# Formal Investigation and Decision in DepEd Cases

A DepEd teacher's formal investigation is heard by the RA 4670 committee; report in 15 days, decision in 30, then 15 days to seek reconsideration or appeal.

This is the Markdown copy of [Formal Investigation and Decision in DepEd Cases](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-formal-investigation-decision), an article on the NASH Reviewer Blog by Mark Anthony Llego, published Oct 31, 2026, updated Nov 4, 2026. Topics: School leadership, Aspiring school heads. NASH Reviewer is an independent practice platform not affiliated with DepEd, BHROD, or NEAP.

A formal investigation in a DepEd administrative case is the hearing stage. For a teacher, and so for a school head, it is heard by the three-member committee that [RA 4670](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1966/ra_4670_1966.html), the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, requires (Sec. 9) and [DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2006/12/12/do-49-s-2006-revised-rules-of-procedure-of-the-department-of-education-in-administrative-cases-amended-by/) restates (Sec. 21(a)): the Schools Division Superintendent or a representative as chair, a representative of a teachers' organization, and a division supervisor. The committee reports within 15 days after the investigation ends, and the disciplining authority decides within 30 days of receiving the report. The party adversely affected then has 15 days from receipt to move for reconsideration, and a respondent penalized with more than 30 days' suspension or fine, or a heavier penalty such as demotion or dismissal, has 15 days to appeal (DO 49, Secs. 41, 42, 47 and 51; [2025 RACCS](https://csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/paio/2025_ORAOHRA_AND_RACCS/2025_RACCS_19_September.pdf), Secs. 56, 57, 84 and 91; [Administrative Code of 1987](https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_292_1987.html), Book V, Secs. 47(1) and 49(1)).

Each rule is stated as of October 31, 2026. The 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (2025 RACCS) are CSC Resolution No. 2500357, in force since August 4, 2025. DepEd's 2026 orders cite both texts; [DO 007, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/03/25/march-25-2026-do-007-s-2026-media-management-guidelines/), for one, says DO 49 "and the 2025 RACCS also apply" to cases involving the use of social media (Sec. VI.2).

Appeal routes beyond DepEd, execution pending appeal and back pay are covered in [Preventive Suspension, Appeals and Back Pay for Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-preventive-suspension-appeal-back-pay).

## Key findings

- **The committee is set by statute.** RA 4670, Sec. 9 fixes who hears a teacher's case; DO 49, Sec. 21(a) restates it but omits the proviso for when the superintendent is the complainant or an interested party.
- **Composition decides cases.** Committees without a teachers' organization representative had "no competent jurisdiction" (*Fabella v. Court of Appeals*, 1997); a teacher who objected only in the Court of Appeals was estopped (*Huertas v. Gonzalez*, 2005).
- **The statute sets the schedule and cross-examination.** Under the Administrative Code the hearing opens 5 to 10 days from receipt of the answer, ends within 30 days from the filing of the charges, and includes cross-examination, as in the 2025 RACCS; DO 49 departs from it (Book V, Sec. 48(4)–(5); DO 49, Secs. 22 and 33).
- **No publicity is statutory.** RA 4670, Sec. 8 and DO 49, Sec. 40 bar publicity while a teacher's case is pending; a pending case does not by itself bar promotion (DO 49, Sec. 39; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 55).
- **After the decision, 15 days** for one motion for reconsideration, which stays execution and "shall be decided within fifteen days", or an appeal; the fee for an appeal to the Secretary is PHP 300 plus PHP 10 (Book V, Sec. 49(1); DO 49, Secs. 47–53; DO 14, s. 2015). Whether an appeal to the Secretary stops execution is unsettled (2025 RACCS, Sec. 91(a)).
- **Exonerations and clemency.** An exoneration cannot be appealed to the CSC except in sexual harassment cases (2025 RACCS, Sec. 98); clemency comes "upon recommendation of the Commission" (Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 53), not of the Secretary (DO 49, Sec. 57).

## When is a formal investigation held in a DepEd case?

The answer to a formal charge must say "whether or not he elects a formal investigation" (DO 49, Sec. 13). An investigation is held if the respondent elects one, and even if not, when "the merits of the case cannot be decided judiciously without conducting such investigation" (DO 49, Sec. 20, restating the Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 48(3)). The 2025 RACCS agrees: it is held in that situation "or when the respondent elects to have one" (Sec. 40). What follows when no answer is filed is in [DepEd Preliminary Investigation, Formal Charge and Answer](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-preliminary-investigation-formal-charge).

The parties may skip the trial-type hearing. DO 49 lets them agree at the pre-hearing conference to submit the case "based on position papers/memoranda of the parties without any need for further hearings" (Sec. 23(a)). The RACCS lets the hearing officer require position papers, due within 10 days from receipt of the order or from the parties' agreement, when "no new evidence will be presented by either party" or "Upon the mutual consent of the parties" (Sec. 41). Agreeing gives up the hearing: in [*Huertas v. Gonzalez*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=48602&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 152443, February 14, 2005 (Second Division), a teacher who agreed to submit his case on affidavits "waived his right to a formal investigation"; see [Oppression Cases: How Principals Must Treat Teachers](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-oppression-teachers-cases).

## Who sits on the formal investigation committee for teachers and school heads?

RA 4670 counts as a "teacher" "all other persons performing supervisory and/or administrative functions" in public schools (Sec. 2), so a principal or head teacher gets the teachers' committee. Sec. 9 provides that "Administrative charges against a teacher shall be heard initially by a committee" of:

| Seat | RA 4670, Sec. 9 | DO 49, Sec. 21(a) |
|---|---|---|
| Chair | The Schools Division Superintendent or "a duly authorized representative who should at least have the rank of a division supervisor" | Same |
| Member | "a representative of the local or, in its absence, any existing provincial or national teacher's organization" | Same; designated by the disciplining authority |
| Member | "a supervisor of the Division" | Same; designated by the disciplining authority |
| If the superintendent is the complainant or an interested party | "all the members of the committee shall be appointed by the Secretary of Education" | Not stated |

DO 49 also requires the order creating the committee "Within five (5) days from receipt of respondent's Answer" (Sec. 21). The omitted proviso still binds, because it is in the statute.

The 2025 RACCS speaks instead of a "hearing officer" designated by the disciplining authority (Sec. 4(s)). It applies "unless otherwise provided by law" (Sec. 2), so the statute's committee stands.

**Why the make-up matters.** In [*Fabella v. Court of Appeals*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=38523&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 110379, November 28, 1997 (Third Division), committees without a teachers' organization representative "were deemed to have no competent jurisdiction"; the organization "possesses the right to indicate its choice of representative". In *Huertas*, the committee was not composed as Sec. 9 requires, but the teacher raised it "for the first time only in his petition" in the Court of Appeals and was "estopped from assailing the competence of the committee". Both are digested in [Can the Ombudsman Discipline a Principal? RA 4670 Cases](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ombudsman-deped-jurisdiction-principals). DO 49's designation and *Fabella*'s choice are both met when the Regional Director designates the person the organization names.

DepEd applies the same composition to a teacher facing a sexual harassment complaint ([DO 40, s. 2012](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2012/05/14/do-40-s-2012-deped-child-protection-policy/), Sec. 16(E.2)); that paragraph's pointer to CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 is outdated, the CSC's current rules being the 2025 RACCS, Secs. 16–20. See [Sexual Harassment and Child Abuse Complaints in DepEd](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-sexual-harassment-child-abuse-complaints).

## How long does a DepEd formal investigation take?

The Administrative Code sets the schedule for cases against non-presidential appointees, teachers among them; RA 4670 sets none for the hearing itself:

> "The investigation shall be held not earlier than five days nor later than ten days from the date of receipt of respondent's answer by the disciplining authority, and shall be finished within thirty days from the filing of the charges, unless the period is extended by the Commission in meritorious cases." (Book V, Sec. 48(4))

| | Hearing opens | Investigation ends |
|---|---|---|
| DO 49, Sec. 22 | "not earlier than five (5) days nor later than ten (10) days from receipt of the Order of the disciplining authority constituting the Formal Investigating Committee" | "within thirty (30) days from receipt of said Order by the Formal Investigating Committee unless the period is extended by the disciplining authority in meritorious cases" |
| 2025 RACCS, Sec. 40 | "not earlier than five (5) days nor later than ten (10) days from receipt of the respondent's answer or upon the expiration of the period to answer" | "within thirty (30) days from the issuance of the Formal Charge or Notice of Charge unless the period is extended by the disciplining authority or its authorized representative, or heads of agencies, or the Commission in meritorious cases" |

**The statute governs.** The RACCS follows it; DO 49's count from the order creating the committee departs from it, and an agency's rules cannot depart from a statute. One point still differs in the texts' own words: the Code names only the Commission as the body that may extend the period; DO 49 names only the disciplining authority, and the RACCS names the disciplining authority or its authorized representative, heads of agencies, or the Commission. An extension granted by the disciplining authority alone rests on DO 49 and the RACCS, not on the statute.

## What happens at the pre-hearing conference?

The investigation opens with a pre-hearing conference (DO 49, Sec. 23; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 42). Under both texts the parties may agree on stipulations of fact, simpler issues, fewer witnesses and the hearing dates. The RACCS adds pre-hearing briefs with proposed stipulations (Sec. 43). DO 49 has the committee issue an order reciting "the agreements or admissions made by the parties" (Sec. 26); under the RACCS, the agreement is embodied in a pre-hearing conference order and "is binding on both parties unless, in the interest of justice, the hearing officer allows a deviation therefrom" (Sec. 42).

Attendance is required under both. DO 49 makes it "the duty of the parties and their counsels, if any, to appear", and an absence "may be excused only if a valid cause is shown therefore" (Sec. 24). The RACCS says "The conduct of pre-hearing conference is mandatory", and a prosecutor or hearing officer who fails to appear without justifiable reason "may be liable for Neglect of Duty" (Sec. 44). What an absence costs differs; see the next section.

## How are DepEd hearings run? Evidence, cross-examination and postponements

Most hearing rules are shared.

| Topic | DO 49, s. 2006 | 2025 RACCS |
|---|---|---|
| Testimony | "Only affidavits which have been identified by the affiants shall be considered as evidence" (Sec. 30) | A sworn statement "properly identified and affirmed" is the direct testimony; judicial affidavits allowed (Sec. 46) |
| Documents | "oral formal offer" (Sec. 33(d)) | Offer orally or in writing; position papers within 10 working days after the investigation ends (Sec. 48) |
| Subpoenas | To testify or to produce documents (Sec. 36) | Same; request "at least seven (7) working days before the scheduled hearing" (Sec. 51) |

The Administrative Code backs the subpoena rule: either party may use "the compulsory process of subpoena or subpoena duces tecum" (Book V, Sec. 48(6)).

Three rules differ, and the statute does not address them:

| Point | DO 49, s. 2006 | 2025 RACCS |
|---|---|---|
| Absent from the pre-hearing conference | "not necessarily a cause for the dismissal of the case"; an absent party with valid cause may "cross-examine the witness(es) presented during his absence" (Sec. 25) | The case may be decided on the records, or the other party presents evidence *ex parte*, "and the absent party shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence". "The absent party, however, may still participate in the hearing if allowed by the hearing officer upon proper motion based on meritorious grounds." (Sec. 44) |
| Absent from a hearing | An absent party with valid cause may "submit written interrogatories"; after "two (2) successive, unjustified non-appearances" the party present may submit the case on the records (Sec. 28) | "the investigation shall proceed and the absent party shall be deemed to have waived the right to present such evidence, unless otherwise allowed by the hearing officer upon motion based on meritorious grounds" (Sec. 45) |
| Postponements | No number set | "Each party may be granted one (1) postponement upon oral or written motion, as may be allowed by the hearing officer." (Sec. 45) |

**Which text prevails?** DepEd's 2026 orders treat both as in force, and no rule or decision says which prevails. If the case reaches the CSC on appeal, the CSC applies the 2025 RACCS.

Two acts satisfy both texts:

- **Attend the pre-hearing conference and every hearing.** Under the RACCS an absent party loses the evidence it was to present unless the hearing officer allows otherwise.
- **If you cannot attend, move in writing before the date,** with the cause and proof. That meets DO 49's "valid cause" test; treat it as the one postponement the RACCS allows.

**Testing a witness is settled by statute.** DO 49 provides "Written interrogatories in lieu of cross-examination" (Sec. 33(b)); the RACCS provides "Cross-examination by the opponent", then re-direct and re-cross (Sec. 48). The Administrative Code makes the sworn statements the direct evidence, "upon which the cross-examination, by respondent and the complainant, respectively, shall be based. Following cross-examination, there may be redirect and recross-examination." (Book V, Sec. 48(5)) The statute provides for cross-examination, and DO 49's order of hearing applies only "Unless the Committee directs otherwise" (Sec. 33), so a respondent may ask the committee for cross-examination.

## Can a teacher bring a lawyer or a union representative?

RA 4670 gives every teacher "the right to defend himself and to be defended by a representative of his choice and/or by his organization, adequate time being given to the teacher for the preparation of his defense" (Sec. 8(c)).

DO 49 and the RACCS speak of lawyers:

- **DO 49.** "If the respondent appears without the aid of a counsel, he shall be deemed to have waived his right thereto." (Sec. 31) Parties may "represent themselves without the assistance of counsel" (Sec. 32).
- **2025 RACCS.** "If, after being apprised of the right to counsel, respondents appear without the aid of a counsel, they shall be deemed to have waived the right thereto and the hearing officer shall state said waiver in the records of the case." (Sec. 46) Counsel "must be a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)", and government lawyers may not represent another government employee "Except as otherwise mandated by law" (Sec. 47).

The Administrative Code says either party "may avail himself of the services of counsel" (Book V, Sec. 48(6)), but not who may act as counsel or when the right is waived. Two points are therefore open: when a respondent without a lawyer waives the right, and whether an organization's representative who is not a lawyer may defend the teacher, as RA 4670, Sec. 8(c) suggests. DO 49 and the RACCS speak only of counsel; the RACCS mentions a representative with written authority only for the pre-hearing conference (Sec. 44).

**Which text prevails?** DepEd's 2026 orders treat both as in force, and no rule or decision says which prevails. If the case reaches the CSC on appeal, the CSC applies the 2025 RACCS.

What satisfies every text: a respondent who wants a lawyer engages a private IBP member, not a government lawyer, who enters an appearance with the eight items the RACCS lists, which cover DO 49's list (DO 49, Sec. 32; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 47). A committee tells the respondent of the right to counsel and records any waiver. On the non-lawyer representative, no single act satisfies every text.

## Can a teacher's case be made public while it is pending?

No. The last paragraph of RA 4670, Sec. 8 (Safeguards in Disciplinary Procedure) reads: "No publicity shall be given to any disciplinary action being taken against a teacher during the pendency of his case." DO 49 repeats it: "No publicity shall be given to any administrative case against a teacher during the pendency of his case." (Sec. 40) So does DO 40, s. 2012 (Sec. 18).

The 2025 RACCS opens the examination of witnesses to the public "Except in matters requiring confidentiality or in the interest of morality or decency such as in sexual harassment cases" (Sec. 46). It applies "unless otherwise provided by law" (Sec. 2), and for teachers RA 4670 is that law. A committee that keeps a teacher's hearing closed meets both texts, since the RACCS's own exception covers "matters requiring confidentiality".

Related rules: the report, with the records attached to it, is "treated with confidentiality" (2025 RACCS, Sec. 56), posting the official record online may bring criminal, civil and administrative liability (Sec. 53), and decisions in sexual harassment cases and cases involving minors use "fictitious initials" (Sec. 56). How a school answers the media is in [What a School Head Does When a Complaint Arrives](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-complaint-steps-deped).

**A pending case does not stop a promotion.** "Pendency of an Administrative Case shall not disqualify respondent for promotion or from claiming maternity/paternity benefits." (DO 49, Sec. 39) The RACCS adds other human resource actions and benefits, "unless otherwise provided by law or other regulations", and counts a case as pending only "when the disciplining authority has issued a formal charge or a notice of charge to the respondent" (Sec. 55). If appointed, such a respondent submits a certificate that he or she "has not been convicted of any offense" ([2025 ORAOHRA](https://csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/irmo/mc/2025/MC%20No.%2008%20s.%202025.pdf), Rule II, Sec. 6(d)).

## The formal investigation report and the decision

**The report.** "Within fifteen (15) days after the conclusion of the Formal Investigation", the committee submits its findings and recommendations with the complete records (DO 49, Sec. 41). The RACCS and the Administrative Code set the same 15 days (Sec. 56; Book V, Sec. 48(4)). RA 4670, Sec. 9 allows 30 days, so a report within 15 days meets every text. The report "shall not be given to the parties, and shall serve only as a guide to the Disciplining Authority, who may or may not adopt the same entirely or partially" (DO 49, Sec. 41). For teachers and school heads, that authority is the Regional Director or the Secretary (DO 49, Sec. 1); see [Who Disciplines DepEd Teachers and School Heads?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-disciplining-authority-teachers-school-heads)

**The decision period.**

- **DO 49:** "The disciplining authority shall render his Decision on the case within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Report of Investigation." (Sec. 42)
- **2025 RACCS:** within "thirty (30) days from receipt of the Formal Investigation Report, or from the date the same is submitted for decision based on available records, or upon mutual consent of the parties as provided in Section 41 hereof, unless the period is extended by the disciplining authority in meritorious cases" (Sec. 57). DO 49 states no extension.
- **Administrative Code:** "within thirty days from the termination of the investigation or submission of the report of the investigator" (Book V, Sec. 48(4)), consistent with both.

**Which text prevails?** DepEd's 2026 orders treat both as in force, and no rule or decision says which prevails. If the case reaches the CSC on appeal, the CSC applies the 2025 RACCS.

A decision within 30 days of the report meets all three.

## Motion for reconsideration: 15 days, one motion

| | DO 49, Secs. 47–50 | 2025 RACCS, Secs. 84–90 |
|---|---|---|
| Who and where | "The party adversely affected by the decision", with the authority that rendered it | Same; the term includes the deciding authority (Sec. 4(ee)) |
| When | "within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof" | Same; "A motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration is not allowed." |
| How many | "Only one Motion for Reconsideration shall be entertained." | One per party; a second is denied outright |
| Effect | A timely motion "shall stay the execution of the decision sought to be reconsidered" | Same (Sec. 87) |
| Time to decide it | No period set | "as far as practicable", within 30 days from submission for resolution (Sec. 88) |
| After a denial | — | An appeal from the denial and the decision, "reckoned from receipt of such decision, resolution, or order of denial" (Sec. 89) |

**The statute sets the time to decide the motion.** The Administrative Code says a petition for reconsideration "shall be decided within fifteen days", lists DO 49's three grounds (new evidence, a decision unsupported by the evidence, errors of law or irregularities), and allows one petition only (Book V, Sec. 49(1)–(2)). The RACCS's rules on reconsideration apply "unless otherwise provided by law" (Sec. 84), so the statute's 15 days is the law's period, not the RACCS's 30.

**Counting the 15 days.** The RACCS excludes the first day and includes the last; if the last falls on a Saturday, Sunday, legal holiday or special non-working day, "the period shall run until the end of the next working day". With a lawyer, the period runs from receipt by the lawyer or the party, "whichever comes earlier" (Sec. 151).

**DepEd is held to the deadline too.** In [*Department of Education v. Cuanan*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_169013_2008.html), G.R. No. 169013, December 16, 2008 (En Banc), a principal's CSC exoneration "may be subject to a motion for reconsideration by the DepEd" as "a real party in interest", but it had become final before DepEd filed "more than two months later"; see [Harassment, Child Abuse and Hazing: Cases on School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-harassment-child-abuse-hazing-cases).

## Appeal: to the Secretary or to the CSC

A Regional Director's decision imposing more than 30 days' suspension or fine "may be appealed to the Secretary of Education within a period of fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof", then "finally appealed to the Civil Service Commission" (DO 49, Sec. 51). A removal goes first to the Secretary for confirmation, and the decision as confirmed may be reconsidered by the Secretary or appealed to the CSC (Sec. 45). The Administrative Code lists the penalties the CSC decides on appeal: suspension for more than 30 days, a fine above 30 days' salary, "demotion in rank or salary or transfer, removal or dismissal from office" (Book V, Sec. 47(1)). The 2025 RACCS lets such decisions be "appealed to the Commission within a reglementary period of fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof", and lets a respondent penalized by a bureau or office head attached to a Department go first to the Secretary or directly to the Commission (Sec. 91). The full route chart is Figure 1 of [Preventive Suspension, Appeals and Back Pay for Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-preventive-suspension-appeal-back-pay).

### Is the decision carried out while the appeal to the Secretary is pending?

- **DO 49, Sec. 51:** "Pending appeal, the same shall be executory, except where the penalty is removal in which case the same shall be executory only after confirmation by the Secretary concerned." The Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 47(2), and the RACCS's own Sec. 9 say the same of a bureau or office head's decision.
- **2025 RACCS, Sec. 91(a):** for a decision "rendered by a bureau or office head which is attached to a Department", an appeal to the Department Head or Secretary is one "in which case the decision will not be executory".

Whether a DepEd Regional Director is such a head has not been settled. The RACCS thus states both rules: Sec. 9, like the Code, makes a bureau or office head's decision executory pending appeal, while Sec. 91(a) says it "will not be executory". The RACCS applies "unless otherwise provided by law" (Sec. 2), but the Code's sentence, like Sec. 91(a), speaks only of "a bureau or office head", so whether it reaches a Regional Director's decision is the same open question.

**Which text prevails?** DepEd's 2026 orders treat both as in force, and no rule or decision says which prevails. If the case reaches the CSC on appeal, the CSC applies the 2025 RACCS.

Two acts satisfy every text: appeal within 15 days of receipt, and treat a dismissal or removal as not yet in effect until the Secretary confirms it (DO 49, Sec. 51; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 91(b)).

### What does an appeal cost?

For an appeal to the Secretary, "The appellant shall pay an appeal fee of Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00) and a copy of the receipt thereof shall be attached to the appeal." (DO 49, Sec. 52) [DO 14, s. 2015](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2015/04/23/do-14-s-2015-authorizing-the-collection-of-fees-for-the-legal-research-fund-lrf/) adds "Ten Pesos (P 10.00) for the LRF", the Legal Research Fund, on each appeal to the Office of the Secretary from a Regional Director's decision (para. 4), for PHP 310 in all.

An appeal to the CSC needs "proof of payment of the required fee" (2025 RACCS, Sec. 94(g)), but the amount is set in "separate issuances" (Sec. 155); ask the CSC Regional Office for the current amount before filing.

### How is an appeal perfected?

| Requirement | To the Secretary (DO 49, Sec. 53) | To the CSC (2025 RACCS, Sec. 94) |
|---|---|---|
| When and where | "within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision", with "the disciplining authority concerned" | Within the 15-day period (Sec. 91), with the appellate authority, copy to the disciplining authority |
| Papers | Notice of appeal with the dates; three copies of the memorandum with the grounds; certified copies of the decision and evidence; proof of service, of payment and of non-forum shopping | Memorandum with the dates, facts, issues and grounds; certified copies; the same three proofs |
| If incomplete | "construed as failure to perfect an appeal and shall cause its dismissal" | The CSC orders compliance within 10 days from receipt of its order; failure means dismissal with prejudice |

At the CSC, "The filing of a Notice of Appeal without an attached Memorandum of Appeal or Petition for Review shall not stop the running of the period to appeal." (Sec. 94) The Administrative Code adds that the "Notice of the appeal shall be filed with the disciplining office", which forwards the records to the appellate authority (Book V, Sec. 49(1)).

**Which text prevails?** DepEd's 2026 orders treat both as in force, and no rule or decision says which prevails. If the case reaches the CSC on appeal, the CSC applies the 2025 RACCS.

One act satisfies all three texts: within 15 days of receipt, file the notice and a complete memorandum, with everything in both columns, with the disciplining authority that decided and, the same day, with the appellate authority (the Secretary or the CSC). Never file a bare notice of appeal.

### When the CSC finds a violation of due process

- **DO 49, Sec. 55:** on remand, the disciplining authority finishes the investigation within 60 days from receipt of the records and decides within 30 days from its end; if it fails, "the Civil Service Commission may set aside the appealed decision and declare respondent exonerated of the charge."
- **2025 RACCS, Sec. 96:** "The Commission shall grant the appeal of and dismiss the case against the respondent-appellant" if due process was violated "at any stage", with reinstatement and back wages; the dismissal is "without prejudice to its being re-filed".

This step happens at the CSC, which decides appeals under its own rules (2025 RACCS, Sec. 2), so Sec. 96 governs. The CSC does not remand such a case for further investigation; it dismisses it, without prejudice to refiling. DO 49, Sec. 55's remand periods are superseded at the CSC.

## Which DepEd decisions cannot be appealed?

**Light penalties.** A suspension of not more than 30 days, or a fine not exceeding 30 days' salary, "shall be final and executory" (DO 49, Secs. 44 and 46). The 2025 RACCS adds reprimand: such a decision "shall not be appealable", but "the respondent may file an appeal or petition for review when the issue raised is violation of due process" (Sec. 58). The CSC then resolves only that issue (Sec. 7(A)(2)(c)).

**Which text prevails?** DepEd's 2026 orders treat both as in force, and no rule or decision says which prevails. If the case reaches the CSC on appeal, the CSC applies the 2025 RACCS.

One act is open under both: a motion for reconsideration within 15 days of receipt (DO 49, Sec. 47; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 84).

**Orders the CSC will not review.** "Except in cases involving sexual harassment", these "cannot be the subject of an appeal before the Commission" (2025 RACCS, Sec. 98):

- a decision "which exonerates the respondent";
- "Dismissal of a complaint for lack of *prima facie case*";
- a formal charge or other interlocutory order, "except orders placing a respondent under preventive suspension";
- "Denial of a motion to place the respondent under preventive suspension".

DO 49 has no such list. The sexual harassment exception is explained in [Sexual Harassment and Child Abuse Complaints in DepEd](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-sexual-harassment-child-abuse-complaints).

## When does the penalty take effect? Execution, confirmation and clemency

**Execution.** A timely motion for reconsideration stops execution (DO 49, Sec. 50; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 87); an appeal generally does not (DO 49, Sec. 54; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 95; Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 47(4)). A case in the courts does not stop implementation without "a temporary restraining order or writ of injunction" (DO 49, Sec. 44; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 149).

Acting too early is costly. In [*Republic of the Philippines (Department of Education) v. Maneja*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=66881&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 209052, June 23, 2021 (Second Division), a CSC Regional Office's dismissal of a teacher was carried out while her appeal to the Commission was pending. Because it was not yet executory, she was owed back wages though not fully exonerated; see [Preventive Suspension, Appeals and Back Pay for Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-preventive-suspension-appeal-back-pay).

**Confirmation.** "Decision of the Regional Director which imposes a penalty of removal shall be subject to confirmation, modification or disapproval by the Secretary of Education." (DO 49, Sec. 45; Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 47(2))

**Clemency.** DO 49, Sec. 57 has the President act "upon recommendation of the Secretary of Education", on a petition filed with DepEd. The statute says the President acts "upon recommendation of the Commission" ([Administrative Code](https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_292_1987.html), Book V, Sec. 53). A department order cannot change a statute, and the 2025 RACCS follows the Code:

- the petition is filed "with the Commission" by "a dismissed official or employee" (Sec. 104);
- "A minimum of five (5) years" must pass from the finality of the dismissal, and the petition must state "recognition and acceptance of his or her guilt" (Sec. 105(b)–(c));
- the disciplining authority comments within 15 days from receipt of the CSC's order (Sec. 106), restitution comes first where the petitioner was found guilty of depriving the government of money or property, and the grant is available once (Sec. 105(f)–(g)).

## What this means for school heads

**If you are the respondent** (a school head is a "teacher" under RA 4670, Sec. 2):

1. **Read the order creating the committee.** Check the three seats and whether the organization chose its representative; object in writing at once, and keep answering and attending (*Fabella*; *Huertas*).
2. **Keep a deadline sheet:** hearing dates, and 15 days from receipt for a motion or an appeal (DO 49, Secs. 47 and 51; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 151).
3. **Attend everything;** ask for a postponement in writing, with proof; the RACCS allows one each (Sec. 45).
4. **Decide on counsel early:** a private IBP lawyer, not a government lawyer, or yourself; make sure any waiver is on the record (2025 RACCS, Secs. 46–47).
5. **Post nothing about the case** (RA 4670, Sec. 8; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 53).

**If you are the complainant or a witness:** appear when called (2025 RACCS, Sec. 45), identify your sworn statement before the committee (DO 49, Sec. 30), and log any school records you produce under a subpoena (DO 49, Sec. 36).

**If a teacher in your school is the respondent:**

1. **You are not the disciplining authority** (DO 49, Sec. 1), and "A Grievance Committee is not allowed to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases" (DO 49, Sec. 2); see [Grievance or Administrative Case? Where to File](https://nash.com.ph/blog/grievance-or-administrative-case-deped).
2. **Give the case no publicity,** at meetings, in group chats or online, and remind staff of the rule (RA 4670, Sec. 8; DO 49, Sec. 40).
3. **Do not treat the case as a bar** when you evaluate or endorse the teacher for promotion (DO 49, Sec. 39).
4. **Act on a penalty only with the written decision,** and on a Regional Director's dismissal only after the Secretary confirms it (DO 49, Secs. 45 and 51; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 91(b)). A CSC Regional Office's dismissal waits while a timely appeal is pending (*Maneja*).
5. **Refer procedural questions** to your Schools Division Office's legal unit.

Related guides: [Human Resource Management for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-human-resource-management), [PPSSH Domain 2: Managing School Operations With DepEd Data](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-2-managing-school-operations), [PPSSH Domain 4: Developing Self and Others With DepEd Data](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-4-developing-self-and-others) and [DepEd Child Protection and Anti-Bullying: School Head Duties](https://nash.com.ph/blog/child-protection-anti-bullying-school-heads).

## How the NASH may test this

The two items below are original practice items, scored 3 (Relational), 2 (Multistructural), 1 (Unistructural) or 0 (Prestructural). An option that breaks a rule scores 0.

### Question 1

*Indicator 2.4.1, Management of staff. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.*

Teacher A, a Master Teacher I in a public elementary school, is formally charged by the Regional Director and elects a formal investigation. The order creating the committee names the Schools Division Superintendent as chair and a division supervisor as a member. For the teachers' organization seat, it names a teacher who belongs to the local teachers' association but whom the association did not choose. Which statement about this committee is most accurate?

- **A.** The committee is properly composed, because one member belongs to the local teachers' association, which is what RA 4670, Sec. 9 requires of that seat.
- **B.** The committee may be defective, so Teacher A should ask the division's legal unit whether the member named to the association's seat is acceptable.
- **C.** The committee lacks a member chosen by the association, so Teacher A should object in writing at the start and keep answering and attending.
- **D.** The committee lacks a member chosen by the association, so Teacher A may raise the defect in a written objection to the committee.

**Answer and explanation**

**Best answer: C.** Points: A = 0, B = 1, C = 3, D = 2.

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** It contradicts the rule: membership alone does not make a teacher the organization's representative.
- **B (1 point, Unistructural).** It senses a problem but neither identifies it nor acts on it.
- **C (3 points, Relational).** It names the defect, objects at the right time and keeps the defense going, so the objection is preserved and nothing is waived.
- **D (2 points, Multistructural).** The defect and the remedy are right, but it does not say when to object or that she must keep taking part.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the laws on managing school staff, and RA 4670, Sec. 9 fixes who hears a teacher's case. Under *Fabella v. Court of Appeals* (1997), the organization chooses its representative, and a committee without one had "no competent jurisdiction"; under *Huertas v. Gonzalez* (2005), an objection first raised in the Court of Appeals came too late.

*Indicator 2.4.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of laws, policies, guidelines and issuances on managing school staff.*

*Sources: RA 4670, Sec. 9; DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Sec. 21(a); Fabella v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110379, November 28, 1997; Huertas v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 152443, February 14, 2005.*

### Question 2

*Indicator 4.7.1, General welfare of human resources. Career Stage 1, Conceptual, Moderate.*

Teacher C has been formally charged by the Regional Director, and the formal investigation is under way. She ranks first in the school's evaluation for a Master Teacher I vacancy. At a parent-teacher association meeting, a parent asks the principal why Teacher C keeps leaving school for "hearings". Which statement best describes how the school should treat her case and her application?

- **A.** The principal briefly explains the charge so that parents hear it from the school, and sets her application aside until the case is decided.
- **B.** The principal declines to discuss personnel matters at the meeting, and asks the division office whether her application can still go forward.
- **C.** The principal says personnel matters are not discussed at the meeting, without confirming any case, keeps her in the evaluation, and later reminds staff privately not to discuss or post about pending cases.
- **D.** The principal declines to discuss personnel matters at the meeting, and keeps her application in the evaluation, since a pending case does not bar promotion.

**Answer and explanation**

**Best answer: C.** Points: A = 0, B = 1, C = 3, D = 2.

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** It breaks two rules: it publicizes a pending case and treats it as a bar to promotion.
- **B (1 point, Unistructural).** Declining to discuss personnel matters is right, but the application is left in doubt.
- **C (3 points, Relational).** It keeps the case confidential without confirming it, applies the promotion rule, and stops talk among staff.
- **D (2 points, Multistructural).** Both decisions are right, but it does nothing to stop staff from discussing or posting about the case.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.7.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the laws on the rights of school personnel. "No publicity shall be given to any disciplinary action being taken against a teacher during the pendency of his case" (RA 4670, Sec. 8), and a pending case "shall not disqualify respondent for promotion" (DO 49, s. 2006, Sec. 39). Citing the rule against publicity at the meeting would itself tell parents that a case is pending.

*Indicator 4.7.1: Display knowledge of laws, policies, guidelines and issuances on the rights, privileges and benefits of school personnel to promote their general welfare.*

*Sources: RA 4670, Sec. 8; DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Secs. 39 and 40.*

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

## Frequently asked questions

### Who hears an administrative case against a public school teacher or principal in DepEd?

A committee of three: the Schools Division Superintendent or a representative of at least division supervisor rank as chair, a teachers' organization representative, and a division supervisor (RA 4670, Sec. 9; DO 49, s. 2006, Sec. 21(a)). If the superintendent is the complainant or an interested party, the Secretary appoints all the members (RA 4670, Sec. 9). The committee recommends; the Regional Director or the Secretary decides (DO 49, Sec. 1).

### Can a teachers' union representative defend me instead of a lawyer?

That has not been settled. RA 4670, Sec. 8(c) gives a teacher the right "to be defended by a representative of his choice and/or by his organization", but DO 49, Sec. 32 and the 2025 RACCS, Sec. 47 speak only of counsel, and the RACCS requires an IBP member. You may also represent yourself (DO 49, Sec. 32).

### How many days do I have after a DepEd decision?

Fifteen days from receipt. You may move once for reconsideration with the authority that decided; if it is denied, a penalty above 30 days' suspension or fine, or a heavier one, may then be appealed, counted from receipt of the denial (2025 RACCS, Secs. 89–90). Or you may appeal directly within the 15 days (DO 49, Sec. 51; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 91). The motion's period cannot be extended (2025 RACCS, Sec. 84).

### Does a pending administrative case stop my promotion?

Not by itself (DO 49, Sec. 39). Under the 2025 RACCS, a case is pending only once a formal charge or notice of charge has been issued, and it does not disqualify you unless a law or regulation provides otherwise (Sec. 55).

## Sources

**DepEd issuances**

- [DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2006/12/12/do-49-s-2006-revised-rules-of-procedure-of-the-department-of-education-in-administrative-cases-amended-by/), Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of Education in Administrative Cases, December 12, 2006 (rules dated December 4, 2006), Secs. 1, 2, 13, 20–26, 28, 30–33, 36, 39–42, 44–55 and 57.
- [DepEd Order No. 14, s. 2015](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2015/04/23/do-14-s-2015-authorizing-the-collection-of-fees-for-the-legal-research-fund-lrf/), Authorizing the Collection of Fees for the Legal Research Fund (LRF), April 23, 2015, para. 4.
- [DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2012/05/14/do-40-s-2012-deped-child-protection-policy/), DepEd Child Protection Policy, May 14, 2012, Secs. 16(E.2) and 18.
- [DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/03/25/march-25-2026-do-007-s-2026-media-management-guidelines/), Media Management Guidelines, March 25, 2026, Sec. VI.2.

**Laws and rules**

- [Republic Act No. 4670](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1966/ra_4670_1966.html), Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, June 18, 1966, Secs. 2, 8 and 9.
- [Executive Order No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987](https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_292_1987.html), Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Secs. 47(1), (2) and (4), 48(3)–(6), 49(1)–(2) and 53.
- [2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service](https://csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/paio/2025_ORAOHRA_AND_RACCS/2025_RACCS_19_September.pdf), CSC Resolution No. 2500357, April 30, 2025, in force August 4, 2025, Secs. 2, 4(s), 4(ee), 7(A)(2)(c), 9, 16–20, 40–48, 51, 53, 55–58, 84–91, 94–96, 98, 104–106, 149, 151 and 155.
- [2025 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions](https://csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/userupload/irmo/mc/2025/MC%20No.%2008%20s.%202025.pdf), CSC Memorandum Circular No. 08, s. 2025 (CSC Resolution No. 2500358, April 30, 2025), Rule II, Sec. 6(d).

**Supreme Court decisions**

- [*Fabella v. Court of Appeals*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=38523&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 110379, November 28, 1997 (Third Division).
- [*Huertas v. Gonzalez*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=48602&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 152443, February 14, 2005 (Second Division).
- [*Department of Education v. Cuanan*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_169013_2008.html), G.R. No. 169013, December 16, 2008 (En Banc).
- [*Republic of the Philippines (Department of Education) v. Maneja*](https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/assets/dtSearch/dtSearch_system_files/dtisapi6.dll?cmd=getdoc&DocId=66881&Index=%2a4aeb4dbdcceeda9b59b85ae3fb22cec0), G.R. No. 209052, June 23, 2021 (Second Division).

*This guide explains DepEd and Civil Service Commission rules for study and professional awareness. It is not legal advice; for a specific case, consult a lawyer or your Schools Division Office's legal unit.*

## The administrative cases and grievances series

- [DepEd Administrative Cases and Grievances: DO 49 and DO 35](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-administrative-cases-grievances-guide)
- [Who Disciplines DepEd Teachers and School Heads?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-disciplining-authority-teachers-school-heads)
- [How to File an Administrative Complaint in DepEd](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-administrative-complaint-filing)
- [DepEd Preliminary Investigation, Formal Charge and Answer](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-preliminary-investigation-formal-charge)
- Formal Investigation and Decision in DepEd Cases (this post)
- [DepEd Administrative Offenses and Penalties in 2026](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-administrative-offenses-penalties)
- [Can a Teacher Be Charged for Unpaid Loans in DepEd?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/teacher-unpaid-loans-just-debts-administrative-case)
- [DepEd Grievance Machinery: Steps and Time Limits](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-grievance-machinery-do-35)
- [Grievance or Administrative Case? Where to File](https://nash.com.ph/blog/grievance-or-administrative-case-deped)
- [Sexual Harassment and Child Abuse Complaints in DepEd](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-sexual-harassment-child-abuse-complaints)
- [What a School Head Does When a Complaint Arrives](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-complaint-steps-deped)

*Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Orders No. 49, s. 2006, No. 40, s. 2012, No. 14, s. 2015 and No. 007, s. 2026; RA 4670; the Administrative Code of 1987, Book V; the 2025 RACCS and 2025 ORAOHRA; Supreme Court decisions in Fabella, Huertas, Cuanan and Maneja.*

---

© 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. All rights reserved. You may quote up to 100 words from this article with the author's name, its title and a link. In research, cite it as: Llego, M. A. (2026, October 31). *Formal Investigation and Decision in DepEd Cases*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-formal-investigation-decision. Any other reuse of the article, its charts or its data needs written permission: email support@nash.com.ph. Terms of Service: https://nash.com.ph/terms#website-content-and-data