Josine Alexandra S.

Gamboa 2010-78835 Remedial Law Review What is the difference between subpoena duces tecum and Rule 27 Production or Inspection of Documents or Things? Subpoena duces tecum, according to Section 1 of Rule 21 of the Rules of Courti, is a process undertaken to direct a person to present to the Court documentary or other object evidence within his control. Section 2 of Rule 21ii of the Rules of Court enumerates those who may issue the subpoena. This may be issued ex parte by a court, an authorized officer or body, or any Justice of the Supreme Court or Court of Appeals. A party may also file a Request for Subpoena Duces Tecum in order to have the court issue an order, as seen in the case of Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,Inc. v. Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation iii. A subpoena is issued only once at the start for the court to acquire jurisdiction and need not necessarily show good cause for the order to be issued. It may be issued to a party to the case or any person including a non-party. It is usually used as a means of compelling the production of evidence. The sanction for failure to obey the order would be contempt of court. The grounds for quashing the motion for subpoena duces tecum are expressly stated in Sec. 4, Rule 21 of the Rules of Courtiv, which are by reason of unreasonableness and oppressiveness, irrelevancy or the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued does not cover the reasonable costs. On the other hand, Section 1 of Rule 27 of the Rules of Courtv explains the motion and order for the production or inspection of documents or things under this particular rule. Like the subpoena duces tecum, a party to the case files a motion with notice to the adverse party and the court, upon finding that the evidence to be produced is material, issues an order directing another party to produce or allow for inspection documentary or object evidence. However, unlike the subpoena duces tecum, Rule 27 may be issued for compliance to a party only and may not be issued to direct a non-party. Unlike the subpoena duces tecum that is issued only once, Rule 27 may be availed of throughout the pendency of an action, as discussed in the case of Philippine International Air Terminals Co.,Inc. v. Takenaka Corporation and Asahikosan Corporation vi. This is essentially used as a mode of discovery. Upon failure to obey this order, contempt or other sanctions may be imposed by the court. Lastly, unlike the subpoena duces tecum, the

grounds for quashal of the motion under Rule 27 are not expressly stated in the Rules of Court. However, deducing from the fact that good cause needs to be shown for the court to issue an order under Rule 27, quashal of the motion may be on the grounds that there is no good cause for the issuance of the order.

RULES OF COURT, Rule 27, Sec.1 RULES OF COURT, Rule 27, Sec. 2 G.R. No. 180245, July 4, 2012. RULES OF COURT., Rule 21, Sec.4 RULES OF COURT, Rule 27, Sec.1 G.R. No. 180245, July 4, 2012.

ii

iii

iv

vi