Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 567 views

    Kilosbayan vs. Morato

    Uploaded by

    Celedonio Manubag
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not have standing to challenge the Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC). While the petitioners had standing in a previous case involving a different contract, the doctrine of stare decisis did not apply because the present case involved a separate contract. As the ELA is a distinct agreement from the prior contract, the issue of the petitioner's standing could be independently examined. The appropriate issue was whether the petitioners qualified as real parties in interest, rather than having standing, since no constitutional question was actually involved in the challenge to the ELA.

    Copyright:

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

    Kilosbayan vs. Morato

    Uploaded by

    Celedonio Manubag
    567 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not have standing to challenge the Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC). While the petitioners had standing in a previous case involving a different contract, the doctrine of stare decisis did not apply because the present case involved a separate contract. As the ELA is a distinct agreement from the prior contract, the issue of the petitioner's standing could be independently examined. The appropriate issue was whether the petitioners qualified as real parties in interest, rather than having standing, since no constitutional question was actually involved in the challenge to the ELA.

    Original Description:

    xxxxxx

    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 petitioners did not have standing to challenge the Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC). While the petitioners had standing in a previous case involving a different contract, the doctrine of stare decisis did not apply because the present case involved a separate contract. As the ELA is a distinct agreement from the prior contract, the issue of the petitioner's standing could be independently examined. The appropriate issue was whether the petitioners qualified as real parties in interest, rather than having standing, since no constitutional question was actually involved in the challenge to the ELA.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    567 views2 pages

    Kilosbayan vs. Morato

    Uploaded by

    Celedonio Manubag
    The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners did not have standing to challenge the Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) between the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) and Philippine Gaming Management Corporation (PGMC). While the petitioners had standing in a previous case involving a different contract, the doctrine of stare decisis did not apply because the present case involved a separate contract. As the ELA is a distinct agreement from the prior contract, the issue of the petitioner's standing could be independently examined. The appropriate issue was whether the petitioners qualified as real parties in interest, rather than having standing, since no constitutional question was actually involved in the challenge to the ELA.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    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.

    You might also like