Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 411 views

    Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, September 25, 1992

    Uploaded by

    Prudencio Ruiz Agacita
    The Supreme Court held that Dr. Acampado could testify as an expert witness. While physicians generally cannot disclose confidential patient information, Dr. Acampado did not reveal any information she acquired from examining or treating the petitioner. She only answered hypothetical questions based on assumed facts not related to the petitioner. Expert testimony from a physician is allowed if they do not disclose actual confidential patient information and only address hypothetical scenarios. The physician-patient privilege is intended to protect confidential disclosures for treatment, but does not apply if the physician can separate knowledge from the specific patient from the expert testimony provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, September 25, 1992

    Uploaded by

    Prudencio Ruiz Agacita
    411 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court held that Dr. Acampado could testify as an expert witness. While physicians generally cannot disclose confidential patient information, Dr. Acampado did not reveal any information she acquired from examining or treating the petitioner. She only answered hypothetical questions based on assumed facts not related to the petitioner. Expert testimony from a physician is allowed if they do not disclose actual confidential patient information and only address hypothetical scenarios. The physician-patient privilege is intended to protect confidential disclosures for treatment, but does not apply if the physician can separate knowledge from the specific patient from the expert testimony provided.

    Original Title

    6

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court held that Dr. Acampado could testify as an expert witness. While physicians generally cannot disclose confidential patient information, Dr. Acampado did not reveal any information she acquired from examining or treating the petitioner. She only answered hypothetical questions based on assumed facts not related to the petitioner. Expert testimony from a physician is allowed if they do not disclose actual confidential patient information and only address hypothetical scenarios. The physician-patient privilege is intended to protect confidential disclosures for treatment, but does not apply if the physician can separate knowledge from the specific patient from the expert testimony provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    411 views2 pages

    Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, September 25, 1992

    Uploaded by

    Prudencio Ruiz Agacita
    The Supreme Court held that Dr. Acampado could testify as an expert witness. While physicians generally cannot disclose confidential patient information, Dr. Acampado did not reveal any information she acquired from examining or treating the petitioner. She only answered hypothetical questions based on assumed facts not related to the petitioner. Expert testimony from a physician is allowed if they do not disclose actual confidential patient information and only address hypothetical scenarios. The physician-patient privilege is intended to protect confidential disclosures for treatment, but does not apply if the physician can separate knowledge from the specific patient from the expert testimony provided.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    6. Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

    91114, September 25, 1992


    Facts:
    Petitioner Nelly Lim and private respondent are lawfully married to each other until Private respondent
    filed with the RTC of Pangasinan, a petition for annulment of such marriage on the ground that petitioner
    has been allegedly suffering from a schizophrenia “before, during and after the marriage and until the
    present.” After the issues were joined and the pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued.

    Private respondent’s counsel announced that he would present as his next witness the Chief of the Female
    Services of the National Mental Hospital, Dr. Lydia Acampado, a Doctor of Medicine who specializes in
    Psychiatry. Petitioner’s counsel opposed the motion on the ground that the testimony sought to be elicited
    from the witness is privileged since the latter had examined the petitioner in a professional capacity and
    had diagnosed her to be suffering from schizophrenia.

    Petitioner's counsel argued that having seen and examined the petitioner in a professional capacity, Dr.
    Acampado is barred from testifying under the rule on the confidentiality of a physician-patient
    relationship. Counsel for private respondent contended, however, that Dr. Acampado would be presented
    as an expert witness and would not testify on any information acquired while attending to the petitioner in
    a professional capacity.

    The trial court denied the motion and allowed the witness to testify. Dr. Acampado thus took the witness
    stand, was qualified by counsel for private respondent as an expert witness and was asked hypothetical
    questions related to her field of expertise. She neither revealed the illness she examined and treated the
    petitioner for nor disclosed the results of her examination and the medicines she had prescribed.

    Petitioner filed with the public respondent Court of Appeals a petition to prohibit him from proceeding
    with the reception of Dr. Acampado’s testimony. However, the Court of Appeals promulgated a
    resolution denying due course to the petition.

    Issue:
    Whether or not Dr. Acampado should be allowed to testify.

    HELD:
    Yes. Though generally under
    The law in point is paragraph (c), Section 24 of the Revised Rules on Evidence which reads:

    “SEC. 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication.―The following persons cannot


    testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases: x x x

    (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.”

    This rule on the physician-patient privilege is intended to facilitate and make safe full and confidential
    disclosure by the patient to the physician of all facts, circumstances and symptoms, untrammeled by
    apprehension of their subsequent and enforced disclosure and publication on the witness stand, to the end
    that the physician may form a correct opinion, and be enabled safely and efficaciously to treat his patient.
    It rests in public policy and is for the general interest of the community.
    The SC held after a careful scrutiny of the transcript of Dr. Acampado’s testimony, We find no
    declaration that touched or disclosed any information which she has acquired from her patient, Nelly Lim,
    during the period she attended her patient in a professional capacity. Although she testified that she
    examined and interviewed the patient, she did not disclose anything she obtained in the course of her
    examination, interview and treatment of her patient. Given a set of facts and asked a hypothetical
    question, Dr. Acampado rendered an opinion regarding the history and behaviour of the fictitious
    character in the hypothetical problem. The facts and conditions alleged in the hypothetical problem did
    not refer and had no bearing to whatever information or findings the doctor obtained from attending the
    patient. A physician is not disqualified to testify as an expert concerning a patient’s ailment, when he can
    disregard knowledge acquired in attending such patient and make answer solely on facts related in  the
    hypothetical question.
    Expert testimony of a physician based on hypothetical question as to cause of illness of a person whom he
    has attended is not privileged, provided the physician does not give testimony tending to disclose
    confidential information related to him in his professional capacity while attending to the patient.
    The rule on privilege (sic) communication in the relation of physician and patient proceeds from the
    fundamental assumption that the communication to deserve protection must be confidential in their
    origin. Confidentiality is not to be blindly implied from the mere relation of physician and patient. It
    might be implied according to circumstances of each case, taking into consideration the nature of the
    ailment and the occasion of the consultation. The claimant of the privilege has the burden of establishing
    in each instance all the facts necessary to create the privilege, including the confidential nature of the
    information given." 

    You might also like