RAMOS, Dianne Nicole L.

Public Corporations – 2C

Atty. Rivera v. COMELEC

G.R. No. 167591
May 9, 2007

FACTS:

In May 2004, Marino “Boking” Morales (Morales) ran for the position of mayor in
Mabalacat, Pampanga. Prior thereto, he filed his Certificate of Candidacy (COC). Petitioner
Atty. Rivera, filed for a petition to cancel Morales’ COC on the ground that he was elected and
had served three pervious consecutive terms as mayor of Mabalacat. This is contrary to Section
8, Article X of the Constitution and Section 43 of the Local Government Code.
In his defense, Morales stated that the three terms he had served were interrupted and
could not be considered as consecutive due to the fact that the second term was declared as void
by the RTC. Hence, for his second term, he was merely a “care taker” or “de facto” officer. He
further stated that he was preventively suspended by the Ombudsman in an anti-graft case from
January 1999 to July 1999.
The COMELEC Second Division ruled in favor of Atty. Rivera and cancelled Morales’
COC. Morales then filed a motion for reconsideration with the COMELEC En Banc, which then
granted such petition. COMELEC stated that the RTC’s proclamation of Morales’ position as
void; would sever his service for three consecutive terms.
Hence, Morales was issued a COC and was able to run for Mayor.
Morales then won said election and was proclaimed the duly elected mayor of Mabalacat.
A case was filed by Anthony Dee (Dee), his rival for the position who received the
second highest number of votes, petitioning for a quo warranto against Morales. The petition
was on the ground that Morales had already served three consecutive terms as mayor and is
ineligible to run for another term.
Morales raised the same defenses as with the case of Atty. Rivera.
The RTC dismissed Dee’s petition for quo warranto, and affirming that Morales is the
duly elected Mayor. The case was raised with COMELEC, which affirmed the RTC decision.
Hence this petition for certiorari.

ISSUES:

1. W/N Morales had served three consecutive terms as mayor and therefore could no longer
serve another term.
2. W/N the disqualification of Morales would automatically give the position of mayor to
the second place candidate, Dee.

RULINGS:

1. Yes. In the disputed second term of Morales as mayor, he claimed that such term should
not be counted since his proclamation was declared void by the RTC and therefore, he
was merely a “care taker” or “de facto” officer. This is wrong. During such term, which
 was from July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001, Morales assumed the position. He served until
the last day of his term. He was the mayor for the entire period notwithstanding the
decision of the RTC that his election was void. It was stated in the case of Ong v. Alegre,
that such circumstance does not constitute an interruption in serving the full term.
The laws, which prohibits elected local officials to run for more than three terms
are clear. The rational behind these is to safeguard against the excessive accumulation of
power as a result of consecutive terms.
Whether he was merely a “care taker” or “de facto” officer, he exercised the
powers and enjoyed the prerequisite of the office, which enables him to “stay on
indefinitely”. This is contrary to the intention of the law, which is to contemplate a rest
period where the local elective official steps down from office and ceases to exercise
power of authority over the inhabitants of the territorial jurisdiction of the LGU.
Morales is therefore, promptly ousted from the position of mayor.

2. No. The case of Labo v. COMELEC, ruled that a second place candidate should not be
proclaimed as a substitute winner. The ineligibility of a candidate who received the
majority votes does not entitle the eligible candidate who received the next highest
number of votes to be declared elected. As a consequence of Morales’ ineligibility, a
permanent vacancy of the position of mayor has occurred and is filled by the vice-mayor.