KROHN v.
CA should a third person like her husband be prohibited from testifying
TOPIC: General Concept of Evidence, Disqualification by Reason of
Marriage/Privileged Communication
FACTS:
 Edgar Krohn Jr. (husband) and Maria Paz Fernandez (wife) were married on
June 14, 1964 in St. Vincent De Paul Church in Manila. They had 3 children.
 Their marriage turned sour and in 1971, the wife underwent psychological
testing purportedly in an effort to ease the marital strain. The effort however
proved futile. In 1973, they finally separated in fact.
 In 1975, the husband was able to secure a copy of the confidential
psychiatric report of the wife, as prepared and signed by Dr. Banaag and
Dr. Reyes.
o In 1975, having presented said confidential report, the husband
obtained a decree from the Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale in
Manila nullifying his church marriage with the wife on the ground of
“incapacitas assumendi onera conjugalia” due to lack of due
discretion existent at the time of the wedding and thereafter.
o In 1982, the CFI Pasig granted the voluntary dissolution of the
conjugal partnership.
 In 1990, the husband filed a petition for annulment before the the RTC Pasig
(previously the CFI), citing the confidential psychiatric report on his wife.
o In the wife’s Answer, the wife did not object to the admissibility of the
confidential report. She merely claimed that the report was
“unfounded or irrelevant”.
 During the hearing, the husband took the witness stand and tried to
testify on the contents of the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report.
o This was objected to by the wife on the ground that it violated
the rule on privileged communication between physician and
patient.
o The wife also claimed that the allegation of her psychological
incapacity was false and fabricated. During this time, the wife was
already residing in Spain and her counsel is the one opposing the
husband’s suit.
 The husband opposed the wife’s motion to disallow the introduction of the
confidential psychiatric report as evidence. Ultimately, the RTC admitted the
confidential psychiatric report in evident, ruling that:
o The very issue in the case is whether or not the wife had been
suffering from psychological incapacity and when the said psychiatric
report was referred to in the complaint, the wife did not object thereto
on the ground of the supposed privileged communication.
o The said psychiatric report is very material and may be testified to by
the husband without prejudice on the part of the wife to dispute the
said report or to cross-examine first the husband and later the
psychiatrist who prepared the same if the latter will be presented.
 After filing a Rule 65 before the CA, the CA affirmed the RTC’s order admitting
the said report in evidence. Thus this Rule 45 before the SC.
o Wife argues that since under Sec. 24, par. (c), Rule 130 prohibits a
physician from testifying on matters which he may have acquired in
attending to a patient in a professional capacity, with more reason
on privileged matters between a physician and patient or from
submitting any medical report findings or evaluation prepared by a
physician which the latter has acquired as a result of his confidential
and privileged relation with a patient.
 To rule otherwise would allow the circumvention of the
rule’s intent in preserving the sanctity, security and
confidence to the relation of physician and his patient.
o The husband argues that the prohibition under Sec. 24, par. (c), Rule
130 applies only to a physician, not to third persons like him.
 Furthermore, he argues that the wife already implied
waived said privileged communication when she did not
oppose the use of the evaluation report when it was
presented to the Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale.
Nor did she object to its admissibility in her Answer.
ISSUE: W/N the wife’s confidential psychiatric report is admissible in evidence – YES
 Rationale behind the physician-patient privileged communication: to
inspire confidence in the patient and encourage him to make a full
disclosure to his physician of his symptoms and condition.
o Prevents the physician from making public information that will result
in humiliation, embarrassment, or disgrace to the patient.
o Certain types of information communicated in the context of the
physician-patient relationship fall within the constitutionally
protected zone of privacy.
 For the physician-patient privilege to apply, the following requisites should be
met:
o The privilege is claimed in a civil case.
o The person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly
authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
o Such person acquired the information while he was attending to the
patient in his professional capacity.
o The information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity.
o The information was confidential and, if disclosed, would blacken the
reputation of the patient.
 In this case, the privilege the person against whom the privilege is claimed is
not one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics.
o He is the patient’s husband who wishes to testify on a document
executed by medical practitioners. Thus, he does not fall within the
claimed prohibition.
o His testimony cannot be considered a circumvention of the
prohibition because his testimony cannot have the force and effect
of the testimony of the physician who examined the patient and
executed the report.
 Furthermore, although the wife’s counsel filed a Manifestation invoking
the rule on privileged communications, he never objected to the
husband’s testimony as hearsay after the offer of the husband’s
testimonial evidence. (see Rule 132, Sections 35-36).
o In failing to object to the testimony on the ground that it was
hearsay, counsel waived his right to make such objection and,
consequently, the evidence offered may be admitted.