Q: I am calling again your attention to Exh. Y Overrides Makati the other one is --A: That is the same thing, sir. Q: With ending August 21, words and figure Overrides Marjorie Ann Tocao P15,314.25 the amount there you will acknowledge you have received that? A: Yes, sir. Q: Again in concept of commission, representation, promotion, etc.? A: Yes, sir. Q: Okey. Below your name is the name of Nita Anay P15,314.25 that is also an indication that she received the same amount? A: Yes, sir. Q: And, as in your previous statement it is not by coincidence that these two (2) are the same? A: No, sir. Q: It is again in concept of you treating Miss Anay as your equal? A: Yes, sir. (Italics supplied.)[30] If indeed petitioner Tocao was private respondents employer, it is difficult to believe that they shall receive the same income in the business.In a partnership, each partner must share in the profits and losses of the venture, except that the industrial partner shall not be liable for the losses.[31] As an industrial partner, private respondent had the right to demand for a formal accounting of the business and to receive her share in the net profit.[32] The fact that the cookware distributorship was operated under the name of Geminesse Enterprise, a sole proprietorship, is of no moment.What was registered with the Bureau of Domestic Trade on August 19, 1987 was merely the name of that enterprise.[33] While it is true that in her undated application for renewal of registration of that firm name, petitioner Tocao indicated that it would be engaged in retail of kitchenwares, cookwares, utensils, skillet,[34] she also admitted that the enterprise was only 60% to 70% for the cookware business, while 20% to 30% of its business activity was devoted to the sale of water sterilizer or purifier. [35] Indubitably then, the business name Geminesse Enterprise was used only for practical reasons - it was utilized as the common name for petitioner Tocaos various business activities, which included the distributorship of cookware. Petitioners underscore the fact that the Court of Appeals did not return the unaccounted and unremitted stocks of Geminesse Enterprise amounting to P208,250.00.[36] Obviously a ploy to offset the damages awarded to private respondent, that claim, more than anything else, proves the existence of a partnership between them. In Idos v. Court of Appeals, this Court said: The best evidence of the existence of the partnership, which was not yet terminated (though in the winding up stage), were the unsold goods and uncollected receivables,