Title
Supreme Court
Chan vs. Chan
Case
G.R. No. 179786
Decision Date
Jul 24, 2013
Josielene sought nullity of marriage, alleging Johnny’s mental incapacity due to substance abuse. Court denied subpoena for his medical records, upholding physician-patient privilege, ruling her request premature and no waiver occurred.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 179786)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Petition for declaration of nullity and related reliefs
    • On February 6, 2006, petitioner Josielene Lara Chan filed before RTC Makati Branch 144 a petition for:
      • Declaration of nullity of marriage to respondent Johnny T. Chan
      • Dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains
      • Award of custody of their children to her
    • Allegations included Johnny’s failure to support his family and a psychiatrist’s diagnosis of mental deficiency due to chronic alcohol and prohibited‐drug abuse, leading to his confinement for detoxification and rehabilitation
  • Deterioration of marriage relations
    • Johnny claimed Josielene failed in her wifely duties; they underwent attempted marriage counseling, during which Johnny was forcibly held and injected against his will
    • A subsequent unrelated police detention of Josielene further strained the marriage beyond repair
  • Procedural history of subpoena duces tecum request
    • During pre‐trial, Josielene pre‐marked a PhilHealth Claim Form attached by Johnny to his answer, showing physician’s note on abuse
    • On August 22, 2006, she moved for a subpoena duces tecum to Medical City for Johnny’s hospital records; RTC denied the motion on physician‐patient privilege grounds and likewise denied reconsideration
    • Josielene filed a certiorari petition (CA‐G.R. SP 97913), which the Court of Appeals denied on September 17, 2007, upholding the privilege protection over medical records

Issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of a subpoena duces tecum for Johnny’s hospital records
  • Whether Johnny’s hospital records are protected by the physician‐patient privileged communication under Rule 130, Section 24(c), and thus not subject to compulsory production without his consent

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.