ANZALDO VS CLAVE

Due Process Administrative Due Process

Dr Anzaldo, 55, had been working in the National Institute of Science and Technology for 28
years. She was holding the position Scientist Research Associate IV when she was appointed as
Science Research Supervisor II. Her appointment was approved by the CSC in 1978. The
position was previously held by Dr Kintanar who recommended Dr Venzon to his position. Dr
Venzon contested the position. Dr Afable, the one who appointed Anzaldo, averred that
Anzaldos appointment was approved by the NIST evaluation Committee which gave 88 points
to Anzalado and 66 points to Venzon. The issue was elevated to the Office of the president by
Venzon. Clave was then the Presidential Executive Assistant. Pursuant to PD 807 or the Civil
Service Decree, Clave referred the issue to the CSC. Clave was also holding the chairmanship of
the CSC. Clave issued Res 1178 appointing Venzon to the contested position. After the denial of
her motion for the reconsideration of that resolution, or on January 5, 1980, Anzaldo appealed to
the Office of the President of the Philippines. Since Clave was holding the office of PEA he just
affirmed his decision as the CSC chairman.
ISSUE: Whether or not there is due process in the case at bar.
HELD: The SC ruled in favor of Anzaldo. When PEA 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. It is evident that Anzaldo was denied due process of law when Presidential Executive
Assistant Clave concurred with the recommendation of (himself) Chairman Clave of the Civil
Service Commission. Due process of law means fundamental fairness. It is not fair to Anzaldo
that PEA Clave should decide whether his own recommendation as Chairman of the CSC, as to
who between Anzaldo and Venzon should be appointed Science Research Supervisor II, should
be adopted by the President of the Philippines.