MA. PAZ FERNANDEZ KROHN vs. COURT OF APPEALS and EDGAR KROHN, JR., G.R. No. 108854 June 14, 1994.
“X x x .
Petitioner’s discourse while exhaustive is however misplaced. Lim v. Court of Appeal, G.R. No. 91114, 25 September 1992, 214 SCRA 273, clearly lays down the requisites in order that the privilege may be successfully invoked:
(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.
In the instant case, the person against whom the privilege is claimed is not one duly authorized to practice medicine, surgery or 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.
X x x.”