Case Summary (G.R. No. 108854)
Petitioner
Ma. Paz Fernandez Krohn, who seeks to enjoin disclosure of her psychiatric evaluation report on grounds of physician–patient privilege and to have her “Statement for the Record” admitted.
Respondent
Edgar Krohn, Jr., who relies on the psychiatric evaluation report to establish his wife’s psychological incapacity as ground for annulment, and the Court of Appeals, which denied relief.
Key Dates
• June 14, 1964 – Marriage solemnized at Saint Vincent de Paul Church, Manila
• 1971 – Ma. Paz undergoes psychological testing
• 1973 – Spouses separate in fact
• November 2, 1978 – Church tribunal grants nullity on psychological incapacity ground
• July 10, 1979 – Decree confirmed as final
• July 30, 1982 – Regional Trial Court grants dissolution of conjugal partnership
• October 23, 1990 – Edgar files civil petition for annulment before the Regional Trial Court of Makati
• May 8–29, 1991 – Hearing on admissibility of evaluation report and related motions
• June 4, 1991 – Trial court orders admission of report and strikes petitioner’s “Statement for the Record”
• October 30, 1992 – Court of Appeals affirms trial court order
• February 5, 1993 – Motion for reconsideration denied
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision rendered in 1994)
• Rule 130, Section 24(c), Rules of Court – physician–patient privilege in civil cases
• Lim v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 91114, September 25, 1992 – requisites for invoking physician–patient privilege
Procedural History
Edgar obtained a confidential psychiatric evaluation of Ma. Paz in 1975 and used it in his 1978 church nullity petition. In his 1990 civil annulment petition, he again invoked the same report. Ma. Paz objected to its admissibility for violating physician–patient privilege and filed a “Statement for the Record.” The trial court overruled her objection, admitted the report, and struck her statement. The Court of Appeals dismissed her petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal.
Trial Court’s Order on Psychiatric Report
The trial court held that:
- The report was material to the sole issue of psychological incapacity.
- The wife’s initial failure to object on privilege grounds in the petition constituted waiver.
- Edgar could testify on its contents without prejudice to further challenges at trial.
Appellate Decision
The Court of Appeals denied relief, agreeing that the privilege under Rule 130(c) applies only to physicians and not to third parties such as the husband, and that petitioner had waived any objection by not timely raising it.
Issues for Review
- Whether a third party (the husband) is barred by Rule 130(c) from testifying about a confidential psychiatric report prepared by a physician.
- Whether petitioner’s “Statement for the Record” should be admitted.
Petitioner’s Arguments
• The physician–patient privilege should extend to any third-party disclosure by a spouse, to preserve confidentiality and encourage full disclosure to the physician.
• Failure of the physician to testify does not permit the husband to introduce privileged communications indirectly.
• The “Statement for the Record” simply reiterates denials in her Answer and should not have been stricken.
Respondent’s Arguments
• Rule 130(c) explicitly limits the privilege to physicians; it does not bar nonphysicians from testifying.
• The wife waived privilege by previously consenting to use of the report in the church nullity proceeding and by failing to timely object in the annulment petition.
• The “Statement for the Record” is a de facto
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 108854)
Facts of the Case
- Edgar Krohn, Jr. and Ma. Paz Fernandez were married on June 14, 1964 at Saint Vincent de Paul Church in San Marcelino, Manila.
- The marriage produced three children: Edgar Johannes, Karl Wilhelm, and Alexandra.
- By 1971, the marital relationship had deteriorated, prompting Ma. Paz to undergo psychological testing.
- The psychological testing did not improve their relationship; the couple separated in fact in 1973.
- In 1975, Edgar secured a copy of Ma. Paz’s confidential psychiatric evaluation report prepared by Drs. Cornelio Banaag, Jr., and Baltazar Reyes.
Procedural History
- November 2, 1978: Edgar obtained a decree of nullity from the Tribunal Metropolitanum Matrimoniale in Manila, citing “incapacitas assumendi onera conjugalia” due to psychological incapacity.
- July 10, 1979: The decree was confirmed and declared “Final and Definite.”
- July 30, 1982: The Court of First Instance of Pasig granted the voluntary dissolution of the conjugal partnership.
- October 23, 1990: Edgar filed a petition for annulment of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 144).
- May 8, 1991: At the hearing, Edgar attempted to testify on the contents of the psychiatric report; Ma. Paz objected based on physician–patient privilege.
- May 10, 1991: Ma. Paz filed a Manifestation and Statement for the Record reiterating her objection and denying any psychological incapacity.
- May 29, 1991: Edgar opposed the motion to disallow the report and moved to strike Ma. Paz’s Statement for the Record.
- June 4, 1991: The trial court admitted the psychiatric report into evidence and overruled Ma. Paz’s objections.
- November 27, 1991: The trial court denied her motion for reconsideration and ordered the Statement for the Record stricken.
- October 30, 1992: The Court of Appeals dismissed Ma. Paz’s petition for certiorari; its denial of the motion for reconsideration followed on February 5, 1993.
- June