Case dismissed

THE Board of Medicine of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) dismissed the case filed against five doctors involved in the controversial “Black Suede Scandal.”

The board, in its July 9 order, has junked the charges of unprofessional and unethical conduct against doctors Angelo Linawagan, Joseph Alfred de Leon, Phillips Leo Arias, Marlowe Parreno and Max Joseph Montecillo after the complainant “Janjan” (real name withheld) failed to submit his pre-trial brief despite due notice.

Two years ago, Janjan underwent surgery at the Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center to remove a canister of body spray from his rectum.

A video of the procedure, which showed some of the medical practitioners, including

allegedly the five doctors mentioned in the suit, laughing and joking as the canister was extracted.

The video was uploaded on YouTube, a video-sharing site.

No legal basis

The board’s order came after the Office of the Ombudsman-Visayas dismissed, for lack of legal basis, the charges filed against seven doctors, five nurses and two clinical instructors of a private university involved in the surgery on Janjan.

Sarah Jo Vergara, graft investigation and prosecution officer, found “no adequate showing” that the respondents took and uploaded on YouTube the video footage of the surgery.

“There is no evidence proving that the video footage as seen on YouTube was taken by any of public respondents; neither is there proof that any one of them was the one who uploaded the video,” said Vergara in her 15-page resolution.

At the Board of Medicine, Janjan lost his case due to a technicality.

Based on the order, the board granted the motion of the respondents to dismiss the case for the failure of the complainant to file his pre-trial brief three days before the pre-trial conference on Oct. 9, 2008.

The board cited Section 17 of the “New Rules of Procedure in Administrative Investigations in the Professional Regulation Commission and the Professional Regulatory Boards” or Resolution 06-342 (A) Series of 2006 which states that the failure of the complainant and/or his counsel to appear at the pre-trial conference shall be a ground for the dismissal for the case.

According to the order, Janjan’s pre-trial brief was filed on Oct. 8, while the respondents, except for Parreno, submitted their pre-trial briefs within three days before the pre-trial conference.

Pareno filed his pre-trial brief on Oct. 9.

During the pre-trial conference, when an amicable settlement was about to be discussed by the parties, lawyer Merlo Bagano, who represented Arias, posed an objection, saying Janjan’s pre-trial brief was not submitted on time.

But PRC 7 Director Dan Malayang said Janjan can still file a motion for

reconsideration within 15 days from the receipt of the decision.

In the ombudsman decision, charges against Arias, Linawagan, Parreno, de Leon, Montecillo, Dr. Serapio Salazar and Dr. Joanne Mae Merilles were dismissed.

The anti-graft office also junked the charges against nurses Ida Sumayang, Rosemarie Villareal, Isabelita Remulta, Carmenia Sapio and Consuelo Tecling.

Vergara also said the charges against clinical instructors Ramon Pandaan and Alexandru Oplado of the University of Southern Philippines were beyond the jurisdiction of the ombudsman.

However, Vergara reprimanded the respondents, whom she said “may have been remiss in their public duties to strictly monitor the conduct of the people” during the operation. (JKV/GMD)

Trending

No stories found.

Just in

No stories found.

Branded Content

No stories found.
SunStar Publishing Inc.
www.sunstar.com.ph