G.R. No. 246679 , March 2, 2021
GOVERNOR EDGARDO A. TALLADO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, NORBERTO B. VILLAMIN AND SENANDRO M. JALGALADO, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case involves a Dissenting Opinion by Justice Leonen. The petitioner, Governor Edgardo A. Tallado, had his Certificate of Candidacy for the 2019 National and Local Elections cancelled by the Commission on Elections. He had served three consecutive terms as Governor. During his 2016 to 2019 term, he was removed from office twice based on Office of the Ombudsman decisions that were immediately executory but pending appeal. The first removal was on November 8, 2016, but he was reinstated on April 12, 2017, after the Court of Appeals issued a temporary restraining order. The second removal was on January 10, 2018, but he was reinstated on October 29, 2018, after the Court of Appeals modified the penalty to six months suspension. The ponencia (main decision) held that dismissals pending appeal and dismissals based on a final decision produce the same effect—the ouster of the official from office.

ISSUE

Whether the dismissals from office of petitioner Tallado, which were based on Ombudsman decisions pending appeal, created a permanent vacancy that constitutes an involuntary interruption of his term for purposes of the three-term limit rule.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his Dissenting Opinion, voted to grant the Motion for Reconsideration. He disagreed with the ponencia’s conclusion that dismissals pending appeal and dismissals based on a final decision have the same effect. He argued that the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman provide a clear difference: if a respondent wins an appeal from a penalty of removal, the respondent is considered as having been under preventive suspension and is entitled to back salaries and emoluments. This indicates no permanent effect is contemplated for a dismissal pending appeal. Citing the Local Government Code, he stated that a suspension from office creates a temporary vacancy, and the law does not contemplate a situation where a temporary incapacity leads to a permanent vacancy. Since Tallado was reinstated twice, there was no final judgment of dismissal, and therefore, the vacancies caused were only temporary, not permanent. He concluded that Tallado was never permanently removed from office and the periods of his removal did not constitute an effective interruption of his term.