Name Jessbel G.

Mahilum
Section M1
Schedule TF 1:00PM-2:30pm

KOREAN AIR CO., LTD AND SUK KYOO KIM, Petitioners, v. ADELINA A.S. YUSON, Respondent.

Facts:

Korean Air had an International Passenger Manual (IPM) which contained, among others, travel benefits
for its representatives. Be that as it may, Korean Air never carried out the movement benefit under the
manual. All things being equal, Korean Air allowed every one of its workers travel benefits as contained
in the aggregate haggling arrangement (CBA). Yuson profited of the movement benefit under the CBA
during her visit in the organization. In April 2001, Yuson mentioned that Korean Air be moved from the
traveler outreach group to the freight division. Yuson needed to be presented to the tasks of the freight
division since she planned to seek after a freight organization business after her retirement. On 4 June
2001, Korean Air briefly moved Yuson to the freight division as "freight dispatch." Yuson kept on getting
similar pay and exercise similar authority as the traveler team lead. To reduce expenses, Korean Air
offered its representatives an exit from the workforce program (ERP). In a letter dated 1 September
2001 and addressed to Suk, Yuson guaranteed that Korean Air was limited by the consummated
agreement and blamed the organization for badgering and segregation On 28 November 2001, Yuson
recorded with the mediation part of the NLRC a grumbling against Korean Air and Suk for installment of
an advantage under the ERP, moral harms, excellent harms, and lawyer's charges.

Issue:

Whether or not Yuson's claim for benefits under the ERP became irrelevant when she took advantage of
the optional retirement under Labor Code Article 287 became moot.

Ruling:

YES. Yuson's case for an advantage under the ERP became debatable when she profited of the
discretionary retirement under Article 287 and acknowledged the benefit. By her acknowledgment of
the advantage, Yuson is considered to have picked to resign under Article 287. The third passage of
Article 287 states that: without a retirement plan or arrangement accommodating retirement
advantages of representatives in the foundation, a worker after arriving at the age of sixty years or all
the more yet not past 65 years which is thusly pronounced the obligatory retirement age, who has
served no less than five years in the said foundation, may resign and will be qualified for retirement pay
comparable to no less than one-half month compensation for each extended time of administration, a
negligible portion of no less than a half year is considered as one entire year.
 G.R. No. 168325 December 8, 2010

ROBERTO D. TUAZON, Petitioner,

vs.

LOURDES Q. DEL ROSARIO-SUAREZ, CATALINA R. SUAREZ-DE LEON, WILFREDO DE LEON, MIGUEL LUIS S.
DE LEON, ROMMEL LEE S. DE LEON, and GUILLERMA L. SANDICO-SILVA, as attorney-in-fact of the
defendants, except Lourdes Q. Del Rosario-Suarez, Respondents.

Facts:

Respondent Lourdes Q. Del Rosario-Suarez was the proprietor of a bundle of land. Solicitor Roberto D.
Tuazon and Lourdes executed a Contract of Lease over the bundle of land for a time of three years.
During the effectivity of the rent, Lourdes sent a letter to Roberto where she proposed to offer to the
last option subject package of land. She allowed him a long time from January 2, 1995, to settle on the
said offer. On June 19, 1997, or more than four months after the lapse of the Contract of Lease, Lourdes
offered a subject bundle of land to her lone kid, Catalina Suarez-De Leon, her child in-regulation
Wilfredo De Leon, and her two grandsons, Miguel Luis S. De Leon and Rommel S. De Leon as proven by a
Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the gatherings. The new proprietors through their lawyer truth be
told, Guillerma S. Silva, advised Roberto to empty the premises. Roberto declined consequently; the De
Leons recorded a grievance about an Unlawful Detainer before the MeTCagainsthim. TheMeTC
delivered a Decision requesting Roberto to empty the property for non-installment of rentals and lapse
of the agreement. While the ejectment case was on request, Roberto recorded with the RTC a
Complaint about the Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale, Reconveyance, Damages, and Application for
Preliminary Injunction against Lourdes and the De Leons. On November 13, 2000, Roberto recorded a
Notice ofLisPendenswith the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City. The RTC delivered a Decision proclaiming
the Deed of Absolute Sale made by Lourdes for the De Leons as legitimate and restricting. On bid, the CA
certified the Decision of the RTC.

Issue:

Whether or not Respondent disregarded Petitioners right to purchase subject property under the
guideline of "right of first refusal"

Ruling:

No. It was just a decision arrangement. "WHEREFORE, the second interest for overview on certiorari is
DENIED. The went after Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 78870, which demanded the
Decision dated November 18, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 101, Quezon City in Civil Case No.
Q-00-42338 is AFFIRMED." DOCTRINE: A decision arrangement is by and large extraordinary and obvious
from a right of first refusal in that in the past, the decision surrendered to the offered is for a nice period
and at a chose cost. Clearly the arrangement typifies a decision understanding as it grants Roberto a
good season of only two years to buy the subject property at a worth explicit ofP37, 541,000.00.