G.R. No. 201716; January 8, 2013
MAYOR ABELARDO ABUNDO, SR., Petitioner, vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and ERNESTO R. VEGA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Abelardo Abundo, Sr. was elected and served as Mayor of Viga, Catanduanes for the 2001-2004 term. In the 2004 elections, his opponent, Jose Torres, was initially proclaimed winner and assumed office. Abundo filed an election protest and was eventually declared the true winner by the court. He assumed the mayoralty on May 9, 2006, serving the remainder of the 2004-2007 term until June 30, 2007. He was then elected again and served the full 2007-2010 term. When Abundo ran and won in the 2010 elections, a quo warranto action was filed against him, arguing he had already served three consecutive terms (2001-2004, 2004-2007, and 2007-2010) and was thus ineligible under the constitutional three-term limit.
The Regional Trial Court and, on appeal, the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) ruled against Abundo. They held that his service of the unexpired portion of the 2004-2007 term, following his successful election protest, constituted service of a full term for the purpose of the three-term limit rule. The COMELEC en banc affirmed, stating there was no involuntary interruption of his service.

ISSUE

Whether Abundo’s assumption of office for only the unexpired portion of the 2004-2007 term, after winning an election protest, should be considered as one full term for purposes of the three-term limit rule.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, reversing the COMELEC. The Court held that Abundo did not serve three consecutive full terms and was therefore eligible to run in the 2010 elections.
The legal logic centers on the interpretation of “service” for a term under the three-term limit rule. The constitutional prohibition aims to prevent the monopolization of political power. For a term to be counted, the official must have been elected and served the term in full. Crucially, the Court distinguished between a protestant (the one who files the protest) and a protestee (the one whose victory is contested). Abundo, as the winning protestant, was legally entitled to the office only from the date of the court’s decision in his favor. His service from May 2006 to June 2007 was not service of a “full term” but only of the unexpired portion. He cannot be deemed to have served a term from which he was initially excluded and for which he only assumed office by virtue of a judicial declaration. This period did not constitute a complete and uninterrupted term. Therefore, for the purpose of the three-term limit, he only served two full consecutive terms (2001-2004 and 2007-2010) before the 2010 elections. His candidacy was valid.