HIJOS DE F. ESCAÑO INC., et.al.

, petitioners,
vs.
NLRC, et.al., respondents.
G.R. No. L-59229, August 22, 1991
Ponente: Feliciano, J.

Facts:
Pursuant to the policy of the State to implement an
integrated program of port development specifically adopting
the policy of “one pier, one Arrastre/or stevedoring company”,
Manila Integrated Services, Inc. (MISI), which was servicing
Escaño vessels and San Nicolas Stevedoring and Arrastre
Services, Inc. (SNSASI) which was servicing Compania
Maritima vessels, merged to form the Pier 8 A&S, a
corporation providing arrastre and stevedoring services to
vessels docked at Pier 8 of the Manila North Harbor.
On 31 July 1978, private respondent and about 300
stevedores filed with the then Ministry of Labor and
Employment ("MOLE") a complaint for unfair labor practice
and illegal dismissal against PIER 8 A&S. This complaint
was amended to include monetary claims of the stevedores
and to implead petitioner Hijos de F. Escaño, Inc. (Escaño).
The Labor Arbiter ruled in favor of the respondent and
on appeal, affirmed by the NLRC. Thus, this petition.

Issue:
WON a shipping company engaged with inter-island
business as in the case of Escaño has an employee-
employer relationship with the stevedores, thus making them
liable for illegal dismissal.

Ruling:
No. A shipping company as such in the case of Escaño
has no employee-employer relationship with the stevedores.
Shipping company does not customarily engage in
stevedoring and arrastre activities and that they merely
contracts with other companies offering such services. With
this, stevedores are not to deemed as employees of the
shipping company.
Therefore, Escaño cannot be held liable with Pier 8
A&S for reinstatement and payment of back wages of the
respondents.
RAFAEL GELOS, petitioner,
vs.
CA and ERNESTO ALZONA, respondents.
G.R. No. 86186 May 8, 1992
Ponente: Cruz, J.

Facts:
Private respondent Alzona who owned the subject land
entered into a contract with petitioner Gelos, employing the
latter as laborer of the land at a stipulated daily wage of Php.
5.00.
Gelos first went to the Court of Agrarian Relations but
later withdrew the case and went to the Ministry of Agrarian
Reform, which granted his petition to fix the agricultural lease
rental on the property. The private respondent then filed a
complaint of illegal detainer against the petitioner but was
denied due to existence of a tenancy relationship between
the parties. He later appealed that no such tenancy
relationship existed. The RTC dismissed his case, but later
reversed by the CA. Thus, this petition.

Issue:
WON there is a tenancy relationship between the
parties.

Ruling:
No. There is no tenancy relationship between the
parties.
Basing from the provisions of RA 1199 Section 5a, the
court laid down the requisites for a tenancy relationship to
exist, which includes:(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. Absence of any of these requisites, an
occupant or cultivator of a parcel of land, cannot qualify as
a de jure tenant.
In the case at bar, the agreement executed by the
parties showed that the petitioner was not intended to be a
tenant but a mere employee who was paid for his services.
Therefore, no tenancy relationship existed between the
parties but only an employee-employer relationship. Petition
was denied.