Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 39 views

    Zamora Vs Su JR

    Uploaded by

    Jose Edu Bonto
    Zamora filed a case against private respondents for illegal dismissal from his role overseeing and administering a coconut plantation. The labor arbiter found in favor of Zamora, but the NLRC reversed, stating it was a tenancy issue under agrarian court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that Zamora was an employee, not a tenant, as he was paid wages, did not personally cultivate the land, and the landowner controlled his duties. As an employee, the NLRC had proper jurisdiction over Zamora's illegal dismissal complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Zamora Vs Su JR

    Uploaded by

    Jose Edu Bonto
    39 views9 pages
    Zamora filed a case against private respondents for illegal dismissal from his role overseeing and administering a coconut plantation. The labor arbiter found in favor of Zamora, but the NLRC reversed, stating it was a tenancy issue under agrarian court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that Zamora was an employee, not a tenant, as he was paid wages, did not personally cultivate the land, and the landowner controlled his duties. As an employee, the NLRC had proper jurisdiction over Zamora's illegal dismissal complaint.

    Original Title

    Zamora vs Su Jr

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Zamora filed a case against private respondents for illegal dismissal from his role overseeing and administering a coconut plantation. The labor arbiter found in favor of Zamora, but the NLRC reversed, stating it was a tenancy issue under agrarian court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that Zamora was an employee, not a tenant, as he was paid wages, did not personally cultivate the land, and the landowner controlled his duties. As an employee, the NLRC had proper jurisdiction over Zamora's illegal dismissal complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    39 views9 pages

    Zamora Vs Su JR

    Uploaded by

    Jose Edu Bonto
    Zamora filed a case against private respondents for illegal dismissal from his role overseeing and administering a coconut plantation. The labor arbiter found in favor of Zamora, but the NLRC reversed, stating it was a tenancy issue under agrarian court jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled that Zamora was an employee, not a tenant, as he was paid wages, did not personally cultivate the land, and the landowner controlled his duties. As an employee, the NLRC had proper jurisdiction over Zamora's illegal dismissal complaint.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 9

    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

    You might also like