Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

3. Ma. Paz Fernandez Krohn vs. Court of Appeals and Egar Krohn, Jr.

;  His testimony is not a circumvention of the prohibition because his testimony

G.R. No. 108854; 14 June 1994 cannot have the force and effect of the testimony of a physician who
examined the patient and executed the report.
FACTS:  Paz’ counsel made a fatal mistake when he failed to object to Edgar’s
 Edgar and Paz were married. However, their relationship developed into a testimony on the ground that it was hearsay but nonetheless invoked the
stormy one. Eventually, they separated in fact. privilege. As a result, he wavied his right to make such an objection and the
Prior to separation, Paz underwent psychological testing to ease the martial evidence offered may then be admitted.
strain. Edgar secured a copy of the confidential psychiatric report on Paz.  The court then enjoined the trial judge and the parties’ counsel to proceed
 He was able to obtain a final decree/conclusion from the Tribunal with the case with deliberate speed considering 3 yrs had already lapsed.
Metropolitanum Matrimoniale nullifying his church marriage with Paz on the  Indeed, there is no point in unreasonably delaying the resolution of the
ground of incapacitas assumendi onera conjugalia (incapacity to assume petition and prolonging the agony of the wedded couple who after coming out
burden of being a spouse? Ewan hahahaha) due to lack of due discretion at from a storm still have the right to a renewed blissful life either alone or in the
the time of their wedding and thereafter. He used the report as evidence to company of each other. (wala gusto ko lang isingit itong drama)
secure it.
 CFI issued an order granting the voluntary dissolution of conjugal partnership. Other matters… Paz’ counsel pushed for the privileged nature of the
 Edgar then filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with Paz on the communication between physician and patient:
ground of psychological incapacity. He cited the psychiatric report. He tried  To inspire confidence in the patient and encourage him to make a full
to testify as to the contents thereof. disclosure to his physician of his symptoms and condition;
 Paz objected to it on the ground of the privileged communication between the  To prevent the physician from making public information that will result in
physician and the patient. As such, Edgar had no legal basis for his claim. humiliation, embarrassment, or disgrace to the patient;
 Paz has since left for Spain and instructed her counsel to oppose the suit.  To create a zone of privacy, intended to preclude the humiliation of the
 CFI issued an order admitting the psychiatric report as evidence, ruling that patient that may follow the disclosure of his ailments;
the report was material in determining w/n she was suffering from psych
 CA dismissed her petition for certiorari.

ISSUE: Can the psychiatric report be admitted as evidence? Can Edgar testify as to
its contents?


 Lim v. CA lays down the requisites to invoke the privilege:

(a) the privilege is claimed in a civil case;
(b) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized
to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics;
(c) such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient
in his professional capacity;
(d) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and,
(e) the information was confidential and, if disclosed, would blacken the
reputation (formerly character) of the patient.
 Here, the person against whom the privilege is claimed aka Edgar is not one
duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics. He is simply the
patient's husband who wants to testify on a document executed by medical