Supreme Court. INQUIRER FILE PHOTO
MANILA, Philippines — Each dentist’s primary duty is to deliver safe, effective, and quality dental service and to practice universal precaution.
Government lawyers presented such an argument to the Supreme Court, supporting the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) in calling the High Court to reverse the Court of Appeals’ ruling affirming the dismissal of the case against a dentist and owner of a dental clinic for refusing to treat a person living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).
The person with HIV visited a prominent dental clinic on February 16, 2017, seeking relief for the pain in his left molar tooth. The dentist recommended a tooth extraction. However, given his condition, he was advised to seek clearance from his attending physician at the San Lazaro Hospital first.
Once clearance is secured, only then can they perform the procedure.
But after getting the clearance, his request for tooth extraction was turned down. He said the dentist told him that, as per the clinic’s owner, they do not have the “UV” type of desterilization equipment needed for his surgery.
The patient asked why they asked him to get a clearance if the clinic, which claims on its website to have advanced dental equipment, knew that it could not perform the procedure due to a lack of equipment.
The patient then filed a discrimination suit against the dentist and the clinic owner, also a doctor, before the Taguig Prosecutors Office. The city prosecutor’s office found probable cause and indicted both doctors.
The case was then raffled off to the Taguig Metropolitan Trial Court. However, it dismissed the case saying that the prosecutors “failed to properly discharge its burden establishing the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The case was elevated to the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals, but both ruled against the patient; thus, it was elevated to the SC.
The OSG and the PAO said the Court of Appeals committed a “reversible error” when it failed to recognize the Taguig MeTC’s abuse of discretion in dismissing the discrimination case against the doctors.
The prosecutors have presented an expert witness who said that lack of UV light sterilization does not hinder treating a person living with HIV.
“The purported lack of UV light sterilization was a mere front to cover up respondents’ refusal and denial to give dental service,” read the petition.
“The truth of falsity of [the doctor’s] claim that they were merely motivated by prudence can be best ventilated during the presentation of the defense’s evidence, where the prosecution may cross-examine the defense witnesses, and the Presiding Judge may observe the latter’s demeanor,” it added.
But the patient, through the petition for review, said, “Undoubtedly, this is not prudence. What this displays instead, if considered alongside the other facts as established in the criminal proceeding, is a clear act of discrimination.”
The OSG and PAO said the Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998 penalizes discrimination in hospitals and health institutions.
The patient, through PAO, also said that the case is of “extreme public importance.”
“It is also a novel case insofar as Philippine jurisdiction is concerned. This case tests the way the State enforces protection against discrimination against people suffering from AIDS. Thus, this Honorable Court disposition of the instant case may very well set a precedent on how the Philippines respond to the call of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS for zero discrimination in health care settings,” read the petition.
Aside from reversing the Court of Appeals’ ruling, PAO also asked the SC to remand the case to the trial court to continue proceedings.
RELATED STORY:
86 new HIV-infected patients are teens, kids