KILOSBAYAN, INCORPORATED, JOVITO R. SALONGA, CIRILO A. RIGOS, ERME CAMBA, EMILIO C. CAPULONG, JR., JOSE T. APOLO, EPHRAIM TENDERO, FERNANDO SANTIAGO, JOSE ABCEDE, CHRISTINE TAN, RAFAEL G. FERNANDO, RAOUL vs. . VICTORINO, JOSE CUNANAN, QUINTIN S. DOROMAL, SEN. FREDDIE WEBB, SEN. WIGBERTO TAÑADA, REP.…
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 118910
- Promulgated: 1995-07-17
- Ponente: Mendoza, J.
Doctrine
The Court distinguished "standing" from the Rule 3 concept of "real party in interest," treating petitioners' contention as a Rule 3 question subject to ordinary civil‑procedure analysis rather than constitutional standing doctrine.
The PCSO charter (Section 1) does not absolutely prohibit collaboration, association or joint venture in operating lotteries; the prohibition is against investing in competing businesses (i.e., investing in another franchise holder's lottery business) whether alone or with others.
A contract previously voided as a joint venture may be reexamined when a subsequent agreement is essentially different; law of the case principles do not automatically bar redetermination where the facts or legal character of the later contract differ materially.
Facts
As a result of this Court's decision in G.R. No. 113375 invalidating the 1993 Contract of Lease between PCSO and PGMC, parties negotiated a new Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) to conform to the Court's decision.
On 25 January 1995 the PCSO and PGMC signed an Equipment Lease Agreement under which PGMC leased on-line lottery equipment and accessories to PCSO for rent equal to 4.3% of gross ticket sales, with an annual minimum rental of P35,000 per terminal, paid bi-weekly.
Petitioners sought to declare the ELA invalid; respondents challenged petitioners' standing and defended the ELA as a different contract not requiring public bidding under E.O. No. 301 and not grossly disadvantageous.
Issues
Whether the challenged Equipment Lease Agreement (ELA) between PCSO and PGMC constitutes an "association, collaboration or joint venture" within Section 1(b) of R.A. 1169 and is therefore prohibited.
Whether the ELA requires prior public bidding.
Whether the ELA is grossly disadvantageous to the government.
Ruling
The ELA is a lease contract and does not contain the features of the prior contract that were "badges of a joint venture," so it is not a prohibited association, collaboration, or joint venture under the PCSO charter as interpreted by the Court.
The Court found no showing that the ELA was not the most advantageous contract obtainable or that PCSO could have obtained more favorable terms; petitioners failed to prove the ELA was disadvantageous to the government.
The petition for Prohibition, Review and/or Injunction to declare the ELA invalid is dismissed; the ELA is upheld.