Krohn V CA
Krohn V CA
_______________
* FIRST DIVISION.
147
BELLOSILLO, J.:
_______________
149
_______________
150
_______________
151
_______________
152
band may testify against his wife in a civil case filed by one
against the other.
Besides, private respondent submits that privileged
communication may be waived by the person entitled
thereto, and this petitioner expressly did when she gave
her unconditional consent to the use of the psychiatric
evaluation report when it was presented to the Tribunal
Metropolitanum Matrimoniale which took it into account
among others in deciding the case and declaring their
marriage null and void. Private respondent further argues
that petitioner also gave her implied consent when she
failed to specifically object to the admissibility of the report
in her Answer where she merely described the evaluation
report as either unfounded or irrelevant. At any rate,
failure to interpose a timely objection at the earliest
opportunity to the evidence presented on privileged
matters may be construed as an implied waiver.
With regard to the Statement for the Record filed by
petitioner, private respondent posits that this in reality is
an amendment of her Answer and thus should comply with
pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court, hence, its
exclusion from the records for failure to comply with the
Rules is proper.
The treatise presented by petitioner on the privileged
nature of the communication between physician and
patient, as well as the reasons therefor, is not doubted.
Indeed, statutes making communications between
physician and patient privileged are intended to inspire
confidence in the patient and encourage him to make a full 17
disclosure to his physician of his symptoms and condition.
Consequently, this prevents the physician from making
public information that will result in humiliation,
18
embarrassment, or disgrace to the patient. For the patient
18
embarrassment, or disgrace to the patient. For the patient
should rest assured with the knowledge that the law
recognizes the communication as confidential, and guards
against the possibility of his
_______________
17 81 Am. Jur. 2d 392, citing Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Brei
(CA2 NY) 311 F2d 463, 6 FR Serv 2d 5, 100 ALR2d 634; Binder v.
Superior Court (5th Dist) 196 Cal App 3d 893, 242 Cal Rptr 231; and many
others.
18 Id., citing Post v. State (Alaska) 850 P2d 304; Binder v. Superior
Court (5th Dist), see Note 17; Steinberg v. New York Life Ins. Co., 263 45,
188 NE 152, 90 ALR 642; and many others.
153
_______________
19 Id., citing Binder v. Superior Court (5th Dist), see Note 18.
20 81 Am Jur 2d 393, citing Falcon v. Alaska Public Offices Com.
(Alaska) 570 P2d 469.
21 81 Am Jur 2d 394, citing Mavroudis v. Superior Court of San Mateo
County (1st Dist) 102 Cal App 3d 594, 162 Cal Rptr 724.
22 G.R. No. 91114, 25 September 1992, 214 SCRA 273.
154
_______________
155
concur.
o0o