# Can a Teacher Be Charged for Unpaid Loans in DepEd?

Yes, but only for a just debt: one a court has decided or the teacher admits. A light offense that may be settled; the case cannot collect the loan.

This is the Markdown copy of [Can a Teacher Be Charged for Unpaid Loans in DepEd?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/teacher-unpaid-loans-just-debts-administrative-case), 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.

Yes. A DepEd teacher, school head or other employee can be charged with "willful failure to pay just debts", a ground for disciplinary action in the [Administrative Code of 1987](https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_292_1987.html) (Book V, Sec. 46(b)(22)), in [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/) (Sec. 2(v)) and in the Civil Service Commission's [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) (2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(C)(16)). It is a light offense: reprimand for the first offense, suspension of one to thirty days for the second, dismissal for the third. But the ground is narrow. A "just debt" is only a claim adjudicated by a court, or one whose existence and justness the debtor admits. A lender's claim that the teacher disputes and no court has decided is not one.

The case also cannot collect the loan. It ends in a penalty, in the dismissal of the complaint, or in a settlement the two sides sign. DepEd deducts loan payments from salaries only for lenders accredited under its Automatic Payroll Deduction System (APDS), with the employee's written authority.

The rules are stated as of October 31, 2026. "The 2025 RACCS" is CSC Resolution No. 2500357, in force since August 4, 2025, and DO 49, s. 2006 remains in force. In 2021 DepEd's Office of the Undersecretary for Administration proposed removing this ground from DO 49, saying lenders were using DepEd offices as collection agencies. The proposal was never adopted, and the ground is written into the law itself.

## Key findings

- **The ground is statutory:** Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 46(b)(22), repeated in DO 49, s. 2006, Sec. 2(v) and the 2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(C)(16).
- **Only two kinds of debt count:** claims "adjudicated by a court of law", and claims whose "existence and justness" the debtor admits (DO 49, Sec. 58(C)(10); 2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(C)).
- **The penalties are the same in both texts:** reprimand, then suspension of 1 to 30 days, then dismissal (DO 49, Sec. 58(C)(10); 2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(C)). None of them is an order to pay the lender (Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 46(d)).
- **It is one of only two light offenses the 2025 RACCS lets the parties settle** (Sec. 75), and only before the formal charge (Sec. 76). DO 15, s. 2012 also offers DepEd mediation for it (Sec. 4).
- **In 2021 DepEd's Office of the Undersecretary for Administration proposed dropping the ground** (OUA Memo 00-0921-0125, September 8, 2021). Its papers listed 335 entries from field offices (some cases appear more than once), 160 of them labeled with the just-debts ground. No order followed.
- **DepEd deducts loan payments only for APDS-accredited lenders, with written authority** (RA 4670, Sec. 21; DO 20, s. 2021, as amended through DO 020, s. 2026). DM 049, s. 2026 repeats the ban on ATM cards as collateral.
- **The school head is not the disciplining authority and must not deduct or collect for a lender** (DO 49, Sec. 1; RA 4670, Sec. 21; DO 20, s. 2021, Encl. 1, para. 15).

## What "willful failure to pay just debts" means

The Administrative Code, a law, lists "Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes due to the government" among the grounds for disciplining any civil servant (Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Sec. 46(b)(22)). DO 49 repeats it (Sec. 2(v)) and classes it as a light offense (Sec. 58(C)(10)), as does the 2025 RACCS (Sec. 63(C)(16)).

This guide covers the debts half of the ground. Two things must be shown: a debt that is "just" in the rules' sense, and a failure to pay it that is "willful". The ground reaches teachers, school heads and non-teaching personnel alike (DO 49; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 2, which covers "agencies of the national government").

**Who decides.** For teachers, including school heads, the Regional Director or the Secretary; for non-teaching personnel, the Schools Division Superintendent (DO 49, Sec. 1). A complaint must be in writing and sworn (Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 46(c); DO 49, Sec. 4; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 11) and, for a teacher, is filed with the Regional Director (DO 49, Sec. 6) or with the CSC (2025 RACCS, Sec. 13). See [Who Disciplines DepEd Teachers and School Heads?](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-disciplining-authority-teachers-school-heads) and [How to File an Administrative Complaint in DepEd](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-administrative-complaint-filing).

## When is a debt "just"?

DO 49 defines the term right below the offense:

> "The term "just debts" shall apply only to:
> 1. Claims adjudicated by a court of law, or
> 2. Claims the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor." (Sec. 58(C)(10))

The 2025 RACCS says the same in one sentence: "The term "just debts" shall apply only to claims adjudicated by a court of law, or those the existence and justness of which are admitted by the debtor." (Sec. 63(C))

The word "only" does the work. A claim is a "just debt" in two situations and no others:

| Situation | Just debt? | Why |
|---|---|---|
| A court has decided that the teacher owes the amount | Yes | "adjudicated by a court of law" |
| The teacher admits that the debt exists and that the amount claimed is owed | Yes | "existence and justness … admitted by the debtor" |
| The teacher disputes part of the amount (for example, the penalties or interest added) and no court has decided it | Not for the disputed part | Neither condition is met for that part; any part the teacher admits owing may be a "just debt" |
| The lender's own statement of account, with no court decision and no admission | No | A creditor's claim alone is neither |

Three points follow.

1. **The lender's word is not enough** to make a disputed claim "just".
2. **Admissions matter.** Signing a statement that acknowledges the lender's figure, or admitting the amount in a counter-affidavit, may supply the admission the definition requires. The rules do not say whether a signed promissory note alone is an admission, or how a debt admitted only in part is treated. A teacher who disputes part of a claim should say so in writing and say which part, if any, is owed.
3. **The complaint must show the basis.** DO 49 lets the disciplining authority dismiss a complaint outright "if on its face, there is obviously no truth or merit to the allegations therein" (Sec. 8(a)), and a formal charge needs a *prima facie* case (Sec. 9(g)). The disciplining authority judges whether a complaint shows either.

## What "willful" means

The rules do not define "willful". The Administrative Code, DO 49 and the 2025 RACCS use the word without explaining it, and so do the other DepEd issuances that mention the ground (DO 43, s. 2006, which DO 49 superseded, and DO 15, s. 2012).

The Supreme Court has applied the ground to court employees. These decisions concern court personnel, whom the Court disciplines under its own constitutional power, and they came before the 2025 RACCS allowed settlement; they are persuasive on what "willful" means.

- In [*Sipin v. Gironella*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/jun1982/am_2758_p_1982.html), A.M. No. 2758-P, June 29, 1982 (Second Division), a court employee admitted the debt but said the buyers of jewelry she had taken to sell had not paid her, and that she was paying in installments. The Court adopted the Court Administrator's recommendation, which relied on an earlier ruling that a claim that non-payment "is not deliberate but due to force of circumstances" does not excuse it, and suspended her for fifteen days. Justice Abad Santos dissented: "the debt must not only be a just one, there must also be a wilful failure to pay it." Justice Concepcion, Jr. also dissented.
- In [*Reliways, Inc. v. Rosales*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/am_p-07-2326_2007.html), A.M. No. P-07-2326, July 9, 2007 (Third Division), a company that had lent a court stenographer ₱7,000 filed the complaint. She was reprimanded although she had paid in full under a court judgment based on a compromise: "While respondent has already paid in full her obligation towards complainant, this does not exculpate her from liability."

Together they suggest that hardship or later payment alone may not defeat the charge. What else can be said from the texts:

- **The word is part of the offense.** The rule does not punish failure to pay; it punishes willful failure to pay a just debt. Whether a failure was willful is a question of fact that the disciplining authority decides on the evidence.
- **A respondent should put the facts on record:** receipts, pay slips showing deductions already taken, letters offering a payment plan or disputing the charges, proof of illness or other hardship.
- **Good faith and illness count at the penalty stage.** The 2025 RACCS lists "Good faith", "Lack of malice" and "Physical illness" as mitigating circumstances, which "must be invoked or pleaded and proved" (Sec. 67(A)); DO 49 lists good faith too (Sec. 59(b)). They affect where a penalty falls within its range, such as the 1 to 30 days for a second offense (Sec. 68); they are not a finding that the failure was not willful.

## Penalties

| Offense | DO 49, Sec. 58(C)(10) | 2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(C)(16) |
|---|---|---|
| First | Reprimand | Reprimand |
| Second | Suspension for one (1) to thirty (30) days | Suspension of one (1) to thirty (30) days |
| Third | Dismissal | Dismissal from the service |

The two texts agree, so no conflict arises on the penalty.

- **Reprimand** "shall not carry any accessory penalties" (2025 RACCS, Sec. 73(e)).
- **A suspension of 30 days or less is final** (DO 49, Secs. 44 and 46; 2025 RACCS, Sec. 58). The RACCS allows an appeal from it only "when the issue raised is violation of due process" (Sec. 58). A motion for reconsideration is still available; see [Formal Investigation and Decision in DepEd Cases](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-formal-investigation-decision).
- **Dismissal** on a third offense carries the accessory penalties of dismissal (2025 RACCS, Sec. 73), and a Regional Director's decision removing an employee needs the Secretary's confirmation (DO 49, Sec. 45). The full penalty rules are in [DepEd Administrative Offenses and Penalties in 2026](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-administrative-offenses-penalties).

**No penalty orders payment.** The Administrative Code lists what a disciplining authority may impose: "The disciplining authority may impose the penalty of removal from the service, demotion in rank, suspension for not more than one year without pay, fine in an amount not exceeding six months' salary, or reprimand." (Book V, Sec. 46(d)) An order to pay a private lender is not among them. Even a fine is "paid to the agency imposing the same" (2025 RACCS, Sec. 66(f)), not to the creditor.

## Can a lender use a DepEd case to collect a loan?

A lender can file a complaint, but the case is not a collection suit.

**Filing.** Proceedings may start "upon sworn written complaint of any other persons" (DO 49, Sec. 3; the 2025 RACCS, Sec. 10, is similar), so a lender may file a sworn complaint with the contents DO 49, Sec. 5 and the RACCS, Sec. 11 require.

**What the case can produce.** A penalty, if the charge is proved; the dismissal of the complaint; or, if the respondent chooses settlement, a decision based on the parties' agreement (2025 RACCS, Secs. 76 and 81). Only the last can contain payment terms, and only because the teacher agreed to them.

**What it cannot do.** It cannot order the teacher to pay (Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 46(d)). Nor can it make DepEd deduct the loan from salary. RA 4670, the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, says: "No person shall make any deduction whatsoever from the salaries of teachers except under specific authority of law authorizing such deductions" (Sec. 21; see also Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 66). DepEd's own payroll deductions for lenders are covered below.

**Withdrawal does not end it.** "The withdrawal of the complaint does not result in its outright dismissal nor in the discharge of the person complained of from any administrative liability." (DO 49, Sec. 7; the 2025 RACCS, Sec. 14, is to the same effect.) Settlement under Rule 11, below, is the route that ends a just-debts case by agreement.

**Where collection belongs.** The 2021 OUA papers put it this way: "PLIs have all the right to collect but such right may be enforced through the filing of collection cases in the proper courts and/or tribunal, but not in DepEd." That is the view of the office that wrote it, not a rule. The rule is that a court judgment for the lender makes the debt "just".

## Settlement and mediation

### Settlement under the 2025 RACCS

Rule 11 of the 2025 RACCS allows settlement in a narrow class of cases:

> "Settlement shall be allowed 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. *Provided*, that settlement can no longer be resorted to in a subsequent complaint for the same offense against the person complained of. Specifically, settlement may be resorted to in the following light offenses: a. Borrowing Money By Superior Officers From Subordinate; and b. Willful Failure to Pay Just Debts." (Sec. 75)

Sexual harassment complaints "shall not be subject to mediation and settlement" (Sec. 75).

| Step | Rule | Section |
|---|---|---|
| Screening and choice | The disciplining authority "shall *motu proprio* evaluate whether the offense can be the subject of settlement"; the person complained of comments and says whether to settle | Sec. 76 |
| Deadline to ask | "The person complained of may move for the settlement of the complaint at any time before the issuance of the formal charge." | Sec. 76 |
| Mediation | A mediation officer within the agency holds it; the preliminary investigation is suspended meanwhile | Secs. 76–77 |
| Period | "The parties shall arrive at a settlement within thirty (30) days from the date of the initial conference"; an extension "shall not exceed thirty (30) days" | Sec. 78 |
| Repudiation | Within ten (10) days from the date of the settlement, by sworn affidavit filed with the mediation officer, if consent was obtained "by fraud, violence, or intimidation" | Sec. 80 |
| Decision | A decision based on the agreement dismisses the case, subject to reopening under Sec. 82; the agreement has "the force and effect of a judgment on the merits", and a new complaint "for the same offense and the same act shall be barred by *res judicata*" | Sec. 81 |
| Breach | The complaint "may be reopened" and the person complained of "may be held liable for Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service" | Sec. 82 |
| Confidentiality | "Admission or statements made during mediation shall be inadmissible in any proceeding, unless otherwise provided by law." | Sec. 83 |

**The limits.** Settlement is the respondent's choice, and it covers the just-debts charge, not a dishonesty charge filed with it. It also raises the stakes of a broken promise: conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service is a grave offense, punished by suspension of six months and one day to one year for the first offense (2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(A)(2)(a)), far heavier than a reprimand. Agree only to terms you can keep.

### Mediation under DO 15, s. 2012

[DO 15, s. 2012](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2012/02/17/do-15-s-2012-deped-policy-framework-for-the-implementation-of-the-alternative-dispute-resolution-adr-system-mediation/), the DepEd Policy Framework for the Implementation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System-Mediation, covers complaints falling under the DO 49 light offenses "where the corresponding penalty is reprimand", listing all seventeen, including "j. Willful failure to pay just debts or willful failure to pay taxes due to the government" (Sec. 4(1)). DepEd still treats it as current: DO 006, s. 2026 names it among the "existing DepEd issuances" with which schools' investigation protocols must be consistent (Sec. VII.A.4).

| Point | DO 15, s. 2012 |
|---|---|
| Not covered | *Motu proprio* cases and anonymous complaints, among others (Sec. 4(2)(f)–(g)) |
| Where it starts | Submitted "to the Head of Office where the respondent/party complained of is employed", then forwarded to the Mediation Unit, which evaluates it within five (5) days from receipt (Sec. 7.1) |
| Periods | First conference within fifteen (15) calendar days of the mediator's acceptance; settlement within thirty (30) calendar days of it, extendible by no more than thirty (30) days (Secs. 7.3–7.4) |
| Lawyers | May be consulted but "shall not be allowed to participate during the mediation" (Sec. 8.2) |
| Confidentiality | Notes and admissions "shall not be admitted in any judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings" (Sec. 10.1(b)) |
| Cost | "Mediation in DepEd is a service given for free." (Sec. 13) |

### Where DO 15 and the 2025 RACCS differ

The two texts agree that a just-debts complaint may be settled. They differ on scope and timing.

1. DO 15 says: "A pending case may be subjected to a mediation process as long as it falls under those instances/cases covered by mediation or it is within the jurisdiction of the Mediation Unit and that both parties agree to the process." (Sec. 11) It covers all seventeen DO 49 light offenses (Sec. 4(1)).
2. The 2025 RACCS says: "The person complained of may move for the settlement of the complaint at any time before the issuance of the formal charge." (Sec. 76) It allows settlement in only two light offenses (Sec. 75).
3. 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.
4. One course satisfies both: elect settlement in writing before any formal charge is issued, and reach a signed agreement within thirty days of the first conference (DO 15 counts "thirty (30) calendar days"; the RACCS, "thirty (30) days").

## Lenders' complaints in DepEd: the 2021 OUA proposal

### What the papers are

On September 8, 2021, the Office of the Undersecretary for Administration (OUA) sent the Secretary **OUA Memo 00-0921-0125**, *Action on the Proposed Amendment to DepEd Order No. 49, Series of 2006*. It asked for "immediate action on the proposed amendment to DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, specifically the removal of willful failure to pay just debts as a ground for disciplinary action against DepEd personnel". Attached were an **Aide Memoire of March 8, 2021**, *Administrative Cases Filed by Private Lending Institutions (PLIs) against DepEd Personnel*; a Legal Affairs status report of December 1, 2020; summary charts; and a draft order.

### What they say

These statements are the OUA's, in a proposal that was never adopted.

- The Aide Memoire reported "Regional and/or Division offices filing administrative cases against DepEd teaching and non-teaching personnel for unpaid loans contracted with private lending institutions (PLIs) outside of the Automatic Payroll Deduction System (APDS)", on the ground of willful failure to pay just debts.
- It said there were "reports that these private lenders file this kind of administrative cases to coat/pad collections to favor and make the field offices as their collection agency", and that "some personnel, after formal investigations and hearings, were meted penalties such as suspensions, or dismissal from the service."
- Its recommendation: "OUA strongly suggests that D.O. 49, Series of 2006 be amended by removing the willful failure to pay just debts as a ground for disciplinary action." It added: "DepEd must not allow its offices to be used as collection agencies."
- Six months later the memo said "no appropriate action has been taken on the matter".

### What the figures show

The Legal Affairs report compiled status reports from regional directors and schools division superintendents on complaints "resolved or still pending with the field offices within the last two years"; by the Aide Memoire's account, eight regional offices and eighteen division offices had such cases.

- **335 cases, as the papers count them.** The papers' summary says "93% or 310 of the total are Dishonesty cases". That figure is a grouping, not 310 dishonesty charges: the detailed table behind it shows that the 310 include 139 entries labeled only "Willful Failure to Pay Just Debts".
- **160 of the 335 entries are labeled with the just-debts ground:** 139 with that ground alone and 21 labeled "Willful failure to Pay Just Debts, Dishonesty".
- **Status.** Figure 1 shows the papers' own summary.
- **Penalties recorded.** The detailed table behind the summary lists 5 "Reprimanded", 6 "Suspension" and 1 "Guilty", which together equal the summary's 12 "Reprimanded"; the papers do not explain the grouping. Likewise, the summary's 25 "Settled" equals 21 "Settled" and 4 "Resolved", and its 133 "Pending" equals 92 "On-going" and 41 "Pending". No category is labeled dismissal from the service.

![Horizontal bar chart of the 335 cases counted in the 2021 OUA papers, by status as the papers summarize them: Pending 133, For Final Review 86, Dismissed 41, Settled 25, Mediation 18, For Resolution 13, Reprimanded 12, For Decision 5, Withdrawn 2. Notes on the bars say that Reprimanded combines 5 reprimands, 6 suspensions and 1 Guilty, and that the Dismissed label is not defined in the papers and is not a count of dismissals from the service.](https://nash.com.ph/blog/_astro/debts-oua-complaints-by-status.BStR4-RY_2vcAVn.webp)

*Figure 1. Status of the 335 cases counted in the papers attached to OUA Memo 00-0921-0125, as the papers' own summary gives them. The entries were compiled by DepEd regional and division offices for the Legal Affairs report of December 1, 2020, and summarized in the 2021 OUA papers; categories are as labeled. Some entries are repeated in the papers' case lists, so these are not counts of distinct complaints. "Reprimanded" combines 5 reprimands, 6 suspensions and 1 "Guilty" in the detailed table. "Dismissed" is not explained in the papers and is not a count of dismissals from the service: most such entries in the case lists are dismissed complaints, two entries (both labeled dishonesty) record dismissal from the service, and one just-debts entry records a decision whose wording is cut off. Data: OUA Memo 00-0921-0125, September 8, 2021, "Summary of Resolutions" (p. 5). Chart: © 2026 Mark Anthony Llego, NASH Reviewer. [Download the full-resolution chart (PNG)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/admin-grievance/debts-oua-complaints-by-status.png) or [its data (CSV)](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/admin-grievance/debts-oua-complaints-by-status.csv).*

**How to read these numbers.** They are what field offices reported in 2020 on complaints resolved or still pending "within the last two years"; some had been filed years earlier. They are counts of entries, not of distinct complaints: the case lists repeat some entries (one regional office's 17 entries cover six cases, some listed three times), and one case shown as under formal investigation in one listing is marked "Dismissed" in another. The summary does not separate complaints by lending companies from those by individuals or started by DepEd, and it mixes just-debts complaints with dishonesty and other charges. The case lists record two dismissals from the service, both in cases labeled dishonesty (one started by DepEd itself), and one decision on a just-debts complaint whose wording is cut off ("Respondent was …") and is filed under "Dismissal". The figures therefore cannot confirm the papers' statement that personnel were dismissed from the service for unpaid loans. They do show field offices handling complaints on this ground, with 43 of the 335 entries labeled "Settled" or "Mediation".

## Was the ground removed?

No. As of October 31, 2026, willful failure to pay just debts is still a ground for disciplinary action against DepEd personnel.

- **The draft order was never issued.** The OUA attached an unnumbered draft order of 2021 that would have amended Sec. 2(v) of DO 49 to read only "Willful failure to pay taxes due the government", and would have added that dishonesty "should not necessarily include willful failure to pay just debts as one of its prohibited acts". As of October 2026, no DepEd order or memorandum has amended Sec. 2(v).
- **The CSC kept it.** The 2025 RACCS, promulgated in 2025, still lists it as light offense 16 and still allows it to be settled (Secs. 63(C)(16) and 75).
- **It is in the law.** The ground comes from the Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 46(b)(22). A DepEd order could have changed DO 49, but not the Code or the CSC's rules, which apply to DepEd and to complaints filed with the CSC directly (2025 RACCS, Secs. 2, 9 and 13).

Until the law changes, a teacher's protection lies in the narrow definition of "just debts", in settlement, and in the rules on salary deductions.

## Dishonesty is a separate charge

In the OUA papers, 21 entries paired the just-debts ground with dishonesty. The two are different offenses with very different consequences.

| | Willful failure to pay just debts | Dishonesty |
|---|---|---|
| DO 49, s. 2006 | Light: reprimand, 1–30 days, dismissal (Sec. 58(C)(10)) | Grave: dismissal for the first offense (Sec. 58(A)(1)) |
| 2025 RACCS | Light offense 16 (Sec. 63(C)) | Serious (dismissal), less serious (6 months and 1 day to 1 year), or simple (1 month and 1 day to 6 months), by the circumstances of the "dishonest act" (Secs. 63 and 64(B)) |
| Settlement under Rule 11 | Allowed (Sec. 75) | Not listed |

Two cautions follow.

- **The rules list the offenses separately; they neither treat non-payment as dishonesty nor rule it out.** The 2021 draft order would have said that dishonesty "should not necessarily include willful failure to pay just debts", but it was never adopted. Under the RACCS, dishonesty is graded by the "dishonest act" and its circumstances (Sec. 64(B)). Answer each charge on its own facts. The tiers are explained in [Dishonesty and Grave Misconduct: Cases on Principals](https://nash.com.ph/blog/principal-dishonesty-grave-misconduct-cases).
- **Lying to get a loan is a different matter.** [DO 57, s. 2016](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/09/01/do-57-s-2016-reiteration-of-policies-under-deped-order-nos-49-s-2006-and-101-s-2009-fraudulent-representations-related-to-the-departments-automatic-payroll-deduction-system-program/) reported "DepEd personnel who allegedly submitted falsified pay slips to PLIs" and people posing as other employees to borrow under the APDS. It reminded personnel that "dishonesty, falsification of official documents, and disclosing or misusing confidential or classified information" are grounds for discipline under DO 49 (para. 4). Those charges cannot be settled under Rule 11.

## Payroll deduction, accredited lenders and ATM cards

### The APDS rules in force

[DO 20, s. 2021](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2021/05/27/may-27-2021-do-020-s-2021-enhanced-guidelines-on-accreditation-re-accreditation-of-private-entities-under-the-automatic-payroll-deduction-system-program/), the Enhanced Guidelines on Accreditation/Re-Accreditation of Private Entities under the Automatic Payroll Deduction System Program (May 27, 2021), sets the rules for lenders paid through salary deduction. [DO 004, s. 2022](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2022/02/21/february-21-2022-do-004-s-2022-extension-of-loan-terms-of-payment-under-the-departments-automatic-payroll-deduction-system-program/) (February 21, 2022) raised the longest loan term from three to five years; [DO 015, s. 2023](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2023/07/19/july-18-2023-do-015-s-2023-amendment-to-deped-order-no-020-s-2021-enhanced-guidelines-on-accreditation-re-accreditation-of-private-entities-under-the-automatic-payroll-deduction-syste/) (July 18, 2023) changed the Central Office APDS Task Force; and [DO 020, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/08/07/august-7-2026-do-020-s-2026-revised-loan-terms-of-payment-under-the-department-of-educations-automatic-payroll-deduction-system-program/) (August 7, 2026) raised the term to seven years under BSP Circular No. 1239 and requires lenders to give borrowers financial literacy or loan education. As of October 31, 2026, DO 20, s. 2021, as amended by these three orders, is the governing APDS policy; no later issuance has replaced it. Its main protections for borrowers:

- **Who may lend through payroll.** Only entities authorized by law may apply (Encl. 1, para. 12); deductions need the employee's written authorization (para. 15); and a DepEd Verifier must first certify that the payment fits within the net take-home pay the General Appropriations Act requires (Encl. 2, item 3.4).
- **Limits on lenders.** Rates are capped (para. 26, as amended); penalties or past-due interest "shall not be collected through the APDS" (Encl. 2, item 3.14); "The Lender shall not require the surrender of an Automated Teller Machine (ATM) card as collateral from Borrowers for their loans." (item 3.17); and any suit must be brought "within the location of the Borrower's work station only" (item 3.19).
- **After separation, the lender collects on its own.** On a borrower's retirement, resignation or termination, the lender is responsible for collecting the outstanding loan outside the APDS (Encl. 2, item 4.10).
- **Lenders can lose accreditation.** Accepting an ATM card as collateral is a ground classified as "Simple", which leads to suspension when repeated; "Making malicious or defamatory imputation, threat and physical injury against DepEd officials and/or personnel in relation to the implementation of the APDS" is a serious ground that leads to revocation (Encl. 2, Annex H). Written complaints are validated by the APDS Task Force, whose suspension or revocation may be appealed to the Office of the Secretary within fifteen (15) days from notice (Encl. 2, items 11.5–11.6).

DO 020, s. 2026 limits DepEd's role: "The Department shall not participate in or influence the APDS-accredited entity's credit evaluation or loan approval process and shall solely facilitate payroll deductions in accordance with APDS policies." DepEd "shall not incur any liability, pecuniary or otherwise, arising from or in connection with the approval, administration, enforcement, or repayment of loans granted by APDS-accredited entities" (para. 5).

A lender that is not accredited cannot have its loans deducted from DepEd salaries at all; it collects from the borrower directly or in court. The Aide Memoire described the complaints as being about such loans. The just-debts ground itself applies to any "just debt", whoever the lender.

### ATM cards as collateral

[DepEd Memorandum No. 049, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/08/12/august-12-2026-dm-049-s-2026-reiteration-of-the-reminder-to-refrain-from-using-atm-payroll-cards-as-loan-collateral/) (August 12, 2026) reiterates DepEd's "strict prohibition against the use or surrender of ATM payroll cards as loan collateral" (para. 1), calls the "Sangla-ATM" scheme "a high-risk and abusive lending practice" (para. 2), and encourages personnel to borrow only from regulated sources such as the GSIS, the DepEd Provident Fund, Pag-IBIG Fund, SEC-registered lending companies and DepEd-accredited lenders (para. 4).

## When a superior borrows from a subordinate

The Administrative Code lists "Borrowing money by superior officers from subordinates or lending by subordinates to superior officers" as a ground (Book V, Sec. 46(b)(20)), and DO 49 repeats it (Sec. 2(t)). The penalty tables classify "Borrowing money by superior officers from subordinates" as a light offense: reprimand, then 1 to 30 days, then dismissal (DO 49, Sec. 58(C)(8); 2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(C)(1)). Like the just-debts offense, it may be settled (2025 RACCS, Sec. 75(a)).

The text makes the borrowing itself the offense; it says nothing about repayment. A principal who borrows from a teacher in the school is exposed even if every peso comes back on time. Two related offenses:

| Offense | Class and penalty | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Lending money at usurious rates of interest | Light: reprimand, 1–30 days, dismissal | DO 49, Sec. 58(C)(9); 2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(C)(8) |
| Contracting loans of money or other property from persons with whom the office of the employee has business relations | Grave: dismissal | DO 49, Sec. 58(A)(10); 2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(A)(1)(b) |

The second matters most for school heads, who deal with suppliers and others doing business with the school: a loan from such a person is a dismissal offense on the first count, and it cannot be settled.

## What a teacher with a disputed loan should do

*A fictional example.* Teacher A borrowed ₱50,000 from Lending Company X, which is not accredited under the APDS. She paid monthly for a year, then stopped when the company added penalties and interest she says the contract does not allow. The company files a sworn complaint against her with the Regional Office for willful failure to pay just debts.

1. **Read the complaint for the two conditions.** Does it attach a court decision? Does it claim you admitted the amount? If neither, say so in your answer: the claim is disputed and no court has decided it. If you admit owing part of it, such as the unpaid principal, say so and offer to pay that part; the rules do not say how a partly admitted debt is treated.
2. **Answer on time and on the merits.** File your counter-affidavit within the period stated in the order you receive. Why DO 49 and the 2025 RACCS give different periods is explained in [DepEd Preliminary Investigation, Formal Charge and Answer](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-preliminary-investigation-formal-charge).
3. **Attach the records:** the contract and disclosure statement, receipts, your computation, and letters disputing the charges or offering to pay.
4. **Be precise about what you owe.** Do not sign the lender's statement of account just to end the matter; an admission can make the claim a "just debt".
5. **Consider settlement, carefully,** before any formal charge (2025 RACCS, Sec. 76) or through DO 15 mediation. Sign only a schedule you can keep (2025 RACCS, Sec. 82).
6. **If an accredited lender broke the APDS rules,** for example by holding your ATM card, charging above the ceilings or threatening you, complain in writing; for a formal investigation the complaint must name the parties, state the acts from personal knowledge, attach supporting documents and be notarized (Encl. 2, item 11.5). The APDS Task Force validates such complaints, and DO 20 names the Employee Account Management Division, the APDS Secretariat, as its contact office (DO 20, s. 2021, para. 6; Encl. 2, items 11.5–11.6; Annex H).
7. **Keep your ATM card** (DM 049, s. 2026) and keep copies of everything.
8. **Get help** from a lawyer, your teachers' organization or your Schools Division Office's legal unit. If the lender wins in court, the debt becomes "just"; paying or arranging to pay the judgment is then the safest course.

## What this means for school heads

The school head is not the disciplining authority; for teachers it is the Regional Director or the Secretary, and the SDS for non-teaching personnel (DO 49, Sec. 1). When a lender appears, keep the school out of the collection and send any complaint where it belongs.

*A fictional example.* Principal B receives a letter from Lending Company X with a copy of a sworn complaint against Teacher C addressed to the Regional Director. The letter asks the school to "call the attention" of Teacher C and to withhold ₱3,000 from her salary each month.

**What to do**

1. **Decline to deduct or withhold anything.** No deduction may be made from a teacher's salary without specific legal authority (RA 4670, Sec. 21), and DepEd deducts loan payments only for APDS-accredited lenders, with the teacher's written authority (DO 20, s. 2021, Encl. 1, para. 15). Say so in a short written reply.
2. **Send the complaint to the proper office.** A complaint against a teacher is filed with the Regional Director (DO 49, Sec. 6). Forward the copy, or tell the company where to file, and record the date and what you did. See [What a School Head Does When a Complaint Arrives](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-complaint-steps-deped).
3. **If mediation is requested, forward it** to the Mediation Unit (DO 15, Sec. 7.1); its mediators are DepEd-certified and chosen by the parties or by raffle (Secs. 7.2 and 9.1).
4. **Keep it confidential.** "No publicity shall be given to any disciplinary action being taken against a teacher during the pendency of his case." (RA 4670, Sec. 8) Do not discuss the complaint in meetings or give the lender a teacher's pay slip or personal data (see DO 20, s. 2021, Encl. 1, para. 51, on the Data Privacy Act).
5. **Point staff to safe borrowing** (DM 049, s. 2026, para. 4). Teacher welfare is part of [PPSSH Domain 4: Developing Self and Others](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-4-developing-self-and-others), and personnel concerns generally are covered in [Human Resource Management for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-human-resource-management).

**What not to do**

- **Do not act as a collector.** [DO 101, s. 2009](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2009/09/21/do-101-s-2009-reiteration-of-the-prohibition-on-deped-officials-personnel-in-entering-into-a-memorandum-of-agreement-moa-and-to-act-as-agents-of-private-lending-institutions-plis/) directed payroll personnel to "Cease to deliver loan collections personally to the PLIs" and said an employee serving as a lender's agent is "deemed to have a conflict of interest"; DO 57, s. 2016 reiterated it. DO 20, s. 2021 repealed earlier APDS issuances "on the same subject" without naming either order, so their status is uncertain, though no issuance has withdrawn them. The deduction rules above apply in any case.
- **Do not investigate or decide the charge,** and do not pressure the teacher to pay. You have no disciplining power over teachers (DO 49, Sec. 1).
- **Keep lending out of LAC sessions.** LAC sessions may not be used for "lending transactions" (DO 35, s. 2016, item 36 under Part V, Conduct of the LAC Session); see [DepEd Learning Action Cell (LAC) Guidelines](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-learning-action-cell).
- **Do not borrow from your teachers,** and do not borrow from anyone doing business with the school (DO 49, Sec. 58(C)(8) and (A)(10)).

Managing these situations within the rules falls under [PPSSH Domain 2: Managing School Operations](https://nash.com.ph/blog/ppssh-domain-2-managing-school-operations), indicator 2.4.1, and the integrity side under [RA 6713 for DepEd School Heads](https://nash.com.ph/blog/school-head-ethics-internal-control).

## 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. A lending company that is not accredited under DepEd's Automatic Payroll Deduction System sends you a copy of a sworn complaint against Teacher D for willful failure to pay just debts, addressed to the Regional Director, with a letter asking you to withhold ₱3,000 from her salary each month until the loan is paid. Teacher D tells you she disputes the penalties the company added and that no court has ruled on the loan. What is the most appropriate action?

- **A.** Arrange with the disbursing officer to withhold the amount for now, since a sworn complaint has been filed and paying may lead the company to withdraw it.
- **B.** Decline to withhold anything and keep the letter and the complaint in the school's files.
- **C.** Decline to withhold anything, forward the complaint to the Regional Director, and remind Teacher D to answer it on time.
- **D.** Decline in writing, explaining that DepEd deducts loan payments only for accredited lenders with the employee's written authority; forward the complaint to the Regional Director, who decides it; keep the matter confidential; and, if Teacher D asks, explain that only a debt adjudicated by a court or admitted by the debtor is a "just debt" and that she should answer on time with her records.

**Answer and explanation**

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

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** Withholding salary for a private lender breaks the rule: no deduction may be made from a teacher's salary without specific legal authority, and a withdrawal would not end the case anyway.
- **B (1 point, Unistructural).** Refusing the deduction is right, but the complaint is left in the school instead of reaching the office that decides it.
- **C (2 points, Multistructural).** It refuses, forwards and reminds, but gives no reason for the refusal and does not connect the teacher's dispute to what makes a debt "just".
- **D (3 points, Relational).** It ties the refusal to the deduction rules, sends the charge to the disciplining authority, protects confidentiality, and links the teacher's defense to the definition of "just debts".

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 2.4.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the rules on managing school staff. RA 4670, Sec. 21 bars deductions from teachers' salaries without specific legal authority, and APDS deductions need written authorization (DO 20, s. 2021). The Regional Director, not the principal, disciplines teachers (DO 49, Sec. 1), and a "just debt" is one adjudicated by a court or admitted by the debtor (Sec. 58(C)(10)).

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

*Sources: RA 4670, Secs. 8 and 21; DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Secs. 1, 6 and 58(C)(10); DepEd Order No. 20, s. 2021, Encl. 1, para. 15; 2025 RACCS (CSC Resolution No. 2500357), Sec. 63(C).*

### Question 2

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

A teacher asks you whether DepEd can still discipline personnel for unpaid loans. Which statement is most accurate as of 2026?

- **A.** No. DepEd removed "willful failure to pay just debts" as a ground in 2021, after its Office of the Undersecretary for Administration reported that lenders were using field offices as collection agencies.
- **B.** Yes. "Willful failure to pay just debts" remains a ground for disciplinary action under DO 49, s. 2006.
- **C.** Yes. It remains a light offense punished by reprimand, then suspension of 1 to 30 days, then dismissal, and a lender may file the complaint.
- **D.** Yes. It remains a light offense under the Administrative Code, DO 49 and the 2025 RACCS, but it reaches only debts a court has adjudicated or the employee admits, and because it is personal between the parties, it is one of only two light offenses the 2025 RACCS allows to be settled before a formal charge.

**Answer and explanation**

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

- **A (0 points, Prestructural).** The 2021 proposal was never adopted, and the ground is in the Administrative Code.
- **B (1 point, Unistructural).** Correct, but it names one source and nothing about what the ground requires.
- **C (2 points, Multistructural).** It adds the penalties and who may file, but misses the limit that matters most: only a "just debt" counts.
- **D (3 points, Relational).** It links the legal basis, the definition and the settlement route.

**Why.** This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.7.1 asks the aspiring school head to know the laws and issuances on personnel's rights and welfare. The ground is statutory (Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 46(b)(22)); "just debts" covers only claims adjudicated by a court or admitted by the debtor; and the 2025 RACCS allows settlement before the formal charge (Secs. 75–76).

*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: Administrative Code of 1987, Book V, Sec. 46(b)(22); DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2006, Secs. 2(v) and 58(C)(10); 2025 RACCS (CSC Resolution No. 2500357), Secs. 63(C), 75 and 76; OUA Memo 00-0921-0125, September 8, 2021.*

Nothing in this guide reproduces or predicts examination content.

## Frequently asked questions

### Can a lending company file an administrative case against a teacher for an unpaid loan?

Yes, by sworn complaint, on the ground of willful failure to pay just debts (DO 49, s. 2006, Secs. 2(v) and 3; 2025 RACCS, Secs. 10 and 63(C)(16)). But the debt must be "just": adjudicated by a court, or admitted by the teacher (DO 49, Sec. 58(C)(10)). A disputed amount that no court has decided does not qualify.

### Will DepEd deduct my loan from my salary if the lender complains?

No. Salary deductions for private lenders are allowed only for APDS-accredited lenders, with your written authorization (DO 20, s. 2021, Encl. 1, para. 15; RA 4670, Sec. 21). An administrative case cannot order payment; its penalties are reprimand, suspension or dismissal (Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 46(d)).

### Can I settle a just-debts complaint?

Yes, before the formal charge and only once for the same offense (2025 RACCS, Secs. 75–76); breaking the agreement can lead to a graver charge (Sec. 82). DepEd's own mediation under DO 15, s. 2012 is free (Sec. 13).

### Did DepEd remove "willful failure to pay just debts" in 2021?

No. The Office of the Undersecretary for Administration proposed it (OUA Memo 00-0921-0125, September 8, 2021), but no order was issued. The ground remains in the Administrative Code, Book V, Sec. 46(b)(22), in DO 49, Sec. 2(v), and in the 2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(C)(16).

### Can a principal be charged for borrowing money from a teacher?

Yes. "Borrowing money by superior officers from subordinates" is a light offense punished by reprimand, then 1 to 30 days' suspension, then dismissal (DO 49, Sec. 58(C)(8); 2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(C)(1)). Borrowing from someone who does business with the school is worse: a grave offense punished by dismissal (2025 RACCS, Sec. 63(A)(1)(b)).

## Download the data

- [debts-oua-complaints-by-status.csv](https://nash.com.ph/blog/charts/admin-grievance/debts-oua-complaints-by-status.csv): the nine status categories in Figure 1, as labeled in the 2021 OUA papers, with the number of entries as the papers count them, the share of 335, the order in the papers, the source page, notes on "Settled", "Reprimanded", "Pending" and "Dismissed", and a caveat that some entries are repeated.

The CSVs and charts may be reused only with written permission: email [support@nash.com.ph](mailto:support@nash.com.ph). The rules themselves come from DepEd's and the Civil Service Commission's issuances, which you can cite directly.

## Sources

**Supreme Court decisions (on court personnel)**

- [*Sipin v. Gironella*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1982/jun1982/am_2758_p_1982.html), A.M. No. 2758-P, June 29, 1982 (Second Division).
- [*Reliways, Inc. v. Rosales*](https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2007/jul2007/am_p-07-2326_2007.html), A.M. No. P-07-2326, July 9, 2007 (Third Division).

**Laws and CSC rules**

- [Executive Order No. 292, Administrative Code of 1987](https://lawphil.net/executive/execord/eo1987/eo_292_1987.html), July 25, 1987, Book V, Title I, Subtitle A, Secs. 46(b)(20)–(23), 46(c), 46(d) and 66.
- [Republic Act No. 4670, Magna Carta for Public School Teachers](https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1966/ra_4670_1966.html), June 18, 1966, Secs. 8 and 21.
- [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, dated April 30, 2025, in force August 4, 2025, Secs. 2, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 34, 58, 63, 64(B), 66–68, 73 and 75–83.

**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, Secs. 1–9, 44–47 and 58–59.
- [DepEd Order No. 15, s. 2012](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2012/02/17/do-15-s-2012-deped-policy-framework-for-the-implementation-of-the-alternative-dispute-resolution-adr-system-mediation/), DepEd Policy Framework for the Implementation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) System-Mediation, February 17, 2012, Secs. 4, 5, 7–11 and 13.
- [DepEd Order No. 20, s. 2021](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2021/05/27/may-27-2021-do-020-s-2021-enhanced-guidelines-on-accreditation-re-accreditation-of-private-entities-under-the-automatic-payroll-deduction-system-program/), Enhanced Guidelines on Accreditation/Re-Accreditation of Private Entities under the Automatic Payroll Deduction System Program, May 27, 2021, paras. 4 and 6; Enclosure 1, paras. 12, 15, 26, 49 and 51; Enclosure 2, items 3.4, 3.14, 3.17, 3.19, 4.10, 11.5 and 11.6, and Annex H.
- [DepEd Order No. 004, s. 2022](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2022/02/21/february-21-2022-do-004-s-2022-extension-of-loan-terms-of-payment-under-the-departments-automatic-payroll-deduction-system-program/), Extension of Loan Terms of Payment under the Department's Automatic Payroll Deduction System Program, February 21, 2022, para. 1.
- [DepEd Order No. 015, s. 2023](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2023/07/19/july-18-2023-do-015-s-2023-amendment-to-deped-order-no-020-s-2021-enhanced-guidelines-on-accreditation-re-accreditation-of-private-entities-under-the-automatic-payroll-deduction-syste/), Amendment to DepEd Order No. 020, s. 2021, July 18, 2023, para. 1.
- [DepEd Order No. 020, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/08/07/august-7-2026-do-020-s-2026-revised-loan-terms-of-payment-under-the-department-of-educations-automatic-payroll-deduction-system-program/), Revised Loan Terms of Payment under the Department of Education's Automatic Payroll Deduction System Program, August 7, 2026, paras. 1, 5, 6 and 8.
- [DepEd Memorandum No. 049, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/08/12/august-12-2026-dm-049-s-2026-reiteration-of-the-reminder-to-refrain-from-using-atm-payroll-cards-as-loan-collateral/), Reiteration of the Reminder to Refrain from Using ATM Payroll Cards as Loan Collateral, August 12, 2026, paras. 1, 2 and 4.
- [DepEd Order No. 101, s. 2009](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2009/09/21/do-101-s-2009-reiteration-of-the-prohibition-on-deped-officials-personnel-in-entering-into-a-memorandum-of-agreement-moa-and-to-act-as-agents-of-private-lending-institutions-plis/), Reiteration of the Prohibition on DepEd Officials/Personnel in Entering into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and to Act as Agents of Private Lending Institutions (PLIs), September 22, 2009, paras. 3–5.
- [DepEd Order No. 57, s. 2016](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/09/01/do-57-s-2016-reiteration-of-policies-under-deped-order-nos-49-s-2006-and-101-s-2009-fraudulent-representations-related-to-the-departments-automatic-payroll-deduction-system-program/), Reiteration of Policies under DepEd Order Nos. 49, s. 2006 and 101, s. 2009 (Fraudulent Representations Related to the Department's Automatic Payroll Deduction System Program), September 1, 2016, paras. 1, 2 and 4.
- [DepEd Order No. 006, s. 2026](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2026/03/24/march-24-2026-do-006-s-2026-guidelines-on-ensuring-a-safe-and-motivating-learning-environment-esmle/), Guidelines on Ensuring a Safe and Motivating Learning Environment, March 24, 2026, Sec. VII.A.4.
- [DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016](https://www.deped.gov.ph/2016/06/07/do-35-s-2016-the-learning-action-cell-as-a-k-to-12-basic-education-program-school-based-continuing-professional-development-strategy-for-the-improvement-of-teaching-and-learning/), The Learning Action Cell as a K to 12 Basic Education Program School-Based Continuing Professional Development Strategy for the Improvement of Teaching and Learning, June 7, 2016, item 36 (Part V, Conduct of the LAC Session).

**Internal DepEd papers**

- OUA Memo 00-0921-0125, "Action on the Proposed Amendment to DepEd Order No. 49, Series of 2006", Office of the Undersecretary for Administration to the Secretary, September 8, 2021, with the Aide Memoire of March 8, 2021, "Administrative Cases Filed by Private Lending Institutions (PLIs) against DepEd Personnel"; the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Legal Affairs' consolidated status report of December 1, 2020; the summary charts; and an unnumbered 2021 draft order.

*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](https://nash.com.ph/blog/deped-formal-investigation-decision)
- [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? (this post)
- [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: Administrative Code of 1987; Supreme Court decisions (Lawphil); RA 4670; 2025 RACCS; DepEd Orders No. 49, s. 2006, No. 15, s. 2012, No. 20, s. 2021 as amended, No. 101, s. 2009 and No. 57, s. 2016; DepEd Memorandum No. 049, s. 2026; OUA Memo 00-0921-0125 (2021). Charts may be reused only with written permission from support@nash.com.ph.*

---

© 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). *Can a Teacher Be Charged for Unpaid Loans in DepEd?*. NASH Reviewer. https://nash.com.ph/blog/teacher-unpaid-loans-just-debts-administrative-case. 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