The Philippine Medical Association (PMA) Code of Ethics is the Code of

Ethics establishing the uniform standards for professional conduct and

behavior that each physician must observe as a professional
committing themselves individually and collectively. 14
Pursuant to the Medical Act of 1959, the Code of Medical Ethics of the
PMA shall be complied with by all the physicians, whether such
physicians are members of the Association or not. 14
Violations of the Code shall constitute unethical practice and
unprofessional conduct and shall be a ground for reprimand,
suspension or expulsion from the Association for cases filed in the
Commission on Ethics. 14
As contained in Section 1 of the PMA Code of Ethics, the primary
objective of the practice of medicine is service to mankind, irrespective
of race, age, disease, disability, gender, sexual orientation, social
standing, creed or political affiliation. In medical malpractice, reward or
financial gain should be a subordinate consideration. 2
Being friends of mankind, physicians are mandated by the Code to
fulfill the civic duties of a good citizen. These duties are clustered into
four groups, namely their duties to: 1) their patients; 2) the
community; 3) their colleagues and the profession; and 4) their allied
professionals.15
In the case of Hayden Kho, Jr. v Ma. Katrina Iren V. Halili 16, sometime in
December 2008, news about a sex video involving the aforementioned
dominated the media and internet. Outraged by the existence of said
video and the negative publicity of the same, respondent was forced to
file a complaint against petitioner before the Board of Medicine for
immorality and dishonorable/ unethical conduct warranting the
revocation of the petitioners license to practice medicine. The Board
found petitioner guilty thereof. It ruled that the act of the petitioner of
videotaping the intimate act between the petitioner and respondent is
not in any way related to the practice of medicine. The case reached
the Court of Appeals via Petition for Review under Rule 43 of the 1997
Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioners contentions mainly dwells
on the connection between the supposed immorality and dishonorable
conduct with which he is charged in relation to the practice of the
medical profession. Therefore, the core issue to be extracted from this
case is whether the acts of the petitioner constitute immoral and
dishonorable conduct sufficient to warrant a revocation of his license to
practice medicine.
Justice Sorongon, the ponente of the case, opined
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

1
2

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; xxx (Emphasis supllied)
Administrative Case No. A-373 filed by respondent before the Board of
Medicine charges petitioner with immorality, dishonorable and/or unethical
conduct pursuant to Section 24(2) of RA 2382. In this jurisdiction, an immoral
conduct has been defined as "that conduct which is willful, flagrant, or
shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinion of the good
and respectable members of the community"
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.
Moreover, (j)ust as a State may refuse to grant a license to a person of bad
character, so it may revoke a physicians license for personal habits of
intoxication, use of narcotics, immorality, and the like. The misconduct, bad
character, or immorality for which the license of a physician, surgeon or
dentist may be revoked need not necessarily be connected with his
profession, practice or patients; it is enough if it relates only to his personal
life.
Indeed, 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
physicians existence into his professional and personal being. Truly, the
standard of morality to which medical practitioners ought to adhere to is quite
high, and with good reason. The State has the primary interest that the public
health should be preserved and life be made secure. Thus, [T]he regulation
of the practice of medicine in all its branches has long been recognized as a
reasonable method of protecting the health and safety of the public.
We wind up by reiterating that (t)he 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. To be a physician is a privilege burdened with

conditions. There being no lifetime guarantee, a physician has the privilege

and right to practice his profession only during good behavior. Consequently,
(t)he disqualifying immoral conduct of the applicant need not be directly
connected with the practice of his profession, for the object sought is the
protection of the home of the sick and distressed from the intrusion therein, in
a professional character, of vicious and unprincipled men men wholly
destitute of all moral sensibilities.

Therefore, the acts of petitioner constitute immoral and dishonorable

conduct sufficient to warrant the revocation of his license to practice
medicine.