Nelly Lim vs.

CA
September 25, 1992 | DAVIDE, JR., J | G.R. No. 91114 |
Physicians and Evidence

FACTS:
1. Nelly Lim, and Juan Sim, are a lawfully married couple. Juan
then filed with the RTC of Pangasinan a petition for annulment
of their marriage on the ground that Nelly Lim has been
allegedly suffering from schizophrenia "before, during and after
the marriage and until the present."
2. Sim’s counsel orally applied for the issuance of a subpoena ad
testificandum requiring Dr. Acampado, the Chief of the Female
Services of the National Mental Hospital, to testify.
3. Lim’s counsel then opposed the motion on the ground that the
testimony to be acquired from Dr. Acampado is privileged as
that doctor that examined Nelly in a professional capacity and
was the one to diagnose her to be suffering from
schizophrenia.
4. Lim’s counsel filed an urgent omnibus motion to quash the
subpoena and suspend the proceedings pending resolution of
the motion on the grounds of confidentiality between Dr.
Acampado and Nelly on the basis of their physician-patient
relationship.

RTC denied the motion and allowed Dr. Acampado to testify.

CA affirmed the RTC ruling and held that Nelly failed to

establish the confidential nature of the testimony given by or
obtained from Dr. Acampado
ISSUE: W/N the information given by Dr. Acampado in her testimony
was privileged communication due to a physician-patient relationship
(NO)

RULING: WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

RATIO:
1. In order that such privilege may be successfully claimed, the
following requisites must concur: the privilege is claimed in a
civil case; the person against whom the privilege is claimed is
one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
such person acquired the information while he was attending to
the patient in his professional capacity; the information was
necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and the
information was confidential, and, if disclosed, would blacken
the reputation of the patient.
2. Such elements must be proven by the person invoking such
privileged communication. In this case, Dr. Acampado, in her
testimony, did not disclose anything related to the treatment of
Nelly.
3. The facts and conditions alleged in the hypothetical problem
did not refer to and had no bearing on whatever information or
findings the doctor obtained while attending to Nelly.
4. It was also clear from Dr. Acampado’s testimony that Nelly was
never interviewed alone. Said interviews were always
conducted in the presence of a third party.
5. There is authority to the effect that information elicited during
consultation with a physician in the presence of third parties
removes such information from the mantle of the privilege.