The high tribunal affirmed a Court of Appeals ruling upholding a decision of the Quezon City regional trial ccourt dismissing two motions of Calimlim and former military intelligence officer Maj. David Diciano and Ciriaco Reyes seeking to dismiss a complaint for damages filed against them by Paul Gutierrez.
The Supreme Court also rejected the motion of Calimlim, Diciano and Reyes to have Judge Victorino Evangelista inhibit himself from the case.
In a 13-page decision, the Court also upheld the validity of a special power of attorney executed by Dante Legaspi, the land owner, in favor of Gutierrez to deal with treasure hunting activities on his land.
Court records show Legaspi had filed a complaint for damages with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against Calimlim, Diciano and Reyes for allegedly "digging, tunneling and blasting works" on Legaspi’s land in Barangay Bigte in Norzagaray, Bulacan in 1999 without his permission.
Calimlim, Diciano and Reyes had sought the case’s dismissal on grounds that the special power of attorney given to Gutierrez had already been revoked by Legaspi in a deed of revocation.
Calimlim, Diciano and Reyes also accused Evangelista of being partial to Legaspi and demanded that he inhibit himself from hearing the case.
In response, Evangelista denied Calimlim, Diciano and Reyes’ motion to dismiss and to inhibit, and granted Legaspi’s application for a writ of injunction.
After the CA affirmed Evangelista’s ruling, Calimlim, Diciano and Reyes elevated the case to the Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the Tribunal said Legaspi cannot unilaterally revoke the special power of attorney given to Gutierrez since another contract depended upon such agency.
Gutierrez had entered into a contract with lawyer Homobono Adaza, engaging his services to sue for damages against Calimlim, Diciano and Reyes.
"Consequently, the deed of revocation executed by Legaspi has no effect," read the Court’s ruling. "The authority of Gutierrez to file and continue with the prosecution of the case at bar is unaffected."
The Court also ruled that there is no sufficient basis to inhibit Evangelista from hearing the case since there is no discernible pattern of bias in his rulings.
"Bias and partiality can never be presumed," he said.
"Bare allegations of partiality will not suffice in an absence of a clear showing that will overcome the presumption that the judge dispensed justice without fear or favor."
Evangelista had to issue the writ of preliminary injunction to preserve the rights and interest of Gutierrez and Legaspi, the Supreme Court said.
The decision was written by Senior Associate Justice Reynato Puno of the Tribunal’s second division. — Jose Rodel Clapano