petitioners merged their respective capital and infused the amount into the partnership of distributing cookware with private respondent as the managing partner. The business venture operated under Geminesse Enterprise did not result in an employer-employee relationship between petitioners and private respondent. While it is true that the receipt of a percentage of net profits constitutes only prima facie evidence that the recipient is a partner in the business,[25] the evidence in the case at bar controverts an employer-employee relationship between the parties. In the first place, private respondent had a voice in the management of the affairs of the cookware distributorship,[26] including selection of people who would constitute the administrative staff and the sales force. Secondly, petitioner Tocaos admissions militate against an employer-employee relationship. She admitted that, like her who owned Geminesse Enterprise,[27] private respondent received only commissions and transportation and representation allowances[28] and not a fixed salary.[29] Petitioner Tocao testified: Q: Of course. Now, I am showing to you certain documents already marked as Exhs. X and Y. Please go over this. Exh. Y is denominated `Cubao overrides 8-21-87 with ending August 21, 1987, will you please go over this and tell the Honorable Court whether you ever came across this document and know of your own knowledge the amount --A: Yes, sir this is what I am talking about earlier. Thats the one I am telling you earlier a certain percentage for promotions, advertising, incentive. Q: I see. Now, this promotion, advertising, incentive, there is a figure here and words which I quote: Overrides Marjorie Ann Tocao P21,410.50 this means that you have received this amount? A: Oh yes, sir. Q: I see. And, by way of amplification this is what you are saying as one representing commission, representation, advertising and promotion? A: Yes, sir. Q: I see. Below your name is the words and figure and I quote Nita D. Anay P21,410.50, what is this? A: Thats her overriding commission. Q: Overriding commission, I see. Of course, you are telling this Honorable Court that there being the same P21,410.50 is merely by coincidence? A: No, sir, I made it a point that we were equal because the way I look at her kasi, you know in a sense because of her expertise in the business she is vital to my business. So, as part of the incentive I offer her the same thing. Q: So, in short you are saying that this you have shared together, I mean having gotten from the company P21,140.50 is your way of indicating that you were treating her as an equal? A: As an equal. Q: As an equal, I see. You were treating her as an equal? A: Yes, sir.