G.R. No. 167591 & G.R. No. 170577; May 9, 2007
ATTY. VENANCIO Q. RIVERA III and ATTY. NORMANDICK DE GUZMAN, and ANTHONY D. DEE, Petitioners, vs. COMELEC and MARINO “BOKING” MORALES, Respondents.

FACTS

In the May 2004 elections, Marino “Boking” Morales ran for Mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga. Petitioners sought to disqualify him, alleging he had already served three consecutive terms (1995-1998, 1998-2001, 2001-2004), violating the constitutional three-term limit. Morales admitted to the first and third terms but contested the second (1998-2001). He argued he was merely a “de facto officer” during that period because his proclamation was later declared void by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in an election protest, which ultimately declared his opponent, Anthony Dee, the duly elected mayor for that term. The COMELEC En Banc agreed with Morales, ruling that his service during the contested term should not be counted, thereby allowing his 2004 candidacy.
Separately, after Morales won in 2004, petitioner Anthony Dee filed a quo warranto case. The RTC and later the COMELEC dismissed it, upholding the same reasoning that Morales did not validly serve the 1998-2001 term. These consolidated petitions for certiorari assail the COMELEC Resolutions.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Marino Morales’s service as mayor from July 1998 to June 2001 constitutes a full term for purposes of the three-term limit, notwithstanding the subsequent judicial declaration nullifying his proclamation for that term.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petitions and disqualified Morales. The legal logic is anchored on the interpretation of “service” under the three-term limit rule. The Court held that the subsequent nullification of a proclamation does not cancel the service already rendered. For the disqualification rule to apply, two conditions must concur: (1) the official was elected for three consecutive terms, and (2) he served those terms. Here, Morales was elected in 1998 (his name was on the ballot and he received votes), and he actually served as mayor from 1998 to 2001, discharging its powers and responsibilities. The fact that his proclamation was later annulled and his opponent was declared the rightful winner pertains to the validity of his election, not to the fact of his service. The term limit is a constitutional prohibition designed to prevent political monopolies, and it counts actual service regardless of a later finding of a flawed election. Therefore, Morales’s service during the 1998-2001 period was his second term, making his 2004 bid for a fourth consecutive term constitutionally impermissible. The COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling otherwise.