FACTS:

The petitioner and private respondent in this case are lawfully married to each other. Private respondent filed a petition for annulment of their marriage, alleging that the petitioner has been suffering from schizophrenia. During the trial, private respondent's counsel sought a subpoena requiring a psychiatrist from the National Mental Hospital, Dr. Lydia Acampado, to testify as an expert witness. Petitioner's counsel objected, citing the confidentiality of the physician-patient relationship. However, the trial court denied the motion and allowed Dr. Acampado to testify. Dr. Acampado provided testimony without divulging any privileged information. Dissatisfied with this, the petitioner filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals seeking to nullify the trial court's order. However, the Court of Appeals denied the petition. Subsequently, the petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether all the essential elements of the rule on physician-patient privileged communication exist in the case.

2. Whether Dr. Acampado was summoned as an expert witness or as an attending physician.

3. Whether Dr. Acampado disclosed any information acquired from her patient.

4. Whether petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the testimony given by Dr. Acampado.

5. Whether the physician-patient privilege applies and should prevent the disclosure of information obtained during the doctor-patient relationship.

6. Whether the testimony of the expert witness is admissible based on the physician-patient privilege.

7. Whether or not the testimony of Dr. Acampado is covered by privileged communication

8. Whether or not the failure to object to the testimony amounted to a waiver of the privilege

RULING:

1. The Court held that the respondent Court of Appeals did not commit any reversible error in its resolution. The provisions of paragraph (c), Section 24 of the Revised Rules on Evidence establishes the privilege of physician-patient communication. The requirements for successfully claiming the privilege are: (1) the privilege is claimed in a civil case; (2) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is authorized to practice medicine, surgery, or obstetrics; (3) the person acquired the information while attending to the patient in a professional capacity; (4) the information was necessary for the person to act in that capacity; and (5) the information was confidential and would blacken the reputation of the patient. The petitioner failed to establish the confidential nature of the testimony given by Dr. Acampado, thus the respondent Court of Appeals did not err in its conclusion.

2. The Supreme Court held that the physician-patient privilege does not apply in this case. The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the information disclosed by the doctor in her testimony was obtained during the doctor-patient relationship. The Court emphasized that only disclosures necessary for the safe and effective treatment of the patient are covered by the privilege, and the mere fact of communication and the date or number of consultations are not privileged. Furthermore, the Court recognized that in cases involving hypothetical questions about the physical or mental condition of a patient, a physician can give expert opinion testimony based strictly on the hypothetical facts stated, excluding their personal knowledge of the patient. It was also noted that the presence of a third party during the interviews with the physician may remove the information from the protection of the privilege.

3. The Supreme Court denied the petition for lack of merit. The Court held that even if the testimony of Dr. Acampado could be considered privileged communication, the failure to seasonably object to it amounted to a waiver of the privilege.

PRINCIPLES:

• The rule on physician-patient privilege is based on the fundamental assumption that communication between them must be confidential in their origin.

• Confidentiality is not automatically implied in the physician-patient relationship and must be shown in each instance.

• The claimant of the privilege bears the burden of establishing the facts necessary to create the privilege.

• The privilege may be waived if no timely objection is made to the physician's testimony.

• The physician-patient privilege aims to facilitate safe and full disclosure by the patient for the proper treatment by the physician.

• The privilege rests on public policy and is for the general interest of the community.

• The privilege may be successfully claimed if the requisites of civil case, authorized physician, acquisition of information in a professional capacity, necessity of the information, and confidentiality that would blacken the patient's reputation are met.

• The requisites for the privilege are necessary for the establishment of a privilege against the disclosure of certain communications.

• The injury to the relationship by the disclosure of the communications must be greater than the benefit gained for the correct disposal of litigation.

• The physician-patient privilege only applies to disclosures necessary for the safe and effective treatment of the patient.

• The privilege does not cover mere facts of communication or the date and number of consultations.

• In cases involving hypothetical questions about the patient's condition, a physician can give expert opinion testimony based solely on the hypothetical facts.

• The presence of a third party during consultations with the physician may remove the information from the protection of the privilege.

• Privileged communication is protected by law and cannot be compelled to be disclosed in court

• Failure to timely object to privileged communication may result in a waiver of the privilege