THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 179786. July 24, 2013.]

JOSIELENE LARA CHAN , petitioner, vs . JOHNNY T. CHAN , respondent.

DECISION

ABAD , J : p

This case is about the propriety of issuing a subpoena duces tecum for the
production and submission in court of the respondent husband's hospital record in a case
for declaration of nullity of marriage where one of the issues is his mental tness as a
husband.
The Facts and the Case
On February 6, 2006 petitioner Josielene Lara Chan (Josielene) led before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 144 a petition for the declaration of nullity
of her marriage to respondent Johnny Chan (Johnny), the dissolution of their conjugal
partnership of gains, and the award of custody of their children to her. Josielene claimed
that Johnny failed to care for and support his family and that a psychiatrist diagnosed him
as mentally de cient due to incessant drinking and excessive use of prohibited drugs.
Indeed, she had convinced him to undergo hospital con nement for detoxi cation and
rehabilitation.
Johnny resisted the action, claiming that it was Josielene who failed in her wifely
duties. To save their marriage, he agreed to marriage counseling but when he and
Josielene got to the hospital, two men forcibly held him by both arms while another gave
him an injection. The marriage relations got worse when the police temporarily detained
Josielene for an unrelated crime and released her only after the case against her ended. By
then, their marriage relationship could no longer be repaired. aSTAIH

During the pre-trial conference, Josielene pre-marked the Philhealth Claim Form 1
that Johnny attached to his answer as proof that he was forcibly con ned at the
rehabilitation unit of a hospital. The form carried a physician's handwritten note that
Johnny suffered from "methamphetamine and alcohol abuse." Following up on this point,
on August 22, 2006 Josielene led with the RTC a request for the issuance of a subpoena
duces tecum addressed to Medical City, covering Johnny's medical records when he was
there con ned. The request was accompanied by a motion to "be allowed to submit in
evidence" the records sought by subpoena duces tecum. 2
Johnny opposed the motion, arguing that the medical records were covered by
physician-patient privilege. On September 13, 2006 the RTC sustained the opposition and
denied Josielene's motion. It also denied her motion for reconsideration, prompting her to
file a special civil action of certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 97913,
imputing grave abuse of discretion to the RTC.
On September 17, 2007 the CA 3 denied Josielene's petition. It ruled that, if courts
were to allow the production of medical records, then patients would be left with no
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 assurance that whatever relevant disclosures they may have made to their physicians
would be kept con dential. The prohibition covers not only testimonies, but also a davits,
certi cates, and pertinent hospital records. The CA added that, although Johnny can waive
the privilege, he did not do so in this case. He attached the Philhealth form to his answer
for the limited purpose of showing his alleged forcible confinement.
Question Presented
The central question presented in this case is:
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.
AaHcIT

The Ruling of the Court

Josielene requested the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering the hospital
records of Johnny's con nement, which records she wanted to present in court as
evidence in support of her action to have their marriage declared a nullity. Respondent
Johnny resisted her request for subpoena, however, invoking the privileged character of
those records. He cites Section 24 (c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence which reads:
SEC. 24.Disquali cation by reason of privileged communication. — The
following persons cannot testify as to matters learned in con dence in the
following cases:
xxx xxx xxx

(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics

cannot in a civil case, without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any
advice or treatment given by him or any information which he may have acquired
in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was
necessary to enable him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the
reputation of the patient.

The physician-patient privileged communication rule essentially means that a

physician who gets information while professionally attending a patient cannot in a civil
case be examined without the patient's consent as to any facts which would blacken the
latter's reputation. This rule is intended to encourage the patient to open up to the
physician, relate to him the history of his ailment, and give him access to his body, enabling
the physician to make a correct diagnosis of that ailment and provide the appropriate cure.
Any fear that a physician could be compelled in the future to come to court and narrate all
that had transpired between him and the patient might prompt the latter to clam up, thus
putting his own health at great risk. 4 HCDaAS

1. The case presents a procedural issue, given that the time to object to 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.
Section 36, Rule 132, states that objections to evidence must be made after the
offer of such evidence for admission in court. Thus:
SEC. 36.Objection. — Objection to evidence offered orally must be made
immediately after the offer is made.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 Objection to a question propounded in the course of the oral examination
of a witness shall be made as soon as the grounds therefor shall become
reasonably apparent.

An offer of evidence in writing shall be objected to within three (3) days

after notice of the offer unless a different period is allowed by the court.

In any case, the grounds for the objections must be specified.

Since the offer of evidence is made at the trial, Josielene's request for subpoena
duces tecum is premature. She will have to wait for trial to begin before making a request
for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering Johnny's hospital records. 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. Section 24 (c), Rule 130
of the Rules of Evidence quoted above is about non-disclosure of privileged matters.
2. It is of course possible to treat Josielene's motion for the issuance of a
subpoena duces tecum covering the hospital records as a motion for production of
documents, a discovery procedure available to a litigant prior to trial. Section 1, Rule 27 of
the Rules of Civil Procedure provides: HEDSCc

SEC. 1.Motion for production or inspection; order. — Upon motion of any

party showing good cause therefor, the court in which an action is pending may
(a) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or
photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated
documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects or tangible
things, not privileged , which constitute or contain evidence material to any
matter involved in the action and which are in his possession, custody or control;
or (b) order any party to permit entry upon designated land or other property in his
possession or control for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, or
photographing the property or any designated relevant object or operation
thereon. The order shall specify the time, place and manner of making the
inspection and taking copies and photographs, and may prescribe such terms
and conditions as are just. (Emphasis supplied)

But the above right to compel the production of documents has a limitation: the
documents to be disclosed are "not privileged."
Josielene of course claims that the hospital records subject of this case are not
privileged since it is the "testimonial" evidence of the physician that may be regarded as
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.
The privilege, says Josielene, does not cover the hospital records, but only the examination
of the physician at the trial.
To allow, however, the disclosure during discovery procedure of the hospital records
— the results of tests that the physician ordered, the diagnosis of the patient's illness, and
the advice or treatment he gave him — would be to allow access to evidence that is
inadmissible without the patient's consent. Physician memorializes all these information in
the patient's records. Disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the physician
to testify on privileged matters he gained while dealing with the patient, without the latter's
prior consent. aATCDI

3. Josielene argues that since Johnny admitted in his answer to the petition
before the RTC that he had been con ned in a hospital against his will and in fact attached
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 to his answer a Philhealth claim form covering that con nement, he should be deemed to
have waived the privileged character of its records. Josielene invokes Section 17, Rule 132
of the Rules of Evidence that provides:
SEC. 17.When part of transaction, writing or record given in evidence, the
remainder admissible. — When part of an act, declaration, conversation, writing or
record is given in evidence by one party, the whole of the same subject may be
inquired into by the other, and when a detached act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record is given in evidence, any other act, declaration, conversation,
writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence.

But, trial in the case had not yet begun. Consequently, it cannot be said that Johnny
had already presented the Philhealth claim form in evidence, the act contemplated above
which would justify Josielene into requesting an inquiry into the details of his hospital
con nement. Johnny was not yet bound to adduce evidence in the case when he led his
answer. Any request for disclosure of his hospital records would again be premature.
For all of the above reasons, the CA and the RTC were justi ed in denying Josielene
her request for the production in court of Johnny's hospital records.
ACCORDINGLY , the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP 97913 dated September 17, 2007.
SO ORDERED .
Velasco, Jr., Peralta and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Leonen, J., see separate concurring opinion.

Separate Opinions
LEONEN , J., concurring :

I concur but add the following points:

I agree that the hospital records of respondent Johnny Chan may not be produced in
court without his/her consent. Issuance of a subpoena duces tecum for its production will
violate the physician-patient privilege rule under Rule 130, Sec. 24 (c) 1 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure. HaECDI

However, this privilege is not absolute. The request of petitioner for a copy of the
medical records has not been properly laid.
Instead of a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, Josielene Lara
Chan should avail of the mode of discovery under Rule 28 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Rule 28 pertains to the physical or mental examination of persons. This may be
ordered by the court, in its discretion, 2 upon motion and showing of good cause 3 by the
requesting party, in cases when the mental and/or physical condition of a party is in
controversy. 4 Aside from showing good cause, the requesting party needs only to notify
the party to be examined (and all other parties) and specify the time, place, manner,
conditions, and scope of the examination, including the name of the physician who will
conduct the examination. 5

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com

 The examined party may obtain a copy of the examining physician's report
concerning his/her mental or physical examination. 6 The requesting party shall deliver this
report to him/her. 7 After such delivery, however, the requesting party becomes entitled to
any past or future medical report involving the same mental or physical condition. 8 Upon
motion and notice, the court may order the examined party to deliver those medical
reports to the requesting party if the examined party refuses to do so. 9
Moreover, if the examined party requests a copy of the examining physician's report
or if he/she takes the examining physician's deposition, the request waives the examined
party's privileges when the testimony of any person who examined or will examine his/her
mental of physical status is taken in the action or in any action involving the same
controversy. 1 0
Discovery procedures provide a balance between the need of the plaintiff or
claimant to fully and fairly establish her case and the policy to protect — to a certain extent
— communications made between a patient and his doctor. Hence, the physician-patient
privilege does not cover information discovered under Rule 28. This procedure is availed
with the intention of making the results public during trial. Along with other modes of
discovery, this would prevent the trial from being carried on in the dark. 1 1 HEDCAS

In view of the foregoing, I vote to DENY the petition.

Footnotes
1.Annex "B."

2.Rollo, pp. 69-72.

3.Penned by Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose
C. Reyes, Jr. and Myrna Dimaranan Vidal.
4.Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, Volume VII, Part I, 1997 ed., p. 282,
citing Will of Bruendi, 102 Wis. 47, 78 N.W. 169, and McRae v. Erickson, 1 Cal. App. 326.

LEONEN, J., concurring:

1.RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 24 (c) provides:

A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case,

without the consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by
him or any information which he may have acquired in attending such patient in a
professional capacity, which information was necessary to enable him to act in that
capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient.
2.RULES OF COURT, Rule 28, Sec. 1.
3.RULES OF COURT, Rule 28, Sec. 2.

4.RULES OF COURT, Rule 28, Sec. 1.

5.RULES OF COURT, Rule 28, Sec. 2.

6.RULES OF COURT, Rule 28, Sec. 3.

7.RULES OF COURT, Rule 28, Sec. 3.

8.RULES OF COURT, Rule 28, Sec. 3.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com
 9.RULES OF COURT, Rule 28, Sec. 3.

10.RULES OF COURT, Rule 28, Sec. 4.

11.Republic v. Sandiganbayan, Tantoco and Santiago, G.R. No. 90478, November 21, 1991, 204
SCRA 212.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2019 cdasiaonline.com