CASE DIGEST

KILOSBAYAN vs. MANUEL L. MORATO

G.R. No. 118910. November 16, 1995.
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.