Republic of the Philippines

Department of Labor and Employment

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION
Regional Arbitration Branch No. VII
Cebu City
RICHARD ESTOQUE,
Complainant,
-versus-

NLRC RAB VII CASE No. 123456

AG CORPORATION,
Respondent.

JUDICIAL AFFIDAVIT
OF
MARJORIE CLITAR
I, MARJORIE CLITAR, of legal age and with address at 114 Espina
Village, B. Rodriguez Street, Cebu City, after having been duly sworn in
accordance with the law and fully aware that I am under threat of criminal liability
for perjury or false testimony, hereby willingly and freely answer the questions
posed to me by Atty. Nichol Jon Burt A. Ruaya.
1.
Q:

Please state your name, address and other personal circumstances.

A:

I am Marjorie Clitar of legal age, Filipino, and with address at 114

Espina Village, B. Rodriguez Street, Cebu City

Q:

Where are you presently employed?

A:

I am a regular employee at AG Corporation.

2.

3.
Q:

What is the nature of your work?

A:

I am a cashier at the restaurant owned and run by AG Corporation.

Q:

Do you know the complainant Richard Estoque?

A:

Yes.

Q:

How do you know the complainant?

A:

He was part of the managerial staff, but his employment was on a

probationary basis. He was known to be the general manager of the
AG Corporation.

Q:

In terms of the companys organization and structure, what was your

relationship with the complainant?

A:

I responded to an assigned supervisor and, in turn, the supervisor

answered to Estoque.

Q:

What were complainants duties in the workplace?

A:

He was charged with enforcing company policy and making sure our
work was according to the standards set.

Q:

In the event of any issues or problems in daily business operations,

who was responsible for making a final determination as to a plan of
action?

A:

It was Mr. Estoque.

Q:

Do you know Mister Jayme Calo?

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

A:

Yes, he was the supervisor who was dismissed.

Q:

What was the relationship between Calo and complainant?

A:

Calo was one of the three supervisors who answered directly to

Estoque.

Q:

In what way did these supervisors answer to complainant?

A:

If any of them had to make important decisions regarding the work,

they had to run it by Estoque. It was Estoque who had the final say.

Q:

For what reasons was Calo dismissed from employment?

A:

He was caught lifting money from one of the companys safety

deposit boxes.

Q:

Did complainant have the authority to access the safety deposit box?

A:

Yes, he was one of the persons entrusted with a key to the box.

Q:

Was complainant required to regularly check the safety deposit box?

A:

Yes. He has the duty to do so

Q:

Did the three supervisors also have access to the safety deposit box?

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

A:

Yes. Sometimes Estoque wouldnt be around or was too busy so the

practice was that he would entrust the key to them for purposes of
depositing the money.

Q:

Did the three supervisors have the authority to take out sums of
money from the safety deposit box?

A:

Only when Estoque authorized them to do so.

16.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this ____ day of

May 2016 in Cebu City.
MARJORIE CLITAR