Grievance or Administrative Case? Where to File

A grievance and an administrative case go to different places. A grievance is “a work-related discontentment or dissatisfaction” (DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2004, Part IV), such as overtime pay that is never processed, and it goes through the grievance machinery, starting with your immediate supervisor. A complaint that someone committed an offense is an administrative case for the disciplining authority, which for teachers and school heads is the Regional Director or the Secretary (DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Secs. 1 and 6). DO 49 draws the line itself: “A Grievance Committee is not allowed to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases” (Sec. 2, last paragraph).

Other complaints have routes of their own: appointment protests, which left the grievance machinery in 2010; sexual harassment, which goes to the Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI); harm to a learner by school personnel; collective negotiation agreement (CNA) disputes, which can end at the Public Sector Labor-Management Council (PSLMC); ratings; the Performance-Based Bonus (PBB); PTA disputes; and canteen complaints. A charge may also go to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) or the Ombudsman.

The routing table below shows which complaint goes where, under which rule and within what time, as of October 31, 2026. “The 2025 RACCS” is the CSC’s 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (CSC Resolution No. 2500357), in force since August 4, 2025. No DepEd order has replaced DO 35 or DO 49. Every example is fictional.

Key findings

• Dissatisfaction or offense. DO 35 covers work-related dissatisfaction (Part V); a charge of an offense goes to the disciplining authority, never to a grievance committee (DO 49, s. 2006, Sec. 2, last paragraph).
• DO 35 excludes disciplinary cases, sexual harassment cases under RA 7877, and “Union-related issues and concerns” (Part V). Its pointer for disciplinary cases, DECS Order No. 33, s. 1999, is outdated.
• Protests left in 2010: “A protest on appointment shall no longer be acted upon through the grievance machinery” (CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, s. 2010, Item 1). Filing within 15 calendar days of issuance meets every count (DO 007, s. 2023; DO 020, s. 2024; DO 019, s. 2022; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 117).
• Sexual harassment goes to the CODI and cannot be settled (2025 RACCS, Secs. 16 and 75).
• A complaint that personnel harmed a learner is forwarded to the disciplining authority within 48 hours and may not go to the barangay (DO 40, s. 2012, Secs. 16(A) and 17).
• Union and CNA disputes follow the CNA’s grievance procedure, then the PSLMC (EO 180, Sec. 16; Rule XIV of the PSLMC’s 2004 rules; the PSLMC adopted new rules in 2024).
• The CSC and the Ombudsman also take charges (2025 RACCS, Secs. 9 and 13; RA 6770, Secs. 19, 21 and 23(2)), but the Commission does not take grievance-machinery cases as original disciplinary cases (2025 RACCS, Sec. 7(A)(1)).

Grievance or administrative case? The short answer

Ask what the person wants: something fixed is a grievance; someone penalized for an offense is an administrative case.

DO 35 defines a grievance as “a work-related discontentment or dissatisfaction which had been expressed verbally or in writing and which, in the aggrieved employee’s opinion, has been ignored or dropped without due consideration” (Part IV, item 5). Part V covers pay, such as “delay in the processing of overtime pay”; personnel actions from recruitment to retirement; “Inadequate physical working conditions”; “Poor interpersonal relationships and linkages”; “Protest on appointments”, no longer valid; and “All other matters giving rise to employee dissatisfaction and discontentment”. It excludes:

1. “Disciplinary cases which shall be resolved pursuant to the DECS Rules of Procedures on Administrative Disciplinary Cases (DECS Order No. 33, s. 1999)”;
2. “Sexual harassment cases as provided for in RA 7877”; and
3. “Union-related issues and concerns.”

The CSC’s grievance policy lists the same three (CSC Memorandum Circular No. 2, s. 2001, item 7). DO 35 covers DepEd’s “officials and employees” (Part III), not parents or learners.

The routing table: where each complaint goes

Use the first row that fits. Time limits are in the unit each text uses; where texts differ, both are given.

Examples: one fictional case for each route

Charges never go to a grievance committee

DO 49, s. 2006 ends its list of grounds for disciplinary action with this paragraph (Sec. 2, last paragraph):

“A Grievance Committee is not allowed to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases. If a complainant charges the respondent with the commission of administrative offenses, the same shall be disposed of accordingly by the Disciplining Authority.”

The disciplining authorities are “the Secretary and the Regional Directors in their respective regions”, with Schools Division Superintendents for non-teaching personnel (DO 49, Sec. 1). A complaint against a teacher is filed with the Regional Director (Sec. 6), and a school head counts as a teacher: RA 4670 includes “all other persons performing supervisory and/or administrative functions” in public schools (Sec. 2). See Who Disciplines DepEd Teachers and School Heads? and How to File an Administrative Complaint in DepEd.

DO 35’s pointer is outdated. It sends disciplinary cases to “DECS Order No. 33, s. 1999”. DepEd’s rules today are DO 49, s. 2006, and the CSC’s are the 2025 RACCS; DO 007, s. 2026 says both “also apply” to cases involving the use of social media (Sec. VI.2). How they fit together is in DepEd Administrative Cases and Grievances: DO 49 and DO 35.

Before 2006 the line was not always kept. In Huertas v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 152443, February 14, 2005 (Second Division), a committee the decision calls the “Grievance Committee” heard a principal’s 1996 complaint against a teacher; the Court found it “was not the competent tribunal required by the law” but held the teacher estopped; see Oppression Cases: How Principals Must Treat Teachers.

Appointment protests left the grievance machinery in 2010

DO 35 still lists “Protest on appointments” (Part V, item 5), but that item is superseded. CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, s. 2010, dated February 8, 2010 and effective February 10, 2010, reads:

“1. A protest on appointment shall no longer be acted upon through the grievance machinery.”

Item 2 sends the appeal “initially to the head of agency, then to the Civil Service Commission Regional Office (CSCRO), and then to the Civil Service Commission Proper.” DepEd applied the circular in DO 32, s. 2016.

The texts in force set different periods, and none reconciles them:

DepEd’s own Merit Selection Plan counts from posting: a protest is filed “within 15 calendar days from the announcement and/or posting of appointments” (DO 019, s. 2022, item 67). No DepEd order or decision says which count prevails. If the protest reaches the CSC, the CSC applies the 2025 RACCS, which dismisses a protest as late only if “filed beyond the fifteen (15)-day reglementary period” counted from posting (Secs. 117 and 122(d)). Appointments are announced “a day after the issuance of the appointment” (DO 021, s. 2024, item 31), so filing within 15 calendar days of issuance meets every count. A teacher protesting a promotion to a higher teaching position should file within that 15-day period and not rely on RA 8190’s three months.

DO 007 and DO 020 also say the 2017 rules on protest apply (“The Rules on Protest under the 2017 RRACCS shall apply”, DO 007); that pointer is outdated, because the 2025 RACCS repealed the 2017 rules (Sec. 156) and sets protests in Rule 18. A protest “shall not render an appointment ineffective” (Sec. 119). Details and cases: Promotion Protests and Nepotism: Cases on Principals.

A protest is not a complaint about the process. DO 35 still lists “failure to observe selection process in appointment” as a grievance (Part V, item 2), and DepEd’s inclusive employment policy says “Applicants may present grievance with the office grievance machinery” when the selection process was not followed or an applicant faced discrimination (DO 030, s. 2025, Encl., Part IX.A.1(f)(v), which still cites the 2017 RACCS). A process complaint also has a CSC route: “any person” may petition the CSC Regional Office, “at any time during a subsisting appointment”, to recall the approval of an appointment “issued in violation of existing civil service laws, rules, and regulations” (2025 RACCS, Secs. 125–126). The grounds include “Non-compliance with the procedures or criteria provided in CSC-approved agency MSP” and “Failure to pass through the agency’s HRMPSB” (2025 ORAOHRA, Sec. 117), and the appointment stays valid meanwhile (2025 RACCS, Sec. 127). No text says a grievance stops the protest period, so file any protest on time.

Reassignment: a grievance with its own 15 days

DO 35 lists “detail, transfer” among grievable matters but sets no filing period. The CSC’s 2025 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions (ORAOHRA) add one:

“The employee may file an appeal on the reassignment order within fifteen (15) days upon receipt thereof through a formal grievance mechanism to be established by the agency. If unresolved at the agency level, the employee may elevate the appeal to the CSC RO with jurisdiction.” (Sec. 13(a), item 4)

Under item 4, “Pending appeal, the reassignment shall not be executory”, except for peace-and-order personnel. Item 5 adds that the reassignment of “public school teachers” is “governed by their respective laws”, with these rules “applied suppletorily”; no decision has yet applied the stay to a school head. See Can a Principal Be Reassigned to Another School? and DepEd Grievance Machinery: Steps and Time Limits.

Sexual harassment goes to the CODI

DO 35 excludes “Sexual harassment cases as provided for in RA 7877” (Part V). Under the 2025 RACCS, “the complaint shall be filed with the agency or department where the person complained of is employed” and “referred to the Committee on Decorum and Investigation (CODI)” (Sec. 16). RA 7877 requires the committee (Sec. 4(b)), and DO 32, s. 2017 directs DepEd “in all levels of governance” to “create or strengthen” one. The CSC remands a complaint filed with it, with exceptions such as an agency that has no CODI (Sec. 18). “Complaints for sexual harassment shall not be subject to mediation and settlement” (Sec. 75), and the CODI sends its findings “to the disciplining authority for decision” (Sec. 17(C)).

Two traps. DO 32, s. 2017 adds “gender-related complaints or grievances” to the grievance committee’s work, but DO 35 still excludes sexual harassment. And the “grievance procedures” every school must publish under the Safe Spaces Act (RA 11313, Sec. 21) lead to the CODI, which its implementing rules call an “independent internal grievance mechanism” (IRR of RA 11313, Sec. 33). See Sexual Harassment and Child Abuse Complaints in DepEd and Harassment, Child Abuse and Hazing: Cases on School Heads.

Child protection complaints against school personnel

A complaint that school personnel abused, hurt, discriminated against or exploited a learner is not a grievance, and the school head may not hold it. The school head or the SDS forwards it to the disciplining authority within 48 hours of receipt, and the disciplining authority orders a fact-finding investigation within 72 hours from submission (DO 40, s. 2012, Sec. 16(A)). Such complaints “shall not be brought for amicable settlement before the Barangay” (Sec. 17). DO 006, s. 2026, which “does not amend or repeal” DO 40, adds a fact-finding report to the school head “within 10 calendar days” and the school head’s report to the SDS and the Regional Director “within 30 calendar days from the receipt of the report or complaint” (Sec. VII.A.2), and sends cases against school personnel to the “Investigation Stage (Refer to DepEd Order 49, s. 2006 and to other existing issuances on administrative procedures)” (Annex A).

Bullying is an act “by one or more students” directed “at another student” (RA 10627, Sec. 2), so a teacher’s act against a learner falls under DO 40 and DO 49; see Child Protection and Anti-Bullying for School Heads.

Union and CNA issues

DO 35 excludes “Union-related issues and concerns” (Part V). The route starts in the executive order on government employees’ right to organize:

“The Civil Service and labor laws and procedures, whenever applicable, shall be followed in the resolution of complaints, grievances and cases involving government employees. In case any dispute remains unresolved after exhausting all the available remedies under existing laws and procedures, the parties may jointly refer the dispute to the Council, for appropriate action.” (EO 180, Sec. 16)

The Council is the PSLMC. Its 2004 rules (PSLMC Resolution No. 2, s. 2004, September 28, 2004) say that for “employees’ organization-related issues not governed by the Civil Service Law, rules and regulations on grievance machinery”, “The grievance procedure outlined in the CNA shall be strictly followed” (Rule XIV, Sec. 1). Sec. 2(a) adds that “Grievances between officials and the employees’ organization shall be addressed through the grievance machinery”, without saying whose; since DO 35 excludes union issues, check whether your CNA sets up its own grievance committee. The Council has “original and exclusive jurisdiction” over disputes on “the interpretation and implementation of the provisions of the collective negotiation agreements” and on unfair labor practices (Rule XIX, Sec. 4). The PSLMC has since adopted the 2024 Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize, which the CSC launched on April 29, 2024, so these 2004 rule numbers may have changed; check them with your union or the CSC.

In DepEd, the DepEd Employees’ Associations Coordinating Office works with the Legal Service on grievances raised by recognized employees’ associations, “following the appropriate channels and guidelines of the Department, and existing provision in the collective negotiation agreements (CNA) of accredited employees’ unions” (DO 030, s. 2022, item 10(d)). A union officer’s own unprocessed pay is still a DO 35 grievance (Part V, item 1).

Light offenses: mediation instead of a hearing

DO 15, s. 2012 opens mediation to complaints for light offenses “where the corresponding penalty is reprimand”, listing 17, including borrowing money by superior officers from subordinate employees and willful failure to pay just debts (Sec. 4). The complaint goes to the head of office, and the mediation unit evaluates it “within five (5) days from receipt” (Sec. 7). Sexual harassment, child abuse, motu proprio and anonymous complaints are excluded, and DO 15’s pointer for performance evaluation issues, a “Performance Evaluation Review Committee”, is outdated (Sec. 4).

The 2025 RACCS allows settlement “only in complaints for light offenses where the act is purely personal between the private complainant and the person complained of, and there is no apparent injury to the government”, namely “Borrowing Money By Superior Officers From Subordinate” and “Willful Failure to Pay Just Debts” (Sec. 75). 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. (DO 006, s. 2026 still cites DO 15, Sec. VII.A.4.) Settling one of the two offenses the RACCS names satisfies both texts; see Can a Teacher Be Charged for Unpaid Loans in DepEd?

Going straight to the CSC or the Ombudsman

The CSC. “The disciplining authorities of agencies shall have original concurrent jurisdiction with the Commission and CSC ROs over their respective officials and employees” (2025 RACCS, Sec. 9), and a complaint “may be filed anytime with the Commission or any of the CSC ROs, or with any agency or department” (Sec. 13). The Commission’s original jurisdiction excludes sexual harassment complaints, which it remands except in the cases in Sec. 18, and “Cases which may be acted upon through the grievance machinery pursuant to relevant civil service rules and regulations” (Sec. 7(A)(1)). A grievance reaches the CSC Regional Office on appeal at the end of the DO 35 steps, with the CFAG, “within fifteen (15) working days from the receipt of such decision” (DO 35, Part VI.5); it goes there directly when the Secretary is the object of the grievance (Part VI.4).

The Ombudsman. It accepts complaints “in any form, either verbal or in writing” (Ombudsman A.O. No. 1, s. 2026, Rule I, Sec. 3), may refer a complaint “to the proper disciplinary authority” (RA 6770, Sec. 23(2)), and may dismiss an administrative complaint outright if “the complaint was filed after one year from the occurrence of the act or omission complained of” (A.O. No. 1, s. 2026, Rule II, Sec. 4). Its disciplinary authority over a public school teacher “is not an exclusive power but is concurrent with the proper committee of the DepEd” (Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano, G.R. No. 177580, October 17, 2008, Second Division); the Court added that the complaint against the principal “should have been referred” to that committee, but held that he could no longer object because he raised the point too late, and sent the case back to the Court of Appeals on the merits. Which body keeps the case, and when to object, are in Can the Ombudsman Discipline a Principal? RA 4670 Cases.

Delay “without just cause” in acting on an Ombudsman referral is a ground for administrative action and “a graft offense” (RA 6770, Sec. 23(2)).

Other committees called “grievance”

These bodies use the word but are not DO 35’s employee machinery, except the canteen route, which borrows DO 35’s committees for parents.

Performance ratings under the RPMS

DO 2, s. 2015 creates a Grievance Committee at each level “to act as appeals board on all issues relating to the implementation of RPMS” (para. 69). Its body and its forms differ. Paragraph 71 sends an appeal to “the PMT” “within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of notice of their final performance evaluation rating from the Head of Office”; the instructions on the RPMS forms send it to “the Grievance Committee at their level” “within ten (10) working days from date of receipt of notice of their final performance evaluation rating from the rater”. Both say it is decided within one month (para. 72; forms, item 4).

Is it current? No issuance has repealed these paragraphs, and DepEd’s newer teacher appraisal memoranda (the PMES) say nothing on rating appeals: DM 017, s. 2025 says “the comprehensive guidelines for the revision of DO No. 2, s. 2015 are underway”; DM 089, s. 2025 covers SY 2025–2026 to 2027–2028; and a March 3, 2026 memorandum (DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001) promises “a separate issuance” for SY 2026–2027, which had not been issued as of October 31, 2026. A written appeal within ten days of the first notice of the final rating meets both periods; ask the division’s HR unit which body receives it.

The PBB, PTA disputes and canteens

• PBB. DO 007, s. 2021, in force “starting Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 and the years thereafter”, makes the PMTs “the body that reviews, assesses, and shall decide on appeals regarding the ranking of delivery units and individual eligibility for the grant of the PBB” (para. 51). An individual found ineligible writes to the School PMT “within 15 calendar days of receipt of Notice of noneligibility for PBB”, then has 15 calendar days after each resolution to go to the SDO, RO and National PMTs (para. 58); a school appeals its ranking within 15 calendar days of the Notice of Ranking (para. 54). No later DepEd order has changed this.
• PTA. DO 013, s. 2022 creates the SPTA Grievance Committee “to address complaints involving minor disagreements, conflicts or disputes against the PTA, the SPTA-BOD, or any of their members” (Sec. 11.8.1), “Provided that, the complaint does not involve light/minor, less grave and grave/major offenses” (Sec. 30.1). It resolves a complaint “within 30 days” of the last conference, or of receipt if none is held; if a member of the SPTA Grievance Committee is the subject, the complaint goes to the SDS (Sec. 30.3).
• Canteens. DO 8, s. 2007 sends parents’ and community complaints on “pricing, quality of foods, etc.” to the Division Grievance Committee for school-managed canteens and to the School Grievance Committee for teachers’ cooperative-managed canteens (Sec. 10.2(a)), for dissatisfaction “which does not constitute an administrative disciplinary action”. The committee decides “within five (5) days from the termination of the grievance proceedings” (Sec. 10.2(b)); a cooperative case goes from the School to the Division committee, then to the Regional committee “within fifteen (15) days from notice thereof” (Sec. 10.2(c)). These committees have “exclusive original jurisdiction” (Sec. 11.1). DO 13, s. 2017 modifies Policy Statements 4.4 to 4.6 of DO 8, not these sections.

When one set of facts is both

Teacher A asks about her late overtime pay and is insulted in front of others. The late pay is a grievance; the insult may be discourtesy, a ground for discipline (DO 49, Sec. 2(g)).

1. Split the complaint. The pay goes through the grievance steps; the charge goes, as a sworn complaint, to the disciplining authority (DO 49, Sec. 2, last paragraph).
2. Each route keeps its own clock. No text says a grievance stops the period for a protest, a reassignment appeal or a rating appeal.
3. Withdrawing a complaint does not end a charge. “The withdrawal of the complaint does not result in its outright dismissal or the discharge of the person complained of from any administrative liability” (2025 RACCS, Sec. 14; DO 49, Sec. 7 is to the same effect).
4. No reprisal. “The aggrieved party shall be assured freedom from coercion, discrimination, reprisal, and biased action on the grievance” (DO 35, Part I.2).

What this means for school heads

1. Check for the special routes first. A learner who may have been harmed: forward the complaint within 48 hours (DO 40, Sec. 16(A)). Sexual harassment: refer it to the CODI (2025 RACCS, Sec. 16).
2. Sort the rest with the routing table.
3. Answer a grievance within three days of presentation when you are the immediate supervisor; that meets both DO 35’s “three (3) days” and the CSC’s “three (3) working days”. Officials who refuse to act on a grievance “shall be liable for neglect of duty” (DO 35, Part VII).
4. Keep charges out of the School Grievance Committee, and do not decide them yourself. For teachers, the disciplining authority is the Regional Director or the Secretary (DO 49, Sec. 1).
5. Tell people the route and deadline in writing, and log each concern: date received, route, date sent, reply.
6. Act on every Ombudsman referral within its period (RA 6770, Sec. 23(2)), and on any CSC referral promptly.

Do not treat a protest as a grievance, settle a sexual harassment or child abuse complaint, or hear a grievance against yourself; that goes to the next higher supervisor (DO 35, Part VI.1). The steps on receipt are in What a School Head Does When a Complaint Arrives.

Related guides: Human Resource Management for DepEd School Heads, PPSSH Domain 2: Managing School Operations, PPSSH Domain 4: Developing Self and Others and PPSSH Domain 5: Building Connections.

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, Situational, Moderate.

You are the principal of an elementary school and Teacher P’s immediate supervisor. She gives you a letter: her overtime pay for Saturday remedial classes has not been processed in three months, and yesterday Head Teacher Q called her “lazy” in front of her pupils. She asks you to bring both matters to the School Grievance Committee so that Head Teacher Q is punished. What is the most appropriate action?

• A. Convene the School Grievance Committee to hear both matters together, since it hears teachers’ grievances not resolved orally, and ask it to recommend a penalty.
• B. Tell her to put both matters in one sworn complaint to the Regional Director, since one of them is a charge against a teacher.
• C. Act on the overtime pay within three days as her immediate supervisor, and forward her letter about Head Teacher Q to the Schools Division Superintendent for action.
• D. Act on the overtime pay within three days as her immediate supervisor, explain that a charge against Head Teacher Q needs a sworn complaint to the Regional Director, and record both steps.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). It breaks the rule: a grievance committee “is not allowed to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases”.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). It breaks the rule: as her immediate supervisor you must decide the pay grievance “within three (3) days from the date of presentation” (DO 35, Part VI.1), and officials who refuse to act on a grievance are liable for neglect of duty.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). It splits the matters correctly but sends the charge, as an unsworn letter, to the Superintendent, who disciplines non-teaching personnel only.
• D (3 points, Relational). It resolves the grievance at the lowest level within the time limit, routes the charge to the disciplining authority in the required form, and documents both.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the laws and issuances on managing school staff. DO 35, s. 2004 makes “delay in the processing of overtime pay” a grievance (Part V), which the immediate supervisor answers “within three (3) days from the date of presentation” (Part VI.1). Discourtesy is a ground for discipline (DO 49, s. 2006, Sec. 2(g)), charged by a sworn complaint (Sec. 4) to the Regional Director (Secs. 1 and 6). “A Grievance Committee is not allowed to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases” (Sec. 2).

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

Sources: DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2004, Parts V and VI; DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Secs. 1, 2, 4 and 6.

Question 2

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

Teacher R, a qualified next-in-rank applicant, believes the newly appointed Principal I of her school does not meet the position’s minimum experience requirement. She asks whether she should file a grievance. Which statement is most accurate?

• A. She may raise it with the School Grievance Committee, since DepEd’s grievance machinery lists protests on appointments among grievable matters.
• B. She may file a protest instead of a grievance, since a protest on an appointment is no longer handled through the grievance machinery.
• C. She may file a written protest with the Head of Office, on the ground that the appointee lacks a minimum qualification, instead of a grievance.
• D. She may file a written protest with the Head of Office, on the ground that the appointee lacks a minimum qualification, within 15 calendar days from issuance, and appeal a denial to the CSC Regional Office.

Answer and explanation

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

• A (0 points, Prestructural). It relies on a superseded item: since 2010 a protest “shall no longer be acted upon through the grievance machinery”.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). It names the right remedy but not where, on what ground or by when.
• C (2 points, Multistructural). It gives the remedy, the office and the ground, but leaves out the period and the appeal route.
• D (3 points, Relational). It connects standing, ground, office, period and appeal into one course of action she can follow.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.7.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the rules on the rights and benefits of school personnel. Since February 10, 2010, “A protest on appointment shall no longer be acted upon through the grievance machinery” (CSC MC No. 4, s. 2010, Item 1). Only a qualified next-in-rank employee may protest, on the ground that the appointee “does not possess the minimum qualification requirements” (2025 RACCS, Sec. 116). DepEd’s rule is a written protest to the Head of Office “within 15 calendar days from the date of issuance of appointment”, with appeals to the CSC Regional Office: “No appeal shall be filed to a higher governance level of DepEd” (DO 007, s. 2023, Encl. No. 1, item 67). The 2025 RACCS counts its 15 days “from the announcement and/or posting of appointments” (Sec. 117).

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: CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, s. 2010, Item 1; 2025 RACCS (CSC Resolution No. 2500357), Secs. 116–117; DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2023, Encl. No. 1, item 67.

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

Frequently asked questions

Can a grievance committee impose a penalty on a teacher?

No. “A Grievance Committee is not allowed to hear and decide administrative disciplinary cases” (DO 49, s. 2006, Sec. 2). A charge goes to the disciplining authority: the Regional Director or the Secretary for teachers and school heads, the SDS for non-teaching personnel (Sec. 1). A grievance committee resolves dissatisfaction and, at the end, issues a CFAG (DO 35, s. 2004, Part VII).

Where does a teacher file a complaint against the principal?

It depends on what the teacher wants. To fix a work problem the principal caused, such as an unacted leave application, the teacher goes to the next higher supervisor, because the principal is the object of the grievance (DO 35, Part VI.1). To charge the principal with an offense, the teacher files a sworn complaint with the Regional Director (DO 49, Sec. 6) or the CSC (2025 RACCS, Sec. 13).

Is a complaint about how a promotion was decided a grievance or a protest?

A protest attacks the appointee’s qualifications and goes to the head of office, then the CSC Regional Office (CSC MC No. 4, s. 2010; DO 007, s. 2023, item 67). A complaint that the selection process was not followed is still listed as a grievance (DO 35, Part V, item 2), and DO 030, s. 2025 lets applicants raise it through the grievance machinery; anyone may also petition the CSC Regional Office to recall the approval of an appointment issued in violation of civil service rules (2025 RACCS, Secs. 125–126). No text says a grievance stops the protest period, so file any protest within 15 calendar days of issuance.

Can a complainant skip DepEd and go to the CSC or the Ombudsman?

For a charge, yes: the CSC and its regional offices share jurisdiction with DepEd (2025 RACCS, Secs. 9 and 13), and so does the Ombudsman, though in Medrano (2008) the Court said a complaint against a public school teacher “should have been referred” to DepEd’s committee. A grievance is different: the Commission does not take it as an original disciplinary case (Sec. 7(A)(1)), and it reaches the CSC Regional Office on appeal at the end of the DO 35 steps (Part VI.5).

Sources

DepEd issuances

• DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2004, Revision of the Grievance Machinery of the Department of Education (June 3, 2004), Parts I, III, IV, V, VI and VII.
• DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of Education in Administrative Cases (December 12, 2006), Secs. 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7.
• DepEd Order No. 40, s. 2012, DepEd Child Protection Policy (May 14, 2012), Secs. 16(A) and 17.
• DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026, Guidelines on Ensuring a Safe and Motivating Learning Environment (March 24, 2026), Secs. VII.A.2 and VII.A.4 and Annex A.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2026, Media Management Guidelines (March 25, 2026), Sec. VI.2.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2023, Guidelines on Recruitment, Selection, and Appointment in the Department of Education (March 22, 2023), Encl. No. 1, item 67.
• DepEd Order No. 020, s. 2024, Guidelines on the Recruitment, Selection, and Appointment to Higher Teaching Positions (December 20, 2024), para. 5(e) of the order; Encl., paras. 5, 7 and 69.
• DepEd Order No. 019, s. 2022, The Department of Education Merit Selection Plan (April 22, 2022), item 67.
• DepEd Order No. 021, s. 2024, Amendments to DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2023 (December 23, 2024), item 31.
• DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2016, Addendum to DepEd Order No. 3, s. 2016 (Hiring Guidelines for Senior High School Teaching Positions Effective School Year 2016-2017) (May 23, 2016), item I, Protest Procedures (repealed in part by DO 020, s. 2024, para. 5(e)).
• DepEd Order No. 030, s. 2025, Inclusive Employment Policy in the Department of Education (September 29, 2025), Encl., Part IX.A.1(f)(v).
• DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2017, Gender-Responsive Basic Education Policy (June 29, 2017), sections on the Complaint or Grievance Committee and the Committee on Decorum and Investigation.
• DepEd Order No. 15, s. 2012, DepEd Policy Framework for the Implementation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System-Mediation (February 17, 2012), Secs. 4 and 7.
• DepEd Order No. 030, s. 2022, Creation of the DepEd Employees’ Associations Coordinating Office in the Department of Education (June 23, 2022), item 10(d).
• DepEd Order No. 2, s. 2015, Guidelines on the Establishment and Implementation of the Results-Based Performance Management System (RPMS) in the Department of Education (February 6, 2015), paras. 69–72 and the “Grievances and Appeals” instructions on its RPMS forms.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 017, s. 2025, Interim Guidelines for the Department of Education Performance Management and Evaluation System for Teachers in the School Year 2024-2025 (February 7, 2025), para. 2.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 089, s. 2025, Guidelines on the Multi-Year Performance Management and Evaluation System for Teachers from School Years 2025–2026 to 2027–2028 (October 1, 2025).
• Memorandum DM-OSEC-OUHRODI-2026-0001, Guidance in the Implementation of the Performance Management and Evaluation System (PMES) for Teachers for SY 2025-2026 (March 3, 2026), p. 7, paragraph after Part C.
• DepEd Order No. 007, s. 2021, Multiyear Guidelines on the Grant of Performance-Based Bonus for the Department of Education Employees and Officials (February 17, 2021), para. 4 of the order and paras. 51–54 and 58 of the guidelines.
• DepEd Order No. 013, s. 2022, Omnibus Guidelines on the Regulation of Operations of Parent-Teacher Associations (March 18, 2022), Secs. 11.8.1 and 30.
• DepEd Order No. 8, s. 2007, Revised Implementing Guidelines on the Operation and Management of School Canteens in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools (February 6, 2007), Secs. 10.2 and 11.1.
• DepEd Order No. 13, s. 2017, Policy and Guidelines on Healthy Food and Beverage Choices in Schools and in DepEd Offices (March 14, 2017), para. 3.

Civil Service Commission and PSLMC rules

• 2025 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, CSC Resolution No. 2500357, promulgated April 30, 2025, in force August 4, 2025, Secs. 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16–18, 75, 116, 117, 119, 122, 125–127 and 156.
• 2025 Omnibus Rules on Appointments and Other Human Resource Actions, CSC Memorandum Circular No. 8, s. 2025 (CSC Resolution No. 2500358), Sec. 13(a), items 4 and 5, and Sec. 117.
• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 4, s. 2010, Revised Policies in the Resolution of Protest Cases (February 8, 2010; CSC Resolution No. 091718, effective February 10, 2010), Items 1 and 2.
• CSC Memorandum Circular No. 2, s. 2001, Revised Policies on the Settlement of Grievances in the Public Sector (January 26, 2001), items 5 and 7.
• PSLMC Resolution No. 2, s. 2004, Amended Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize (September 28, 2004), Rule XIV, Secs. 1 and 2(a), and Rule XIX, Sec. 4.
• PSLMC, 2024 Rules and Regulations Governing the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees to Organize (promulgated December 12, 2023; launched April 29, 2024, as announced by the CSC).

Laws and other rules

• Executive Order No. 180 (June 1, 1987), Sec. 16.
• Republic Act No. 4670, Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, Sec. 2.
• Republic Act No. 6770, The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (November 17, 1989), Secs. 19, 21 and 23(2).
• Republic Act No. 7877, Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (February 14, 1995), Sec. 4(b).
• Republic Act No. 8190 (June 11, 1996), Sec. 1.
• Republic Act No. 10627, Anti-Bullying Act of 2013, Sec. 2.
• Republic Act No. 11313, Safe Spaces Act (April 17, 2019), Sec. 21, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, Secs. 25(1)(a) and 33.
• Office of the Ombudsman, Administrative Order No. 1, s. 2026, Revised Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman (signed January 19, 2026), Rule I, Sec. 3 and Rule II, Sec. 4.

Supreme Court decisions

• Office of the Ombudsman v. Medrano, G.R. No. 177580, October 17, 2008 (Second Division).
• Huertas v. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 152443, February 14, 2005 (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
• Who Disciplines DepEd Teachers and School Heads?
• How to File an Administrative Complaint in DepEd
• DepEd Preliminary Investigation, Formal Charge and Answer
• Formal Investigation and Decision in DepEd Cases
• DepEd Administrative Offenses and Penalties in 2026
• Can a Teacher Be Charged for Unpaid Loans in DepEd?
• DepEd Grievance Machinery: Steps and Time Limits
• Grievance or Administrative Case? Where to File (this post)
• Sexual Harassment and Child Abuse Complaints in DepEd
• What a School Head Does When a Complaint Arrives

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Orders No. 35, s. 2004; 49, s. 2006; 40, s. 2012; 007, s. 2023; 020, s. 2024; 006, s. 2026; 2025 RACCS; 2025 ORAOHRA; CSC MC No. 4, s. 2010; EO 180; PSLMC Resolution No. 2, s. 2004; RA 6770; RA 7877; RA 8190; RA 11313.