Name: Roseinne Perales

Section code: B48

Group Activity 1

Additional Requirement: What would be the best possible course of action to be

taken by Maria Reyes in this case?

Requirement Answer:
If the cashiers generally shortchanged the customer at every opportunity in the fast-
food restaurant, the practical consequences will be a decreased number of customer
because of dishonest employees and, an increase in customer dissatisfaction that
will lead to the closure of the fast food restaurant. If this problem will continue to exist
and a certain customer will notice that the cashier is not giving his or her exact
change, the word might spread out and every customer in that fast-food restaurant
will count their change before leaving the counter and it will cause a slow service and
longer line. It will take longer for the customers to order because they have to wait to
the person in front that is still counting their change and as a result it will increase
customer dissatisfaction. In addition if the customer will file a complaint to the
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) about the subsequent shortchanging, the
fast-food industry will pay a penalty in relation to the Republic Act No.10909 An Act
Prohibiting Business Establishments from Giving Insufficient or No Change to
Consumers. It will cause damage to the name of the fast-food restaurant and the
license to operate the business might be revoked.

Additional requirement answer:

The best possible course of action that Maria Reyes should take to solve the
problem is to report to her immediate superior or the shift supervisor but if the shift
supervisor is involved, she must report it directly to the general manager so then the
manager will do the best possible action to solve the problem. The manager will
either reprimand or fire the dishonest employees.
Group Activity 2

Requirement 1 answer:
No, Pedro Santos did not act in an ethical manner. The moment he complied with
the president’s instructions to omit the recording of several invoices as accounts
payable, he violated several IMA- Standards of Ethical Conduct for Management
Accountants which are competence, integrity and objectivity. He violated
“competence” as he did not perform his professional duties in accordance with the
technical standards and laws, and he also provided unreliable information. The fact
that his superior ask him to do it and he just follow it is irrelevant and it just shows his
incompetency. He fail to observe “objectivity” as he did not disclose all the relevant
information which is the sales invoice, a bona fide liability in which it can influence
the understanding of the intended users. He disregard his “integrity” for he did not
refrain in engaging and supporting the organizations unlawful and unethical activity.

Requirement 2 answer:
If the new product fails to yield substantial profit and the company becomes
insolvent, Santos action is cannot be justified even for the fact that he was only
following orders from his superior. According to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) ruling, those who assist such practices "cannot escape
culpability by asserting that they acted as `good soldiers' and, thereby, rely upon the
fact that the violative conduct was condoned, or even ordered, by their corporate
superiors." In the matter of Mary Sattler Polverari CPA, Exchange Act Release
No.42936(June 14, 2000). Therefore, Santos should have insist on not doing it or
quit in his job instead of becoming an accomplice to the fraudulent activity of the
company’s financial statement and become liable to the bank or the other creditors if
it will file a case against the company.

Reference:
https://www.lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2016/ra_10909_2016.html

https://www.imanet.org/-/media/b6fbeeb74d964e6c9fe654c48456e61f.ashx?la=en
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-42936.htm