DOROMAL VS.

SANDIGANBAYAN, G. R. No.
85468, 07 September 1989

Prohibitions [Article VII:

Sections 13]

Quintin S. Doromal, a public

officer and being a
Commissioner of the
Presidential Commission on
Good Government,
participated in a business
through the Doromal
International Trading
Corporation (DITC), a family
corporation of which he is the
President, and which company
participated in the biddings
conducted by the Department
of Education, Culture and
Sports (DECS) and the National
Manpower & Youth Council
(NMYC) .
DITC participated in the
biddings to supply equipments
to DECS and National
Manpower and Youth Council.
An information was then filed
by the Tanodbayan against
Doromal for the said violation
and a preliminary investigation
was conducted.
The petitioner then filed a
petition for certiorari and
prohibition questioning the
jurisdiction of the
Tanodbayan to file the
information without the
approval of the Ombudsman.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the act of
Doromal would constitute a
violation of the Constitution.
Ruling:
1. Article VII, Section 13 (1)
of the Constitution provides:
The President, Vice-
President, the Members of the
Cabinet, and their deputies or
assistants shall not, unless
otherwise provided in this
Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during
their tenure. They shall not,
during said tenure, directly or
indirectly, practice any other
profession, participate in any
business, or be financially
interested in any contract
with, or in any franchise, or
special privilege granted by
the Government or any
subdivision, agency, or
instrumentality thereof,
including government-owned
or controlled corporations or
their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of
interest in the conduct of their
office
The presence of a signed
document bearing the
signature of Doromal as part
of the application to bid shows
that he can rightfully be
charged with having
participated in a business
which act is absolutely
prohibited by Section 13 of
Article VII of the Constitution"
because "the DITC remained a
family corporation in which
Doromal has at least an
indirect interest."

CONCLUSION:
Yes, the act of Doromal would
constitute a violation of the
Constitution specifically of
Section 13 of Article VII.