1) An audit of a warehouse found 72 repossessed motorcycle units without pull-out receipts on file and missing/damaged parts not reflected on receipts. 2) Explanations given were that branches sometimes delivered units without complete documentation and customers could access units in the warehouse leading to possible theft or damage. 3) Recommendations included only accepting units with complete documentation, checking units against receipts, and restricting customer access to the warehouse.

1. Date issued
Branch 5R Silya -Mandaue Date received
Engagement Period May 17, 2010 to June 2010
Management
Systems
Department
FINAL AUDIT MEETING RECORD (FAMR)
Reference: AIR NO. ______
Audit Findings Criteria/Should be Explanation/Comment Audit Recommendation
Action/s Plan Time Frame
Noted 72 repossessed MC units Every repossessed unit must have BCO , Nelvin L. Bicoy: There are Must only receive units with
verified no pull-out receipts on a corresponding pull-out receipt. deposited units from branches complete files on folder.
file. without complete pull out
receipts in folder.
BM, Aldin Batiduan: There are
deliveries made by branches
where units have no pull out
receipts, the reason we have
also none in our file. If you ask
why we still receive those

2. units, usually their answers are
that pull out receipt to follow,
which are not complied.
Cause(s): No pull out receipts at the
time of delivery from branches. Date of memo to
be issue should be
indicate in the
time frame.
Prepared by:
STEPHEN HARDING V. CANTON/BERTHEL PAUL A. CALOTES Signature:_____________________ Date: ______________
Internal Auditors/MSD
Branch 5R Silya -Mandaue Engagement Period May 17, 2010 to June 2010
Date issued Date received

3. Management
Systems
Department
FINAL AUDIT MEETING RECORD (FAMR)
Reference: AIR NO. ______
Audit Findings Criteria/Should be Explanation/comment Audit Recommendation
Action/s Plan Time Frame
Noted missing/damaged parts Missing/damaged parts of BCO, Nelvin L. Bicoy: These 5R Warehouse should check
per actual inventory verified not repo units must reconciled missing unit parts of repo missing/damaged parts of units
unit, that have been stocked delivered from branches and
reflected against pull out against pull out receipts.
a long time ago were reflect to pull out receipts.
receipts.
exposed to customers.
Customers were free to
roam inside the warehouse
to choose units.
Damaged/missing parts of
these units were not
checked.
BM, Aldin Batiduan: While it

4. is our primary function to
safeguard units/accessories
in our custody, still
breakdown do exists.
However, factors/reasons
why do it exists can be
alluded to my experiences in
manning this warehouse.
 There are units
that have been
stocked quite a
long time, where
being exposed to
customers that
become to prone
to pilferages.
Customers in our
area are free to
roam inside the
warehouse to
choose the units
for themselves
and I cannot
discount that it is
really is
happening.
Nevertheless, a
measure to
counter these is
now
implemented to
put a stop on
this.
 There are
deliveries of
repo units
wherein
documents
/folders does
not accompany
the units.
Sometimes it is
late, and there
is no way of
Cause(s): checking which

5. parts are not in
Customers are free to roam inside the unit. On our
the warehouse to choose units. part, it is a slim Date of memo to
be issue should be
negotiation
indicate in the
Documents/folders do not come with deliverers
time frame.
with the units upon deposit still, to bring back
receive the unit. the unit, when
units are
already
unloaded.
 On top of it all,
it is our policy
to check all
incoming units
of the missing
and damaged
parts versus
documents at
hand.
Prepared by:
STEPHEN HARDING V. CANTON/BERTHEL PAUL A. CALOTES Signature:_____________________ Date: ______________
Internal Auditors/MSD

6. Management
Branch 5R Silya -Mandaue Engagement Period May 17, 2010 to June 2010
Date issued Date received
Systems
Department
FINAL AUDIT MEETING RECORD (FAMR)
Reference: AIR NO. _____
Audit Findings Criteria/Should be Explanation/comment Audit Recommendation
Action/s Plan

7. Noted repossessed MC units per Every repossessed MC units BCO, Nelvin L. Bicoy: These
SAP records unaccounted per SAP records must be repossessed units are already
reconciled against actual in our bodega/warehouse.
against actual inventory.
Upon reconciling/checking the
inventory count.
units some of them are already
sold.
BM, Aldin Batiduan: I also do
not understand why some
units are part of our branch
per SAP, when these units are
not received by us. However,
of 63 units presented 29 units
are accounted which either
sold and accounted as part of
our June 30,2010 inventory.
Cause(s):
Some units are already sold.
Date of memo to
Did not receive some units. be issue should be
contrary to SAP records. indicate in the
time frame.
Prepared by:
STEPHEN HARDING V. CANTON/BERTHEL PAUL A. CALOTES Signature:_____________________ Date: ______________
Internal Auditors/MSD

8. Management
Branch 5R Silya -Mandaue Engagement Period May 17, 2010 to June 2010
Date issued Date received
Systems
Department
FINAL AUDIT MEETING RECORD (FAMR)
Reference: AIR NO. _____
Audit Findings Criteria/Should be Explanation/comment Audit Recommendation
Action/s Plan
Noted repossessed MC units per Every repossessed MC units BCO, Nelvin L. Bicoy: These Coordinate to the originating
actual inventory count not accounted physically must be repossessed units are not yet branches with regards to
found in SAP records. reflected and recorded in SAP. recorded/transferred by the uploading of repo units to the
originating branch to Mandaue System.
Silya storage location in SAP
System as of the engagement.
AFS,Jeffrey Sepucado: In
addition with, the main
responsible for these units are
the originating branches to
transfer post these units to

9. storage location( SIlYA).
Unfortunately, it’s either the
BCO’s of originating branches
did not upload to the system
(SAP) and apparently transfer it
to SILYA with the units and its
documents literally.
Date of memo to
BM, Aldin M. Batiduan: Units be issue should be
not found in SAP might have indicate in the
occurred when units have time frame.
already been repossessed
when SAP not yet in place.
Then these units might have
been forgotten to encode or
the other way around units
were physically transferred to
Silya but were never encoded
in SAP by corresponding
branches.
Cause(s):
Not uploaded by the originating
branches.
System does not exists as of time of
repo.
Prepared by:
STEPHEN HARDING V. CANTON/BERTHEL PAUL A. CALOTES Signature:_____________________ Date: ______________
Internal Auditors/MSD

10. Management
Branch 5R Silya -Mandaue Engagement Period May 17, 2010 to June 2010
Date issued Date received
Systems

11. Department
FINAL AUDIT MEETING RECORD (FAMR)
Reference: AIR NO. _____
Audit Findings Criteria/Should be Explanation/comment Audit Recommendation
Action/s Plan
Noted OR on purchases not yet prepared with OR must be attached to BCO explained that she merely
PCV as; PCV. forgot to attached to PCV.
Date
Inv.#
Part.
BM clarified that the
Amount mentioned expenses are
Remarks drawn out from TNT fund
established for the purpose of
05.02.10 travel. That PCV’s are only
423331
Gas necessary when fund is drawn
100 out to vouch for its
No PCV existence/drawing. In as much
as OR’s are present, the
05.02.10
52392
importance of PCV is
Gas secondary. That their practice
100 is to prepare only PCV when
No PCV fund is totally drawn out and
needs to be replenished. That
05.04.10
52649 is, PCV is to support for
Gas replenishment as not only
100 Accounting requires it, but also Date of memo to be
No PCV issue should be indicate
for account segregation as
in the time frame.
05.06.10
each PCV has its nature of
817680 expense appropriate for its
Gas account title.
100
No PCV
05.08.10
51229
Gas
100
No PCV
05.09.10
083958
Gas
100
No PCV
05.12.10
297050

12. Gas
100
No PCV
05.16.10
148249
Gas
50
No PCV
-
2271
Food
785
Unfilled
Undated
Cause(s):
Overlooked by the BCO.
Prepared by:
STEPHEN HARDING V. CANTON/BERTHEL PAUL A. CALOTES Signature:_____________________ Date: ______________
Internal Auditors/MSD

13. Management
Branch 5R Silya -Mandaue Engagement Period May 17, 2010 to June 2010
Date issued Date received
Systems
Department
FINAL AUDIT MEETING RECORD (FAMR)
Reference: AIR NO. _____
Audit Findings Criteria/Should be Explanation/comment Audit Recommendation
Action/s Plan
Cash was not intact and was not segregated in  Cash should be BCO stated that she was not  Cash should be
each particular designation of fund. intact and not to able to segregate her cash in segregated by fund
be used for other her drawer because she was designation and
very busy before the audit
purposes. should be put in a
representatives arrived. That
container to avoid
she had so many customer’s
waiting to her for their loss.
monthly obligation. That she
used to segregate her funds
when not busy or during her
vacant time to avoid
complaints from customers.
BM Aldin Batiduan, as;
Accounting policy dictates that
established fund should be
used only for the purpose it
was created. Thus, it must be
segregated. The BCO
mentioned that she is Date of memo to be
issue should be indicate
segregating the fund when she
in the time frame.
has ample time to segregate. It
cannot be avoided in the heat
of the transactions
entertaining paying customers
that you have to touch other
funds for loose changes, thus
funds now are mingled. That’s
why she said, if she has time
she want to segregate the
funds. What is important is
that funds are over intact, and

14. that are centavos are
accounted for.
Cause(s): BCO is too busy attending to
customers.
Prepared by:
STEPHEN HARDING V. CANTON/BERTHEL PAUL A. CALOTES Signature:_____________________ Date: ______________
Internal Auditors/MSD

15. Management
Branch 5R Silya -Mandaue Engagement Period May 17, 2010 to June 2010
Date issued Date received
Systems
Department
FINAL AUDIT MEETING RECORD (FAMR)
Reference: AIR NO. _____
Audit Findings Criteria/Should be Explanation/comment Audit Recommendation
Action/s Plan

16. Noted repo unit by customer Darwin Labajo MC repo units must have a BM, Aldin Batiduan: Unit was
with engine # 5AV-544591 as per physical not supporting sound delivered to Silya on January
match against LTO CR with engine # 5AV-627158 25, 2008 per DR 40847. Unit
document.
on records. delivered is bearing
5AV-544591 carrying plate no.
6094 GU. However, upon
checking the folder/documents
of said unit CR carries engine #
5AV-627158 (with stencil
5AV-544591). Unit comes from
NDC-Talisay, the main reason
we cannot sell the unit.
Date of memo to be
issue should be indicate
in the time frame.
Cause(s):
Engine # in LTO CR was erroneously printed.
Prepared by:
STEPHEN HARDING V. CANTON/BERTHEL PAUL A. CALOTES Signature:_____________________ Date: ______________
Internal Auditors/MSD