Case Summary (G.R. No. 179786)
Petitioner
Josielene Lara Chan – Filed a petition for nullity of marriage, dissolution of conjugal partnership, and custody of children before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 144.
Respondent
Johnny T. Chan – Opposed the nullity petition, contested allegations of neglect and mental deficiency, and resisted production of his hospital records invoking physician-patient privilege.
Key Dates
• February 6, 2006 – Nullity petition filed before Makati RTC.
• August 22, 2006 – Motion for subpoena duces tecum filed for Medical City records.
• September 13, 2006 – RTC denied motion and reconsideration.
• September 17, 2007 – Court of Appeals (CA) denied certiorari petition (CA-G.R. SP 97913).
• July 24, 2013 – Supreme Court decision rendered.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution
• Rules of Evidence, Rule 130, Sec. 24(c) (physician-patient privilege)
• Rules of Evidence, Rule 132, Sec. 36 (timeliness of objections)
• Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 27, Sec. 1 (production of documents)
Factual Background
Josielene alleged that Johnny neglected the family, was diagnosed with mental deficiency from alcohol and drug abuse, and underwent forced hospital confinement. Johnny countered that Josielene failed in her duties and protested the involuntary rehabilitation.
Procedural History
At pre-trial, Josielene pre-marked a PhilHealth claim form attached to Johnny’s answer. She then moved for a subpoena duces tecum for his full hospital records. The RTC denied the request; the CA upheld that decision, citing privileged communications. Josielene elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.
Issue Presented
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC’s denial of a subpoena duces tecum for Johnny’s hospital records on the ground of physician-patient privilege.
The Court’s Analysis on Privilege
Rule 130, Sec. 24(c) protects confidential information acquired by a physician in attendance, to encourage full disclosure by patients. Without the patient’s consent, the physician may not be examined on matters that could harm the patient’s reputation.
Timing and Prematurity of the Subpoena Request
Under Rule 132, Sec. 36, objections to evidence must follow an offer at trial. A subpoena duces tecum filed before trial is premature; the proper time to object to disclosure or admission of hospital records is when they are offered in evidence.
Production of Documents and Privilege
Rule 27, Sec. 1 allows pre-trial motions to produce non-privileged documents. Privileged materials—such as hospital records containing diagnostic findin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 179786)
Facts and Case Background
- On February 6, 2006, petitioner Josielene Lara Chan filed a petition before the RTC of Makati City, Branch 144, seeking:
- Declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Johnny T. Chan
- Dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains
- Award of custody over their children to her
- Josielene alleged that Johnny suffered from mental deficiency caused by chronic alcohol and prohibited drug abuse, supported by a psychiatrist’s diagnosis.
- She arranged for Johnny’s involuntary hospitalization for detoxification and rehabilitation, prompting his resistance and claims of forced confinement.
- Subsequent events, including Josielene’s temporary police detention for an unrelated crime, irreparably damaged the marital relationship.
Petition for Nullity and Underlying Claims
- Petition grounded on Johnny’s alleged failure to support and care for the family due to mental impairment.
- Psychiatrist’s findings on Johnny’s amphetamine and alcohol abuse formed the factual basis of the nullity petition.
- Josielene sought to introduce hospital records as proof of Johnny’s confinement and mental condition.
Trial Court Proceedings and Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum
- During pre-trial, Josielene pre-marked Johnny’s PhilHealth Claim Form showing a physician’s handwritten note on substance abuse.
- On August 22, 2006, she moved for issuance of a subpoena duces tecum addressed to Medical City to obtain Johnny’s complete hospital records.
- The motion included a request “to be allowed to submit in evidence” the subpoenaed records.
- Johnny opposed, invoking physician-patient privilege under Section 24(c), Rule 130, Rules of Evidence.
- On September 13, 2006, the RTC denied Josielene’s motion and her subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Court of Appeals Decision
- Josielene filed a special civil action of certiorari (CA-G.R. SP 97913) alleging grave abuse of discretion by the RTC.
- On September 17, 2007, the CA denied her petition, holdin