View full case

REPUBLIC v. VICTORINO EVANGELISTA

FACTS:

Dante Legaspi filed a complaint for damages against Gen. Jose M. Calimlim, Ciriaco Reyes, and Maj. David Diciano, alleging that they started digging and blasting works on his land in Bigte, Norzagaray, Bulacan. Legaspi appointed his nephew, Paul Gutierrez, as his attorney-in-fact through a special power of attorney (SPA) to deal with the treasure hunting activities and file charges against unauthorized individuals. Gutierrez filed the case against the defendants with the assistance of Atty. Homobono Adaza. The court granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) against the defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that the SPA was revoked and that Gutierrez failed to establish their connection to the alleged acts. They also filed a motion for Judge Evangelista's inhibition. The trial court granted Gutierrez's application for a writ of preliminary injunction and denied the motion for inhibition. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, leading to the filing of this petition. Issues raised include the revocation of the agency contract, dismissal of the complaint against the defendants, and Judge Evangelista's alleged bias.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the contract of agency between Legaspi and Gutierrez has been effectively revoked by Legaspi.

  2. Whether the complaint against petitioners should be dismissed.

  3. Whether respondent judge ought to have inhibited himself from further proceeding with the case.

RULING:

  1. The Court found no merit in the petition. With regard to the first issue, the Court held that the special power of attorney of Gutierrez to represent Legaspi has not been effectively revoked. While a contract of agency is generally revocable, an exception to its revocability is when it is coupled with interest. In this case, the agency between Legaspi and Gutierrez is coupled with interest as evidenced by their agreement to share in the treasure that may be found in the land. Therefore, the unilateral revocation by Legaspi is invalid.

  2. On the second issue, the Court affirmed the trial court's denial of petitioners' motion to dismiss. The trial court correctly ruled that there is a need to maintain the status quo to prevent serious damage to Legaspi's land, and that Gutierrez has established the validity of the special power of attorney granted to him. Hence, the complaint against the petitioners should not be dismissed.

  3. Lastly, on the third issue, the Court upheld the trial court's denial of petitioners' motion for inhibition. It found no evidence to support the alleged partiality of the respondent judge in favor of private respondent.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A contract of agency is generally revocable, but an exception to its revocability is when it is coupled with interest.

  • The revocation of an agency is invalid if it is coupled with interest.

  • In a complaint for damages, the court may issue a writ of preliminary injunction to maintain the status quo and prevent serious damage pending final judgment.

  • An application for a writ of preliminary injunction requires the posting of an injunction bond.

  • A trial judge is not required to inhibit himself from a case unless there is evidence of bias or partiality.