KILOSBAYAN vs. MANUEL L. MORATO G.R. No. 118910. November 16, 1995.

FACTS: 
PCSO and PGMC signed an Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) wherein PGMC
leased online lottery equipment and accessories to PCSO. The term of lease is for 8
years and PCSO shall employ its own personnel and responsible for the facilities. A
petition was filed by Kilosbayan to declare ELA invalid because: it is the same as the
Contract of Lease; It is still violative of PCSO's charter; It is violative of the law
regarding public bidding and It violates Sec. 2(2) of Art. 9-D of the 1987 Constitution.
The respondents on the other hand claimed that: ELA is different from the Contract of
Lease; that there is no bidding required; and the power to determine if ELA is
advantageous is vested in the Board of Directors of PCSO. Respondents further claimed
that 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. Petitioners have no legal standing to sue. 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. Hence, STARE DECISIS
cannot apply.  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. As to RULE ON CONCLUSIVENES, it is still inapplicable to this
case. 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.