DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DIVISION OF TANGUB CITY:

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE

I. INTRODUCTION

The Human Resource (HR) Office, headed by the Human Resource Management Officer
(HRMO) under the Administrative Services of every Division Office, plays a major role in
providing secretariat services to various Human Resource Management and Development
(HRMD) committees concerning 1st and 2nd level employees. It also looks into personnel
benefits and responses to queries on HRMD matters. Moreover, the HR Office takes part in the
other relevant HR processes in the Division Office such as planning, forecasting, selection,
evaluation and promotion.

HR issues and challenges are very common among Division Offices. These challenges
which range from the job posting to screening could make or break our chances of finding our
ideal hires. In fact, bad hiring decisions due to a poor recruitment and selection process have
impacts that may extend to inefficiency and low performance among the schools and offices. In
worse scenarios, lapses in following the guidelines of the selection process may cause trouble
like losing jobs among employees brought by disapproval of their appointments.

II. BACKGROUND

DepEd, Division of Tangub City was first created as an Interim Division in June 2003.
On February 2008, through an order duly signed by the Secretary of Education Jesli A. Lapus,
the Interim Division of Tangub City became a full-fledged Division in Region 10. It is classified
as a small division. Ms. Jean G. Veloso, Officer-In-Charge to the Office of the Schools
Division Superintendent, assumed Office on January 3, 2018 until present. As of June 2019, the
division has 862 teaching personnel and 62 non-teaching personnel serving the 18,000 leaners.

When the HR Office has identified any available position, it shall submit a Request for
Publication of Vacant Positions to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) with the following
information: Position Title, Plantilla Item No., Salary Grade, Monthly Salary, Qualification
Standards, and the Place of Assignment. The HR Office follows the following Deped Orders:

 DepEd Order 66 s. 2007 - Revised Guidelines on the Appointment and

Promotion of Other Teaching, Related Teaching and Non-Teaching Positions,
 DepEd Order 7 s. 2015 - Hiring Guidelines for Teacher I Positions for the School
Year (SY) 2015-2016,
 DepEd Order 3 s. 2016 - Hiring Guidelines for Senior High School (SHS)
Teaching Positions Effective School Year (SY) 2016-2017,
 DepEd Order No. 42, s. 2007 – The Revised Guidelines on Selection, Promotion,
and Designation of School Heads, and
 MEC Order No. 10 s. 1979 & DECS Order No. 57, ws. 1997 – The Appropriate
Guidelines in the Ranking of Master Teacher.

The selection process is undertaken by the Personnel Selection Board (PSB) spearheaded
by the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent with the Education Program Supervisors or
Specialists, President of the DepEd Employees’ Union, Administrative Officer V, and the
Administrative Officer II (HRMO I) as members.

III. PROBLEM

An HR challenge greeted the new Officer In-Charge to the Office of the Schools Division
Superintendent upon her assumption of Office on January 3, 2018. One of her first three clients
who were male teachers asked her, “Ma’am, unsaon nako pag ingon akong asawa nga wala na
koy trabaho karon adlawa?” (Ma’am, how can I tell my wife that today, I no longer have a job?)
It was so heartbreaking for them that two of the three male teachers cried as they expressed their
worries and sentiments.

Instantly, the OIC-SDS replied, “Go back to your school and take care of our learners, I
will take care of you. You will not lose your job. That’s a promise.” But at the back of her
mind, she couldn’t figure out yet how she was going to fulfill the promise she made out of
surprise, heartbreak, and sympathy to the teachers.

The challenges were huge that when not acted upon appropriately and immediately could
result to more complicated problems like teachers losing their job and leaving behind learners
without teachers to take care of them.

For school year 2016-2017, the Division of Tangub City incurred 45 disapproved
appointments: 31 appointments of the teaching personnel and 14 appointments of the non-
teaching personnel. The CSC had seen grounds and inconsistency of the applicants’ documents
like the lack of parenthetical title, lack of performance rating, lack of relevant experience and
training, and the inappropriate eligibility, which led to disapproval of their appointments. Please
see Table 1.
 Table 1: List of Disapproved Appointments by the CSC Field Office of the Teaching Personnel

EFFECTIVE DATE DATE OF

NAME POSITION REASON FOR DISAPPROVAL
OF APPT. DISAPPROVAL
Employee 1 HT-1( JHS) May 20, 2016 June 30, 2017 Lack of Performance Rating
Employee 2 T-III (JHS) June 20, 2016 June 30, 2017 Anchored on the disapproval of Employee
Employee 3 T-I (JHS) Aug. 15, 2016 June 30, 2017 1
Oath of Office more than 30 days after the
Employee 4 T-III (JHS) June 20, 2016 June 30, 2017
date of appointment
Anchored on the disapproval of Employee
Employee 5 T-I (JHS) Sept. 26, 2016 June 30, 2017
4
Oath of Office earlier than the effectivity
Employee 6 T-II (Elementary) Sept. 23, 2016 June 30, 2017
date
Anchored on the disapproval of Employee
Employee 7 T-I (Elementary) Nov. 16, 2016 June 30, 2017
6
Did not meet relevant training (NC II)
Employee 8 T-I (SHS) June 13, 2016 June 30, 2017
Submitted late
Item not match in NOSCA (OSEC-
T-III Reclassified DECSB-TCH1-674800-1998- OSEC-
Employee 9 Jan. 11, 2017 Jul. 31, 2017
(JHS) DECSB-TCH3-660482-2016) T-1 item in
201 Item No. 1-10
Employee 10 T-I (SHS) June 13, 2016 June 30, 2017
Employee 11 T-I (SHS) June 9, 2017 Nov. 14, 2017
Employee 12 T-I (JHS) June 23, 2017 Nov. 14, 2017
Employee 13 T-I (SHS) July 7, 2017 Nov. 14, 2017 RQA not in line with his/her Bachelor’s
Employee 14 T-II (SHS) June 5 2017 Nov. 14, 2017 Degree and Field of Specialization.
Employee 15 T-II (SHS) June 5 2017 Nov. 14, 2017
Employee 16 T-I (JHS) June 9, 2017 Nov. 14, 2017
Employee 17 T-II (SHS) June 16, 2017 Nov. 14, 2017

NAME POSITION EFFECTIVE DATE DATE OF REASON FOR DISAPPROVAL

 OF APPT. DISAPPROVAL
Employee 18 T-II (SHS) July 17, 2017 Dec. 28, 2017
Employee 19 T-II (SHS) Sep. 20, 2017 Dec. 27, 2017
Employee 20 T-II (SHS) Sep. 20, 2017 Dec. 27, 2017 Lack of Performance Rating
Employee 21 T-II (SHS) Sep. 20, 2017 Dec. 27, 2017
Employee 22 T-II (SHS) June 5, 2017 Dec. 28, 2017
Employee 23 T-1(Elementary) Jan. 11, 2016 Jul. 31, 2017
Employee 24 T-III (JHS) May 24, 2017 July 31, 2017
No records show their T-I reclassified
Employee 25 T-III (JHS) May 24, 2017 July 31, 2017
Employee 26 T-I (SHS) June 6, 2016 April 25, 2017 Appointees were not furnished of the copy
of their appointments ; Oath of Office
Employee 27 T-I (SHS) June 6, 2016 April 25, 2017 were issued 7 days earlier
Employee 28 T-I (SHS) June 13, 2016 June 30, 2017
Failed to meet relevant trainings
Employee 29 T-I (SHS) June 13, 2016 June 30, 2017
Employee 30 T-I (SHS) June 5, 2017 January 4, 2018 Promoted in less than 3 rating period
Employee 31 T-I (SHS) Dec. 21, 2017 March 4, 2018 Failed to meet the appropriate eligibility

Of the 31 disapproved appointments of the Teaching Personnel, there were three (3) items from Elementary,
specifically two Teacher 1 and one Teacher II. There were 18 items from the Senior High School which include ten Teacher I
and eight Teacher II. There were also ten Junior High School items which include seven Teacher I, two Teacher III and one
Head Teacher I. The problem became more complicated when the eight SHS Teachers whose appointments to Teacher II
were disapproved had no more item to land on. The Teacher items they left were already given to Teacher I applicants whose
appointments had been approved earlier than the release of the disapproved appointments of the former.
 On screening the applicants, the Personnel Selection Board would ask for their
performance rating. The performance rating of the applicants for the last three (3) rating
periods prior to screening should be at least Very Satisfactory. Eight appointments were
disapproved due to lack of performance rating.

The DepEd Orders mentioned stipulated the minimum educational requirements

for each position. Unfortunately, eight appointments which were already in the Registry of
Qualified Applicants (RQA) were found out that their Bachelor’s Degree is not aligned
with their field of specialization.

Moreover, in order for the applicant to get 10 points for the training he/she must
have participated in one relevant training conducted for at least ten days. Out of 31
disapproved appointments, the CSC was able to identify 2 appointments that failed to meet
the required relevant training.

Items for Employee 9, Employee 24, and Employee 25 were reclassified from
Teacher I to Teacher III. On thorough checking, these employees were never issued an
appointment as Teacher I. The CSC Field Office found it strange for HR Office to award
the reclassed items to these employees where in fact said original appointments were not
possessed by these employees in the first place.

Appointments of Employee 26 and Employee 27 were disapproved, for their

respective Oath of Office were issued seven days earlier than the issuance of their
appointments. They also assumed their duties without receiving the copies of their
appointments which were issued by the appointing authority.

Under DepEd Order No. 66, s. 2007 (Revised Guidelines on the Appointment and
Promotion of Other Teaching, Related Teaching and Non-Teaching Positions), employee
must be promoted after at least 3 rating period. With this, appointment of Employee 30
was disapproved.

Four appointments were just anchored on the disapproval of the other items.
 Table 2: List of Disapproved Appointments by the CSC Field Office of the Non-Teaching Personnel

EFFECTIVE DATE DATE OF

NAME POSITION REASON FOR DISAPPROVAL
OF APPT. DISAPPROVAL
Employee 32 ADA VI (CID) Jan. 3, 2017 June 30, 2017
Employee 33 AA II (SHS) Aug. 16, 2017 June 30, 2017
Employee 34 AA II (SHS) Aug. 16, 2017 June 30, 2017
Employee 35 AA II (SHS) Aug. 16, 2017 June 30, 2017 Lack of Parenthetical Tittle
Employee 36 AA II (SHS) Aug. 16, 2017 June 30, 2017
Employee 37 AA II (SHS) Aug. 16, 2017 June 30, 2017
Employee 38 AA II (SHS) Aug. 16, 2017 June 30, 2017
Employee 39 ADAS -II July 31, 2017 Oct. 30, 2017
Employee 40 ADAS-II Oct. 4, 2017 Jan. 12, 2018
Employee 41 ADAS-II Oct. 4, 2017 Feb. 13, 2018
Employee 42 ADAS-II Oct. 4, 2017 Jan. 12, 2018 Failed to meet relevant experience
Employee 43 ADAS-II Oct. 4, 2017 Jan. 12, 2018
Employee 44 ADAS-II Oct. 4, 2017 Jan. 12, 2018
Employee 45 ADAS-II Oct. 4, 2017 Jan. 12, 2018

Provided in the Memorandum Circular No. 10 s. 2005 (Administrative Positions in the Administrative Services Group
under the General Administrative Service of the Position Classification Plan), applicants for the position of Administrative
Assistant II must have 1 year of relevant experience and 4 hours of relevant training as a minimum qualification standard.
Eight employees were disapproved by the CSC Field Office due to failure to meet the relevant experience and the number of
hours of relevant trainings required for the position.
 The in-charge at the HR Office failed to indicate the parenthetical title of the
position and merely used the generic Administrative Assistant II in appointing the said
employees. Looking into the qualification standards for Administrative Assistant II, the
employees met the education, training, and eligibility required for the position. However,
there was an issue regarding their experience. Since there was no parenthetical title
indicated in the appointment, the duties indicated in the Position Description Form should
be considered in determining the actual position of the appointees. In order for their
relevant experience to be considered, the experiences of the employees must be
functionally related thereto.

The HR Office promptly filled up all the available items. As a result, all the schools were
provided with enough teachers to take care of the learners in every class. The issues came out
when the HRMO was not able to check all the appointments and supporting documents before
submitting them to the CSC Field Office. Moreover, the PSB must not have screened the
applicants strictly that a number of them did not meet the minimum qualification standard. That
time, there was no Assistant Superintendent yet to lead the PSB. Instead, one of the chiefs acted
as the chairman of the PSB. What made the problem more complicated was that, after these
issues came out in 2017, the HRMO holding Administrative Officer IV position was reassigned
to another Office for reasons not limited to mitigating/controlling more problems to happen. An
Administrative Officer I was doing the job of the HRMO. She was efficient, though she needed
guidance, assistance and close supervision due to the complexity of the problem at the HR
Office.

IV. SOLUTION

The Human Resource is the most important among all the needed resources to operate an
Office. With this premise, the OIC-SDS made this HR challenge a top priority with urgency,
gravity, and high importance. The following were the steps done for speedy solution of the
issues:

1. Getting the complete information about the problem

The problem was dissected as to:
  How many disapproved appointments on appeal which disapproval was
confirmed by the CSC Regional Office;
 How many remaining disapproved appointments on appeal at the CSC Regional
Office;
 How many disapproved appointments returned by the CSC Field Office; and
 How many appointments waiting for the action of the CSC Field Office.

2. Updating of PSIPOP and Inventory of Available Items

After getting the picture of the problem, the OIC-SDS together with the HRMO
conducted inventory of items and undertook some damage control/mitigation
strategies. The available items were essential in ensuring that holders of disapproved
appointments can be re-employed immediately without gap of service.

3. Building partnership with the CSC Field Office

With the needed data at hand, the OIC-SDS and HR Team visited the CSC Field
Office to seek for help and guidance on how to solve the issues. As partnership was
established, the CSC Field Office Director committed to help by giving us a chance to
rectify the deficiencies of the appointments submitted to the field office to avoid more
disproved appointments. However, the CSC Field Office expressed its regret because
they can never do anything about those disapproved appointments appealed to the
Regional Office.

4. Building partnership with the CSC Regional Office

The following day, the OIC- SDS travelled to Cagayan de Oro City to seek assistance
from the CSC Regional Office regarding the 32 disapproved appointments appealed
to the Regional Office in the past months and years. The CSC Regional Office has
provided due assistance and agreed on our proposals to ensure that no employee shall
lost his/her job as a result of the affirmation of the disapproval of his/her
appointments and no class shall lost a teacher to take care of our precious learners.
Please see Table 3.
5. Creating a task force to troubleshoot the problem.
A task force was created to troubleshoot the problems. The HRMO assigned to the
other Office was recalled to join the team. This was considered a way for her to
redeem herself by being part of the solution to the problem instead of dwelling on
what people thought of her - the cause of the problem.

6. Reconstituting the PSB.

The Personnel Selection Board was reconstituted under the leadership of the new
Assistant Schools Division Superintendent. Their primary goal is to ensure accurate
and efficient selection process.

7. Capacitating the HRMO, HR Personnel, and the PSB.

As partnership had been established, the CSC Field Office director gladly accepted
our invite to discuss about the Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human
Resources Action (ORA-OHRA).

8. Improving HR Operations through PRIME HRM

To continuously improve HR Operations, the Office submitted itself for evaluation on
Program to Institutionalize Meritocracy and Excellence in Human Resource
Management (PRIME-HRM). Fortunately, after the rigid evaluation, DepEd Tangub
was recommended for Level 2 PRIME-HR, Level of Practices.
 Table 3: List of Appointments Appealed to the CSC Region X of the Teaching and Non-Teaching Personnel

NAME POSITION ACTION TAKEN BY DO CSC REGION X ACTION

Employee 1 HT-1( JHS) Disapproved
Employee 2 T-III (JHS) Disapproved
Employee 3 T-I (JHS) Disapproved
Employee 4 T-III (JHS) Submitted to CSC Regional Office for Appeal on July Approved
Employee 5 T-I (JHS) 20, 2017. Approved
Employee 6 T-II (Elem.) Approved
Employee 7 T-I (Elem) Approved
Employee 8 T-I (SHS) Approved
T-III Reclassified Submitted to CSC Regional Office for Appeal on
Employee 9 Approved
(JHS) August 25, 2017.
Submitted to CSC Regional Office for Appeal on July
Employee 10 T-I (SHS) Approved
20, 2017.
Employee 11 T-I (SHS)
Employee 12 T-I (JHS)
Employee 13 T-I (SHS)
Submitted to CSC Regional Office for Appeal on
Employee 14 T-II (SHS) Approved
November 29, 2017.
Employee 15 T-II (SHS)
Employee 16 T-I (JHS)
Employee 17 T-II (SHS)
Employee 18 T-II (SHS) Disapproved
Employee 19 T-II (SHS) Submitted to CSC Regional Office for Appeal on Disapproved
Employee 20 T-II (SHS) January 11, 2018. Original Item for T1 was filled-in Disapproved
Employee 21 T-II (SHS) already in 2017 Disapproved
Employee 22 T-II (SHS) Disapproved
Submitted to CSC Regional Office for Appeal on
Employee 23 T-1(Elem) January 25, 2018 Original Item for ADA VI filled-in Disapproved
already in 2017
 NAME POSITION ACTION TAKEN BY DO CSC REGION X ACTION
Employee 24 T-III (JHS) Approved
Submitted to CSC Regional Office for Appeal
Employee 25 T-III (JHS) Approved
Employee 32 ADA VI (CID) Disapproved
Employee 33 AA II (SHS) Disapproved
Employee 34 AA II (SHS) Disapproved
Submitted to CSC Regional Office for Appeal on July
Employee 35 AA II (SHS) Disapproved
20, 2017.
Employee 36 AA II (SHS) Disapproved
Employee 37 AA II (SHS) Disapproved
Employee 38 AA II (SHS) Disapproved

Table 4: List of Disapproved Appointments which were Re-employed

NAME POSITION ACTION TAKEN BY DO CSC REGION X ACTION
Employee 26 T-I (SHS) Reemployment 2/22/2018 Approved
Employee 27 T-I (SHS) Reemployment 6/5/2018 Approved
Employee 28 T-I (SHS) Reemployment 7/7/2017 Approved
Employee 29 T-I (SHS) Reemployment 7/7/2017 Approved
Employee 30 T-I (SHS) Reemployment 1/11/2018 Approved
Employee 31 T-I (SHS) Reemployment 7/9/2018 Disapproved
Employee 39 ADAS –II Reemployment as Teacher I - 12/20/2018 Approved
Employee 40 ADAS-II Reemployment 4/5/2018 Approved
Employee 41 ADAS-II Reemployment as ADAS IV - 11/19/2018 Approved
Employee 42 ADAS-II Reemployment 4/5/2018 Approved
Employee 43 ADAS-II Reemployment 4/5/2018 Approved
Employee 44 ADAS-II Reemployment 4/5/2018 Approved
Employee 45 ADAS-II Reemployment 4/5/2018 Approved
V. RESULTS

One after the other, the decisions of the disapproved appointments were released, in time that whenever the disapproval was
affirmed, there was an available item for every employee to land on as he/she was reemployed. After eight months of carefully
employing strategies in solving the issues along with close coordination with the CSC Field and Regional Offices, all the disapproved
appointments including those on appeal were settled. As desired, no employee lost his/her job and no class was left behind without a
teacher to take care of. Please see Table 5.

As to the HRMO/ Administrative Officer IV in-charge of the Personnel Section from 2015 to 2017, she submitted a
letter of intent to be transferred to the school as Head Teacher. Based on her records, her expertise was at leading teachers as she was
the dean in a local college within the city. After the conduct of the selection process, she was appointed as Head Teacher II with
parallel salary grade to Administrative Officer IV. The Administrative Officer I took the vacated position as Administrative Officer
IV and is currently leading the HR Office with competence and efficiency.

Table 5: Action Taken to Disapproved Appointments which Disapproval was affirmed by the Regional Office

NAME POSITION ACTION TAKEN BY DO CSC FIELD OFFICE ACTION

Employee 1 HT-1 (JHS) Return to T-III old item Approved
Employee 2 T-III (JHS) Return to T-I old item Approved
Employee 3 T-I (JHS) Reemployment 6/7/2018 Approved
Employee 18 T-II (SHS) Reemployment 4/19/2018 Approved
Employee 19 T-II (SHS) Reemployment 7/13/2018 Approved
Employee 20 T-II (SHS) Reemployment 7/13/2018 Approved
Employee 21 T-II (SHS) Reemployment 7/13/2018 Approved
Employee 22 T-II (SHS) Reemployment 6/1/2018 Approved
Employee 23 T-1(Elem) Reemployment 11/19/2018 Approved
 NAME POSITION ACTION TAKEN BY DO CSC FIELD OFFICE ACTION
Employee 31 T-I (SHS) Reemployment 7/9/2018 Approved
Employee 32 ADA VI (CID) Reemployment 7/27/2018 Approved
Employee 33 AA II (SHS) Reemployment 10/29/2018 Approved
Employee 34 AA II (SHS) Reemployment 9/28/2018 Approved
Employee 35 AA II (SHS) Reemployment 7/9/2018 Approved
Employee 36 AA II (SHS) Reemployment 7/9/2018 Approved
Employee 37 AA II (SHS) Reemployment 7/9/2018 Approved
Employee 38 AA II (SHS) Reemployment 8/17/17 Approved

VI. CONCLUSION

The HR Office headed by the HRMO is a very important unit in the Office whose efficiency and effectiveness is essential in
the promotion of the department’s mission. On the other hand, its carelessness and incompetence can cause numerous problems
affecting the operations and performance of the school and the division as a whole.

The appointments stated above were disapproved due to lack of parenthetical title, lack of performance rating, lack of relevant
experience and training, inappropriate eligibility, and some technical errors. These could have been prevented when the responsible
persons at the HR Office were careful and mindful of their actions. On a positive note, DepEd Tangub City considered the problem as
a learning experience and an avenue to improve the services of the HR Office and the Division Office as a whole.

With the guidance of the Almighty Father, DepEd Tangub City handled well the challenging situation which resulted to
overcoming the problems with flying colors. In a matter of eight months, all of the issues regarding disapproved appointments were
settled constructively. It is amazing that the bold promise made (without thorough thinking) by the OIC-SDS was fulfilled. None of
the employees lost his/her means of livelihood and no class was left without a teacher.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

The writers of this case study recommend the following:

 The PSB and the HRMO including all the employees in the HR Office must be well-
capacitated about the guidelines and procedures of the screening, selection, and
hiring processes;
 DepEd and CSC must establish partnership in ensuring efficient and effective
selection and hiring activities and in promoting employees’ welfare;
 The PSB must see to it that the selection lineup/ rank list submitted to the appointing
officer is a result of a careful selection process following the guidelines; and
 Before submitting the appointments for approval to the CSC Field Office, the PSB
must double check the documents as to correctness of the entries and completeness of
the supporting papers.

MARY CAMILLE M. CASEROS

Administrative Assistant III / Writer

DELMA R. DENAPO
Administrative Officer IV / Writer

Attested by:

JEAN G. VELOSO
OIC – Schools Division Superintendent
VIII. REFERENCES

(n.d.). Retrieved from DepED RO X: https://sites.google.com/deped.gov.ph/deped10

(2018). Retrieved from DepEd, Division of Tangub City: http://www.depedtangub.net/

Hiring Guidelines for Senior High School (SHS) Teaching Positions Effective School Year (SY) 2016-2017.
(n.d.). Retrieved from Department of Education: http://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2016/01/DO_s2016_03.pdf

Hiring Guidelines for Teacher I Positions Effective School Year (SY) 2015-2016. (n.d.). Retrieved from
Department of Education Marikina City:
https://depedmarikina.ph/docs/app_elig/DO_s2015_07.pdf

Hiring Guidelines for Teacher I Positions Effective School Year 2015-2016. (n.d.). Retrieved from
https://depedmarikina.ph/docs/app_elig/DO_s2015_07.pdf

Kinsey, A. (2019, March 28). The Importance of the Recruitment & Selection Process. Retrieved from
bizfluent: https://bizfluent.com/info-7957387-importance-recruitment-selection-process.html

Leonard, K. (2019, January 28). Importance of Effective Recruitment & Selection. Retrieved from Chron:
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/importance-effective-recruitment-selection-55782.html

Llego, M. A. (n.d.). Revised Guidelines on the Appointment and Promotion of other Teaching , Related
Teaching, and Non-Teaching Positions. Retrieved from TeacherPH:
https://www.teacherph.com/appointment-non-teaching-positions/

Pestano, T. (2017, December 6). 8 HR Issues to address and resolve before the year ends. Retrieved from
Manila Recruitment: https://manilarecruitment.com/manila-recruitment-articles-advice/hr-
issues-address-resolve/

Processes in Human Resource Management. (2019). Retrieved from Management Study Guide:
https://www.managementstudyguide.com/processes-in-human-resource-management.htm