(My own) Zamoras vs Roque Su

Facts: Petitioner Zamoras was hired by respondent Su in 1957 to harvest coconuts with a salary
and plus one-third of the proceeds. In May 1981, Su informed Zamoras in writing that he was to
be laid-off temporarily because of a loan he borrowed from Hortellano. Hortellano came in to the
plantation and without informing or gaining consent from Zamoras harvested the coconuts
without giving one-third cut to Zamoras.
A case was filed to the NLRC and the Labor Arbiter rendered a decision that there was an
employer-employee relationship between Zamoras and Roque Su thereby the dismissal of
Zamoras by Roque Su was illegal and Zamoras is to be awarded payment of damages. This
decision was then reversed by NLRC finding that Zamoras was a tenant and beyond its
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction should go to the Court of Agrarian Relations.
Issue: Is Zamoras in an employer-employee capacity or in a landlord-tenant capacity?
Held: Zamoras is an employee. The element of personal cultivation of the land or with the aid of
his farm household, essential in establishing a landlord-tenant relationship is absent between Se
and Zamoras

(Scribd) Zamoras vs Su, Jr. ,184 SCRA 248 , 1990

Facts:
Victoriano Zamoras, was hired Roque Su, Jr., as overseer of his coconut land in Dapitan. He was made to
supervise the coconut plantation and the sale of copra. He was paid a salary plus 1/3 of the proceeds of the
sales of the copra. Another one-third of the proceeds went to the tenants and the other third to Su. Sometime
in 1981, Su entered into a loan with a certain Anito and authorized her to harvest coconuts from his property
while his loan was outstanding. Zamoras was then laid-off temporarily until Su could obtain a loan from the
Development Bank of the Philippines with which to pay Anita. He was no longer allowed to work as overseer of
the plantation and without his knowledge and consent, Anita, harvested the coconuts without giving him his
one-third share of the copra sales. Zamoras filed a complaint against Su, and Anita for illegal termination and
breach of contract with damages with the Regional Arbitration Branch of the Ministry of Labor and Employment
in Zamboanga City.

The Labor Arbiter rendered a decision holding that Zamoras, as overseer of the respondent's plantation, was a
regular employee whose services were necessary and desirable to the usual trade or business of his employer
and was thus illegally dismissed. Upon appeal to the NLRC, the decision of the Labor Arbiter was reversed. It
held that the relationship between the parties was that of a landlord-tenant, hence, jurisdiction over the case
rests with the Court of Agrarian Relations.

Issue: WON Zamoras is an employee of Su, Jr. and thus jurisdiction of the case is with the NLRC.
Ruling: Since Zamoras is an employee, not a tenant of Su, it is the NLRC, not the Court of Agrarian
Relations,that has jurisdiction to try and decide Zamoras complaint for illegal dismissal .
It was held that Su hired Zamoras not as a tenant but as overseer of his coconut plantation. There is no
evidence that Zamoras cultivated any portion of Su's land personally or with the aid of his immediate farm
household. The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are not present. Rather those of an employeremployee relationship exists between them. These are the following: 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. And 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.