[G.R. No. 155001.

May 5, 2003]

DEMOSTHENES P. AGAN, JR., JOSEPH B. CATAHAN, JOSE MARI B. REUNILLA, MANUEL ANTONIO B. BOE,
MAMERTO S. CLARA, REUEL E. DIMALANTA, MORY V. DOMALAON, CONRADO G. DIMAANO, LOLITA R.
HIZON, REMEDIOS P. ADOLFO, BIENVENIDO C. HILARIO, MIASCOR WORKERS UNION - NATIONAL LABOR
UNION (MWU-NLU), and PHILIPPINE AIRLINES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (PALEA), petitioners,
vs. PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL AIR TERMINALS CO., INC., MANILA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS and SECRETARY LEANDRO M.
MENDOZA, in his capacity as Head of the Department of Transportation and Communications, respondents,
MIASCOR GROUNDHANDLING CORPORATION, DNATA-WINGS AVIATION SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
MACROASIA-EUREST SERVICES, INC., MACROASIA-MENZIES AIRPORT SERVICES CORPORATION,
MIASCOR CATERING SERVICES CORPORATION, MIASCOR AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE CORPORATION, and
MIASCOR LOGISTICS CORPORATION, petitioners-in-intervention,

PUNO, J.:

FACTS: Petitioners filed instant petitions for prohibition seeking to prohibit the Manila International Airport Authority
(MIAA) and the Department of Transportation and Communications (DOTC) and its Secretary from implementing the
following agreements executed by the Philippine Government through the DOTC and the MIAA and the Philippine
International Air Terminals Co., Inc. (PIATCO): (1) the Concession Agreement signed on July 12, 1997, (2) the
Amended and Restated Concession Agreement dated November 26, 1999, (3) the First Supplement to the Amended
and Restated Concession Agreement dated August 27, 1999, (4) the Second Supplement to the Amended and
Restated Concession Agreement dated September 4, 2000, and (5) the Third Supplement to the Amended and
Restated Concession Agreement dated June 22, 2001 (collectively, the PIATCO Contracts).

ISSUE: WON petitioning employees has legal standing to raise validity of the PIATCO contracts?

RULING: YES. Petitioners have direct and substantial interest to protect by reason of the implementation of the
PIATCO contracts. They stand to lose their source of livelihood, a property right which is protected by the Constitution.
Subsisting agreements between MIA and petitioners stand to be terminated by the PIATCO contracts.

Moreover, subsisting concession agreements between MIAA and petitioners-intervenors and service contracts between
international airlines and petitioners-intervenors stand to be nullified or terminated by the operation of the NAIA IPT III
under the PIATCO Contracts.

The financial prejudice brought about by the PIATCO Contracts on petitioners and petitioners-intervenors in these
cases are legitimate interests sufficient to confer on them the requisite standing to file the instant petitions.

The question on legal standing is whether such parties have "alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the
controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court
so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." Accordingly, it has been held that the interest of
a person assailing the constitutionality of a statute must be direct and personal. He must be able to show, not only that
the law or any government act is invalid, but also that he sustained or is in imminent danger of sustaining some direct
injury as a result of its enforcement, and not merely that he suffers thereby in some indefinite way. It must appear that
the person complaining has been or is about to be denied some right or privilege to which he is lawfully entitled or that
he is about to be subjected to some burdens or penalties by reason of the statute or act complained of.