G.R. No. 239995 - Gonzalbo-Macatangay vs. Civil Service Commission

Petitioner: Rosa C. Gonzalbo-Macatangay, former Secretary in the Passport Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
Respondent: Civil Service Commission (CSC), Central Office; case reviewed by the Court of Appeals (CA) and ultimately by the Supreme Court (SC).

On February 3, 1997, petitioner contracted marriage with Modesto Macatangay, Jr. (Modesto). Complainant Marites L. Calivara alleged that Modesto was already married to her when he married petitioner.
Marites filed a complaint-affidavit with the CSC on September 5, 2002, which spawned a criminal bigamy case against petitioner and Modesto before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Lucena City.
Upon arraignment, petitioner and Modesto pleaded guilty to bigamy. The RTC rendered a decision convicting them; the RTC decision became final and executory on October 8, 2002.
Petitioner asserted in her counter-affidavit that: she had become pregnant by Modesto and married him for the welfare of the child; she was unaware of Modesto’s prior marriage at the time she agreed to marry him; she purportedly learned of Modesto’s prior marriage in April 1996; she later had legal advice that the marriage was illegal; Makati RTC declared her marriage to Modesto void on September 27, 1999; Modesto filed a petition for declaration of nullity against his marriage with Marites on August 16, 1999 before RTC Labo, Camarines Norte; RTC Labo rendered a decision on July 29, 2004 declaring Marites and Modesto’s marriage null and void; petitioner and Modesto remarried in Tokyo, Japan on September 4, 2004.

The CSC-National Capital Region (CSC-NCR) filed a Formal Charge accusing petitioner of the administrative offense: Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude (bigamy). The administrative case was initiated on July 1, 2003; therefore, the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (URACCS), CSC Resolution No. 991936 (1999), govern.
CSC-NCR Decision dated June 19, 2014: found petitioner guilty and meted the penalty of dismissal from service with accessory penalties (cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from public office, bar from taking civil service examinations).
CSC Proper Decision dated January 5, 2015: affirmed CSC-NCR. Motion for reconsideration treated as petition for review denied by CSC Proper Resolution dated September 28, 2015.
Petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals (CA) (CA-G.R. SP No. 142681). CA Decision dated August 10, 2017 affirmed CSC. Motion for reconsideration denied by CA Resolution dated May 9, 2018.
Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 239995). Supreme Court Decision dated June 15, 2022 denied the petition and affirmed CA and CSC rulings.

Petitioner’s arguments: urged appreciation of mitigating circumstances (20 years’ service, first offense, outstanding performance), claimed lack of criminal intent and victimhood, argued multiplicity of suits/res judicata and violation of right to speedy disposition (case pending for more than a decade), and cited precedents where lighter penalties were imposed.
CSC / Office of the Solicitor General’s arguments: dismissal is an indivisible penalty for the offense under URACCS; mitigating circumstances (length of service, first offense, outstanding performance) cannot be applied to lower penalty for grave offenses like Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude; petitioner had knowledge of Modesto’s existing marriage and did not raise good faith in the criminal case; mitigating circumstances were not pleaded/proven; claims of speediness were not timely raised.

Whether the imposition of the penalty of dismissal from service for petitioner’s administrative offense (Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude — bigamy) was proper.

Whether mitigating circumstances (length of service, first offense, outstanding performance, lack of criminal intent) may be appreciated to reduce an indivisible penalty such as dismissal under URACCS.
Whether petitioner’s right to speedy disposition of cases was violated and whether that should affect the administrative sanction.