Psychological Incapacity

[LIM VS. COURT OF APPEALS]

NELLY LIM VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND JUAN SIM Psychiatrist as an expert witness Ponente: Davide, J. Facts: Lim (F) and Sim (M) filed a petition for annulment of marriage Sim file a petition for annulment of marriage on the ground that Lim is suffereing schizophrenia before, during and after the marriage until present. Sim presented 3 witnesses before testifying as a witness himself. He presented Lydia Acampado, a psychiatrist Lim opposed the motion for the testimony sought to be elicited from the Acampado was privileged since she examined Nelly Lim professionally and had diagnosed her with Schizophrenia Lim filed a motion to quash the subpoena Lim contends that testification of Acampado would violate patient-doctor relationship; but Sim contends that the latter would stand as an expert witness RTC denied Lims petition and allowed Acampado to testify for she did not disclose any information which she acquired from the patient Hence this petition

Issue:

WON Acampado can be presented as an expert witness against the petitioner who was her patient

Ruling: Yes. Petition denied for lack of merit Ratio: 1. Acampado was presented and qualified as an expert witness since she did not disclose anything obtained in the course of her examination of Lim. o Her expert opinion excluded whatever information or knowledge she had about the petitioner which was acquired by

Psychological Incapacity

[LIM VS. COURT OF APPEALS]

reason of physician-patient relationship existing between them. Petitioner failed to prove the presence of the requisites of privilege (see case, page 9)

2. 3. 4.

The petitioner was not interviewed alone; the presence of third parties removes information from the mantle of privilege Acampado never disclosed any information from Lim that would blacken the formers character or reputation There were no objections as to the questions asked of Amparado by the petitioner Lim, and such is tantamount to a waiver.

The doctor is being summoned to court to testify respondent contends that it will violate patient doctor privilege. Doctor was being presented as an expert witness; not required to disclose anything