Montebon v. Commission on Elections
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Federico T. Montebon and Eleanor M. Ondoy, candidates for municipal councilor of Tuburan, Cebu, filed a petition for disqualification against respondent Sesinando F. Potencioso, Jr., also a candidate for the same position in the May 14, 2007 elections. Petitioners alleged that respondent had served three consecutive terms as municipal councilor (1998-2001, 2001-2004, 2004-2007) and was therefore disqualified from running for a fourth consecutive term. Respondent admitted being elected for three consecutive terms but claimed his service for the second term (2001-2004) was interrupted on January 12, 2004, when he succeeded as vice mayor of Tuburan due to the retirement of the incumbent vice mayor. He contended this interruption made him eligible to run for municipal councilor again. Procedural History: The Commission on Elections (COMELEC) First Division denied the petition for disqualification, ruling that respondent's assumption of office as vice mayor constituted an interruption in the continuity of his service as councilor. The COMELEC En Banc affirmed this ruling, holding that the succession to the vice mayoralty was an involuntary severance and thus an effective disruption of his second term as councilor. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioners assailed the COMELEC's resolutions, arguing that the COMELEC committed grave abuse of discretion in ruling that respondent's assumption of office as vice-mayor interrupted his term as municipal councilor.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent is disqualified from running for municipal councilor for a fourth consecutive term because of the three-term limit. Whether the respondent's assumption of the office of vice-mayor interrupted his service for the 2001-2004 term as municipal councilor, thus affecting the calculation of his consecutive terms.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed for lack of merit. The resolutions of the COMELEC First Division and En Banc denying the petition for disqualification are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of disqualification: The Supreme Court affirmed the COMELEC's ruling that the respondent was not disqualified from running for municipal councilor because the three-term limit requires that the official must have been elected for three consecutive terms AND have fully served three consecutive terms. Voluntary renunciation of office does not interrupt the continuity of service, but involuntary severance does. On the issue of interruption of service: The respondent's assumption of the office of vice-mayor on January 12, 2004, due to the retirement of the incumbent vice mayor, constituted an involuntary severance from his office as municipal councilor. This succession occurred by operation of law, as provided in Section 44 of the Local Government Code, and was not a voluntary renunciation. Therefore, his second term as councilor was interrupted, and he was deemed to be running only for his second consecutive term as councilor in the 2007 elections. The Court cited Lonzanida v. Commission on Elections to explain that involuntary severance from office for any length of time short of the full term amounts to an interruption of continuity of service, distinguishing it from voluntary renunciation which does not cancel the renounced term in the computation of the three-term limit.
Main Doctrine
An involuntary severance from office, such as succession to a higher position by operation of law, interrupts the continuity of service for the purpose of computing consecutive terms under term limit provisions.