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

Petitioner Edgardo A. Tallado was elected Governor of Camarines Norte for three consecutive terms: 2010-2013, 2013-2016, and 2016-2019. During his 2016-2019 term, the Ombudsman issued two separate decisions finding him administratively liable and imposing the penalty of dismissal from service. These decisions were immediately executory pursuant to the OMB Rules. Consequently, the Department of the Interior and Local Government implemented the dismissals, causing Vice Governor Pimentel to assume the office of Governor. Tallado appealed the Ombudsman’s decisions, and the penalty was later modified to a fine. Private respondents filed petitions before the COMELEC to cancel Tallado’s Certificate of Candidacy for the 2019 elections, arguing he was barred by the three-term limit. The COMELEC granted the petitions. Tallado filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. On September 10, 2019, the Supreme Court granted Tallado’s petition, annulling the COMELEC resolutions and dismissing the petitions for cancellation. The Court held that the Ombudsman’s dismissal orders, though not final due to pending appeal, constituted involuntary interruptions of his 2016-2019 term, thus preventing the application of the three-term limit rule. Respondents filed motions for reconsideration.

ISSUE

Whether the execution of the Ombudsman’s dismissal orders against petitioner, which were later modified on appeal, constituted a valid interruption of his term of office for the purpose of the three-term limit rule.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the motions for reconsideration and reiterated its ruling. The Court held that the execution of the Ombudsman’s dismissal orders, which caused petitioner to involuntarily lose title to the office of Governor, constituted a valid interruption of his term. The Court ruled that an interruption under the three-term limit rule requires an involuntary loss of title to office. The fact that the decisions were on appeal and later modified did not negate the reality of his dismissal and loss of title during the intervening period. The Court distinguished this from a mere temporary inability to serve, which does not involve loss of title. The characterization in the OMB Rules of a penalty later overturned on appeal as “preventive suspension” was deemed illogical and unsupported as applied to dismissal, as it resulted in a permanent separation from service during its effectivity. The length of the interruption was immaterial. The Court further stated that this construction does not reward corrupt officials, as they remain subject to democratic elections and other legal disqualifications.