Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUBPOENA
Two kinds of subpoena – “In this jurisdiction, there are two (2) kinds of subpoena, to wit: subpoena
ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum. The first is used to compel a person to testify, while the
second is used to compel the production of books, records, things or documents therein specified”
(Roco v Contreras).
a. Definition
“The subpoena duces tecum is, in all respects, like the ordinary subpoena ad testificandum
with the exception that it concludes with an injunction that the witness shall bring with him
and produce at the examination the books, documents, or things described in the subpoena”
(H.C. Liebenow v. The Philippine Vegetable Oil Company).
b. Requisites for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum – “Well-settled is the rule that
before a subpoena duces tecum may issue, the court must first be satisfied that the following
requisites are present: (1) the books, documents or other things requested must appear
prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the controversy (test of relevancy); and (2) such
books must be reasonably described by the parties to be readily identified (test of
definiteness)” (Roco v. Contreras).
c. Test of relevancy – “Under Philippine law, evidence is relevant when it relates directly to
a fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. The books, documents or
other things indicated in the subpoena duces tecum are said to be relevant if these have
reasonable connection to the facts in issue. To pass the test of relevancy, there must be a
connection between the documents sought to be produced and to the crime of plunder for
which accused Senator Estrada is being charged. Relevancy is, therefore, determinable by the
rules of logic and human experience. It deals with the rational relationship between the
evidence and the fact to be proved” (People of the Philippines v. Estrada, et al.).
“There is no precise and universal test of relevancy provided by law. However, the
determination of whether particular evidence is relevant rests largely at the discretion of the
court, which must be exercised according to the teachings of logic and everyday experience”
(People v. Galleno, 291 SCRA 761).
Requisite – “For a subpoena ad testificandum to issue, it must first appear that the person or
documents sought to be presented are prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the
controversy” (Lozada v. Macapagal-Arroyo).
Modes of service; effort required – Personal service and substituted service are the two
modes of serving a subpoena, and service shall be made in the same manner as personal or
substituted service of summons. The process server must diligently exert his best effort to
ascertain the true whereabouts of the recipient (Macaspac v. Flores).
3.13.4. Compelling attendance of witnesses; contempt
When would contempt lie? – “Should the court find the subpoena to have been properly
issued, it shall order compliance therewith, and it is only upon failure to comply that a
contempt proceeding would lie” (In re: Dolores Sison).
Issuing a subpoena on the adverse party – “As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of calling
the adverse party to the witness stand (via a subpoena) is not allowed, unless written
interrogatories are first served upon the latter.” (Spouses Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank &
Trust Co.).
3.14. MODES OF DISCOVERY
Leave of court is not required for a deposition pending action after an answer has
been served, even if such answer was filed ex abudanti cautela (Rosete v. Lim, (490 SCRA 125).
Compliance with the rules of evidence for the admissibility of a deposition pending
action – Before a party can make use of the deposition taken at the trial of a pending action,
Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court does not only require due observance of its sub-
paragraphs (a) to (d); it also requires, as a condition for admissibility, compliance with the
rules on evidence. Thus, even Section 4, Rule 23 of the Rules of Court makes an implied
reference to Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court before the deposition may be used in
evidence” (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, Africa, G.R. No. 152375).
“As a rule, in civil cases, the procedure of calling the adverse party to the witness stand is
not allowed, unless written interrogatories are first served upon the latter.” (Spouses
Afulugencia v. Metropolitan Bank & Trust Co.).
a. Burden of proof; silence – The burden of affirmative action is on the party upon whom
notice is served to avoid the admission rather than upon the party seeking the admission.
The silence of the receiving party is an admission of the facts stated in the request (Allied
Agri-business Development Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118438).
b. Counsel may make the response in the party’s behalf – When Rule 26 states that a
party shall respond to the request for admission, it should not be restrictively construed
to mean that a party may not engage the services of counsel to make the response in his
behalf (Lañada v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102390).
If the factual allegati ons in the complai nt are the very same allegations
set forth in the request for admission and have already been specifically
denied or otherwise dealt with in the ans wer, a response to the request is
no longer required ( C oncrete Aggregates Co. v. Court of Appeal s ).
b. Is consolidation mandatory? The use of the word “may” indicates that consolidation
is not mandatory and is within the sound discretion of the court (Republic v. Heirs of
Oribello, Jr., 692 SCRA 645).
d. Kinds of consolidations:
2. Actual consolidation – several actions are combined in to one, lose their separate
identity, and become a single action in which a single judgment is rendered.
3. Consolidation for trial – several actions are ordered to be tried together, but each
retains its separate character, and requires the entry of a separate judgment (Republic v.
Oribello, Jr., 692 SCRA 645).