JOSIELENE LARA CHAN, PETITIONER, VS. JOHNNY T. CHAN, RESPONDENT.

Josielene Lara Chan versus Johnny T. Chan

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by Josielene Lara Chan against her husband, Johnny T. Chan, arising from a petition she filed to have their marriage declared a nullity on the ground of his alleged psychological incapacity. The narrow but consequential question is whether she may compel the production of his hospital records through a subpoena duces tecum during the pendency of the case, or whether those records are shielded by the physician-patient privilege. The case matters because it draws the line between the privilege against disclosure and the rules on offer of evidence and discovery, and it teaches when an objection to evidence is ripe and when a request for records is premature.

Procedural History

Josielene filed her petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains, and custody of their children before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 144. During pre-trial, she sought the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum addressed to Medical City to cover Johnny's medical records, accompanied by a motion to be allowed to submit those records in evidence. Johnny opposed on the ground of physician-patient privilege. The trial court sustained the opposition and denied her motion, and it also denied her motion for reconsideration.

Josielene then filed a special civil action of certiorari before the Court of Appeals, imputing grave abuse of discretion to the trial court. The Court of Appeals denied the petition, holding that allowing the production of medical records would leave patients with no assurance that relevant disclosures made to their physicians would remain confidential, and that the prohibition covers not only testimonies but also affidavits, certificates, and pertinent hospital records. The Court of Appeals added that although Johnny could waive the privilege, he did not do so, having attached the Philhealth form to his answer only for the limited purpose of showing his alleged forcible confinement. The case reached the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

On February 6, 2006, Josielene filed her petition before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 144, seeking the declaration of nullity of her marriage to Johnny, the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, and the award of custody of their children to her. She claimed that Johnny failed to care for and support his family, and that a psychiatrist had diagnosed him as mentally deficient due to incessant drinking and excessive use of prohibited drugs. She had, in fact, convinced him to undergo hospital confinement for detoxification and rehabilitation.

Johnny resisted the action, claiming that it was Josielene who failed in her wifely duties. He recounted that, to save the marriage, he agreed to marriage counseling, but when he and Josielene arrived at the hospital, two men forcibly held him by both arms while another gave him an injection. The marriage relations worsened when the police temporarily detained Josielene for an unrelated crime, releasing her only after the case against her ended. By then, the marriage relationship could no longer be repaired.

During pre-trial, Josielene pre-marked the Philhealth claim form that Johnny had attached to his answer, which carried a physician's handwritten note that Johnny suffered from methamphetamine and alcohol abuse. On August 22, 2006, she filed a request for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum addressed to Medical City covering Johnny's medical records during his confinement, accompanied by a motion to be allowed to submit those records in evidence. Johnny opposed, invoking the physician-patient privilege, and the trial court sustained him.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals 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.
• Whether or not Josielene's request for the hospital records was premature, given that the time to object to the admission of evidence is at the time it is offered.
• Whether or not Johnny waived the privilege by admitting his confinement and attaching the Philhealth claim form to his answer.

Applicable Provisions

Section 24, paragraph (c) of Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence 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.

This is the privilege Johnny invoked, and the Court holds that it bars not only the physician's testimony but also the disclosure of the hospital records themselves.

Section 36 of Rule 132 provides:

Objection to evidence offered orally must be made immediately after the offer is made. 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 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.

This fixes the stage at which Johnny may object, which is at the trial when the records are offered, not before.

Section 1 of Rule 27 provides:

Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor, the court in which an action is pending may 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.

This is the discovery route Josielene might have used, but it expressly excludes privileged documents.

Section 17 of Rule 132 provides:

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 or writing or record necessary to its understanding may also be given in evidence.

This is the waiver rule Josielene invoked, but it applies only when a party has actually given the record in evidence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals and the trial court were justified in denying the request. The physician-patient privilege 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 facts that would blacken the patient's reputation. The purpose is to encourage the patient to open up to the physician and give access to his body so that a correct diagnosis may be made. To allow disclosure of the hospital records during discovery, covering test results, diagnosis, and treatment, would be to allow access to evidence that is inadmissible without the patient's consent, and would be the equivalent of compelling the physician to testify on privileged matters without consent.

On the second issue, the Court held that the request was premature. Objections to evidence must be made after the offer of such evidence, and since the offer is made at trial, Josielene must wait for trial to begin before requesting the subpoena. It is when the records are produced for examination at trial that Johnny may object, not only to their admission but more so to their disclosure. Even treating the motion as one for production of documents under the discovery rule, that right is limited to documents that are not privileged.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was no waiver. Trial had not yet begun, so Johnny had not yet presented the Philhealth claim form in evidence, and he was not bound to adduce evidence when he filed his answer. Any request for disclosure of his hospital records was therefore again premature.

Doctrine

The physician-patient privilege under Section 24, paragraph (c) of Rule 130 is not limited to the physician's testimony; it extends to hospital records, since disclosing them would be the equivalent of compelling the physician to testify on privileged matters without the patient's consent. A motion for production of documents under Rule 27 reaches only documents that are not privileged. An objection to the admission or disclosure of evidence is ripe only at the time the evidence is offered at trial, and the waiver rule under Section 17 of Rule 132 operates only when a party has actually given the record in evidence.

Disposition

The Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals; Johnny prevailed, and the hospital records may not be produced without his consent.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the physician-patient privilege shields hospital records from disclosure, and a request for them before trial is premature. Examiners use this case to test the scope of the privilege, the limits of discovery under Rule 27, and the timing of objections and waiver under the Rules of Evidence.