulsory retirement age, who has served at least five (5) years in the said establishment, may retire and shall be entitled to retirement pay equivalent to at least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, a fraction of at least six (6) months being considered as one whole year.
On 14 February 2003, Yuson acceptedP1,671,546.92 as retirement benefit under Article 287.The compromise agreement between Tae and Yuson stated that:
Without necessarily admitting that they violated any law, and in deference to the desire of the Honorable Judge that the parties amicably settle the RTC Case if only to buy peace and avoid a protracted criminal litigation,Messrs. Tae Sang Kim, Benedicto Cajucom and the Company have agreed to pay Adelina A.S. Yuson, and the latter acknowledges receipt from them the amount of ONE MILLION SIX HUNDRED SEVENTY ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FORTY SIX PESOS AND NINETY TWO CENTAVOS (P1,671,546.92), representing her retirement benefit pursuant to Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended.This amount includes six percent (6%) legal interest from the date of her retirement on 8 January 2002 until 8 February 2003, less Ms. Yusons salary loan balance in the amount of TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P25,000.00). This amount represents a complete settlement of all her claims in the RTC Case and such compensation and benefits to which she may be entitled under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended.
Yusons claim for benefit under the ERP became moot when she availed of the optional retirement under Article 287 and accepted the benefit.By her acceptance of the benefit, Yuson is deemed to have opted to retire under Article 287.
CIVIL LAW:
The Court of Appeals held that Yuson may claim benefit under the ERP because the offer was certain and the acceptance is absolute; hence, there is a valid contract pursuant to the last paragraph of Article 1315 of the New Civil Code.
The Court disagrees.Articles 1315, 1318 and 1319 of the Civil Code, respectively, state:
Art. 1315. Contracts are perfected by mere consent, and from that moment the parties are bound not only to the fulfillment of what has been expressly stipulated but also to all the consequences which, according to their nature, may be in keeping with good faith, usage and law.
Art. 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:Art. 1319. Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance upon the thing and the cause which are to constitute the contract.The offer must be certainand the acceptance absolute.
(1) Consent of the contracting parties;
(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.
An offer is a unilateral proposition made by one party to another for the celebration of a contract.For an offer to be certain, a contract mustcome into existence by the mere acceptance of the offeree without any further act on the offerors part.The offer must be definite, complete and intentional.InSpouses Paderes v. Court of Appeals,the Court held that, There is an offer in the context of Article 1319 only if the contract can come into existence by the mere acceptance of the offeree, without any further act on the part of the offeror.Hence, the offer must be definite, complete and intentional.
In the present case, the offer is not certain: (1) the 21 August 2001 memorandum clearly states that, MNLSM Management,on its discretion, is hereby offering the said early retirement program to its staff; (2) applications for the ERP were forwarded to the head office for approval, and further acts on the offerors part were necessary before the contract could come into existence; and (3) the 21 August 2001 memorandum clearly states Korean Airs intention, which was, to prevent further losses.Korean Air could not have intended to ministerially approve all applications for the ERP.
LABOR LAW
The Court of Appeals held that Korean Air forced Yuson to retire on 8 January 2002.The Court of Appeals stated that, By its letter of August 24, 2001, Private Respondent is forcing Petitioner to retire even if the choice of optional retirement belongs to the latter.
The Court disagrees.The surrounding circumstances show that Korean Air did not force Yuson to retire on 8 January 2002. Yuson was actually retiring on 8 January 2002: (1) in April 2001, Yuson requested Korean Air that she be transferred to the cargo department because she intended to pursue a cargo agency business after her retirement; (2) in its 24 August and 12 September 2001 letters, Korean Air clearly stated that Yuson was retiring on 8 January 2002; (3) Yuson never corrected or denied Korean Airs statements regarding her retirement date; (4) on 8 January 2002, Yuson retired under Article 287 of the Labor Code, as amended;(5) in his 31 January 2003 Decision, Labor Arbiter Santos stated, As admitted by complainant, she was set to retire by January 2002;and (6) in its 30 July 2004 Resolution, the NLRC stated, it was shown in the records of this case that [Yuson] was about to retire sometime in January 2002, which in fact happened.
Approval of applications for the ERP is within Korean Airs management prerogatives.The exercise of management prerogative is valid as long as it is not done in a malicious, harsh, oppressive, vindictive, or wanton manner. In the present case, the Court sees no bad faith on Korean Airs part.The 21 August 2001 memorandum clearly states that Korean Air,on its discretion, was offering ERP to its employees.The memorandum also states that the reason for the ERP was to prevent further losses.Korean Air did not abuse its discretion when it excluded Yuson in the ERP.To allow Yuson to avail of the ERP would have been contrary to the purpose of the ERP.
Korean Air had never implemented the IPM in the Philippines.Its, employees, including Yuson, received the travel benefit under the CBA.During her 26-year stay in Korean Air, Yuson already received more than 10 tickets.
GRANTED
