G.R. No. 239995 , June 15, 2022
ROSA C. GONZALBO-MACATANGAY, PETITIONER, VS. HONORABLE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Rosa C. Gonzalbo-Macatangay held the position of Secretary in the Passport Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs. A complaint was filed against her before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) alleging that she contracted a second marriage with Modesto Macatangay, Jr. on February 3, 1997, during the existence of his prior marriage to Marites L. Calivara. This led to a criminal case for Bigamy before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City, where petitioner and Modesto pleaded guilty and were convicted. The RTC Decision became final and executory on October 8, 2002. In her defense, petitioner claimed she initially had no knowledge of Modesto’s existing marriage, learned of it in April 1996, but proceeded with the marriage in 1997 due to pregnancy and concern for her child’s welfare. She also noted that her marriage to Modesto was later declared void by an RTC in 1999, and Modesto’s prior marriage was declared null and void by another RTC in 2004, after which she and Modesto remarried in Japan. The CSC-NCR found her guilty of the administrative offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude and meted the penalty of dismissal from service with its accessory penalties. The CSC Proper and the Court of Appeals affirmed this ruling. Petitioner argues that mitigating circumstances (length of service, first offense, outstanding performance, lack of criminal intent) should have been considered to impose a lighter penalty and that her right to speedy disposition was violated.

ISSUE

Whether the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service is proper.

RULING

Yes, the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service is proper. The Petition is not meritorious. The Court affirmed the CA ruling. Petitioner was found guilty of the administrative offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, with the underlying crime being Bigamy, which is a crime involving moral turpitude. The applicable rules are the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), which classify this offense as a grave offense punishable by dismissal from service upon first commission. While the URACCS allows for the consideration of mitigating, aggravating, and alternative circumstances in determining penalties, the Court, citing Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas v. Bool, clarified that such circumstances cannot alter the prescribed penalty of dismissal for grave offenses; they are only considered for offenses where the rules provide a range of penalties. The mitigating circumstances raised by petitioner (length of service, first offense, outstanding performance, lack of intent) are unavailing as the penalty for this grave offense is indivisible and not susceptible to mitigation. The Court also found no violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the penalty of dismissal, along with its accessory penalties, stands.