G.R. No. L-35726 - Social Security System vs. City of Bacolod

Petitioner Rosa C. Gonzalbo-Macatangay served as Secretary in the Passport Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA).
Marites L. Calivara filed a complaint-affidavit before the Civil Service Commission (CSC) alleging that Modesto Macatangay, Jr., while still married to her, contracted a second marriage with petitioner on February 3, 1997.

Marites initiated a criminal case for Bigamy against petitioner and Modesto before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City.
Petitioner and Modesto pleaded guilty; the RTC rendered a decision convicting them of Bigamy on October 8, 2002, which became final and executory.

She was unaware of Modesto’s existing marriage when she married him;
She married Modesto after becoming pregnant;
Eventually learned of his existing marriage in April 1996;
The marriage between her and Modesto was declared void by the RTC, Makati City on September 27, 1999;
Modesto's first marriage was later declared null and void by the RTC, Labo, Camarines Norte in 2004;
She and Modesto remarried on September 4, 2004, in Tokyo, Japan;
She claimed the complaint violated the prohibition against multiplicity of suits and res judicata.

CSC-NCR formally charged petitioner with the administrative offense of Conviction of a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude.
On June 19, 2014, CSC-NCR found petitioner guilty and imposed dismissal from service and accessory penalties (cancellation of eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, perpetual disqualification from public office, and bar from civil service exams).
Petitioner moved for reconsideration to CSC Proper, which affirmed CSC-NCR's decision on January 5, 2015, and denied reconsideration on September 28, 2015.

Petitioner filed a petition for review before the CA.
On August 10, 2017, the CA affirmed the CSC decisions, ruling that mitigating circumstances cannot be considered in an offense punishable by dismissal from service upon first commission.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration was denied by CA on May 9, 2018.

Petitioner assails the refusal to consider mitigating circumstances such as length of service, first offense, and outstanding performance that might justify a lesser penalty than dismissal.
She claims to be a victim without criminal intent, acting for the welfare of her child, and alleges violation of her right to speedy disposition of cases due to the protracted proceedings.
The CSC, through the Office of the Solicitor General, defended the penalty imposed and argued the nature of the offense and the indivisible penalty of dismissal.

Whether the penalty of dismissal from service is proper for petitioner’s conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, specifically Bigamy, under the applicable CSC rules.
Whether mitigating circumstances such as length of service, first offense, and outstanding performance justify reducing the penalty imposed on petitioner.
Whether petitioner’s right to a speedy disposition of administrative cases was violated.