Scribd
Upload
175 views1 page

Legal Standing in Kilosbayan vs. Morato

The document summarizes a case between Kilosbayan vs. Morato regarding the validity of an Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) signed between PCSO and PGMC. The petitioner argued the ELA was invalid as it violated bidding laws and PCSO's charter, while the respondents argued the ELA was different than a lease and the board had discretion to approve it. The court ultimately held that the petitioner did not have legal standing to question the contract as they were not direct parties and did not demonstrate a particular interest, such as misuse of public funds, in bringing the case.

Uploaded by

Lady Paul Sy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
175 views1 page

Legal Standing in Kilosbayan vs. Morato

The document summarizes a case between Kilosbayan vs. Morato regarding the validity of an Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) signed between PCSO and PGMC. The petitioner argued the ELA was invalid as it violated bidding laws and PCSO's charter, while the respondents argued the ELA was different than a lease and the board had discretion to approve it. The court ultimately held that the petitioner did not have legal standing to question the contract as they were not direct parties and did not demonstrate a particular interest, such as misuse of public funds, in bringing the case.

Uploaded by

Lady Paul Sy
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

KILOSBAYAN VS.

MORATO

Facts: On 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. 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.

On Feb. 21, 1995, a petition was filed to declare ELA invalid because it is
the same as the Contract of Lease. Petitioner contends that ELA is violative
of PCSO's charter. Also, the same 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.

However, respondents contends that ELA is different from the Contract of


Lease. The power to determine if ELA is advantageous is vested in the
Board of Directors of PCSO. They also contends that petitioners do not
have a legal standing because they were not parties to the contract.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner has the legal standing to


question the validity of the contract in this case

Held: No. Petitioners are not the real parties to the contract. The
court held that the previous is different from the present case.
The law of the case does not apply, so the ruling in the first case
does not apply to the case now. Moreover, petitioners did not
show what particular interest they have for bringing the suit.
There was no allegation of misuse of public funds to make the
action a public one.

You might also like