This refers to Andres Padernal Law Office’s letter, titled “Case closed, per Philippine Dental Association” (Opinion, 8/15/15), regarding the case of unethical practice filed against Dr. Steve Mark Gan.
Contrary to a claim in the letter, the case against Doctor Gan remains open and the Philippine Dental Association (PDA) has not issued any order effectively dismissing it. On the contrary, in compliance with the ruling of the Court of Appeals as affirmed by the Supreme Court, the PDA, through hearing officer lawyer Arjay Rosales, has ordered the resumption of the hearing on the case against Gan.
On Sept. 14, Gan, through his counsel Andres Padernal Law Office, submitted his pretrial brief. Five days before the next hearing date set for Oct. 25, Dr. Reynaldo Garcia, the complainant, was ordered to do the same.
In his pretrial brief, Garcia pursued another cause of action against Gan—for alleged falsification of academic records which Gan is alleged to have used to become a member and later chair of the Board of Dentistry of the Professional Regulation Commission.
Gan claims to have finished a one-year posthodentic residency program at the University of Southern California (USC). However, a faculty member, in an e-mail to Dr. Mario Esquillo, stated that the advanced residency program of the USC is a two- to three-year program, not one year.
Gan’s filing of his retrial brief on Sept. 14 belies his claim in the August letter to the Inquirer that the PDA had closed the case.
By way of background, Gan and Dr. Corazon Flores, former president of the PDA, submitted a resolution dated Sept. 17, 2014, purportedly withdrawing/dismissing the case against Gan. But given the fact that the Court of Appeals had already made a final ruling to resume the hearing—which had been affirmed by the Supreme Court—the PDA, through lawyer Rosales, scheduled a hearing on Sept. 14 and Oct. 23, 2015.
Garcia, through counsel Clodualdo de Jesus, filed a motion in the Court of Appeals for contempt of court against Gan and Flores. The motion is still pending.
In his letter, Gan cited the case he filed against Garcia, for which the latter’s license to practice was suspended for three months for allegedly failing to give Gan due process when Garcia investigated the case of unethical practice against Gan.
What Gan failed to mention was that Garcia filed a graft case against him and the other members of the Board of Dentistry in the Office of the Ombudsman as a result of the suspension. Garcia’s motion for reconsideration against the suspension has been pending before the Board of Dentistry since it was filed on Sept. 12, 2014, and despite his motion for resolution on July 13, 2015.
—DR. REYNALDO B. GARCIA, (assisted by De Jesus & Associates) Jade Centre Office Condominium, 105 Shaw Blvd., Pasig City