Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 166 views

    Krohn V CA

    Uploaded by

    Kirsten Denise B. Habawel-Vega
    1) The case involved a petition for annulment of marriage filed by Edgar against Ma. Paz. Edgar cited and sought to testify about a confidential psychiatric evaluation report of Ma. Paz prepared by physicians. 2) Ma. Paz objected to the report and testimony, claiming they violated the physician-patient privilege. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the report. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the physician-patient privilege did not apply because Edgar, who sought to testify, was not a physician. His testimony about the report could not have the same force and effect as testimony from the physicians themselves.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Krohn V CA

    Uploaded by

    Kirsten Denise B. Habawel-Vega
    166 views2 pages
    1) The case involved a petition for annulment of marriage filed by Edgar against Ma. Paz. Edgar cited and sought to testify about a confidential psychiatric evaluation report of Ma. Paz prepared by physicians. 2) Ma. Paz objected to the report and testimony, claiming they violated the physician-patient privilege. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the report. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the physician-patient privilege did not apply because Edgar, who sought to testify, was not a physician. His testimony about the report could not have the same force and effect as testimony from the physicians themselves.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    (3) Krohn v CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The case involved a petition for annulment of marriage filed by Edgar against Ma. Paz. Edgar cited and sought to testify about a confidential psychiatric evaluation report of Ma. Paz prepared by physicians. 2) Ma. Paz objected to the report and testimony, claiming they violated the physician-patient privilege. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the report. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the physician-patient privilege did not apply because Edgar, who sought to testify, was not a physician. His testimony about the report could not have the same force and effect as testimony from the physicians themselves.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    166 views2 pages

    Krohn V CA

    Uploaded by

    Kirsten Denise B. Habawel-Vega
    1) The case involved a petition for annulment of marriage filed by Edgar against Ma. Paz. Edgar cited and sought to testify about a confidential psychiatric evaluation report of Ma. Paz prepared by physicians. 2) Ma. Paz objected to the report and testimony, claiming they violated the physician-patient privilege. The trial court overruled the objection and admitted the report. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the physician-patient privilege did not apply because Edgar, who sought to testify, was not a physician. His testimony about the report could not have the same force and effect as testimony from the physicians themselves.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Krohn v.

    CA By: Ong
    G.R. No. 108854 Topic: Disqualification by Reason of Privileged
    June 14, 1994 Communication
    Ponente: Bellosillo
    DOCTRINE
     In order that the physician-patient privilege may be successfully invoked:
    o (a) the privilege is claimed in a civil cases;
    o (b) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
    obstetrics;
    o (c) such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his professional capacity;
    o (d) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and,
    o (e) the information was confidential and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation (formerly character) of
    the patient."
    Facts
     Edgar Krohn, Jr., and Ma. Paz Fernandez were married at the Saint Vincent de Paul Church in San Marcelino,
    Manila.
    o The union produced three children: Edgar Johannes, Karl Wilhelm and Alexandra.
    o The relationship between the couple developed into a stormy one.

     Ma. Paz underwent psychological testing purportedly in an effort to ease the martial strain. The effort however
    proved futile. In 1973, they finally separated in fact.

     Edgar was able to secure a copy of the confidential psychiatric report on Ma. Paz prepared and signed by Drs.
    Cornelio Banaag, Jr., and Baltazar Reyes.
    o Presenting the report, he obtained a decree ("Conclusion") from the Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale
    in Manila nullifying his church marriage with Ma. Paz on the ground of "incapacitas assumendi onera
    conjugalia due to lack of due discretion existent at the time of the wedding and thereafter."
    o On 10 July 1979, the decree was confirmed and pronounced "Final and Definite."

     The CFI issued an order granting the voluntary dissolution of the conjugal partnership.

     On 23 October 1990, Edgar filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with Ma. Paz before the trial court.
    o In his petition, he cited the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report.
    o Ma. Paz merely denied the report in her Answer as "either unfounded or irrelevant."

     Edgar took the witness stand and tried to testify on the contents of the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report.
    o This was objected to on the ground that it violated the rule on privileged communication between physician
    and patient.
    o Ma. Paz filed a Manifestation expressing her "continuing objection" to any evidence, oral or documentary,
    "that would thwart the physician-patient privileged communication rule,"
    o She also submitted a Statement for the Record asserting among others that:
     "there is no factual or legal basis whatsoever for petitioner (Edgar) to claim 'psychological
    incapacity' to annul their marriage, such ground being completely false, fabricated and merely an
    afterthought."
    o Before leaving for Spain where she has since resided after their separation, Ma. Paz also authorized and
    instructed her counsel to oppose the suit and pursue her counterclaim even during her absence.
     Edgar opposed Ma. Paz' motion to disallow the introduction of the confidential psychiatric report as evidence and
    moved to strike out Ma. Paz' Statement for the Record.
     Trial court: issued an Order admitting the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report in evidence
    o when the said psychiatric report was referred to in the compliant, the respondent did not object thereto on
    the ground of the supposed privileged communication between patient and physician.
    o What was raised by the respondent was that the said psychiatric report was irrelevant
     The trial court denied the Motion to Reconsider Order of Ma. Paz.
     The motion for reconsideration filed by her counsel was likewise denied.
     The CA also dismissed the petition for certiorari. The motion to reconsider was also dismissed.
     Hence, the instant petition for review.

    Issue/s
     Whether or not the testimony of Edgar, the husband, on the contents of the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation
    Report is not allowed due to the physician-patient privilege communication.

    Ruling:
     No.
     The testimony of Edgar, the husband, on the contents of the Confidential Psychiatric Evaluation Report is allowed
    because it is not covered by the physician-patient privilege communication.
     In order that the privilege may be successfully invoked:
    o (a) the privilege is claimed in a civil cases;
    o (b) the person against whom the privilege is claimed is one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
    obstetrics;
    o (c) such person acquired the information while he was attending to the patient in his professional capacity;
    o (d) the information was necessary to enable him to act in that capacity; and,
    o (e) the information was confidential and, if disclosed, would blacken the reputation (formerly character) of
    the patient."
     In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized to practice
    medicine, surgery obstetrics. He is simply the patient's husband who wishes to testify on a document executed by
    medical practitioners. Plainly and clearly, this does not fall within the claimed prohibition. Neither can his testimony
    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.

    Notes

    You might also like