G.R. No. 91114 - Lim vs. Court of Appeals

Petitioner Nelly Lim and private respondent Juan Sim lawfully married.
On 25 November 1987, private respondent filed a petition for annulment of marriage in RTC-Rosales, Pangasinan, Branch 53, alleging petitioner suffered from schizophrenia “before, during and after the marriage.”

After pre-trial, private respondent presented three witnesses, then announced on 11 January 1989 his intent to present Dr. Lydia Acampado, Psychiatrist at the National Mental Hospital, as next witness. Petitioner’s counsel opposed, invoking physician-patient privilege; nevertheless, subpoena issued on 12 January 1989.
On 24 January 1989, petitioner filed an omnibus motion to quash the subpoena. At the hearing on 25 January 1989, the trial court denied the motion, qualified Dr. Acampado as an expert witness, and permitted her to testify on hypothetical questions without revealing any confidential details of her treatment or diagnosis of petitioner. The court issued a written order denying the motion.

On 3 March 1989, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition (C.A.-G.R. SP No. 16991) to annul the trial court’s order for grave abuse of discretion.
On 18 September 1989, the Court of Appeals denied due course, finding no privileged communication had been disclosed and that Dr. Acampado had testified solely as an expert based on hypothetical facts. A motion for reconsideration was likewise denied.

Petitioner filed a Rule 45 petition before this Court, alleging errors by the Court of Appeals in failing to recognize the physician-patient privilege and in concluding no confidential information was disclosed.
Parties submitted memoranda, and the case was set for resolution.

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals gravely abused their discretion in allowing Dr. Acampado to testify.
Whether Dr. Acampado’s expert testimony, based on hypothetical questions, violated the physician-patient privileged communication under Section 24(c), Rule 130, Revised Rules of Evidence.