Anzaldo vs. Clave
Anzaldo vs. Clave
353
354
354
void because it was rendered with grave abuse of discretion and was
a mockery of administrative justice.
355
356
357
Doctor Anzaldo.
When Presidential Executive Assistant Clave said in his
decision that he was inclined to concur in the
recommendation of the Civil Service Commission, what he
meant was that he was concurring with Chairman Claves
recommendation: he was concurring with himself (p. 35,
Rollo).
It is evident that Doctor Anzaldo was denied due process
of law when Presidential Executive Assistant Clave
concurred with the recommendation of Chairman Clave of
the Civil Service Commission. The case is analogous to
Zambales Chromite Mining Co. vs. Court of Appeals, L49711, November 7, 1979, 94 SCRA 261, where it was held
that the decision of Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources Benjamin M. Gozon, affirming his own decision in
a mining case as Director of Mines was void because it was
rendered with grave abuse of discretion and was a mockery
of administrative justice.
Due process of law means fundamental fairness. It is not
fair to Doctor Anzaldo that Presidential Executive Assistant
Clave should decide whether his own recommendation as
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission, as to who
between Doctor Anzaldo and Doctor Venzon should be
appointed Science Research Supervisor II, should be
adopted by the President of the Philippines.
Common sense and propriety dictate that the
commissioner in the Civil Service Commission, who should
be consulted by the Office of the President, should be a
person different from the person in the Office of the
President who would decide the appeal of the protestant in a
contested appointment.
In this case, the person who acted for the Office of the
President is the same person in the Civil Service
Commission, who was consulted by the Office of the
President: Jacobo C. Clave. The Civil Service Decree could
not have contemplated that absurd situation for, as held in
the Zambales Chromite case, that would not be fair to the
appellant.
We hold that respondent Clave committed a grave abuse
of discretion in deciding the appeal in favor of Doctor
Venzon. The appointing authority, Doctor Afable, acted in
accordance
358
358
359