Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Domingo Roco Vs Hon. Contreras Rem - Rev
Domingo Roco Vs Hon. Contreras Rem - Rev
Facts:
1. Petitioner Roco was engaged in the business of buying and selling of dressed chicken,
thereby, he purchased his supply to respondent Cals Poultry managed by Danilo Yap. He
issued five (5) PDC as his payment.
2. When Cals Poultry deposited the said checks, it was then dishonored having been against a
closed account. With this, respondent filed a case in violation of BP 22 Law.
3. Roco filed a case before the BIR against Cals Poultry stating that it violated the NIRC Code
for not issuing Official Receipt, however, said case was dismissed by the BIR stating that
issuance of a sales invoice will be given upon full payment of the customer to its purchases.
4. The MTCC - Roxas ruled in favor of the Cals Poultry even without the evidence of Roco
hence he filed an appeal before the RTC. The RTC agreed to Roco thereby it remanded the
case to MTC for proper hearing of the case and to allow Roco to present his evidence.
5. Subsequent to the pending of the criminal case, Roco filed with the MTCC a Request for
Issuance of Subpoena Ad Testificandum and Subpoena Duces Tecum, for the personal
appearance of Yap et.al. And to bring with them certain enumerated documents.
6. The MTCC, RTC and the CA were all denied said request, hence, petition before the Court.
Issue:
Whether or not the three (3) courts committed reversible error in denying Roco's request for
the issuance of subpoena ad testificandum and subpoena duces tecum in connection with the
five (5) criminal cases for violation of BP 22 filed against him.
Ruling:
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 facierelevant 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).
In determining whether the production of the documents described in a subpoena duces
tecum should be enforced by the court, it is proper to consider, first, whether the subpoena
calls for the production of specific documents, or rather for specific proof, and secondly,
whether that proof is prima facie sufficiently relevant to justify enforcing its production. A
general inquisitorial examination of all the books, papers, and documents of an adversary,
conducted with a view to ascertain whether something of value may not show up, will not be
enforced.
The Court reiterated the following discussions regarding violations of BP 22: what the law
punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check not the purpose for which it was issued nor
the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a worthless check is
malum prohibitum.
Based on the records below and as correctly pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner
had been issued by Cals Corporation with temporary receipts in the form of yellow pad slips
of paper evidencing his payments, which pad slips had been validated by the corporation
itself. Clear it is, then, that the production of the books and documents requested by
petitioner are not indispensable to prove his defense of payment.
In short, the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum or ad testificandum to compel the attendance of
Vivian Deocampo or Danilo Yap of Cals Corporation or their duly authorized representatives,
to testify and bring with them the records and documents desired by the petitioner, would
serve no purpose but to further delay the proceedings in the pending criminal cases.