G.R. No. 167591 - Rivera III vs. Commission on Elections

Two consolidated petitions for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure were filed.
Petitioners: Atty. Venancio Q. Rivera III, Atty. Normandick De Guzman, and petitioner Anthony D. Dee.
Respondents: COMELEC and Marino “Boking” Morales, the latter being the mayoral candidate involved.

In the May 2004 Synchronized National and Local Elections, Morales ran as candidate for mayor of Mabalacat, Pampanga for the term July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2007.
Morales filed his Certificate of Candidacy on January 5, 2004.
Prior to and on January 10, 2004, petitioners filed a petition with the COMELEC’s Second Division seeking cancellation of Morales’ candidacy on the ground that he had already served three consecutive terms as mayor.

For the term July 1, 1998 to June 30, 2001, Morales contended that he served merely as a “caretaker” or “de facto officer” because:

His proclamation for that term was later declared void by the RTC, Branch 57, Angeles City in an election protest (the decision became final and executory on August 6, 2001).
He was preventively suspended during that term by the Ombudsman due to an anti-graft case.

The petitioners argued that, notwithstanding these defenses, Morales’ service in the disputed term should be counted as a full term, thereby violating the constitutional and statutory three-term limit.

The COMELEC Second Division resolved on May 6, 2004, cancelling Morales’ Certificate of Candidacy on the disqualification ground of having served three consecutive terms.
Morales filed a motion for reconsideration before the COMELEC En Banc on May 7, 2004, which was later granted on March 14, 2005, setting aside the Second Division’s resolution.
In a separate quo warranto petition (G.R. No. 170577) filed by Anthony Dee after Morales’ proclamation as the duly elected mayor, Dee contended that Morales, by serving a fourth consecutive term, was ineligible.
The RTC, in the Dee case, dismissed the quo warranto petition on the ground that Morales did not serve the disputed term as a duly elected mayor.

The disputed period centers on the 1998–2001 term where Morales’ election was in question: he was proclaimed mayor initially but later involved in an electoral protest.
Despite the voided proclamation, Morales served continuously without any effective interruption during the entire term.
Both petitions hinge on whether Morales’ continuous service constitutes “full service” of a term and, hence, triggers the constitutional and statutory term limit.

Ong v. Alegre: Dealt with the issue of full term service despite a later void proclamation, holding that full service should count for term limit purposes.
Lonzanida v. COMELEC: Emphasized that being elected and fully serving the term are both conditions for the three-term disqualification rule.
Additional cases (Borja, Jr. v. COMELEC; Borja, Jr. and Adormeo cases) were cited to delineate that even if a proclamation is later nullified, continuous full-term service implies valid exercise of office for term limit computation.

Whether Morales’ service during the 1998–2001 term, despite the subsequent voiding of his proclamation, constitutes full service toward the three-term limit.

Is the “caretaker” or “de facto” status acceptable to count toward the constitutional and statutory three-consecutive terms?
Does continuous service throughout the term, irrespective of the later election protest decision, fulfill the “full term” requirement?

The proper remedy regarding Morales’ eligibility to run and serve as mayor in the 2004 elections.

Whether Morales should be allowed to continue serving on a fourth consecutive term.
If disqualified, what is the appropriate mechanism (e.g., cancellation of his Certificate of Candidacy, installation of the vice-mayor) to address the resultant vacancy?
In the context of the separate quo warranto petition, whether the votes for an ineligible candidate should be considered stray and if the second placer can be declared elected.