COLLUSIONINANNULMENTORDECLARATIONOFNULLITYOFMARRIAGECASES[ART.

48FC]
Chanv.Chan(G.R.No.179786,Jul.24,2013)
Facts:
PetitionerWifefiledagainstRespondentHusbandapetitionforthedeclarationofnullityof
marriage,withthedissolutionoftheirconjugalpartnershipofgains,andtheawardofcustodyoftheir
childrentoher,claimingthatRespondentHusbandfailedtocareforandsupporthisfamilyandthata
psychiatristdiagnosedhimasmentallydeficientduetoincessantdrinkingandexcessiveuseofprohibited
drugs.
RespondentHusbandclaimsthatitwastheWifewhofailedinherduties.Andthatheinitially
agreedtomarriagecounselingtosavetheirmarriage,butuponarrivingatthehospital,twomenforcibly
heldhimbybotharmswhileanothergavehimaninjection.HeattachedaPhilhealthClaimFormtohis
answerasproofthathewasforciblyconfinedattherehabilitationunitofahospital.However,thatsame
formcarriedaphysicianshandwrittennotethattheHusbandsufferedfrommethamphetamineand
alcoholabuse.
Basedonthephysicianshandwrittenstatement,PetitionerWiferequestedfortheissuanceofa
subpoenaducestecumaddressedtoMedicalCity,fortheproductionoftheHusbandsmedicalrecords.The
Husbandopposed,arguingthatthemedicalrecordswerecoveredbyphysicianpatientprivilege.
TherequestofPetitionerWifewasdeniedandhersubsequentMotionforReconsiderationonthe
matterwasalsodenied.ShethenfiledaPetitionerforCertiorariwiththeCourtofAppealsbutthiswasalso
dismissed.HersubsequentMotionforReconsiderationwiththeCAwasalsodenied.
Issue:WONCAerredinrulingthatthetrialcourtcorrectlydeniedtheissuanceofasubpoena
ducestecumcoveringJohnnyshospitalrecordsonthegroundthatthesearecoveredbytheprivileged
characterofthephysicianpatientcommunication
Held:
Issuanceofasubpoenaducestecumispremature.PetitionerWifemadetherequestbeforetrial
started.Shewillhavetowaitfortrialtobeginbeforemakingarequestfortheissuanceofasubpoena
ducestecumcoveringherhusbandshospitalrecords.Itiswhenthoserecordsareproducedforexamination
atthetrial,thatthehusbandmayopttoobject,notjusttotheiradmissioninevidence,butmoresototheir
disclosure.
PetitionerWifesmotionfortheissuanceofthesubpoenaducestecumalsocannotbetreatedasa
motionforproductionofdocumentsasamodeofdiscoverybecauseRule27,Section1oftheRulesof
CourtisonlylimitedtodisclosureofdocumentswhichareNOTPRIVILEGED.
PetitionerWifeclaimsthatthedocumentsarenotprivilegedbecauseitistheTESTIMONYofthe
physicianthatissupposedtobeprivileged.Thiscontentioniswrong.Section24(c)ofRule130statesthat
thephysiciancannotinacivilcase,withouttheconsentofthepatient,beexaminedregardingtheir
(physicianpatient)professionalconversation.Toallowthedisclosureduringdiscoveryprocedureofthe
hospitalrecords(includingtheresultsofteststhatthephysicianordered,thediagnosisofthepatients
illness,andtheadviceortreatmentgiven)would,ineffect,betantamounttoallowingaccesstoevidence
thatisinadmissiblewithoutthepatientsconsent.Disclosingthemwouldbetheequivalentofcompelling
thephysiciantotestifyonprivilegedmattershegainedwhiledealingwiththepatient,withoutthelatters
priorconsent.
Lastly,PetitionerWifearguesthatherHusbandalreadyadmittedinhisanswerthathehadbeen
confinedinahospital.However,asalreadymentionedabove,trialinthecasehadnotyetbegun.Sincetrial
hadnotyetbegun,itcannotbesaidtheHusbandhadalreadypresentedsaidPhilhealthclaimformas
evidence.TheHusbandwasnotyetboundtoadduceevidenceinthecasewhenhefiledhisanswer.Any
requestfordisclosureofhishospitalrecordswouldagainbepremature.