CA affirms revocation of Hayden Kho’s medical license

A+
A
A-

Hayden Kho Jr. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO

MANILA, Philippines—The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC) revoking the license of Hayden Kho to practice cosmetic surgery.

Associate Justice Edwin Sorongon of the appellate court’s 8th division in his decision affirmed the power of the PRC to suspend or revoke a certificate of registration and license of erring professionals.

“The practice of medicine is not a natural right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by the conferment of such privilege,” according to the court’s  June 29 ruling, citing the Basics of Philippine Medical Jurisprudence and Ethics.

Kho, a celebrity cosmetic surgeon, was stripped of his professional license after his videotaped steamy tryst with actress Katrina Halili in 2009 was leaked. Halili, who lost her court case against Kho, had claimed she was not aware the surgeon was recording their sex encounter.

The PRC found Kho, who then was a physician of the Belo Medical Group, Inc. (BMGI), guilty of charges of immorality and dishonorable and unethical conduct, affirming a decision rendered by the Board of Medicine on November 20, 2009. He filed a motion for reconsideration that the PRC denied in a ruling dated February 8, 2010.

Kho, in his appeal said the circulation of the video could not warrant the revocation of his license “because it was concededly not done in relation to the practice of his medical profession.”

But the appeals court said that the disqualifying immoral conduct need not be directly connected with the practice of the profession.

“(A) relation between the complained act constituting immorality or dishonorable conduct to the practice of medicine need not exist. It may pertain to life in general as there can be no dichotomy to separate a physician’s existence into his professional and personal being.”

The appellate court said that the standard of morality expected of medical professionals is quite high since the State recognizes the fact that physicians should protect the health, safety and well-being of the public.

Inquirer Viber

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of INQUIRER.net. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.

  • Echuserang_Froglet

    buti nga sayo no,manyakis

  • archangel uriel

    abnormal ka kasi …. tama lang na matanggalan ka ng lisensya ….

  • mantajao

    Asides Hayden Kho’s revocation of his medical license, he would possibly be faced with a criminal charge for video voyeurism as stated in RA 9995. Though he was not the one who distributed the video, he will still be liable for creating the sex video. The same charge shall be applied against Dr. Vicki Belo if the prosecution could prove they were distributing the same. 

    When found guilty, they would suffer 3-7 years imprisonment and a fine of  Php 100k to 500k.

    Let this be a lesson for all. We should understand the sanctity of the license granted to us as a privilege by the government and its people to practice our profession in life publicly. 

  • mantajao

    “As a prerequisite to the practice of medicine, every candidate
    for board examination must be of good moral character. Possession
    of such state of character is not only a condition sine qua non to take
    the medical board examination and eventually be issued a Certificate
    of Registration upon passing the same, but it is a continuing
    requirement to the practice of medicine. As embodied in the Code of
    Ethics of this esteemed vocation, upon “entering his profession a physician assumes the obligation of maintaining the honorable
    tradition that confers upon him the well deserved title of “friend of
    man”. He should cherish a proper pride in his calling, conduct
    himself as a gentleman, and endeavor to exalt the standards and
    extend the sphere of usefulness of his profession. xxx.”

    Thus, Section 24, Article III of Republic Act No. 2382, otherwise
    known as the Medical Act of 1959, which governs the regulation of
    medical education, licensing and practice of medicine by physicians,
    provides the following grounds upon which an erring physician may
    be disciplined:

    “Section 24. Grounds for reprimand, suspension or revocation of
    registration certificate. Any of the following shall be sufficient ground for
    reprimanding a physician, or for suspending or revoking a certificate of
    registration as physician:

    (2) Immoral or dishonorable conduct;”…

    …It may be well to state that nowhere is it required in the law that
    the complained immorality and dishonorable conduct must bear
    connection with the practice of medicine. “Dishonorable conduct is
    more embrasive to include intellectual and moral incompetence to
    practice the profession and also acts of a nature to jeopardize the
    interest of the public. Immoral or dishonorable conduct is a
    legislative catch-all ground to include a broad spectrum of
    reprehensible conduct of a physician connected with the practice of
    the profession or not, provided it is contrary to existing norms or the
    conduct is disgraceful, unbecoming, unethical or repulsive to the
    moral standard in society. The Board of Medicine, in view of
    maintaining the ethical, moral and professional standard of the
    medical profession may exercise discretion in determining what must
    be considered immoral or dishonorable conduct of a physician.”

    –An excerpt from CA 8th Division ruling Kho vs. Halili

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk. Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate. Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets, Makati City,Metro Manila, Philippines Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94

editors' picks

advertisement
December 18, 2014

Traffic!

popular

advertisement

videos