BOARD OF MEDICINE

MA. CORAZON BALOD,

Complainant,
Administrative Case No. 2569
-versus- For:
Immorality
JOSE P. QUILLOPE,
Respondent.
x-------------------------x

DECISION

Before this Board is a complaint against Jose P. Quillope, a

registered physician with Certificate of Registration No. 71308 dated
September 18, 1990, for Immorality docketed as Administrative Case
No. 2569.

The complainant in this case, is the private complainant in a

criminal case of Bigamy filed against the respondent, Dr. Jose P.
Quillope, accused in Criminal Case No. Q-98-77154, Regional Trial
Court (RTC), Branch 86, Quezon City. In the said case, the accused
was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Bigamy
and to suffer the indeterminate penalty of six (6) months and one (1)
day of prison correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years of prison
mayor, as maximum, and to pay the private complainant the amount
of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as moral damages and
FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as exemplary damages, plus
cost.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the

RTC and increased the maximum penalty to ten (10) years.

On further appeal, the Supreme Court also affirmed the

findings of the Court of Appeals but modified the maximum penalty
to eight (8) years.

The Supreme Court decision became final and executory on

February 16, 2012.

The RTC Branch 86, Quezon City had granted the execution of
the judgment of the Supreme Court on October 23, 2012.
Board of Medicine 2
Administrative Case No. 2569
Balod vs. Quillope
Decision

The complainant prayed that the case be decided on the basis

of the decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court.

Section 24, Article III of Republic Act No. 2382 otherwise

known as “The Medical Act of 1959” states that:

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:

1. Conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction of any

criminal offense involving moral turpitude;

Xxx

The Supreme Court often use the definition of Moral Turpitude

as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as an act of baseless, vileness, or
depravity in the private duties which a man owes his fellow men, or
to society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of
right and duty between man and woman, or conduct contrary to
justice, honest, modesty, or good morals (Dela Torre vs. commission
on Elections, G.R. No. 121592, July 5, 1996, 258 SCRA 483, citing
Zari vs. Flores, 94 SCRA 317).

In the concurring opinion of Justice Arturo D. Brion in the case

of Edgar Y. Teves vs. The Commission on Election and Herminio G.
Teves, G.R. No. 180363, April 28, 2009 he discussed about moral
turpitude and provided a list of cases involving moral turpitude which
are as follows:

1. Abduction with consent

2. Bigamy

3. Concubinage

4. Smuggling

5. Rape

6. Estafa through falsification of a document

7. Attempted Bribery
Board of Medicine 3
Administrative Case No. 2569
Balod vs. Quillope
Decision

8. Profiteering

9. Robbery

10. Murder, whether consummated or attempted

11. Estafa

12. Theft

13. Illicit Sexual Relations with a Fellow Worker

14. Violation of BP Bldg. 22

15. Falsification of Document

16. Intriguing against Honor

17. Violation of the Anti-Fencing Law

18. Violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 (Drug-pushing)

19. Perjury

20. Forgery

21. Direct Bribery

22. Frustrated Homicide

The Board may very well look into the demeanor and conduct
of professionals in their private lives if only to ensure that the dignity
of their chosen calling is maintained and upheld. It is a settled rule
that the private life and the professional life of a licensee cannot be
separated from each other for a profession entails a public interest
and the primary objective is whether a licensee is still fit to exercise
the privilege that was granted to him. Thus, not only his professional
activities but even his private life, insofar as the latter may reflect
unfavorably upon the good name and prestige of the profession.

Doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses and all other professionals

practice their profession subject to regulation of the State. The
practice of law or of any other profession regulated by the State is
not a right but a privileged bestowed by the latter on those who
show that they possess and continue to possess the qualifications
required by the law for the conferment of such privilege (Eustaquio
vs. Rimorin, 399 SCRA 422).
Board of Medicine 4
Administrative Case No. 2569
Balod vs. Quillope
Decision

Good moral character is a continuing requirement which all

registered professionals must possess otherwise the State through its
regulatory body, in this case the Board of Medicine, may take away
the privilege given.

In the case at bar, the respondent was adjudged by the court

of competent authority as guilty of the crime of bigamy which
involves moral turpitude. The respondent is now lacking one of the
qualifications to practice the profession.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Board finds the

respondent GUILTY as charged and hereby REVOKES his Certificate
of Registration.

Accordingly, respondent is hereby ordered to surrender to this

Board his Certificate of Registration and Professional Identification
Card as Physician within ten (10) days upon the finality of this
decision and to desist from the practice of medical profession under
pain of criminal prosecution.

SO ORDERED.

Manila, Philippines,

EDGARDO T. FERNANDO, M.D.

Chairman

JOSE Y. CUETO, JR., M.D. MIGUEL L. NOCHE, JR., M.D.

Member Member

FLORENTINO C. DOBLE, M. D. RESTITUTO C. DE OCAMPO, M.D.

Member Member

MILDRED N. PAREJA, M.D.

Member
PRB-MED/D-LGL
ETF/ER2/JVA/MLGM/mlgm