KILOSBAYAN vs. MANUEL L.

MORATO
G.R. No. 118910. November 16, 1995.

Real Parties in Interest

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.