Você está na página 1de 1

Myla Ruth N.

Sara

Besa v. Trajano

FACTS:

Respondent KAMPI filed a Petition for Certification Election. Petitioner opposed alleging that there is no ER-
EE relationship between Besa and petitioners. These petitioners are shoe shiners paid on a commission basis. The
question of ER-EE relationship became a primordial consideration in resolving whether or not the subject shoe
shiners have the juridical personality and standing to present a petition for certification as well as to vote therein.

ISSUE: W/N ER-EE relationship exists betweem shoe shiners and Besa

HELD: No.
Shoe shiner is different from a piece worjer:

Piece Woker Shoe shiner


1. paid for work accomplished 1. contributes anything to the capital of the
employer
2. the employer pays his wages 2. paid directly by his customer
3. paid for work accomplished without 3. the proceeds derived from the trade are
concern to the profit derived by employer divided share with respondent BESA
4. the employer supervises and controls his 4. respondent does not exercise control
work

Thus, shoe shiners are not employees of the company, but are partners, because there is no control by the
owner and shoe shiners have their own customers whom they charge a fee and divide the proceeds equally with
the owner.