Evaluation is one of the best means to determine the professional development given to teachers, including incentives and policies aï¬€ecting their welfare. This descriptive study surveyed the practices of students, Deans, Subject Heads/Program Chairs and HRMC Personnel when evaluating the faculty members and the ways by which the HRMC and the Deans and Subject Heads/Program Chairs utilize the results of the faculty performance evaluation. A questionnaire was the main tool in identifying the practices of the evaluators while the interview was used to determine the utilization of the evaluation results. There were 9 Deans, 17 Subject Heads/Program Chairs, 8 HRMC personnel and 304 graduating students of the October 2013 batch who participated in the study. The HRMC personnel and the supervisors had training on evaluation but not necessarily in evaluating teachers. When evaluating the teachers, the HRMC personnel randomly chooses classes to evaluate and does the routine administration of the tool. The Supervisors have similar practices though they diï¬€er in priorities. Both hold informal observations, refer to oï¬€ice documents, hold a post-conference, make approximate ratings and observe inside the classrooms. The Deans keep a logbook of daily observations while the Subject Heads/Program Chairs consider feedback64 Vol. 1, No. 1 | July - December 2015 from the students. When evaluating, the students utilize a standard, form judgments through observation, and do not allow their personal feelings to inï¬‚uence their ratings. The results of the observation were used by both the HRMC and the Deans to give awards. The Deans do not usually refer to the evaluation results when determining professional development training for the teachers. The results are used more for determining the load of the teachers and for re-hiring them. No increase in salary accompanies a good evaluation result. It is recommended that the HRMC conduct training for evaluators and craft strong policies for the utilization of the evaluation results.