Nelly Lim

---vs--CA and Juan Sim

R130 S24
FACTS:
1. Private Respondent Juan is married to Petitioner Nelly Lim
2. Private Respondent herein filed a petition of annulment of such marriage, on the ground
of psychological incapacity due to schizophrenia. One of the witnesses he wish to
present is Dr. Acampado, a doctor of medicine specializing in Psychiatry who examined
Nelly in a professional capacity. In this regard, Respondent orally asked for a subpoena
3. Petitioner opposed said subpoena on the ground that Dr. Acampado has privileged
communication with Petitioner. Thus, an urgent motion to quash subpoena was filed
a. Petitioner argues that having seen and examined Petitioner in a professional
capacity, he is barred from testifying
b. Respondent contended that the doctor would not be examined on any
information while attending to Petitioner
c. RTC denied Petitioners urgent motion to quash subpoena
4. Dr. Acampado is then allowed to testify. RTCs order denying the urgent motion is
upheld by CA. Hence, this petition
ISSUE:
W/N Dr. Acampado should testify? (Section 24)
W/N Dr. Acampados opinion is valid? YES (Section 48)
HELD: YES.
Rationale behind R130 S24:
The physician-patient privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe full and confidential
disclosure by the patient to the physician of all facts, circumstances and symptoms,
untrammeled by apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on
the witness stand, to the end that the physician may form a correct opinion, and be enabled
safely and efficaciously to treat his patient. It rests in public policy and is for the general interest
of the community.
R130 S24 is SUBJECT TO WAIVER if no timely objection is made. In this case, though there is an
opposition on the oral request on subpoena, such objection is not in Petitioners pleadings.
One who claims this privilege has the burden of proof that it must apply. Hence, it must comply
with the requisites, the testimony must be within the scope of the privilege, and the conditions.
REQUISITES:
1. The privilege is claimed in a civil case;

2. The person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice
medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
3. Such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his
professional capacity;
4. The information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and
5. The information was confidential, and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation of the
patient
In this case, not all of the requisites are present. #3, #4, and #5 is not present in this case.
SCOPE:
Only disclosures which would have been made to the physician to enable him "safely and
efficaciously to treat his patient" for Petitioner are covered by the privilege.
---In this case, those mentioned by the doctor were not part of the scope. Although the doctor
testified that she examined the Petitioner, she did not disclose anything she obtained in the
course of her examination.
CONDITIONS:
1. The communications must originate in a confidence that they will not be disclosed.
2. This element of confidentiality must be essential to the full and satisfactory maintenance
of the relation between the parties.
3. The relation must be one which in the opinion of the community ought to be sedulously
fostered
4. The injury that would inure to the relation by the disclosure of the communications
must be greater than the benefit thereby gained for the correct disposal of litigation
- In this case, the doctors testimony shows that Petitioner was never interviewed alone.
The casual presence of a third party destroys the confidential nature of communication
between doctor and patient. Hence, there is no confidential matter.

SECTION 48:
The opinion Dr. Acampado gave in this case is for a hypothetical question asked of him
regarding a fictitious person. Such fictional fact did not refer to whatever information or
findings the doctor obtained from attending the patient. A physician is not disqualified to testify
as an expert concerning a patients ailment, when he can disregard knowledge acquired in
attending such patient and make answer solely on facts related in (sic) the hypothetical
question.