Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 81 views

    Remedial Law Notes: Nelly Lim Vs Court of Appeals Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Eman Esmer
    This case digest discusses the physician-patient privilege in the context of a legal case. It provides the requirements for claiming physician-patient privilege and summarizes a case where a doctor was called as an expert witness to testify regarding a patient. The court found that physician-patient privilege did not apply because the doctor did not disclose any confidential patient information and was testifying as an expert, not based on treating the patient. The court also found that privilege was waived by the patient's failure to properly object during testimony.

    Copyright:

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

    Remedial Law Notes: Nelly Lim Vs Court of Appeals Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Eman Esmer
    81 views1 page
    This case digest discusses the physician-patient privilege in the context of a legal case. It provides the requirements for claiming physician-patient privilege and summarizes a case where a doctor was called as an expert witness to testify regarding a patient. The court found that physician-patient privilege did not apply because the doctor did not disclose any confidential patient information and was testifying as an expert, not based on treating the patient. The court also found that privilege was waived by the patient's failure to properly object during testimony.

    Original Description:

    Dd

    Original Title

    Hh

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case digest discusses the physician-patient privilege in the context of a legal case. It provides the requirements for claiming physician-patient privilege and summarizes a case where a doctor was called as an expert witness to testify regarding a patient. The court found that physician-patient privilege did not apply because the doctor did not disclose any confidential patient information and was testifying as an expert, not based on treating the patient. The court also found that privilege was waived by the patient's failure to properly object during testimony.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    81 views1 page

    Remedial Law Notes: Nelly Lim Vs Court of Appeals Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    Eman Esmer
    This case digest discusses the physician-patient privilege in the context of a legal case. It provides the requirements for claiming physician-patient privilege and summarizes a case where a doctor was called as an expert witness to testify regarding a patient. The court found that physician-patient privilege did not apply because the doctor did not disclose any confidential patient information and was testifying as an expert, not based on treating the patient. The court also found that privilege was waived by the patient's failure to properly object during testimony.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Remedial Law Notes

    ! "

    Nelly Lim vs Court of Appeals Case Digest


    In order that the disqualification by reason of
    physician-patient privilege be successfully claimed,
    the following requisites should concur: (1) the privilege
    is claimed in a civil case; (2) the person against whom
    the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to
    practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics; (3) such
    person acquired the information while he was
    attending to the patient in his professional capacity; (4)
    the information was necessary to enable him to act in
    that capacity; (5) the information was confidential and if
    disclosed, would blacken the reputation of the patient.

    Facts:

    Juan filed a petition for annulment of his marriage with


    Nelly on the ground that the latter has been allegedly
    suffering from a mental illness called schizophrenia
    "before, during and after the marriage and until the
    present." During trial, Juan's counsel announced that he
    would present as his next witness Dr. Lydia Acampado, a
    Doctor of Medicine who specializes in Psychiatry. Said
    counsel forthwith orally applied for the issuance of a
    subpoena ad testificandum. Nelly'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 Nelly in a professional capacity and had
    diagnosed her to be suffering from schizophrenia. Juan's
    counsel contended, however, that Dr. Acampado would be
    presented as an expert witness and would not testify on
    any information acquired while attending to Nelly 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 as an expert witness and
    was asked hypothetical questions related to her field of
    expertise. She neither revealed the illness she examined
    and treated Nelly for nor disclosed the results of her
    examination and the medicines she had prescribed.

    Issues:

    1. Was the information given by the physician in her


    testimony in open court a privileged communication?

    2. Was there a waiver of the privilege?

    Held:

    1. No. The physician may be considered to be acting in his


    professional capacity when he attends to the patient for
    curative, preventive, or palliative treatment. Thus, only
    disclosures which would have been made to the physician
    to enable him "safely and efficaciously to treat his patient"
    are covered by the privilege. It is to be emphasized that "it
    is the tenor only of the communication that is privileged.
    The mere fact of making a communication, as well as the
    date of a consultation and the number of consultations,
    are therefore not privileged from disclosure, so long as the
    subject communicated is not stated." One who claims this
    privilege must prove the presence of these
    aforementioned requisites.

    Dr. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert


    witness. She did not disclose anything obtained in the
    course of her examination, interview and treatment of the
    petitioner; moreover, the facts and conditions alleged in
    the hypothetical problem did not refer to and had no
    bearing on whatever information or findings the doctor
    obtained while attending to the patient. There is, as well,
    no showing that Dr. Acampado’s answers to the questions
    propounded to her relating to the hypothetical problem
    were influenced by the information obtained from the
    petitioner. Otherwise stated, her expert opinion
    excluded whatever information or knowledge she had
    about the petitioner which was acquired by reason of
    the physician-patient relationship existing between
    them. As an expert witness, her testimony before the trial
    court cannot then be excluded.

    2. Yes. While it may be true that counsel for the petitioner


    opposed the oral request for the issuance of a subpoena
    ad testificandum to Dr. Acampado and filed a formal
    motion for the quashal of the said subpoena a day before
    the witness was to testify, the petitioner makes no claim in
    any of her pleadings that her counsel had objected to any
    question asked of the witness on the ground that it elicited
    an answer that would violate the privilege, despite the trial
    court’s advise that said counsel may interpose his
    objection to the testimony "once it becomes apparent that
    the testimony, sought to be elicited is covered by the
    privileged communication rule." The particular portions of
    the stenographic notes of the testimony of Dr. Acampado
    quoted in the petitioner’s Petition and Memorandum, and
    in the private respondent’s Memorandum, do not at all
    show that any objections were interposed. Even granting
    ex gratia that the testimony of Dr. Acampado could be
    covered by the privilege, the failure to seasonably object
    thereto amounted to a waiver thereof. (Nelly Lim vs.
    CA, G.R. No. 91114. September 25, 1992)

    Share

    ‹ ›

    CIVIL PROCEDURE

    Rule 1 - General Provision


    Rule 2 - Cause of Action
    Rule 3 - Parties to Civil Actions
    Rule 4 - Venue of Actions
    Rule 5 - Uniform Procedure in Trial Courts
    Rule 6 - Kinds of Pleadings
    Rule 7 - Parts of a Pleading
    Rule 8 - Manner of Making Allegations in Pleadings
    Rule 9 - Effect of Failure to Plead
    Rule 10 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
    Rule 11 - When to File Responsive Pleadings
    Rule 12 - Bill of Particulars
    Rule 13 - Filing and Service of Pleadings, Judgments and Other
    Papers
    Rule 14 - Summons
    Rule 15 - Motions
    Rule 16 - Motion to Dismiss
    Rule 17 - Dismissal of Actions
    Rule 18 - Pre-Trial
    Rule 19 - Intervention
    Rule 20 - Calendar of Cases
    Rule 21 - Subpoena
    Rule 22 - Computation of Time
    Rule 23 - Depositions Pending Action
    Rule 24 - Depositions Before Action or Pending Appeal
    Rule 25 - Interrogatories to Parties
    Rule 26 - Admission by Adverse Party
    Rule 27 - Production or Inspection of Documents or Things
    Rule 28 - Physical and Mental Examination of Persons
    Rule 29 - Refusal to Comply with Modes of Discovery
    Rule 30 - Trial
    Rule 31 - Consolidation or Severance
    Rule 32 - Trial by Commissioner
    Rule 33 - Demurrer to Evidence
    Rule 34 - Judgment on the Pleadings
    Rule 35 - Summary Judgments
    Rule 36 - Judgments, Final Orders and Entry Thereof
    Rule 37 - New Trial or Reconsiderations
    Rule 38 - Relief from Judgments, Orders, or Other Proceedings
    Rule 39 - Execution, Satisfaction and Effect of Judgments
    Rule 40 - Appeal From Municipal Trial Courts to the RTCs
    Rule 41 - Appeal From The Regional Trial Courts
    Rule 42 - Petition for Review From the RTCs to the CA
    Rule 43 - Appeals From the CTA & Quasi-Judicial Agencies to
    the CA
    Rule 44 - Ordinary Appealed Cases
    Rule 45 - Appeal by Certiorari to the Supreme Court
    Rule 46 - Original Cases
    Rule 47 - Annulment of Judgments of Final Orders and
    Resolutions
    Rule 48 - Preliminary Conference
    Rule 49 - Oral Argument
    Rule 50 - Dismissal of Appeal
    Rule 51 - Judgment
    Rule 52 - Motion for Reconsideration
    Rule 53 - New Trial
    Rule 54 - Internal Business
    Rule 55 - Publications of Judgments and Final Resolutions
    Rule 56 - Original / Appealed Cases

    PROVISIONAL REMEDIES

    Rule 57 - Preliminary Attachment


    Rule 58 - Preliminary Injunction
    Rule 59 - Receivership
    Rule 60 - Replevin
    Rule 61 - Support Pendente Lite

    SPECIAL CIVIL ACTIONS

    Rule 62 - Interpleader
    Rule 63 - Declaratory Relief & Similar Remedies
    Rule 64 - Review of Judgments and Final Orders or Resolutions
    of the COMELEC and the COA
    Rule 65 - Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
    Rule 66 - Quo Warranto
    Rule 67 - Expropriation
    Rule 68 - Foreclosure of Real Estate Mortgage
    Rule 69 - Partition
    Rule 70 - Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
    Rule 71 - Contempt

    CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

    Rule 110 - Prosecution of Offenses


    Rule 111 - Prosecution of Civil Action
    Rule 112 - Preliminary Investigation
    Rule 113 - Arrest
    Rule 114 - Bail
    Rule 115 - Rights of the Accused
    Rule 116 - Arraignment and Plea
    Rule 117 - Motion to Quash
    Rule 118 - Pre-Trial
    Rule 119 - Trial
    Rule 120 - Judgment
    Rule 121 - New Trial or Reconsideration
    Rule 122 - Appeal
    Rule 123 - Procedure in the MTCs
    Rule 124 - Procedure in the Court of Appeals
    Rule 125 - Procedure in the Supreme Court
    Rule 126 - Search and Seizure
    Rule 127 - Provisional Remedies in Crim Cases

    EVIDENCE

    Rule 128 - General Provisions


    Rule 129 - What Need Not Be Proved
    Rule 130 - Rules of Admissibility
    Rule 131 - Burden of Proof and Presumptions
    Rule 132 - Presentation of Evidence
    Rule 133 - Weight and Sufficiency of Evidence
    Rule 134 - Perpetuation of Testimony

    Created By Sora Templates | Distributed By Gooyaabi Templates

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy