FACTS:

On February 6, 2006, petitioner Josielene filed a petition to nullify her marriage to respondent Johnny, dissolve their conjugal partnership of gains, and obtain custody of their children. She claimed Johnny failed to care for and support their family and that he was mentally deficient due to excessive drinking and drug use. Josielene convinced Johnny to undergo hospital confinement for detoxification and rehabilitation. Johnny resisted the action and alleged that Josielene failed in her wifely duties. During the pre-trial conference, Josielene requested the subpoena duces tecum for Johnny's medical records from his hospital confinement. Johnny opposed the motion, asserting that the medical records were protected by the physician-patient privilege. The trial court denied Josielene's motion, prompting her to file a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals sided with Johnny, ruling that the medical records were covered by the privileged character of physician-patient communication. Dissatisfied with the decision, Josielene appealed the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the trial court correctly denied the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering Johnny's hospital records on the ground that these are covered by the privileged character of the physician-patient communication.

RULING:

1. The CA did not err in ruling that the trial court correctly denied the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum covering Johnny's hospital records. The Supreme Court held that the physician-patient privileged communication rule applies, and the hospital records are deemed privileged. Such records cannot be disclosed without the consent of the patient, and doing so would violate the rule intended to ensure that patients can communicate freely with their physicians without fear that their disclosures could be used against them in the future. The request for a subpoena duces tecum was premature as objections to the admission of evidence should be made at trial. Furthermore, disclosing the hospital records through discovery procedures would be equivalent to compelling the physician to testify on privileged matters, which is not allowed.

PRINCIPLES:

• Physician-Patient Privilege: Section 24(c), Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence prohibits the examination of a physician in a civil case without the patient's consent regarding any advice or treatment given by the physician or any information acquired while attending the patient.

• Premature Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum: Section 36, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence states that objections to evidence must be made after the offer of such evidence at trial.

• Discovery Limitation: Section 1, Rule 27 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the production of documents but excludes privileged documents.

• Waiver of Privilege Through Partial Disclosure: Section 17, Rule 132 of the Rules of Evidence, implies that when a party presents part of a document, the rest of the document may be inquired into by the other party. However, this principle applies during the trial and not in the pre-trial stages.