SIMON B. ALDOVINO, JR., DANILO B. FALLER AND FERDINAND N.

TALABONG,
Petitioners,
- versus -
COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND WILFREDO F. ASILO,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 184836 December 23, 2009

FACTS
Wilfredo F. Asilowas elected
councilor of Lucena City for three
consecutive terms: for the 1998-2001, 2001-
2004, and 2004-2007 terms, respectively. In
September 2005, the Sandiganbayan
preventively suspended him for 90 days in
relation with a criminal case he then
faced. This Court, however, subsequently
lifted the Sandiganbayans suspension order
and he resumed performing the functions of
his office and finished his term.
In the 2007 election, Asilo filed his
certificate of candidacy for the same
position. Simon B. Aldovino, Jr., Danilo B.
Faller, and Ferdinand N. Talabong sought to
deny due course to Asilos certificate of
candidacy or to cancel it on the ground that
his candidacy for a fourth term violated the
three-term limit rule under Section 8, Article
X of the Constitution and Section 43(b) of
RA 7160.
three-term limit rule did not apply, as he
failed to render complete service for the
2004-2007 term because of the order of
suspension of the Sandiganbayan.
ISSUE:
1. Whether preventive suspension of an
elected local official is an interruption of
the three-term limit rule;
RULING:
Asilos 2004-2007 term was not interrupted
by the Sandiganbayan-imposed preventive
suspension in 2005, as preventive suspension
does not interrupt an elective officials
term. With that, the COMELEC effectively
committed grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction as
it refused to apply the legal command of
Section 8, Article X of the Constitution
when it granted due course to Asilos’
certificate of candidacy for a prohibited
fourth term

The COMELECs Second Division

ruled in Asilos favor in its Resolution
of November 28, 2007 for the reason that the
VICTORINO DENNIS M. SOCRATES, fourth consecutive term; and Term limits
petitioner, vs. THE COMMISSION ON should be construed strictly to give the fullest
ELECTIONS, MARK DAVID possible effect to the right of the electorate to
HAGEDORN. respondents. choose their leaders.

GR NO 155083-84, OCTOBER 16, 2002

FACTS:
Petitioner assails the COMELECs
resolutions declaring Hagedorn qualified to
run for mayor in the recall election. They
likewise prayed for the issuance of a
temporary restraining order to enjoin the
proclamation of the winning candidate in the
recall election.
Petitioner argues that the COMELEC
gravely abused its discretion in upholding
Hagedorns qualification to run for mayor in
the recall election despite the constitutional
and statutory prohibitions against a fourth
consecutive term for elective local officials.
The Court ordered the COMELEC to desist
from proclaiming any winning candidate in
the recall election until further orders.
Hagedorn garnered the highest number
of votes in the recall election with 20,238
votes. Subsequently, he filed motions to lift
the order restraining the COMELEC from
proclaiming the winning candidate and to
allow him to assume office to give effect to
the will of the electorate.
ISSUE:
Whether Hagedorn is qualified to run for
mayor in the recall election of Puerto
Princesa on September 24, 2002

HELD:
Hagedorn is qualified to run in the
September 24, 2002 recall election for mayor
of Puerto Princesa because he is not running
for immediate reelection following his three
consecutive terms as mayor which ended on
June 30, 2001, his continuity of service as
mayor was involuntarily interrupted from
June 30, 2001 to September 24, 2002 during
which time he was a private citizen, his recall
term from September 24, 2002 to June 30,
2004 cannot be made to retroact to June 30,
2001 to make a fourth consecutive term
because factually the recall term is not a
WENPHIL CORPORATION, petitioner, ISSUE:
vs.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS Whether or not an employee dismissed for
COMMISSION AND ROBERTO just cause but without due process be
MALLARE, respondents. reinstated to work.

G.R. No. 80587 February 8, 1989 RULING:

FACTS:
On May 20, 1985 private respondent had an
altercation with a co-employee, and as a
result of which, they were suspended on the
following morning and in the afternoon of
the same day a memorandum was issued by
the Operations Manager advising private
respondent of his dismissal from the service
in accordance with their Personnel Manual.
The notice of dismissal was served to him
four days later.
The dismissal of an employee must be for a
just cause and after due process. Petitioner
committed an infringement to the second
requirement thus it must be imposed a
sanction for its failure to give a formal notice
and conduct an investigation as required by
law before dismissing the employee from
employment. Petitioner must indemnify the
dismissed employee the amount of 1,000.00.

Thus private respondent filed a complaint for

unfair labor practice, illegal suspension and
illegal dismissal which was rendered
dismissed by the Labor Arbiter for lack of
merit.

the National Labor Relations Commission

ordered the reinstatement of private
respondent to his former position without
loss of seniority and other related benefits
and one (1) year backwages without
qualification and deduction.

Hence the herein petition for certiorari with

preliminary injunction and/or restraining
order wherein petitioner alleges that the
public respondent NLRC committed a grave
abuse of discretion in rendering its decision
contrary to the evidence on record.

On December 2, 1987, the court issued a

restraining order enjoining the enforcement
of the decision of the NLRC. The theory of
the petitioner is that the private respondent
appears to have a violent temper and such
attitude cannot be pacified by his superiors
and as such, the Operations manager issued a
memorandum advising his dismissal from
service.
AGABON VS NLRC
442 SCRA 573 (2004)

FACTS
Virgilo and Jenny Agabon who are a
gypsum board and cornice installers
respectively are employees of Riviera Home
Improvements, Inc. which is engaged in the
business of selling and installing ornamental
and construction materials on January 2,
1992[2] until February 23, 1999 when they
were dismissed for abandonment of work.

Petitioners then filed a complaint for

illegal dismissal and payment of money
claims and the Labor Arbiter rendered the
decision in their favor and ordered private
respondent to pay the monetary claims.

ISSUE: Woa the petitioners

complaint for illegal dismissal and money
claims were denied

HELD:

the petition is DENIED finding that

petitioners Jenny and Virgilio Agabon
abandoned their work. However, private
respondent Riviera Home Improvements,
Inc. is further ORDERED to pay each of
the petitioners the amount of P30,000.00 as
nominal damages for non-compliance with
statutory due process.
DE GUIA VS GUINGONA et al
GR. NO. 119525, April 18, 1995

FACTS: