Besa Vs. Trajano Case Digest

Myla Sara

Ruth

N.

Besa v. Trajano

FACTS: Respondent KAMPI filed a Petition for Certification Election. Petitioner opposed alleging that there is no EREE 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 1. paid for work accomplished 2. the employer pays his wages 3. paid for work accomplished without concern to the profit derived by employer 4. the employer supervises and controls his work

Shoe shiner 1. contributes anything to the capital of the employer 2. paid directly by his customer 3. the proceeds derived from the trade are divided share with respondent BESA 4. respondent does not exercise control

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.