Zamora vs Su, Jr.

184 SCRA 248

Facts
 A certain Su owned a land wherein Su employed Zamora to be an
Overseer of his land and to administer it. In exchange of Zamora’s
service he was paid with 2,400 pesos per month and 1/3 of the
earning of the Coconut plantation.
 In May 1981, The Landowner incurred a debt therefore he loaned
the land to creditor together with its fruits. The current possessor of
the land lay off Zamora until Su reacquired the said property.
Facts
 This compelled Zamora to file a case against the private respondents
to the labor arbiter of illegal dismissal.
 Upon the investigation, by Labor Arbiter, it was found that Zamora
was entitled to backwages and his share in the sales of the earnings
of the Coconut plantation.
 The Private Respondents appealed in the NLRC and the NLRC
rendered a decision in favor of the landowners. Reversing the
decision of the labor arbiter and declaring that there was a tenancy
relationship between the parties therefore it is the Agrarian courts
that has jurisdiction over the case.
Issue
 Whether,upon the established facts, that Zamora
was an employee or tenant of the private
respondents.
Held
 No, It is clear that Zamora was paid wages to administer the land of
Su. The court laid down the elements for the tenancy relationship to
exist in this case and these are:
1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant;
2) The subject is agricultural land;
3) There is consent;
4) The purpose is agricultural production;
5) There is personal cultivation; and
6) There is sharing of harvest or payment of rental.
Held
 The element of personal cultivation of the land, or with the aid of his
farm household, is essential in establishing a landlord-tenant or a
lessor-lessee relationship, is absent in the relationship between Su
and Zamora. Zamora did not cultivate any part of Su's plantation
either by himself or with the help of his household.
Held
 On the other hand, the following circumstances are indicative of an employer-
employee relationship between them:

1. Zamoras was selected and hired by Su as overseer of the coconut plantation.

2. His duties were specified by Su.

3. Su controlled and supervised the performance of his duties. He determined to

whom Zamoras should sell the copra produced from the plantation.

4. Su paid Zamoras a salary of P2,400 per month plus one-third of the copra sales
every two months as compensation for managing the plantation.
Held
 Since Zamoras was an employee, not a tenant of Su, it is the NLRC,
not the Court of Agrarian Relations, that has jurisdiction to try and
decide Zamora's complaint for illegal dismissal.
 ou
k y
a n
T h
