REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, !"!s!#t!$ %& LT. GEN. 'OSE (. CALI(LI(, )# *)s +,",+)t& ,s -o.! C*)!- o- t*! I#t!//)g!#+! S!0)+!, A.!$ Fo+!s o- t*! P*)/)"")#!s 1ISAFP2, ,#$ -o.! Co..,#$)#g G!#!,/, P!s)$!#t),/ S!+u)t& Gou" 1PSG2, ,#$ (A'. 3A4I3 B. 3ICIANO, )# *)s +,",+)t& ,s ,# O--)+! o- ISAFP ,#$ -o.! .!.%! o- t*! PSG, petitioners, vs. HON. 4ICTORINO E4ANGELISTA, )# *)s +,",+)t& ,s P!s)$)#g 'u$g!, R!g)o#,/ T),/ Cout, B,#+* 225, 6u!7o# C)t&, ,#$ 3ANTE LEGASPI, !"!s!#t!$ %& *)s ,tto#!&8)#8-,+t, P,u/ Gut)!!7, respondents. 3 E C I S I O N PUNO, J.9 The case at bar stems from a complaint for damages, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, filed by private respondent Dante Legaspi, through his attorney-in-fact Paul Gutierrez, against petitioners Gen !ose " #alimlim, #iriaco $eyes and "aj David Diciano before the $egional Trial #ourt %$T#& of 'uezon #ity ()* The #omplaint alleged that private respondent Legaspi is the owner of a land located in +igte, ,orzagaray, +ulacan -n ,ovember )..., petitioner #alimlim, representing the $epublic of the Philippines, and as then head of the -ntelligence /ervice of the 0rmed 1orces of the Philippines and the Presidential /ecurity Group, entered into a "emorandum of 0greement %"20& with one #iriaco $eyes The "20 granted $eyes a permit to hunt for treasure in a land in +igte, ,orzagaray, +ulacan Petitioner Diciano signed the "20 as a witness (3* -t was further alleged that thereafter, $eyes, together with petitioners, started, digging, tunneling and blasting wor4s on the said land of Legaspi The complaint also alleged that petitioner #alimlim assigned about 56 military personnel to guard the area and encamp thereon to intimidate Legaspi and other occupants of the area from going near the subject land 2n 1ebruary )7, 3666, Legaspi e8ecuted a special power of attorney %/P0& appointing his nephew, private respondent Gutierrez, as his attorney-in- fact Gutierrez was given the power to deal with the treasure hunting activities on Legaspi9s land and to file charges against those who may enter it without the latter9s authority (:* Legaspi agreed to give Gutierrez ;6< of the treasure that may be found in the land 2n 1ebruary 3., 3666, Gutierrez filed a case for damages and injunction against petitioners for illegally entering Legaspi9s land =e hired the legal services of 0tty =omobono 0daza Their contract provided that as legal fees, 0tty 0daza shall be entitled to :6< of Legaspi9s share in whatever treasure may be found in the land -n addition, Gutierrez agreed to pay 0tty 0daza P7,66666 as appearance fee per court hearing and defray all e8penses for the cost of the litigation (;* >pon the filing of the complaint, then ?8ecutive !udge Perlita ! Tria Tirona issued a @3-hour temporary restraining order %T$2& against petitioners The case (7* was subseAuently raffled to the $T# of 'uezon #ity, +ranch 33:, then presided by public respondent !udge Bictorino P ?vangelista 2n "arch 3, 3666, respondent judge issued another @3-hour T$2 and a summary hearing for its e8tension was set on "arch @, 3666 2n "arch );, 3666, petitioners filed a "otion to Dismiss (C* contendingD first, there is no real party-in-interest as the /P0 of Gutierrez to bring the suit was already revo4ed by Legaspi on "arch @, 3666, as evidenced by a Deed of $evocation, (@* and, second, Gutierrez failed to establish that the alleged armed men guarding the area were acting on orders of petitioners 2n "arch )@, 3666, petitioners also filed a "otion for -nhibition (5* of the respondent judge on the ground of alleged partiality in favor of private respondent 2n "arch 3:, 3666, the trial court granted private respondent9s application for a writ of preliminary injunction on the following groundsD %)& the diggings and blastings appear to have been made on the land of Legaspi, hence, there is an urgent need to maintain the status quo to prevent serious damage to Legaspi9s landE and, %3& the /P0 granted to Gutierrez continues to be valid (.* The trial court ordered thusD WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court hereby resolves to GRANT plaintiffs appli!ation for a writ of preli"inary in#un!tion$ %pon plaintiffs filing of an in#un!tion bon& in the a"ount of ONE H%N'RE' THO%(AN' )E(O( *)+,,,,,,$,,-, let a Writ of )reli"inary .n#un!tion issue en#oining the &efen&ants as well as their asso!iates, agents or representatives fro" !ontinuing to o!!upy an& en!a"p on the lan& of the plaintiff /EGA(). as well as the vi!inity thereof0 fro" &igging, tunneling an& blasting the sai& lan& of plaintiff /EGA().0 fro" re"oving whatever treasure "ay be foun& on the sai& lan&0 fro" preventing an& threatening the plaintiffs an& their representatives fro" entering the sai& lan& an& perfor"ing a!ts of ownership0 fro" threatening the plaintiffs an& their representatives as well as plaintiffs lawyer$ 2n even date, the trial court issued another 2rder ()6* denying petitioners9 motion to dismiss and reAuiring petitioners to answer the complaint 2n 0pril ;, 3666, it li4ewise denied petitioners9 motion for inhibition ())* 2n appeal, the #ourt of 0ppeals affirmed the decision of the trial court ()3* =ence this petition, with the following assigned errorsD - WHETHER THE CONTRACT OF AGENC1 2ETWEEN /EGA(). AN' )R.3ATE RE()ON'ENT G%T.ERRE4 HA( 2EEN EFFECT.3E/1 RE3O5E' 21 /EGA().$ -- WHETHER THE CO6)/A.NT AGA.N(T )ET.T.ONER( (HO%/' 2E '.(6.((E'$ --- WHETHER RE()ON'ENT 7%'GE O%GHT TO HA3E .NH.2.TE' H.6(E/F FRO6 F%RTHER )ROCEE'.NG W.TH THE CA(E$ Fe find no merit in the petition 2n the first issue, petitioners claim that the special power of attorney of Gutierrez to represent Legaspi has already been revo4ed by the latter Private respondent Gutierrez, however, contends that the unilateral revocation is invalid as his agency is coupled with interest Fe agree with private respondent 0rt )5C5 of the #ivil #ode provides that by the contract of agency, an agent binds himself to render some service or do something in representation or on behalf of another, 4nown as the principal, with the consent or authority of the latter ():* 0 contract of agency is generally revocable as it is a personal contract of representation based on trust and confidence reposed by the principal on his agent 0s the power of the agent to act depends on the will and license of the principal he represents, the power of the agent ceases when the will or permission is withdrawn by the principal Thus, generally, the agency may be revo4ed by the principal at will ();* =owever, an e8ception to the revocability of a contract of agency is when it is coupled with interest, i.e., if a bilateral contract depends upon the agency ()7* The reason for its irrevocability is because the agency becomes part of another obligation or agreement -t is not solely the rights of the principal but also that of the agent and third persons which are affected =ence, the law provides that in such cases, the agency cannot be revo4ed at the sole will of the principal -n the case at bar, we agree with the finding of the trial and appellate courts that the agency granted by Legaspi to Gutierrez is coupled with interest as a bilateral contract depends on it -t is clear from the records that Gut)!!7 :,s g)0!# %& L!g,s"), inter alia, t*! "o:! to .,#,g! t*! t!,su! *u#t)#g ,+t)0)t)!s )# t*! su%;!+t /,#$< to -)/! ,#& +,s! ,g,)#st ,#&o#! :*o !#t!s t*! /,#$ :)t*out ,ut*o)t& -o. L!g,s")< to !#g,g! t*! s!0)+!s o- /,:&!s to +,& out t*! ,g!#+&< ,#$, to $)g -o ,#& t!,su! :)t*)# t*! /,#$ ,#$ !#t! )#to ,g!!.!#ts !/,t)0! t*!!to. -t was li4ewise agreed upon that Gut)!!7 s*,// %! !#t)t/!$ to =0> o- :*,t!0! t!,su! .,& %! -ou#$ )# t*! /,#$ Pursuant to this authority and to protect Legaspi9s land from the alleged illegal entry of petitioners, agent Gutierrez hired the services of 0tty 0daza to prosecute the case for damages and injunction against petitioners As ",&.!#t -o /!g,/ s!0)+!s, Gut)!!7 ,g!!$ to ,ss)g# to Att&. A$,7, 50> o- L!g,s")?s s*,! )# :*,t!0! t!,su! .,& %! !+o0!!$ )# t*! su%;!+t /,#$ -t is clear that the treasure that may be found in the land is the subject matter of the agencyE that under the /P0, Gutierrez can enter into contract for the legal services of 0tty 0dazaE and, thus Gutierrez and 0tty 0daza have an interest in the subject matter of the agency, i.e., in the treasures that may be found in the land This bilateral contract depends on the agency and thus renders it as one coupled with interest, irrevocable at the sole will of the principal Legaspi ()C* Fhen an agency is constituted as a clause in a bilateral contract, that is, when the agency is inserted in another agreement, the agency ceases to be revocable at the pleasure of the principal as the agency shall now follow the condition of the bilateral agreement ()@* #onseAuently, the Deed of $evocation e8ecuted by Legaspi has no effect The authority of Gutierrez to file and continue with the prosecution of the case at bar is unaffected 2n the second issue, we hold that the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction is justified 0 writ of preliminary injunction is an ancilliary or preventive remedy that is resorted to by a litigant to protect or preserve his rights or interests and for no other purpose during the pendency of the principal action ()5* -t is issued by the court to prevent threatened or continuous irremediable injury to the applicant before his claim can be thoroughly studied and adjudicated ().* -ts aim is to preserve the status quo ante until the merits of the case can be heard fully, upon the applicant9s showing of two important conditions, viz.D %)& the right to be protected prima facie e8istsE and, %3& the acts sought to be enjoined are violative of that right (36* /ection :, $ule 75 of the )..@ $ules of #ivil Procedure provides that a writ of preliminary injunction may be issued when it is establishedD *a- that the appli!ant is entitle& to the relief &e"an&e&, the whole or part of su!h relief !onsists in restraining the !o""ission or !ontinuan!e of the a!t or a!ts !o"plaine& of, or in re8uiring the perfor"an!e of an a!t or a!ts, either for a li"ite& perio& or perpetually0 *b- that the !o""ission, !ontinuan!e or non9perfor"an!e of the a!t or a!ts !o"plaine& of &uring the litigation woul& probably wor: in#usti!e to the appli!ant0 or *!- that a party, !ourt, agen!y or a person is &oing, threatening, or is atte"pting to &o, or is pro!uring or suffering to be &one, so"e a!t or a!ts probably in violation of the rights of the appli!ant respe!ting the sub#e!t of the a!tion or pro!ee&ing, an& ten&ing to ren&er the #u&g"ent ineffe!tual$ -t is crystal clear that at the hearing for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, mere prima facie evidence is needed to establish the applicant9s rights or interests in the subject matter of the main action (3)* -t is not reAuired that the applicant should +o#+/us)0!/& show that there was a violation of his rights as this issue will still be fully litigated in the main case (33* Thus, ,# ,""/)+,#t -o , :)t )s !@u)!$ o#/& to s*o: t*,t *! *,s ,# ost!#s)%/! )g*t to t*! -)#,/ !/)!- ",&!$ -o )# *)s +o."/,)#t (3:* -n the case at bar, we find that respondent judge had sufficient basis to issue the writ of preliminary injunction -t was established, prima facie, t*,t L!g,s") *,s , )g*t to "!,+!-u/ "oss!ss)o# o- *)s /,#$, pendente lite. Legaspi had title to the subject land -t was li4ewise established that the diggings were conducted by petitioners in the enclosed area of Legaspi9s land A*!t*! t*! /,#$ -!#+!$ %& Gut)!!7 ,#$ +/,).!$ to %! )#+/u$!$ )# t*! /,#$ o- L!g,s") +o0!!$ ,# ,!, %!&o#$ t*,t :*)+* )s )#+/u$!$ )# t*! t)t/! o- L!g,s") )s , -,+tu,/ )ssu! st)// su%;!+t to /)t)g,t)o# ,#$ "oo- %& t*! ",t)!s )# t*! .,)# +,s! -o $,.,g!s -t was necessary for the trial court to issue the writ of preliminary injunction during the pendency of the main case in order to preserve the rights and interests of private respondents Legaspi and Gutierrez 2n the third issue, petitioners charge that the respondent judge lac4ed the neutrality of an impartial judge They fault the respondent judge for not giving credence to the testimony of their surveyor that the diggings were conducted outside the land of Legaspi They also claim that respondent judge9s rulings on objections raised by the parties were biased against them Fe have carefully e8amined the records and we find no sufficient basis to hold that respondent judge should have recused himself from hearing the case There is no discernible pattern of bias on the rulings of the respondent judge +ias and partiality can never be presumed +are 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 (3;* -t bears to stress again that a judge9s appreciation or misappreciation of the sufficiency of evidence adduced by the parties, or the correctness of a judge9s orders or rulings on the objections of counsels during the hearing, without proof of malice on the part of respondent judge, is not sufficient to show bias or partiality 0s we held in the case of A!%% 0s. P!o"/!, (37* the adverse and erroneous rulings of a judge on the various motions of a party do not sufficiently prove bias and prejudice to disAualify him To be disAualifying, it must be shown that the bias and prejudice stemmed from an e8trajudicial source and result in an opinion on the merits on some basis other than what the judge learned from his participation in the case 2pinions formed in the course of judicial proceedings, although erroneous, as long as based on the evidence adduced, do not prove bias or prejudice Fe also emphasized that repeated rulings against a litigant, no matter how erroneously, vigorously and consistently e8pressed, do not amount to bias and prejudice which can be a bases for the disAualification of a judge 1inally, the inhibition of respondent judge in hearing the case for damages has become moot and academic in view of the latter9s death during the pendency of the case The main case for damages shall now be heard and tried before another judge IN 4IEA AHEREOF, the impugned 2rders of the trial court in #ivil #ase ,o '-66-;6))7, dated "arch 3: and 0pril ;, 3666, are 011-$"?D The presiding judge of the $egional Trial #ourt of 'uezon #ity to whom #ivil #ase ,o '-66-;6))7 was assigned is directed to proceed with dispatch in hearing the main case for damages ,o pronouncement as to costs SO OR3ERE3.