REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

PROFESSIONAL REGULATION COMMISSION

BOARD OF MEDICINE
Manila

a, M.D.
Complainant,

- versus - Administrative Case No. 3102

b, M.D.
Respondent.

x------------------------x

POSITION PAPER

COMPLAINANT, through undersigned counsel and to this Honorable

Office, most respectfully states that:

I
THE PARTIES

Complainant, a, is of legal age, Filipino and with address at 1368 Caballero

St. Dasmariñas Village, Makati City, Metro Manila.

Respondent, b, is of legal age, Filipino and with address at 8 Adriatico

Condominium, Padre Faura corner K. Bocobo Street, Brgy. 669, Ermita, Manila.

Both parties are licensed physicians who passed the Physician Licensure
Examination on December 1986. Complainant specializes in colorectal surgery, he
passed the colorectal board exams in 1993 while Respondent specializes in
dermatology.

II
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

Complainant and Respondent were married on June 25, 1988 at Mary the
Queen Church, San Juan City. 1 Out of their union were born four (4) legitimate
children, namely: a) c, born on November 5, 1989, (b) d, born on March 19, 1993,
(c e, born on May 28, 1997, and (d) f, born on November 25, 2000.

The Respondent’s infidelity first came to light in April of 2009, while the
parties and their children were on vacation in San Francisco, USA, when their son
accidentally saw an e-mail exchange between the Respondent and a certain
Chinese male which e-mail reads, “Sex was so good enjoyed it.” After having read
the exchange, their son relayed this to his sister, Katrina Marie, who then
confronted the Respondent about the matter.

1
See Annex “A” of the Complaint
 “Position Paper”
Estrada vs. Go
Administrative Case No. 3102
Page 2 of 11
x---------------------x

In May of 2010, while they were on vacation in San Francisco, USA,

Respondent felt an abnormal growth around her vagina. Thus, she asked
Complainant to examine her. Complainant opined that the abnormal growth could
be venereal warts. However, he could not yet rule out the possibility that the same
could be cancer.

In May of 2010, while the parties were on a vacation in San Francisco,

USA, Respondent asked Complainant to examine an abnormal growth she felt
around her vagina. Complainant opined that the same could be venereal warts.
However, he could not rule out the possibility that the same could be cancer. Thus,
upon their return to the Philippines, Respondent was examined by Dr. Nora Silao
who confirmed that the abnormal growth were indeed venereal warts.

The Complainant researched on venereal warts and he learned that these are
only transmitted through sexual intercourse. However, when Respondent was
confronted by the Complainant on the matter, she claimed that she was infected by
her patient when she accidentally pricked herself during a procedure.

In July of 2010, Complainant even saw Respondent being brought home by

a male driver in a red Pajero at around 1:00 A.M. even though earlier that evening
she told Complainant that she was just attending a birthday dinner of one of her
female friends at the gym. When she was asked about the man, she claimed and
insisted that he was gay. Having his suspicions, while Respondent was asleep,
Complainant sought and found her undergarments and noticed that the same
smelled of semen.

Respondent was in Kota Kinabalu for a dermatological conference from

October 19 to 24, 2010, during this period, Respondent incurred mobile bills
amounting to P21,000.00. When Complainant discovered the same, he examined
the billing statement pertaining to said charges, he then learned that Respondent
made calls to one particular number, +63917-7247095. Ironically, Respondent
never found the time to call him or their children.

Sometime in November 2010, while the parties were on vacation in Japan,

Complainant borrowed Respondent’s phone. While playing with her phone,
Complainant saw that Respondent’s e-mail and Facebook accounts were open. He
then saw Respondent’s conversations with her previous boyfriend, a certain Dr.
Alexander Sy, a pulmonologist in the United States, some of which read as
follows:

“Couldn’t sleep, It’s almost midnight and I’m wide awake. I

was thinking. I know promises are made to be broken so I won’t ask
you to promise me instead can you try your darnest best to (1) not
disappear from my life until I die, and (2) be patient with me.”2

In another message, Respondent said:

“I kinda miss you. You know that need not be expressed in

words but just sitting together in silence, holding hands, knowing
2
See Annex “B” of the Complaint.
 “Position Paper”
Estrada vs. Go
Administrative Case No. 3102
Page 3 of 11
x---------------------x
that today’s a good day just because. I don’t do well with long
distance relationships. Look what happened to me and Bobby. I
don’t know for how long I can keep up with this writing. But again, I
did ask you to be patient. Take care.”3

Thereafter, the Respondent proposed that they go through marriage

counselling. Consequently, the parties sought the help of Ms. Josie Valderama, a
counselor of Center of Family Ministries. During the counseling sessions,
Respondent admitted that she had an affair with an accountant that she met at the
gym. Complainant, who saw the messages of a certain Nathaniel Ramos in the
Respondent’s Facebook messenger still left online in his phone, confronted the
Respondent if the accountant she was referring to was Mr. Ramos. Respondent
claimed that it was not the same person.

However, the following day, during a counselling session the Respondent

set with a certain Fr. Pat Donahue who is the head of the Columbian Priest
Congregation, she admitted that she indeed has an affair with Nathaniel Ramos,
who was both an accountant and an NBI agent.

Thus, Complainant decided to talk about the issues confronting their

family. Respondent then admitted that she and Nathaniel Ramos had about twenty
(20) instances of sexual intercourse and that these all happened in Victoria Court
in Malate, Manila. She also admitted that she lied about her attending a meeting
for the Philippine Dermatological Society back in October 2010. The truth was she
met and had sex with Nathaniel Ramos on the said day.

On November 16, 2010, Complainant discovered more detailed affairs of

the Respondent with other men in her Facebook account, which included her
conversations with Nathaniel Ramos. The conversations showed that Respondent
was having an affair and boasted of the same.

Some of the Respondent’s conversation with Nathaniel Ramos, as provided

in the Complaint4 consist of the following:

“b 7:54am August 26, 2010:

Hello sleepy head. Tagal naman magising. It’s already

6:48am and you have not texted your customary good morning.
Looks like you were busy last night. Sent you an email. You know
what I’m thinking of at this very instant, it’s your smell. I trying to
recall it with my eyes closed as I’m typing away. I think my nose has
forgotten the smell and my brain is trying to coax it to remember.
Yes, I can somehow smell it now. So you have to let me smell you
well the next time we see each other. My lips recall your soft sweet
lips pretty well. Of course, pussy kat knows rex by heart. Finally,
my cell beeped. If this isn’t your text, I’m going to call na. talk to
you later. I love you Nat.”5
3
See Annex “C” of the Complaint.
4
Page 4-6 of the Complaint
5
See Annex “D” of the Complaint.
 “Position Paper”
Estrada vs. Go
Administrative Case No. 3102
Page 4 of 11
x---------------------x

“b 5:03pm June 18, 2010:

Wow, you’re really funny. Imagine, in a second, you’re

talking about hair, then in a split millisecond after that, you’re
talking about licking ice cream. I shouldn’t have mentioned about it.
I really had no intention to turn on your animalistic senses. Ice
cream cones are really one of my favourite things. The only thing
really effective for hair loss is topical Minoxidil solution and oral
Propecia.

And as far as your interests in women baring their body is

concerned, I see that all the time with most men. No wonder, women
now are more daring and couldn’t careless as to ho much to bar.
Many times, I feel embarrassed when I see women who dress
offensively and tastelessly. But I am a mere woman, of no
consequence to the target population that baring of the flesh is
supposed to attract. There, I’m a prude.”

Nathaniel Ramos 6:23pm June 18, 2010:

Well you just did my dead. And only you can calm the animal
in me down. Frankly I can’t really tell when a woman dresses
offensively or tastelessly. But I can tell when she’s wearing the right
dress. That is when I want to take it off ;-) Let’s go back to the ice
cream topic shall we? So ice cream cones are your favourite ha. Not
in a cup or in a mug but in a cone…I could give you a mouthful on
my next visit ;-)

b 6:48pm June 18, 2010:

Darling when you give me an ice cream cone on your next

visit, I’m afraid it would have already melted. I like my ice cream,
you know, fresh from that dispenser. I have melted ice cream, it’s
messy. I wanted to write HARD but you might get the wrong idea
again.

My opinion is all guys have on thing in common, to undress a

women esp if that woman dresses provocatively. One time I was
talking in the mall with my husband and this sexy girl wearing tight
white pants had a white thong peeping through her pants. Well, I
saw it right away and nudged my husband. He said “I know” right
away. Guys, all of you, were born from the same fruit. The fruit of
lust and desire.”6

“So if you see that disciple of Confucius or Buddha, can you

pose to him all of the above questions? I love you Nat. It’s just
unfortunate, you came to my life 16 years late. Maybe the angels
were suppose to but they completely forgotten it until someone
audited their work 16 years later and tried to correct the mistake.

6
See Annex “E” of the Complaint.
 “Position Paper”
Estrada vs. Go
Administrative Case No. 3102
Page 5 of 11
x---------------------x
Great. Can I request something? I like what we have, I don’t want
to lose it. Can we keep things discreet and slow? I know your old
habits with women are solidly implanted in rex but I want you to
stay in my life till I die (which is not too long from where I’m
standing from). I don’t want to be gone like the longest relationship
you had – more than a year? Let’s just allow things to happen in or
outside the bed. If things are meant to happen, I believe they will. I
love you Nat and I miss you.”7

Respondent even clearly admitted that she had sexual relations with
Nathaniel Ramos:

“b 4:36pm July 13th, 2010

… I cried because I fear in the end, after having loved you

and given myself to you in the most intimate way, I may just end up
like them, a commodity, easily replaced with another.”8

“Nathaniel Ramos 10:54pm July 13th, 2010

1st of all, its 33 years, not 32. 2 nd of all, in my whole 33 yrs of

existence, I fell in love only once. Yes, that college girl. Now I’m in
love again…in the most unexpected time…to the most unusual
person.. I don’t know why, how & what happened. So at this point in
time, don’t ask me why or how much I love you because frankly, I’ve
been out of it for quite a time already. Damn it I cant even spell the
word love, much less define it. But darling its enough for me to
know that I feel it, my hypothalamus says that Im on it, & my rex
longs for the thrust of it. So there, I love you & believe me when I
say I do.

B 10:58pm July 13th, 2010

Why is it when you talk about love, you never leave rex far
behind? Is rex the gray matter of my darling Nat? I wonder what’s
inside Nat’s head if the gray matter is down there.

b 11:02pm July 13th, 2010

I love you darling.

Nathaniel Ramos 11:09pm July 13th, 2010

Darling, rex is just part of the humor. Its just an accessory,

not an accession. So when I say I love you, its actually me that says
the words absent rex. Rex only solidifies that confession of love if
and when he is given the chance.

b 11:17pm July 13th, 2010

7
See Annex “F” of the Complaint.
8
See Annex “G” of the Complaint.
 “Position Paper”
Estrada vs. Go
Administrative Case No. 3102
Page 6 of 11
x---------------------x

You sure that rex is just an accessory? As far as im

concerned, he was the real reason we became an item. So if we
shall base this on how movies go, rex is the lead role and Nat, well,
he’s the one that gets the leading lady.

Nathaniel Ramos 11:29pm July 13th, 2010

Rex paved the way. I know… Wow… I realized it just now.

Had it not been for rex, we would not have met. I’ll treat rex
for….another shake tonight ;-)

On the lighter note darling, last night, while desperately

attempting to drown myself in beer, I thought of counting all the
messages we had in our little web page. Guess what? 222
messages….”9

III
ISSUES

Proceeding from the foregoing, Respondent submits that the issue for
resolution of this Honorable Commission is whether or not Respondent committed
immoral or dishonorable conduct warranting the revocation of her certificate of
registration.

IV
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION

THE FACT OF RESPONDENT'S INFIDELITY WITH

HER PATIENT IS INCONTROVERTIBLE

In the entirety of the ten-page Counter-Affidavit submitted by Respondent,

there was no outright denial of her extra-marital relationships including the
one with Nathaniel Ramos. She could have plainly said that she did not have an
affair, the same way she directly denied the Complainant’s other allegations
particularly that she wore inappropriate clothing to work or that she contracted
sexually transmitted disease (STD) from her patient, Nathaniel Ramos.

As a form of denial, she claimed that she would not have consulted the
Complainant when she felt the lesions in her vagina if she were in fact having an
affair at that time and suspected that it could be a sexually transmitted disease.
However, that is not an actual denial of her affair with Nathaniel Ramos. At most,
it is only proof that at the time, she did not think it was STD. Nevertheless, her
version of how she contracted the disease as alleged in her Counter -Affidavit is
not very convincing, if not improbable.

Also, it is obvious in her Counter-Affidavit that the Respondent, instead of

rebutting the allegations against her and establishing her morality and honorable
conduct, instead focused on pointing out and elaborating the alleged faults of the
9
See Annex “H” of the Complaint.
 “Position Paper”
Estrada vs. Go
Administrative Case No. 3102
Page 7 of 11
x---------------------x
Complainant not realizing that the latter’s morality and conduct is not the issue of
this case. Nonetheless, Complainant, in his Reply admitted that Respondent indeed
filed a Complaint for violation of Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. 9262 (Anti- Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004 or VAWC) against him but he also
informed this Honorable Commission that the said Complaint for VAWC was
ordered dismissed by the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila, which
compelled her to elevate the matter on appeal before the Department of Justice.

On the other hand, the Complainant clearly adduced sufficient evidence to

prove his case. He adequately showed that Respondent entered into an extra-
marital affair with her patient. This fact was shown not only in her admissions
during their counselling sessions but also in the numerous chat messages he
attached in his Complaint and Reply. It is also important to note that the
authenticity and veracity of the said messages were not even contested by the
Respondent in any of her pleadings.

In addition to the foregoing, Complainant also adequately proved that

when Respondent was having an affair with Nathaniel Ramos, a doctor-
patient relationship still exists between the two. This was clearly explained by
the Complainant in his Reply as follows:

“11. Respondent denies that there exists a doctor-patient

relationship with Nathaniel Ramos (“Ramos”). However, a perusal of
her Counter-Affidavit would readily show that she is unable to
categorically deny the existence of this relationship between her and
Ramos as can be seen by her confused and conflicting statement, thus:

“Finally, Nathaniel Ramos ceased to be my patient as

early as May 2010. Even the Facebook messages which
the complainant relies on would show that the doctor-
patient relationship was terminated as early as June 11,
2010.”10 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

12. The above statement by Complainant confirms that she

had extra-marital affairs during her marriage with Complainant as
their marriage was declared a nullity sometime in 2014 only.

13. Worse, contrary to her statement, their doctor-patient

relationship did not end on June 11, 2010 as can be clearly seen in one
of her messages to Nathaniel Ramos:

June 16, 2010

“b 10:04pm June 16th, 2010

Maybe if you were able to say the words to my fact, I

would probably have given it some thought :-) Of course
the rejection was never intended because in the first place I
was ‘crystal clear’ and honest about my position.

10
p. 9, Counter-Affidavit.
 “Position Paper”
Estrada vs. Go
Administrative Case No. 3102
Page 8 of 11
x---------------------x
Speaking from a doctor’s point of view, I am giving you a
better vaccine that is composed of 4 viruses compared to
the one I told you about initially. This vaccine is Gardasil
and is more expensive. The original price is 5 thousand plus
for one but I can get a deal of ordering for 3 vaccines at a
time and it will come out as 2 thousand 8 hundred
something. You don’t have to pay for all three that I will
order because I will use the others for my other patients. I
just want the best alternative for my patients. The usual
vaccine I give is Cervarix but I had a bad experience with it
from another patient. Cervarix was not able to give full
protection against the warts and so made me think that the
two viruses present in this was not enough.”

“Nathaniel Ramos 10:12pm June 16th, 2010

I did not understand a word you said :-) You’re my

smart doctor so it’s your call. So on my next visit you’re
going to zap my precious dingdong again & pop in that
vaccine. Sounds scary. I’m afraid of needles. Even the
smallest ones. Yes, I’ll whisper those words to you AFTER
the procedure ‘cause you might get a little… hostile if I do it
before you do the zapping ;-)”11 (Emphasis supplied)

14. The fact that she prescribed and gave a vaccine to

the patient and to which the patient refers to her as his smart
doctor confirms that there is a doctor-patient relationship
between them.”12

THE SUBSEQUENT DECLARATION OF THEIR

MARRIAGE IS IRRELEVANT

One of the defenses put forward by Complainant is the declaration of the

nullity of her marriage with the Complainant. She claims that there can be no
extra-marital affairs to speak of as the marriage was declared void ab initio. This
argument has no merit.

The law is clear, adultery is considered committed even if the marriage be

subsequently declared void. The revised Penal Code provides:

Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery. — Adultery is committed by

any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man
not her husband and by the man who has carnal knowledge of her
knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be
subsequently declared void.13

Thus, by solely raising this as a defense without denying the several affairs
11
p. 7, Complaint.
12
P. 3-4 of the Reply.
13
Article 333 of the Revised Penal Code.
 “Position Paper”
Estrada vs. Go
Administrative Case No. 3102
Page 9 of 11
x---------------------x
she had during the subsistence of their marriage, Respondent consequently
admitted engaging in extra-marital affairs and illicit sexual conduct and flirtations
while she was legally married to Complainant.

Although their marriage was declared void, the illegal acts committed
during its subsistence still have legal effect and consequences. The nullity of the
marriage alone, is not a proper defense when the infidelity committed was not
even denied. The incompetence of the said argument raised by the Respondent was
properly discussed by the Complainant in his Reply, thus:

“8. It is immediately apparent from the foregoing that

Respondent’s argument is legally flawed. The mere declaration of
nullity of a marriage does not ipso facto render all prior acts as
inconsequential. In fact, the above provision expressly provides
that a person may still be held liable notwithstanding the
subsequent declaration of nullity of the marriage. In other words,
Respondent’s assertion that there can be no extra-marital affairs as a
consequence of the declaration of nullity of her marriage is clearly
unfounded and without legal basis. It is clear that under our laws, the
acts committed prior to the declaration of nullity of the marriage
and their legal consequences subsist even when the same marriage
is later held to be null and void.

9. Ancillary to the foregoing, in cases involving bigamy, a

subsequent declaration of the nullity of the first marriage is immaterial
since the acts constituting the crime of bigamy has already been
committed.14 As long as there is no declaration of its nullity, the
marriage presumably exists; therefore, he who contracts a second
marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the first marriage
assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. 15 By analogy, she
has already committed an act constituting immoral and/or
dishonorable conduct which is not and should not be affected by the
subsequent declaration of nullity of her marriage with Complainant.

10. To be sure, it is clear as daylight that Respondent’s

extra-marital affairs during her marriage with Complainant should not
be ignored and the consequences of which she must suffer. It is
undeniable that the subsequent declaration of nullity of their
marriage will not change the fact that she engaged in extra-
marital affairs during her marriage with Complainant for which
she should be held administratively liable.”16

THE COMPLAINANT SUFFICIENTLY

ESTABLISHED THE IMMORAL CONDUCT OF
RESPONDENT

14
Abunado vs. People, G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004.
15
People vs. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013.
16
P. 2 of the Reply.
 “Position Paper”
Estrada vs. Go
Administrative Case No. 3102
Page 10 of 11
x---------------------x
Another one of the defenses raised by the Respondent is that this case was a
mere harassment suit motivated by vengeance. However, such could not be farther
from the truth. As discussed above, the Complainant has sufficiently proved his
cause while the Respondent failed to rebut the same. More importantly, the
Complainant filed the same as it his duty to safeguard the medical profession from
those who are unfit because of deficiencies in moral character. 17

To strengthen his claim that this case is with merit and not merely meant to
harass, the Complainant, in his Reply, brought to the attention of the Honorable
Commission the Resolution issued by the Philippine Medical Association on the
pending administrative case filed by the Complainant against the Respondent as
follows:

“17. As mentioned by Complainant in her Counter-

Affidavit, an administrative case is currently pending before the
Philippine Medical Association (“PMA”). In this regard, it may not
be amiss to point out that the PMA has recently issued a letter-
resolution dated March 11, 2019 finding herein Respondent guilty of
immorality, to wit:

“The Commission has carefully evaluated your case

versus Dr. Katty Lao Go and it is the Opinion of the
Commission that the respondent admitted a relationship
with other men one of whom was her patient.

The commission finds Dr. Katty Lao Go Guilty of

Immorality and therefore violative of the Code of Ethics
of the Medical Profession…”18 (Emphasis supplied)

Prayer

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is most respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Office that judgment be rendered revoking the certificate of registration
of Respondent.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the circumstances are likewise prayed
for.

Makati City for the City of Manila, October 21, 2019.

GATCHALIAN & CASTRO

Counsel for Complainant
4/F Jose Cojuangco & Sons Building
119 Dela Rosa corner Palanca Sts.
Legaspi Village, Makati City
17
Article IV, Section 29, Board of Medicine – Code of Ethics.

18
See Annex “A” of the Reply.
 “Position Paper”
Estrada vs. Go
Administrative Case No. 3102
Page 11 of 11
x---------------------x
Metro Manila
Telephone Nos. 892-03-03 to 04
Fax No. 818-22-20

By:

ROMARICO I. GATCHALIAN
PTR No. 7333963/1.04.19/Makati City
IBP No. 058849/1.04.19/Cavite
ROLL NO. 35839
MCLE Compliance No. V-0016492
14 March 2016; Makati City
mayko.gatchalian@gatchaliancastro.com

MARIANNE JEZELLE JEM T. MACARILAY

PTR No. 7727496/6.19.19/Makati City
IBP No. 087611/5.9.19/ Makati City
ROLL NO. 73084
Admitted to the Bar in 2019
marianne.macarilay@gatchaliancastro.com

Copy Furnished:

FORTUN NARVASA & SALAZAR (by Personal Delivery)

Counsel for Respondent
23/F, Multinational Bancorporation Centre,
6805 Ayala Avenue, Makati City, 1227