1
LIM V CA 214 SCRA 237 SEPTEMBER 25, 1992 FACTS: Petition for
review on the rule of confidentiality the patient-doctor
relationship y November 25, 1987 Juan Sim filed with Pangasinan RTC
a petition for annulment based on Art 36, alleging that Nelly Lim
(petitioner) is suffering from schizophrenia before, during and
after marriage and until the present y January 11, 989 Sim
announced he will present Dr Lydia Acampado (psychiatrist) as a
witness on January 25, 1989 y Petitioner opposed on the grounds
that the testimony sought to be elicited from the witness is
privileged since Dr Acampado had examined Lim in a professional
capacity and had diagnosed her with schizophrenia. Subpoena was
issued on January 12, 1989 y January 24, 1989 petitioner filed
urgent motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings. Overruled
y Respondent claimed that Dr Acampado will be presented as expert
witness and would not testify on any information acquired while
attending to the petitioner as doctor. y March 3, 1989 petitioner
filed with CA petition for certiorari and prohibition but was
denied on September 18, 1989 on the ground that petitioner failed
to establish the confidential nature of the testimony obtained from
Dr Acampado ISSUE: Whether Dr Acampado can be presented as expert
witness in testifying schizophrenia in case where petitioner is her
client HELD: In order for patient-doctor privilege can be claimed,
the following requisites must concur: 1. Privilege claimed is in a
civil case 2. The person against whom the privilege is claimed is
one duly authorized to practice medicine 3. Such person acquired
the information while he was attending to the patient in his
professional capacity 4. The information was necessary for him to
enable him to act in that capacity These requisites must concur
with the 4 fundamental conditions necessary for invoking doctor
patient confidentiality: 1. The communications must originate in a
confidence that they will not be disclosed 2. 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 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 greater than the
benefit thereby gain for correct disposal of litigation Dr Acampado
was only presented as an expert witness; she did not disclose
anything obtained in the course of her examination, interview and
treatment of the petitioner. There is nothing specific or concrete
offered to show that the information obtained from Dr Acampado
would blacken the petitioner s reputation/character. Lastly, she
makes no claim in any of her proceedings that her counsel had
objected to any questions asked of the witness on the ground that
it elicited an answer that would violate the confidentiality
privilege. SALITA V MAGTOLIS 233 SCRA 100 JUNE 13, 1994 FACTS:
Erwin Espinosa (32) and Joselita Salita (22) were married on
January 25, 1986. Separated in 1988 and Erwin sued for annulment on
the basis of psychological incapacity y January 7, 1992 petitioner
filed annulment on the grounds that Erwin is psychologically
incapacitated; also moved for bill of particulars
2
ISSUE: Whether bill of particulars submitted by Erwin is of
sufficient definiteness to enable petitioner to properly prepare
her responsive pleading HELD: YES. SC held that the bill of
particulars filed by Erwin is sufficient to state a cause of
action. Private respondent already alleged that petitioner is
unable to understand and accept the demands made by his profession
(upon his time and efforts). To demand more detail would be asking
for information on evidentiary facts. SC sees no need to define or
limit the scope of Art. 36 of the Family Code since the actual
issue is with the sufficiency of the bill of particulars. AFFIRMED
CA DECISION. KROHN V CA 233 SCRA 146 JUNE 14, 1994 FACTS: A
confidential psychiatric evaluation report is being presented in
evidence before the trial court in a petition for annulment of
marriage grounded on psychological incapacity. The witness
testifying on the report is the husband who initiated the annulment
proceedings, not the physician who prepared the report. Ma. Paz
Fernandez Krohn, invoking doctor -patient confidentiality, seeks to
enjoin her husband from disclosing the contents of the psychiatric
evaluation report. y June 14, 1964 Edgar Krohn Jr. and Ma. Paz
Fernandez were married in San Marcelino Manila. In 1971, Paz
underwent psychological testing in an effort to ease marital
strain; 1973 both separated y 1975 Edgar was able to secure a copy
of the confidential psychiatric report signed by Dr Cornelio Banaag
and Baltazar Reyes. y November 2, 1978 Edgar obtained a decree from
family court nullifying his marriage with Paz. On June 10, 1979,
decree was confirmed and pronounced final y July 30, 1982 Pasig CFI
granted voluntary dissolution of conjugal partnership y October 23,
1990 Edgar filed petition for annulment, citing the confidential
psychiatric evaluation report y May 8, 1991 Edgar testified on the
contents of the psych report but was objected due to patient-doctor
confidentiality. Petitioner asserted that there is no factual or
legal basis for Edgar s claims since reports were fabricated. y
June 4, 1991 RTC admitted confidential psychiatric report as
evidence y Petitioner argued pursuant to Sec. 24 (c), Rule 130
ROC