G.R. No. 179786
July 24, 2013
Third Division
Ponente: Abad, J.
Gist:
A subpoena duces tecum for the production and submission in court of the respondent husband’s hospital record cannot be issued in a case for declaration of nullity of marriage where one of the issues is his mental fitness as a husband.
Facts:
Petitioner Josielene Lara Chan (Josielene) filed before the RTC a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Johnny Chan (Johnny) on the grounds of his neglect of support to their family and his mental deficiency.
During the pre-trial conference, Josielene pre-marked the Philhealth Claim Form that Johnny attached to his answer as proof that he was forcibly confined at the rehabilitation unit of the hospital. Following up on this point, she filed with the RTC a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum addressed to the hospital, covering Johnny’s medical records when he was there confined.
Johnny opposed the motion and invoked the physician-patient privilege which covered his medical records.
The RTC sustained the opposition and denied Josielene’s motion. The CA affirmed the lower court’s ruling.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the trial court correctly denied the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering Johnny’s hospital records on the ground that these are covered by the privileged character of the physician-patient communication
Ruling:
The petition was denied. The Court upheld the decision of the CA which justified the denial of petitioner’s request for the production in court of respondent’s hospital records.
1. The time to object the admission of evidence, such as the hospital records, would be at the time they are offered. The offer could be made part of the physician’s testimony or as independent evidence that he had made entries in those records that concern the patient’s health problems.
Josielene’s request for subpoena duces tecum is premature since the offer of evidence should be made at the trial. it is when those records are produced for examination at the trial that Johnny may opt to object, not just to their admission in evidence, but more so to their disclosure.
2. Josielene’s motion for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering the hospital records could also be treated as a motion for production of documents, a discovery procedure available to a litigant prior to trial. Sec. 1, Rule 27 of the Rules provides the guideline on the motion and order for production or inspection of documents. However, such right to compel the production of documents is limited to documents to be disclosed that are “not privileged”.
Section 24(c) of Rule 130 states that the physician “cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined” regarding their professional conversation.
3. Josielene’s contention that Johnny should be deemed to have waived the privileged character of his records upon the latter’s admission in his answer to the petition before the RTC that he had been forcibly confined which was in fact disclosed in a Philhealth claim form is of no moment.
As the trial had not yet begun, it cannot be said that Johnny had already presented the Philhealth claim form in evidence. He was not yet bound to adduce evidence in the case when he filed his answer before the RTC. Again, any request for disclosure of his hospital records would be premature.
N.B. What could Josielene have done?
According to Judge Doctor, apply Rule 28 (Physical and Mental Examination of Persons).
