REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION
BRANCH XX, MAKATI CITY
MINI BAR INC., represented by MINNIE R.
BARRETTO,
Plaintiff,
-versus-

Civil Case No. 14-1414

THE ROYAL CLUB, INC. and SAVIOR

SECURITY AGENCY CORPORATION,
Defendants.
x-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
OF
ANA B. CASTRO
I, ANA B. CASTRO, of legal age, Filipino, single, with office address at RRR corner SSS
Streets, Ayala, Makati City, under the supervision of Atty. Diana E. Fajardo, at her office at AAA
Suites, Commonwealth, Quezon City, Philippines, under oath, willfully and consciously answer the
questions below, and fully knowing that any false declaration can subject me to the criminal
prosecution/liability for false testimony or perjury, hereby depose and state that:
Q1.
A:

What is you present occupation, if any?

I am the General Manager of the Royale Club, Inc. (RCI), Maam.

Q2.
A:

How long have you been connected with the RCI?

I have been with the RCI since Janaury, 2010, Maam.

Q3.
A:

What are your duties and responsibilities as the General Manager of the RCI?
As General Manager, I oversee and supervise the daily operations of the RCI, Maam.

Q4. What is Mini Bar Inc. (MBI), the plaintiff in this case, if you know?
A:
MBI is a stock corporation established for the primary purpose of operating restaurants,
lunch and dining rooms, night clubs, resorts, bars, sports bar, and other food or commodities
commonly served in such establishments, Maam.
Q5. What is the relationship of the RCI with MBI, if any?
A:
On 01 July 2011, the RCI and MBI executed a letter-agreement for the provision of bar
and related services by the latter to the former to be constructed at the Pergola of the RCI, at a
monthly fee of Php500,000.00, Maam.
Q6. I am showing you a letter-agreement dated 01 July 2011.
document have with the one you mentioned, if any?
A:
It is the same, Maam.

What relation does this

Q7. Do you warrant that the photocopy of the letter-agreement dated 01 July 2011 is a faithful
reproduction of the original?
A:
Yes, Maam.
[A copy of the letter-agreement dated 01 July 2011 is marked as Exhibit 1.]
Q8.
A:

Where is the Pergola located?

It is located inside the property owned by the RCI, Maam.

Q9. What is your proof, if any, that the RCI owns the property where the Pergola is located?
A:
The Transfer Certificate Title Nos. T-000 and T-111 show that the RCI is the registered
owner of parcels of land located at RRR corner SSS, Ayala, Makati City, where the Pergola is
located, Maam.
Q10. I am showing you copies of T-000 and T-111. What relation do these documents have
with the ones you mentioned, if any?
A:
They are the same, Maam.
Q11. Do you warrant that the photocopies of T000 and T-111 are faithful reproductions of the
originals?
A:
Yes, Maam.
[Copies of T000 and T-111 are previously marked as Exhibits 2 and 2-a, respectively.]
Q12. What is the present status of the letter-agreement dated 01 July 2011?
A:
Last 26 March 2014, the RCI, via a letter of even date, terminated the letter-agreement
dated 01 July 2011 for MBIs failure to comply with its obligations therein and demanded MBI to
vacate the Pergola within 30 days from receipt thereof, Maam.
Q13. I am showing you a letter dated 26 March 2014. What relation does this document have
with the one you mentioned, if any?
A:
It is the same, Maam.
Q14. Do you warrant that the photocopy of the letter dated 26 March 2014 is a faithful
reproduction of the original?
A:
Yes, Maam.
[A copy of the letter dated 26 March 2014 is previously marked as Exhibit 3.]
Q15. What is your proof, if any, that MBI received the letter dated 26 March 2014?
A:
I have an Acknowledgement Receipt dated 27 March 2014 showing that Mimi Mores, an
employee of MBI, received it on behalf of MBI on 27 March 2014, Maam.
Q16. I am showing you an Acknowledgement Receipt dated 27 March 2014. What relation
does this document have with the one you mentioned, if any?
A:
It is the same, Maam.
Q17. Do you warrant that the photocopy of the Acknowledgement Receipt dated 27 March 2014
is a faithful reproduction of the original?
A:
Yes, Maam.
[A copy of the Acknowledgement Receipt dated 27 March 2014 is marked as Exhibit 3-1.]
Q18. You stated that the RCI terminated the letter-agreement dated 01 July 2011 for MBI
failure to comply with its obligations therein. What are those obligations that you are referring to?
A:
MBI failed to remit to the RCI cash sales on a daily basis and the latters share in the
monthly gross sale revenues. It likewise failed to pay utility dues. It also operated on days when it
was not allowed to, Maam.
Q19. When the RCI terminated the letter-agreement dated 01 July 2011 on 26 March 2014, how
much are the outstanding obligations of MBI to the RCI?
A:
It is Php858,949.60 as of February 2014, Maam.

Q20. What comprises the Php858,949.60, the outstanding obligations of MBI as of February
2014?
A:
It comprises of unpaid cash sales that should have been remitted daily and utility dues,
Maam.
Q21. Prior to the termination of the letter-agreement dated 01 July 2011, what are the steps
taken by the RCI, if any, to ensure that MBI comply with its obligations under said agreement?
A:
The RCI sent MBI letters dated 03 October 2013 and 23 October 2013 reiterating its
demands for the latter to settle its unpaid account and to comply with its obligations under the
letter-agreement dated 01 July 2011, Maam.
Q22. I am showing you letters dated 03 October 2013 and 23 October 2013. What relation do
these documents have with the ones you mentioned, if any?
A:
They are the same, Maam.
Q23. Do you warrant that the photocopies of the letters dated 03 October 2013 and 23 October
2013 are faithful reproductions of the originals?
A:
Yes, Maam.
[Copies of the letters dated 03 October 2013 and 23 October 2013 are marked as Exhibits 4 and
5, respectively.]
Q24. Was there compliance, if any, on MBI part with regard to the RCI demands for the
former to settle its unpaid account and to comply with its obligations under the letter-agreement
dated 01 July 2011?
A:
None, Maam. Worse, the three checks MBI issued as payment of its obligations were
dishonored when deposited with the bank.
Q25. What is your proof, if any, that the three checks issued by MBI were dishonored?
A:
My proof comprises of the dishonored checks themselves, Maam.
Q26. I am showing you Metrobank Check Nos. 3X09XXX062, 3093XXXX3, and XXXX06X4
dated 30 November 2013, 31 December 2013, and 31 January 2014, respectively, with sequential
amounts of Php82,271.00, Php82,271.00, and Php82,272.57. What relation do these documents
have with the ones you mentioned, if any?
A:
They are the same, Maam.
Q27. Do you warrant that the photocopies of the Metrobank Check Nos. 3X09XXX062,
3093XXXX3, and XXXX06X4 dated 30 November 2013, 31 December 2013, and 31 January
2014, respectively, are faithful reproductions of the originals?
A:
Yes, Maam.
[Copies of the Metrobank Check Nos. 3X09XXX062, 3093XXXX3, and XXXX06X4 dated 30
November 2013, 31 December 2013, and 31 January 2014, are marked as Exhibits 6 to 8,
respectively.]
Q28. What is the next step, if any, that the RCI took when the returned checks were
dishonored?
A:
The RCI sent MBI a letter dated 10 March 2014 with a Statement of Account, which the
latter received on the same day, demanding from it payment of its accountabilities in the amount of
Php858,949.60 as of February 2014, Maam.
Q29. I am showing you a letter dated 10 March 2014 with a Statement of Account. What
relation does this document have with the one you mentioned, if any?
A:
It is the same, Maam.

Q30. Do you warrant that the photocopy of the letter dated 10 March 2014 is a faithful
reproduction of the original?
A:
Yes, Maam.
[A copy of the letter dated 10 March 2014 is marked as Exhibit 9.]
Q31. What is your proof, if any, that MBI received the letter dated 10 March 2014 of even date?
A: Mimi Mores, an employee of MBI, affixed her signature in the letter dated 10 March 2014
signifying MBI receipt thereof, Maam.
[The name and signature of Mimi Mores in the letter dated 10 March 2014 is marked as Exhibit
9-a.]
Q32. Was there compliance, if any, by MBI to the demand letter dated 10 March 2014 of the
RCI?
A:
There was no compliance. MBI did not pay nor tender any amount as payment for its
outstanding obligations in the amount of Php1,858,000.60 as of February 2014, Maam.
Q33. What steps, if any, did the RCI take when MBI did not pay its obligations after several
demands by the former?
A:
The RCI was constrained to terminate the letter-agreement dated 01 July 2011 on 26
March 2014 pursuant to paragraph 20 thereof, which authorizes the RCI to terminate said
agreement upon material breach thereof. However, pursuant to the letter-agreement, it will be
implementing said termination on 26 April 2014, a month after MBI received our letter dated 26
March 2014, Maam.
Q34. What are the steps, if any, did the RCI take to inform MBI that it will be implementing the
termination of the letter-agreement dated 01 July 2011 upon its effectivity?
A:
The RCI, through a letter dated 25 April 2014, notified MBI, which received said letter on
the same day, that it will be disconnecting the power supply in the Pergola on 27 April 2014. It
also informed MBI in a letter dated 26 April 2014, which it also received on the same day, that the
latters employees will be only allowed access to the RCI beginning 28 April 2014 for the purpose
of bringing out their personal belongings, Maam.
Q35. I am showing you letters dated 25 April 2014 and 26 April 2014. What relation do these
documents have with the ones you mentioned, if any?
A:
They are the same, Maam.
Q36. Do you warrant that the photocopies of the letters dated 25 April 2014 and 26 April 2014
are faithful reproductions of the originals?
A:
Yes, Maam.
[Copies of the letters dated 25 April 2014 and 26 April 2014 are marked as Exhibits 10 and 11,
respectively.]
Q37. What is your proof, if any, that the RCIs letters dated 25 April 2014 and 26 April 2014
were served to MBI?
A:
In the letter dated 25 April 2014, Minnie R. Barretto, Chairman of MBI, acknowledged
receipt of the same by affixing his signature at the right upper corner thereof. While in the letter
dated 26 April 2014, Kristina Kurleto, President of MBI, acknowledged her receipt thereof by
affixing her signature therein, Maam.
[The signatures of Minnie R. Barretto and Kristina Kurleto in the letters dated 25 April 2014 and
26 April 2014, respectively, are consequentially marked as Exhibits 10-a and 11-a.]
Q38. What happened next, if any, after receipt by MBI of the letters dated 25 April 2014 and 26
April 2014?

A:
Minnie R. Barretto (Barretto), Chairman of MBI, talked to me in person and requested
that the disconnection of the power supply be held in abeyance so he could celebrate the baptism
of his first granddaughter with his family in the Pergola on 27 April 2014, Maam.
Q39. What was your response, if any, to said request of Barretto?
A:
I told him that I will discuss the same with the members of the Board of Trustees of the
RCI for the Board to decide on his request, Maam.
Q40. What was the decision, if any, of the Board of Trustees of the RCI relative to Barrettos
request?
A:
The Board granted his request, Maam.
Q41. Aside from your having personally met with Barretto, what is your proof, if any, that he
made a request to be allowed to celebrate the baptism of his first granddaughter with his family in
the Pergola on 27 April 2014?
A:
Barretto sent me a printed and signed letter dated 25 April 2014, with an additional
handwritten note, stating his request, Maam.
Q42. I am showing you a letter dated 25 April 2014. What relation does this document have
with the one you mentioned, if any?
A:
It is the same, Maam.
Q43. Do you warrant that the photocopy of the letter dated 25 April 2014 is a faithful
reproduction of the original?
A:
Yes, Maam.
[A copy of the letter dated 25 April 2014 is marked as Exhibit 12.]
Q44. After the baptismal celebration on 27 April 2014, what happened, if any, to the RCIs
demand to vacate the Pergola and the notice barring access of MBI employees and staff to the
Pergola and the premises of the RCI?
A:
Even after the baptismal event, some employees of MBI remained inside the Pergola,
Maam.
Q45. Who were those persons occupying the premises of the Pergola?
A:
Since 27 up to 29 April 2014, the employees and staff of MBI were able to sneak or force
themselves in and out of the Pergola with certain persons remaining inside. Until 16 May 2014,
the ones occupying the Pergola are BAYANI AGBAYANI, BIDA BUMIBIDA and DARNA
SASADARNA. They had locked themselves inside the Pergola. They refused to go out of the
Pergola even to their own peril. Also, the other MBI employees, officers, and representatives
exerted force, violence and intimidation on April 28, 29, and 30, 2014 in order to force their way
in to the RCI in spite of being informed in advance that they will not be allowed access on 28 April
2014, Maam.
Q46. You mentioned that until 16 May 2014, three employees of MBI locked themselves inside
the Pergola. What do you mean by that?
A:
On 16 May 2014, they were removed by the sheriff of the Metropolitan Trial Court of
Makati City, Branch XX pursuant to the Writ of Temporary Restraining Order it issued, Maam.
Q47. I am showing you a Writ of Temporary Restraining Order dated 16 May 2014 issued by
the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati City, Branch XX. What relation does this document have
with the one you mentioned, if any?
A:
It is the same, Maam.
Q48. Do you warrant that the photocopy of the Writ of Temporary Restraining Order dated 16
May 2014 is a faithful reproduction of the original?
A:
Yes, Maam.

[A copy of the Writ of Temporary Restraining Order dated 16 May 2014 is marked as Exhibit
12.]
Q49. When the three employees of MBI were removed from the Pergola last 16 May 2014,
what or who occupies it now, if any?
A:
Although the MBI employees were removed from the Pergola, MBI locked said Pergola
and still refused to remove its personal properties, especially the LPG tanks, inside it. With MBIs
obligations remaining unpaid, RCI is still unable to make use of the Pergola and is still being
exposed to serious hazards, Maam.
Q50. Would you like to make additions to the statements you just made?
A:
No, Maam.
ANA B. CASTRO
Affiant
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of June, 2014 at Quezon City,
affiant exhibited to me her Passport I.D. No. EAXXXXXXX issued by the Department of
Foreign Affairs with expiry date on XX December 2014 and bearing her signature and photograph
as competent evidence of her identity.
Doc No. ________;
Page No.
________;
Book No.
________;
Series of 2014.
ATTESTATION
I, DIANA E. FAJARDO, of legal age, Filipino, single, and with office address at AAA
Suites, Commonwealth, Quezon City, Philippines, hereby declare under oath that I am the
counsel who supervised the witness in the execution of this Judicial Affidavit; and that I have
faithfully caused the recording of the Answers of the witness on the above-mentioned questions
which were propounded and that neither I, nor any person present or assisting me has coached the
witness in her Answers.
DIANA E. FAJARDO
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 6th day of June, 2014 at Quezon City,
Philippines, affiant exhibiting to me her Drivers License No. N02-0X-0XXXX4 issued by the Land
Transportation Office with expiry date on XX July 2016 bearing her photograph and signature as
competent evidence of her identity.
Doc. No. _____;
Page No. _____;
Book No. _____;
Series of 2014.