KILOSBAYAN vs. MANUEL L. MORATO
G.R. No. 118910. November 16, 1995.
Real Parties in Interest
FACTS:
In Jan. 25,
1995, PCSO and PGMC signed an Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) wherein
PGMC leased online lottery equipment and accessories to PCSO. (Rental of
4.3% of the gross amount of ticket or at least P35,000 per terminal
annually). 30% of the net receipts is allotted to charity. Term of lease
is for 8 years. PCSO is to employ its own personnel and responsible for
the facilities. Upon the expiration of lease, PCSO may purchase the
equipment for P25 million. Feb. 21, 1995. A petition was filed to
declare ELA invalid because it is the same as the Contract of Lease
Petitioner's Contention: ELA was same to the Contract of Lease.. It is
still violative of PCSO's charter. It is violative of the law regarding
public bidding. It violates Sec. 2(2) of Art. 9-D of the 1987
Constitution. Standing can no longer be questioned because it has become
the law of the case Respondent's reply: ELA is different from the
Contract of Lease. There is no bidding required. The power to determine
if ELA is advantageous is vested in the Board of Directors of PCSO. PCSO
does not have funds. Petitioners seek to further their moral crusade.
Petitioners do not have a legal standing because they were not parties
to the contract
ISSUES:
Whether or not the petitioners have standing?
HELD:
NO. STARE
DECISIS cannot apply. The previous ruling sustaining the standing of the
petitioners is a departure from the settled rulings on real parties in
interest because no constitutional issues were actually involved. LAW
OF THE CASE cannot also apply. Since the present case is not the same
one litigated by theparties before in Kilosbayan vs. Guingona, Jr., the
ruling cannot be in any sense be regarded as the law of this case. The
parties are the same but the cases are not. RULE ON CONCLUSIVENESS
cannot still apply. An issue actually and directly passed upon and
determine in a former suit cannot again be drawn in question in any
future action between the same parties involving a different cause of
action. But the rule does not apply to issues of law at least when
substantially unrelated claims are involved. When the second proceeding
involves an instrument or transaction identical with, but in a form
separable from the one dealt with in the first proceeding, the Court is
free in the second proceeding to make an independent examination of the
legal matters at issue. Since ELA is a different contract, the previous
decision does not preclude determination of the petitioner's standing.
STANDING is a concept in constitutional law and here no constitutional
question is actually involved. The more appropriate issue is whether the
petitioners are REAL PARTIES in INTEREST.