Psychological Incapacity Digests

33
1 LIM V CA 214 SCRA 237 SEPTEMBER 25, 1992 FACTS: Petition for review on the rule of confidentiality the patient-doctor relationship 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 January 11, 989 – Sim announced he will present Dr Lydia Acampado (psychiatrist) as a witness on January 25, 1989 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 January 24, 1989 – petitioner filed urgent motion to quash subpoena and suspend proceedings. Overruled 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. 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

Transcript of Psychological Incapacity Digests

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