Resumption of case vs dentist urged

A former official of the Philippine Dental Association (PDA) is urging the Board of Dentistry of the Professional Regulations Commission (PRC) to resume its investigation of a self-styled “dentist to the stars” for unprofessional and unethical practice.

Steve Mark Gan, proprietor of Gan Advanced Osseointegration Center (GAOC), was accused of violating the Code of Ethics for Dentists in 2010 when an ad hoc committee formed by the PDA found that he had used his celebrity clients to endorse his business and he had advertised his practice in an airline in-flight magazine.

With the proceedings upheld by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, Dr. Reynaldo Garcia, the chair of the PDA committee that investigated Gan, has sought to compel the parties to resume hearing the case.

Garcia’s lawyer, Clodualdo de Jesus, said he had filed a motion in the Court of Appeals to cite Gan, his lawyers and the current president of the Board of Dentistry (BOD) of the PRC in contempt for refusing to comply with the court’s order.

“The ball is now in the Board of Dentistry’s hands. They should continue to investigate,” De Jesus said.

The case began in 2010 when Garcia was chair of an ad hoc committee to investigate Gan’s alleged breaches of the Code of Ethics for Dentists. He was specifically accused of violating Article 3, Sections 19.3 and 21 of the code.

Section 19.3 prohibits dentists from using their patients to solicit other patients. Section 21 prescribes limits to the promotion of a new clinic in newspapers, websites, e-cards and other electronic communication.

Investigation showed that Gan had asked his celebrity clients to endorse his business on their TV shows, and that he had placed ads promoting GAOC in an in-flight magazine.

When the complaint was taken up by the BOD, Gan refuted the accusations, insisting the celebrities on their own mentioned his name on their shows, and it was his business and not he that took out the magazine ads.

He also said that Garcia had no authority to file an administrative complaint with the BOD since other members of the PDA board did not sign the complaint.

In 2011, the PRC took jurisdiction of the complaint, which Gan sought to dismiss, reiterating his argument that Garcia did not have authority to file the complaint.

The PRC ruled in favor of Gan and dismissed the complaint.

After Garcia’s appeal was rejected, he went to the Court of Appeals.

In 2013, the appellate court reversed the PRC decision, ruling that Garcia had been authorized by the PDA’s officers in earlier meetings to file the case.–Nathaniel R. Melican