H.C. Liebnow vs. Phil. Vegetable Oil Co., G.R. No. L-13463, November 9, 1918
H.C. Liebnow vs. Phil. Vegetable Oil Co., G.R. No. L-13463, November 9, 1918
H.C. Liebnow vs. Phil. Vegetable Oil Co., G.R. No. L-13463, November 9, 1918
When the case was called for hearing the attorney for the defendant moved The power to require the production of books, documents, and papers by
the court to vacate this subpoena on the ground that the plaintiff was not means of the subpoena duces tecum is one which is undoubtedly capable of
entitled to require the production of the documents called for. The court abuse and one which, if improperly used, causes great annoyance, not to say,
reserved the matter for later determination and in the end ruled that the expense to the person against whom it is directed. If the use of the
evidence which the plaintiff sought to elicit was irrelevant. The witness was subpoenaduces tecum were in practice confined to the office of compelling the
therefore excused from producing the papers mentioned in the production of documents and papers which are directly related to the issues in
subpoena duces tecum and the plaintiff duly excepted. a case, occasions for complaint would be infrequent. However, in modern
business it is sometimes necessary for litigants to have access to voluminous
materials. Journals, ledgers, cashbooks, invoice books, and account books
According to the plaintiff's theory of the case, he was entitled to a bonus the
pertaining to the business of large enterprises may have to be examined. To
amount of which should be determined by the court with a view to the
enforce the production of these great piles of material unconditionally in court
usefulness and efficiency which he had exhibited in the course of his
would in many cases operate with unreasonable hardship on the party against
employment; and he insists that the profits earned by the defendant during the
whom the subpoena is issued and not infrequently the step would be barren
time he was employed as superintendent of the Nagtahan factory are relevant
of results to the person seeking to examine them. Such procedure is not to be
in determining the amount to be thus awarded. For reasons already stated,
encouraged; and it is the duty of the court, in such a situation, to control the
this contention is untenable; and we are of the opinion that the court committed
process so as to make it conformable to law and justice. (Subsection 7, section
no error in refusing to compel the production of the documents and records in
11, Code of Civil Procedure.) The motion to vacate or set aside the subpoena
question. The right to the bonus was wholly independent of the profits, and the
gives the court the requisite opportunity to examine the issues raised by the
amount of the profits could not properly be taken into consideration by the court
pleadings in the cause and to consider not only the relevancy of the evidence
at all.
which is to be elicited but also to consider whether an order for the production
of the document would constitute an unlawful invasion of privacy.
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
In determining whether the production of the documents described in a
witness shall bring with him and produce at the examination the books,
subpoena duces tecum should be enforced by the court, it is proper to
documents, or things described in the subpoena. It is issued in the same
manner as the ordinary subpoena, and is procurable from the clerk as of consider, first, whether the subpoena calls for the production of specific
course without application to the court. Section 402 of the Code of Civil documents, or rather for specific proof, and secondly, whether that proof
is prima facie sufficiently relevant to justify enforcing its production. A general
Procedure says that the subpoena duces tecum may be used to compel the
inquisitorial examination of all the books, papers, and documents of an
witness to bring any book, document, or other thing under his control, which
adversary, conducted with a view to ascertain whether something of value may
he is bound by law to produce in evidence. The words "which he is bound by
not show up, will not be enforced. (Street, Federal Equity Practice, vol. 2, sec.
law to produce in evidence" indicate a limitation upon the exigency of the writ;
1844.) No court, it is needless to say, would punish a witness for contempt in
and it is evident that there is this difference between the ordinary subpoena to
refusing to obey a subpoena duces tecum the issuance of which has been
testify an the subpoena duces tecum, namely, that while the person to whom
procured with such end in view.
the subpoena to testify is directed is bound absolutely and without qualification
to appear in response to the subpoena, the person to whom the
subpoena duces tecum is directed is bound only in so far as he is required by We observe in conclusion that where a party has any legitimate reason for
law to produce the documents in evidence. inspecting the voluminous documents of an adversary, it is usually more to the
purpose to ask the court, before the hearing, for an order requiring such
adversary to submit his books and records for examination under such
reasonable condition as the court may specify. If necessary, an expert can
then be set to work; and the result of his examination can be submitted to the
court in a form at once intelligible and helpful. In the case before us if the
documents called for had been produced in the court room, both the court and
the attorneys alike would have been helpless to discover from the
unsystematized mass the particular facts intended to be proved by them; and
in the end it would have been necessary to adjourn the hearing and call in an
accountant to make the needed examination. While we do not wish to be
understood as attempting to lay down any hard and fast rule upon such a
matter, we merely suggest that it is an abuse of legal process to use the
subpoena duces tecum to produce in court material which cannot be properly
utilized by the court in determining the issues of the case; and in cases of this
kind the litigant should be required to resort to some other procedure in order
properly to place before the court the evidence upon which the case should be
decided.