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.”
