 Kilosbayan vs. Morato (G.R. No.

118910, November 16, 1995)

Basis:
Sec 5. Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
(2) Review, revise, reverse, modify, or affirm on appeal or certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court
may provide, final judgments and orders of lower courts in:
(c) All cases in which the jurisdiction of any lower court is in issue.

Facts:
The petitioners are seeking for reconsideration of the Court’s decision regarding their stand to
file a suit and regarding the validity of the lease agreement negotiated between PCSO and PGMC.
There is a previous case involving the same parties wherein the voting for the petitioners
standing to sue is affirmative, having 7 members sustaining and 6 members denying the stand.
The ELA (Equipment Leasing Agreement) is deifferent from the contract of the previous case.

Issue: WON
(i) the petitioners are entitled a stand to sue
(ii) question on the jurisdiction of the court and the application of the decision of the first case to be
the law in this case
(iii) PCSO can enter into any form of association or collaboration in operating an online lottery under
RA 1169 as amended.

Decision:
(i) No. Petitioners did not meet the required grounds for a petitioner to have a stand in filling a suit,i.e.
(a) they are not directly involved and not a party of the contract
(b) Petitioners are not denied any right or privilege
(c) Petitioners does not suffer injury resulting from the contract
(ii) No. The Courts has no jurisdiction since there is no stand and no issue of constitution involved.
Instead, jurisdiction lies within the Congress since the issue on the contract on lottery involves policy
matters decided in the Legislative Branch.
Furthermore, this case does not apply the “Law of the case” by the first ruling since even though
the parties involved are the same, the contract involved is not which makes the present case not a
continuation of the previous case.
(iii) Yes. The court noted in its decision that with regard to RA 1169, the agreement in this case is void
of the provisions contained in the previous case painting it as a joint agreement.