Disciplining Actions Against the Department teaching and Non – Teaching Personnel

Q. Who are the disciplining authorities in DepEd?

A. the disciplining authorities in the Department of Education shall be the secretary and
the Regional directors in their respective regions. The Division Superintendent of Schools shall
be the disciplining authorities for administrative action against non – teaching personnel in their
respective school divisions.

Q. Supposing the parent Teachers Associations (PTA) filed before the office of Dr. S the Division
superintendent of the Province of X a complaint for dishonesty against Mr. T, a public school
teacher of Y East Elementary School. Acting on said complaint Superintendent S issues an
order directing Mr. A the Administrative Officer of the Division Office to conduct a fact-finding
investigation on the said complaint. Is the order proper? Why or Why not?

A. No, because the disciplining authority in the Department of Education for administrative actions
against public school teacher is the Regional Director concerned and not the Division
Superintendent.

Q. supposing the complaint of dishonesty was filed against the public school principal, would the
answer in the above - mentioned problem be the same?

A. Yes, the answer would still be the same because the term teacher under Section 1 Rule 1 of the
Rules and Regulations For the Implementation of the Magna Carta for public School Teachers
includes a school principal.

Q. Supposing Dr. R the regional Director of Caraga issued an Order directing Superintendent S or
his/her representative to conduct a fact-finding investigation on the complaint of the PTA. On
the basis of the said order, Superintendent S in turn issues an order directing Mr. A the
administrative Officer to conduct a fact-finding investigation on the said complaint, is the
order of Superintendent S proper?

A. yes, because the order of Superintendent S is in compliance with valid order of Director R, who
is the disciplining authority over public school teachers.

Q. Can the Secretary of Education take action on the said complaint? Why or why not?

A. yes, because he has jurisdiction over complaint against all personnel of the Department of
Education. The secretary and the Regional Director have concurrent jurisdiction over
administrative complaint against all teaching personnel in the regions and against non-teaching
personnel in the Office of Regional Director.

Q. Can the Ombudsman act on administrative complaints against public school teachers? Why/

A. yes, because the authority of the office of the Ombudsman to conduct administrative
investigation is beyond cavil.
Q. Supposing on October 5, 2008. Mr. C filed before the Office of the ombudsman an
administrative complaint for grave misconduct against Mr. P the principal of X National High
School. Can the Office of the Ombudsman act on said administrative complaint?

A. yes, the office of the ombudsman has the authority to act on all administrative complaints

Q. Is a Grievance Committee allowed to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases?

A. No, because a grievance committee is not a disciplining authority and also grievance committee
prohibits from hearing and deciding administrative disciplinary cases.

Q. Supposing Ms. M filed a complaint for disgraceful and immoral conduct against Mr. T, a public
school teacher of X High School Mr. P., the principal of said school convened the School
Grievance Committee composed of Mr. P. Mr. F, the president of the faculty club of said school
and Mrs. S a teacher who is acceptable to both Ms. M and Mr. T After hearing Ms. M and Mr.
T, the school Grievance Committee renders a judgement finding Mr. T guilty of disgraceful and
immoral conduct. Is the judgement valid?

A. the judgement is not valid because the grievance committee is not disciplining authority and is
not allowed to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases.

Q. supposing the Secretary of education read in the newspaper that a grade VI pupil of a public
school was sexually molested by his teacher Mr. T without any complaint filed against Mr. T
the Secretary issued an order directing Atty. M to conduct a fact-finding investigation on the
alleged sexual molestation of the said pupil. After the investigation, Atty M recommended
that Mr. T be placed under preventive suspension of 90 calendar days. Finding said
recommendation to be in order, the secretary issues a formal charge against Mr. T and issues
an Order for a fact-finding investigation Valid? Is the formal Charge valid? Is the order of
PREVENTIVE Suspension Valid? Why or Why not?

A. The order for a fact finding investigation, the formal Charge and the Order of Preventive
Suspension are valid even without a private complaint because under section 3 of the Revised
Rules of Procedure administrative proceedings may be commenced motu proprio by the
Secretary of Education and by the other disciplining authority

Q. May a Regional Director commence an administrative proceedings motu proprio even without
a complaint against DepEd employees of his regional office and against teaching personnel in
his region?

A. Yes, administrative proceedings may be commenced motu proprio by the Regional Director
against DepEd employee of his Regional office and against teaching personnel in his region

Q. what shall be the form of the complaint?

A. A complaint shall be made under oath and shall be written in a clear, simple, and concise
language so as to inform the person complained of, about the nature and cause of accusation
against him to enable to intelligently prepare his defense or answer.
Q. supposing Mr. F the father of P a Grade VI pupil of a public elementary school in Pampanga ,
filed a complaint for grave misconduct against Mr. T, a teacher of P. Finding the complaint not
under oath and not written in clear , simple and concise language, Dr. RD, the Regional
Director of Region III issued an Order dismissing the complaint. Is the Order proper?

A. yes, the order is proper because under section 4 of the Revised Rules of Procedures, it is
required that the complaint shall be under oath and shall be written in clear, simple and concise
language so as to inform the person complained of about the nature and cause of accusation
against him to enable him to intelligently prepare his defense or answer.

Q. supposing Mr. P the principal of a public secondary school in Pampanga filed a complaint for
insubordination against Mr. T a teacher in said school. The complaint did not contain a
certification on non – forum shopping. Findng that said complaint did not contain said
certification, Dr. RD , the Regional Director of Region III issues an order dismissing the
complaint. Is the Order valid? Why or why not?

A. YES, BECAUSE Mr. P failed to comply with section 5 of th Revised Rules of Procedures which
requires among others that a complaint shall contain a certification in order to prevent the
multiple filing of petitions involving the same issues in other tribunals or agencies as a form of
forum shopping.

Q. When and where may a complaint be filed?

A. sworn and written administrative complaint may be filed at any time with the School
Superintendent concerned for cases against non-teaching personnel in their respective divisions
or with the Regional Director concerned for cases against teachers and against their personnel
at their respective regional offices or at the Legal Division of the Central Office for cases against
Presidential Appointees and employee at the central office.

Q. supposing Mr. A files a complaint against Mr. T, a public school teacher, for lending money at
usurious rate of interest. What should the Regional Director do with the complaint?

A. It is submitted that the Regional Director should dismiss outright the complaint for being
without merit since the law on usury has been already been repealed

Q. supposing Mr. P, the principal of a public secondary school, filed a complaint for
insubordination against Mr. T, a public school teacher of said school. Said complaint is not
under oath and the narration of facts in said complaint does not show the acts allegedly
committed by the person complained of. Furthermore the complaint does ot contain a
certification or statement on non-forum shopping. What shall the Regional Director do with
the complaint?

A. The Regional Director as the disciplining authority, shall dismiss the complaint since the same is
not in accordance with the required form/or it does not comply the required content of a
complaint
Q. What shall the Disciplining Authority do with an anonymous complaint?

A. no action shall be taken on an anonymous complaint unless the Disciplining Authority decides to
adopt the same and file it motu proprio.

Q. when shall the designated investigation commence the fact-finding investigation?

A. Within 5 days from receipt of the appointment of an officers of the Department of Education as
investigator the latter shall commence the fact-finding investigation or preliminary investigation

Q. How shall the designated investigator commence the fact-finding investigation or preliminary
investigation?

A. By issuing an order requiring the person complained of to submit within three days from receipt
of the said Order together with a copy of the complaint and the supporting documents thereof a
Counter – affidavit/Comment under oath and the affidavits of the witnesses of the person
complained of with supporting documents, if any.

Q. what shall be the effect if the person complained of shall fail to submit his Counter-Affidavit?

A. Failure of the person complained of to submit his Counter Affidavit shall be considered as a
waiver thereof

Q. What is the duration for the conduct of fact-finding investigation or preliminary investigation?

A. A fact-finding investigation or preliminary investigation shall commence not later than 5 days
from receipt by the investigators of the Order of the Disciplining authority appointing him/them
as investigators and shall be terminated within thirty (30) days thereafter

Q. what should the investigation Report contain?

A. It should contain the findings and recommendations of the investigators

Q. If a prima facie case is established during the investigation what shall the Disciplining
Authority issue?

A. If a prima facie case is established during the investigation the Disciplining Authority shall issue a
formal charge

Q. What does prima facie case mean?

A. A prima facie case shall mean that there is reasonable ground to believe that the respondent is
probably guilty of the charge against him nd should be investigated accordingly
Q. What is a Formal Charge?

A. The formal charge shall contain a specification of charge, a brief statement of material or
relevant facts accompanied by certified true copies of documentary evidence. If any, sworn
statement covering the testimony of witnesses, if any, a directive to answer under oath the
charge in writing in not less than seventy-two hours from receipt thereof, an advice for the
respondent to indicate in his answer whether or not he elects a formal investigation of the
charge and a notice that he is entitled to be assisted by a counsel of his choice

Q. Supposing the Division Superintendent of Tarlac issues a Formal Charge against a teacher of a
public secondary school in Tarlac for disgraceful and immoral conduct. Is the Formal Charge
valid?

A. No, because the Disciplining Authority over administrative complaint/cases against public school
teachers is the Regional Director concerned and not the Division Superintendent

Q. SUPPOSING THE Secretary of Education issues a formal charge against a public school teacher
for disgraceful and immoral conduct. Is the formal charge valid?

A. Yes, because the Secretary can take cognizance of any complaint or administrative case filed
before any office of the Department of Education

Q. shall the respondent be given the opportunity to submit additional evidence if he has already
submitted his comment under oath or counter-affidavit during the Fact-finding Investigation
or preliminary Investigation?

A. If the respondent has already submitted his comment under oath or Counter-Affidavit during
the Fact Finding Investigation or preliminary investigation, he shall be given the opportunity to
submit additional evidence.

Q. When may a preventive suspension be issued?

A. Upon motion of the complainant or motu proprio, the proper Disciplining Authority may issue
an order of Preventive Suspension upon issuance of the Formal Charge immediately thereafter
to any subordinate officer or employee under his authority pending an investigation. If the
charges involve:
a. dishonesty
b. oppression
c. Grave Misconduct
d. Neglect in the Performance of Duty or
e. If there are reasons to believe that the respondent is guilty of charges which would
warrant his removal from the service
Q. Supposing Superintendent S issued an order appointing N, the son of her brother, to work at
the Division office as Accountant Mr. A, the Administrative Officer of the Division Office, filed a
complaint against Superintendent S for Nepotism. After a Fact-finding investigation on said
complaint, the secretary of Education issued a formal charge and an order of Preventive
Suspension for 90 calendar days. Superintendent S filed a motion for reconsideration asking
the secretary to set aside the Order of Preventive Suspension since the charge does not involve
any of the charges mentioned in section 15 of the Revised Rules of Procedures. The secretary
issued an order denying the Motion for Reconsideration. Is the order proper?

A. YES, the order is proper for the following reasons:

1. The charge of nepotism may be considered as one of the charge falling under section 15
since the penalty for nepotism is dismissal from the service
2. Nepotism may be considered a grave misconduct
3. Even if the charge is not one of those mentioned in section 15 nonetheless, under Section
16 of the Revised Rules of Procedure, an order of Preventive Suspension may also ebe
issued by the Disciplining Authority to temporarily remove the respondent from the scene of
his misfeasance or malfeasance and to preclude the possibility of exerting undue influence
or pressure on the witnesses against him or tampering of documentary evidence on file with
his office

Q. Supposing a public school teacher is formally charged by the Regional Director for discourtesy
in the course of official duties. The Regional Director also issues an order of Preventive
suspension for 90 calendar days against the public school teacher. Does the Regional Director
commit a grave abuse of discretion in issuing said order of Preventive Suspension?

A. Yes, because the Order is without legal basis since the charge against respondent does not
involve any of those charges mentioned in section 15 of the Revised Rules of Procedure and
because there is no reason for the preventive suspension. Even assuming that respondent will
be found liable for discourtesy in the course of official duty, the penalty for such offense is only
reprimand.