G.R. No. L-72409 December 29, 1986
Mamerto S. Besa, doing business under the name and style of Besa’s Custombuilt Shoes, petitioner, vs. The Honorable Cresenciano B. Trajano, Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations, Ministry of Labor and Employment, and Kaisahan ng Manggagawang Pilipino (KAMPIL-Katipunan), respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Mamerto S. Besa, owner of Besa’s Custombuilt Shoes, opposed a petition for certification election filed by respondent union KAMPIL, representing seventeen shoeshiners. Besa argued that no employer-employee relationship existed between him and the shoeshiners, thus they were ineligible to petition for or vote in a certification election. He invoked the principle of res judicata, citing a 1965 decision of the defunct Court of Industrial Relations (CIR) which allegedly ruled on the same issue. The Med-Arbiter and the Director of the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR) both ruled that an employer-employee relationship did exist, finding that supervisors were appointed to oversee the shoeshiners’ work. They held res judicata inapplicable as the parties and causes of action differed from the old CIR case. A certification election was subsequently held where 33 votes, including those of the 17 shoeshiners, were cast for union representation.

ISSUE

The primordial issue is whether an employer-employee relationship exists between petitioner Besa and the seventeen shoeshiner-members of the respondent union, which determines their eligibility to participate in the certification election process.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that NO employer-employee relationship exists. Applying the four-fold test from Rosario Brothers, Inc. vs. Ople, the Court emphasized the “control test” as the most determinative element. The evidence, including a prior opinion from the Director of the Bureau of Working Conditions, established that Besa did not exercise control and supervision over the shoeshiners. The shoeshiners had their own customers, charged fees directly, and divided the proceeds equally with Besa, making their arrangement purely commission-based. This factual finding negated the element of control essential to an employment relationship. Consequently, the shoeshiners were not employees and thus lacked the juridical personality to petition for a certification election or to vote therein. The Court also found the defense of res judicata untenable, as the earlier CIR case involved different parties and causes of action related to unfair labor practice, not the specific question of employment status for certification election purposes. However, this did not affect the core ruling on the absence of an employment relationship. The Supreme Court granted the petition, declared void the BLR decision, and ordered the dismissal of the certification election case.