To summarize, hereunder are the prevailing jurisprudence on
issues affecting consecutiveness of terms and/or involuntary interruption, viz:
1. When a permanent
vacancy occurs in an elective position and the official merely assumed the
position pursuant to the rules on succession under the LGC, then his service
for the unexpired portion of the term of the replaced official cannot be
treated as one full term as contemplated under the subject constitutional and
statutory provision that service cannot be counted in the application of any
term limit (Borja, Jr.). If the
official runs again for the same position he held prior to his assumption of
the higher office, then his succession to said position is by operation of law
and is considered an involuntary severance or interruption (Montebon).
2. An elective
official, who has served for three consecutive terms and who did not seek the
elective position for what could be his fourth term, but later won in a recall
election, had an interruption in the continuity of the official’s service. For, he had become in the interim, i.e., from
the end of the 3rd term up to the recall election, a private citizen
(Adormeo and Socrates).
3. The abolition of an elective local office due to the
conversion of a municipality to a city does not, by itself, work to interrupt
the incumbent official’s continuity of service (Latasa).
4. Preventive
suspension is not a term-interrupting
event as the elective officer’s continued stay and entitlement to the office
remain unaffected during the period of suspension, although he is barred from exercising
the functions of his office during this period (Aldovino, Jr.).
5. When a candidate is
proclaimed as winner for an elective position and assumes office, his term is
interrupted when he loses in an election protest and is ousted from office,
thus disenabling him from serving what would otherwise be the unexpired portion
of his term of office had the protest been dismissed (Lonzanida and Dizon). The break or interruption need
not be for a full term of three years or for the major part of the 3-year term;
an interruption for any length of time, provided the cause is involuntary, is
sufficient to break the continuity of service (Socrates, citing Lonzanida).
6. When an official is
defeated in an election protest and said decision becomes final after said
official had served the full term for said office, then his loss in the
election contest does not constitute an interruption since he has managed to
serve the term from start to finish. His
full service, despite the defeat, should be counted in the application of term
limits because the nullification of his proclamation came after the expiration
of the term (Ong and Rivera).
As previously stated, the declaration of being the winner in
an election protest grants the local elected official the right to serve the
unexpired portion of the term. Verily,
while he was declared winner in the protest for the mayoralty seat for the
2004-2007 term, Abundo’s full term has been substantially reduced by the actual
service rendered by his opponent (Torres). Hence, there was actual involuntary
interruption in the term of Abundo and he cannot be considered to have served
the full 2004-2007 term (Mayor Abelardo Abundo, Sr., Vs. Commission on Elections & Ernesto R. Vega, G.R. No. 201716. January 8,
2013).
