GR L 54597; (December, 1982) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-54597 December 15, 1982
FELICIDAD ANZALDO, petitioner, vs. JACOBO C. CLAVE as Chairman of the Civil Service Commission and as Presidential Executive Assistant; JOSE A. R. MELO, as Commissioner of the Civil Service Commission, and EULALIA L. VENZON, respondents.
FACTS
The controversy involves the position of Science Research Supervisor II at the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST). Both petitioner Dr. Felicidad Anzaldo and private respondent Dr. Eulalia Venzon were next-in-rank to the vacancy. In 1978, NIST Officer-in-Charge Dr. Pedro Afable, after a study by the Staff Evaluation Committee which scored Anzaldo higher, appointed her to the position, with Civil Service Commission attestation.
Dr. Venzon protested this appointment to the Office of the President. The appeal was processed through the Civil Service Commission, which, under Resolution No. 1178 signed by Chairman Jacobo Clave and Commissioner Jose Melo, recommended Venzon’s appointment instead. The case was then elevated to the Office of the President for final decision.
ISSUE
Whether Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo Clave committed grave abuse of discretion in revoking Anzaldo’s appointment and ordering Venzon’s appointment, considering his dual role as the deciding authority and the author of the Civil Service Commission’s recommendation.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court annulled the decision for violating due process. The legal logic centers on the fundamental unfairness and procedural anomaly of the decision-making process. Presidential Executive Assistant Jacobo Clave, in his decision revoking Anzaldo’s appointment, purported to “concur” with the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission. However, he was the same Chairman Clave who had signed that very recommendation.
This created an absurd situation where the official consulted by the Office of the President (Clave as CSC Chairman) was the same person who later decided the case for the Office of the President (Clave as Presidential Executive Assistant). This constituted a denial of due process, as it was a mockery of administrative justice, akin to a judge reviewing his own prior recommendation. The Court, citing Zambales Chromite Mining Co. vs. Court of Appeals, emphasized that due process demands fundamental fairness, which was absent here. Consequently, the appointing authority’s discretion in selecting the better-qualified Anzaldo, based on a thorough evaluation, was upheld as valid.