Facts:

Private respondent KAMPIL, a legitimate labor union, filed a petition for Certification Election to which
herein petitioner Besa opposed on the ground that no employer-employee relationship existed between
him and the petition’s signatories. The Med-Arbiter and BLR Director both ruled in favor of the union
which granted the holding of the certification election. Meanwhile, petitioner Besa filed actions before
the Court and with the Med-Arbiter contending that the 17 shoeshiners who are members of the union
cannot be considered employees and thus has no standing to vote in the certification election.

Issue:

Whether or not there is employer-employee relationship between Besa and the 17 shoeshiners-union
members.

Ruling: NO.

Respondent BESA does not exercise any degree of control or supervision over their person and their
work. All these are not obtaining in the case of a piece worker as he is in fact an employee in
contemplation of law, distinct from the shoe shiner in this instance who, in relation to respondent
MAMERTO B. BESA, is a partner in the trade.

These shoe shiners are not employees of the company, but are partners instead. This is due to the fact
that the owner/manager does not exercise control and supervision over the shoe shiners. That the
shiners have their own customers from whom they charge the fee and divide the proceeds equally with
the owner, which make the owner categorized them as on purely commission basis. The attendant
circumstances clearly show that there is no employer-employee relationship existing.