Kilosbayan vs.

Morato
G.R. No. 118910. November 16, 1995.
Facts:

In Jan. 25, 1995, PCSO and PGMC signed an Equipment Lease Agreement wherein
PGMC leased online lottery equipment and accessories to PCSO. 30% of the net receipts is
allotted to charity. 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?

Ruling:

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 the parties 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 properties in
interest.