July 11, 2016

xxxxx
Attention: xxxxxx
General Manager

Gentlemen:

This has reference to your letters all date June 30, 2016 informing us about
the inaccuracy of our investigation report based on the individual report made of
other persons and the termination of our security service effective July 1, 2016
allegedly due to unsatisfactory service.

In connection with the alleged inaccuracy of our report, please be informed

that the same was merely culled from the individual incident report of our
assigned guards who were performing their duties at the time of the alleged
incident of pilferage. Being at the place and time of the incident, we submit that
their reports have more probative value than the reports made by company
personnel who were not at the place of the incident at the time the alleged
pilferage of personal properties was committed.

In our letter dated June 22, 2016 we have pointed to cxxxxx, former utility
of the company, as the prime suspect of the pilferage and kindly requested that
he is investigated by the Police Authorities to determine his guilt. To our mind,
the result of the Police investigation will shed light to what really happened
during the incident and the items lost during the pilferage. It is only by that course
of action that our report can be labeled as inaccurate as you mistakenly found.
Much to our surprised however, your administrative officer, xxxxxxxx appeared no
sold to the idea instead informed our personnel conducting the investigation to
wait for xxxxxxxxx demeanor allowed the guilty parties to tamper with the
evidence and go scot free to the prejudice of our assigned guards.

It bears stressing at this point that our security services with your company
is not covered by any written agreement but only by the proposal dated February
17, 2015 which we tendered for your consideration. Paragraph 6 of the proposal
reads:

6. In the event of loss, the matter will have to be officially

investigate by proper authorities who have police jurisdiction over the
client’s place of business where the loss has occurred. This is to
determine whether or not the loss has been through the fault or
negligence of our guards. If in the affirmative, SPSPAI shall not

1
 hesitate to replace the articles reported missing in value or its
equivalent, provided, however that the loss occurred through outside
intrusion or forcible entry. Loss of personal belongings and the king is
not included to the responsibilities of the security guards.

The above provision is clear that losses occurring at the time our guards are
in duty shall be officially investigated by the Police authorities having jurisdiction
over your place and loss of personal belongings are not the responsibility our
guards. You may have inadvertently missed the said provision due to pre-
occupation with other works but you will agree with us that it certainly provides
for the course of action to be taken before our company can be held liable and
our guard cannot be made accountable for the personal items lost during the
incident.

It is unfortunate that you decided to terminate of security services without

waiting for the Police investigation to finally determine our security guards guilt
on the incident. We however believed that such course of action is management
prerogative that we cannot intervene. It is our only wish that our previous cordial
business relation will not be affected by the unfounded accusation against our
security guards and your outstanding bills covering the security guards wages will
not be reduced by the corresponding value of the alleged loss of personal
belongings. Rest assured that we will extend our full cooperation should you
decide to allow the police authorities to investigate the incident.

We wish you all the luck in your business endeavor and we will not falter
in our regard with your esteemed company.

Very Truly Yours,

xxxxxxxxxxx
Operations Manager