Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
GONZALBO-MACATANGAY VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, G.R. NO. 239995 (JUNE 15, 2022): CASE-TO-CASE BASIS IN APPRECIATING MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IN ADMINISTRATIVE CASES
Petitioner Rosa Gonzalbo-Macatangay (“petitioner”) worked as Secretary in the Passport Division of the Department of Foreign Affairs. On September 5, 2002, Marites Calivara (“Marites”) filed a complaint before the Civil Service Commission-National Capital Region (“CSC-NCR”) alleging that during the existence of her marriage with Modesto Macatangay, the latter contracted a second marriage with the petitioner on February 3, 1997. Marites filed a criminal case for Bigamy before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City. Upon arraignment, petitioner and Modesto pleaded guilty resulting to their conviction for the crime of Bigamy. The RTC Decision became final and executory on October 8, 2002.
CSC-NCR found petitioner guilty of the administrative offense of conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude and was meted the penalty of dismissal. CSC-NCR held that the crime of Bigamy involves moral turpitude and having been convicted of such crime when she and Modesto pleaded guilty, there is no doubt that administrative liability attaches. On appeal, the CSC Central Office affirmed the ruling of CSC-NCR and held that petitioner’s invocation of her length of service of 20 years and outstanding performance is unavailing because the punishment is dismissal from service, an indivisible penalty not susceptible of mitigation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the CSC Central Office.
The Supreme Court applied CSC Resolution No. 991936, or the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in Civil Service (URACCS) enacted in 1999. URACCS provides that the administrative offense of conviction of moral turpitude is a grave offense punishable with dismissal from service even upon the first commission. URACCS also provides that aggravating, mitigating and alternative circumstances attendant to the offense may be appreciated in determining the penalties to be imposed.
In this case, citing Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas vs. Bool, G.R. No. 207522 (April 28, 2021), the Supreme Court held that nowhere in the URACCS which states that mitigating, aggravating and alternative circumstances should not be considered when the prescribed penalty for the administrative offense is an indivisible penalty such as dismissal from service.
The Court held that while it agrees with the petitioner that mitigating circumstances may be appreciated in her case, these mitigating circumstances, i.e., length of service, first commission, and outstanding performance, cannot rightly be applied. First, the Court held that length of service is not a “magic word” which will automatically be considered as mitigating when invoked. It cannot be applied as a mitigating circumstance because the administrative offense is a grave offense. Bigamy cannot be taken lightly as its commission reflects the person’s character. The Court held that petitioner flagrantly disregarded the law in marrying Modesto despite her knowledge of prior and existing marriage. Petitioner’s length of service cannot outweigh her commission and conviction of Bigamy. Second, the fact that the petitioner is a first-time offender cannot likewise be considered as the URACCS is clear that those convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude may be dismissed from service even if he or she is a first-time offender or has no previous administrative liability. Third, the invocation of petitioner of outstanding performance along with the fact that it was her first time committing an offense does not hold water. The Court held that the cases cited by the petitioner are not applicable since those who were charged therein were charged of Grave Misconduct or Simple Misconduct but were not convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude such as in the instant case. Finally, the Court held that appreciation of circumstances and mitigation of penalties should be on a case-by-case basis depending on the charge and factual circumstances.