Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 149 views

    41) KB v. Morato

    Uploaded by

    Jovelan V. Escaño
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, Kilosbayan Inc., lacked legal standing to challenge the Equipment Lease Agreement between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and the Philippine Gaming Management Corp. The Court found that the petitioner was not a real party in interest to the contract and had not alleged that public funds were being misused. Additionally, the provisions of the constitution cited by the petitioner were not self-executing and did not give rise to an enforceable cause of action. The Court also determined that the Equipment Lease Agreement did not violate the PCSO's charter or require public bidding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    41) KB v. Morato

    Uploaded by

    Jovelan V. Escaño
    149 views3 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, Kilosbayan Inc., lacked legal standing to challenge the Equipment Lease Agreement between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and the Philippine Gaming Management Corp. The Court found that the petitioner was not a real party in interest to the contract and had not alleged that public funds were being misused. Additionally, the provisions of the constitution cited by the petitioner were not self-executing and did not give rise to an enforceable cause of action. The Court also determined that the Equipment Lease Agreement did not violate the PCSO's charter or require public bidding.

    Original Description:

    A Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, Kilosbayan Inc., lacked legal standing to challenge the Equipment Lease Agreement between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and the Philippine Gaming Management Corp. The Court found that the petitioner was not a real party in interest to the contract and had not alleged that public funds were being misused. Additionally, the provisions of the constitution cited by the petitioner were not self-executing and did not give rise to an enforceable cause of action. The Court also determined that the Equipment Lease Agreement did not violate the PCSO's charter or require public bidding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    149 views3 pages

    41) KB v. Morato

    Uploaded by

    Jovelan V. Escaño
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner, Kilosbayan Inc., lacked legal standing to challenge the Equipment Lease Agreement between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office and the Philippine Gaming Management Corp. The Court found that the petitioner was not a real party in interest to the contract and had not alleged that public funds were being misused. Additionally, the provisions of the constitution cited by the petitioner were not self-executing and did not give rise to an enforceable cause of action. The Court also determined that the Equipment Lease Agreement did not violate the PCSO's charter or require public bidding.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    [Government as Protector of the People Parens Patriae]

    Kilosbayan, Inc. v. PCSO Chairman Manuel Morato


    G.R. No. 118910, July 17, 1995
    Ponente: Justice Mendoza
    Facts:
    The case is about the contract (i.e., the Equipment Lease Agreement
    (ELA) between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and
    Phil. Gaming Mgt Corp (PGMC) that was subsequently made after a
    ruling in a previous case (Kilosbayan Inc. vs Guingona), wherein the
    initial contract by same parties, a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA), was
    deemed null and void mainly because of the provision in PCSOs
    charter:
    Under Section 1 of the Charter of the PCSO, the PCSO is prohibited
    from holding and conducting lotteries in collaboration, association or
    joint venture with any person, association, company or entity"...

    In short, the ELA was a substitute for the JVA. But the ELA was still
    questioned by Kilosbayan. Kilosbayan Inc. filed a petition for
    Prohibition, Review and/or Injunction, seeking to declare the Equipment
    Lease Agreement (ELA) between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes
    Office and the Philippine Gaming Management Corp. invalid.

    Arguments of the petitioner:


    That the amended ELA is null and void because it is basically the same
    as the JVA
    That assuming that the ELA is different, it is still null and void because
    it is inconsistent with PCOs charter and the previous decision by the
    same court.
    That the ELA was null and void because it violates the law concerning
    the furnishing of supplies, materials and equipment:
    (a) It was awarded and executed without the public bidding required
    under said laws and COA rules and regulations,
    (b) it has not been approved by the PH President,
    (c) it is not most advantageous to the government.

    Issue: WON petitioner has legal standing.


    Held:
    No. The petitioners have neither standing nor substantial interest to make
    them real parties in interest. SC differentiates legal standing from real
    parties in interest.

    On Legal Standing: Although Kilosbayan invoked Principles and State Policies


    in Art. II
    (Secs. 5,12,13,& 17) of the Constitution, said provisions are not self executing
    provisions, wherein the disregard of which can give rise to a cause of action
    in the courts.
    They do not embody judicially enforceable constitutional rights but guidelines
    for
    legislation.
    Although the agreement was made by a government corporation, there is,
    however, no allegation that public funds are being misspent so as to make
    this action a public one...
    On real parties in interest: This case involves basically questions of contract
    law. Thus, the real parties are those who are parties to the agreement.
    On PCSO charter: The PCSO does not absolutely prohibit it from holding or
    conducting lottery "in collaboration, association or joint venture" with another
    party. What the PCSO is prohibited from doing is to invest in a business
    engaged in sweepstakes races, lotteries and similar activities, and it is
    prohibited from doing so whether in "collaboration, association or joint
    venture" with others or "by itself." The reason for this is that these are
    competing activities and the PCSO should not invest in the business of a
    competitor.
    On COA bidding: The fact remains that the Equipment Lease Agreement in
    question did not have to be submitted to public bidding as a condition for its
    validity. E.O. No. 301, applies only to contracts for the purchase of supplies,
    materials and equipment. It does not refer to contracts of lease of equipment
    like the ELA.

    NOTES:
    Standing is a concept in constitutional law where parties not involved
    can invoke their rights as concerned citizens valuing public interest. However,
    here
    no constitutional question is actually involved.
    Real party in interest is whether he is "the party who would be benefitted
    or injured by the judgment, or the 'party entitled to the avails of the suit

    You might also like