RULE 21 SUBPOENA

Section 8. Compelling attendance. – In case of failure of a witness to attend, the court or

judge issuing the subpoena, upon proof of the service thereof and of the failure of the
witness, may issue a warrant to the sheriff of the province, or his deputy, to arrest the
witness and bring him before the court or officer where his attendance is required, and the
cost of such warrant and seizure of such witness shall be paid by the witness if the court
issuing it shall determine that his failure to answer the subpoena was willful; and without
just excuse.

Section 9. Contempt. – Failure by any person without adequate cause to obey a subpoena
served upon him shall be deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena is
issued. If the subpoena was not issued by a court, the disobedience thereto shall be
punished in accordance with the applicable law or Rule.

RULE 71 CONTEMPT

Sec. 3. Indirect contempt to be punished after charge and hearing.-After a charge in writing
has been filed, and an opportunity given to the respondent to comment thereon within
such period as may be fixed by the court and to be heard by himself or counsel, a person
guilty of any of the following acts may be punished for indirect contempt:

(a) Misbehavior of an officer of a court in the performance of his official duties or in his
official transactions;
(b) Disobedience of or resistance to a lawful writ, process, order, or judgment of a court,
including the act of a person who, after being dispossessed or ejected from any real
property by the judgment or process of any court of competent jurisdiction, enters or
attempts or induces another to enter into or upon such real property, for the purpose of
executing acts of ownership or possession, or in any manner disturbs the possession given
to the person adjudged to be entitled thereto;
(c) Any abuse of or any unlawful interference with the processes or proceedings of a court
not constituting direct contempt under section 1 of this Rule;
(d) Any improper conduct tending, directly or indirectly, to impede, obstruct, or degrade
the administration of justice;
(e) Assuming to be an attorney or an officer of a court, and acting as such without
authority;
(f) Failure to obey a subpoena duly served;
(g) The rescue, or attempted rescue, of a person or property in the custody of an officer by
virtue of an order or process of a court held by him.
But nothing in this section shall be so construed as to prevent the court from issuing
process to bring the respondent into court, or from holding him in custody pending such
proceedings. (3a)

Sec. 7. Punishment for indirect contempt.-If the respondent is adjudged guilty of indirect
contempt committed against a Regional Trial Court or a court of equivalent or higher rank,
he may be punished by a fine not exceeding thirty thousand pesos or imprisonment not
exceeding six (6) months, or both. If he is adjudged guilty of contempt committed against a
lower court, he may be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos or
imprisonment not exceeding one (1) month, or both. If the contempt consists in the
violation of a writ of injunction, temporary restraining order or status quo order, he may
also be ordered to make complete restitution to the party injured by such violation of the
property involved or such amount as may be alleged and proved.

The writ of execution, as in ordinary civil actions, shall issue for the enforcement of a
judgment imposing a fine unless the court otherwise provides. (6a)

Sec. 8. Imprisonment until order obeyed.-When the contempt consists in the refusal or
omission to do an act which is yet in the power of the respondent to perform, he may be
imprisoned by order of the court concerned until he performs it. (7a)

“Thus, although the City Fiscal and his assistants have the power to issue
subpoenas and summon witnesses to testify, the attendance or evidence of
an absent or refractory witness can be enforced only by application to the
proper Municipal Court or Court of First Instance. This is obviously intended
to give the person subpoenaed a chance to question the validity, propriety
and reasonableness of the subpoena. It may be noted that in case of
subpoena duces tecum issued by a court, the person subpoenaed may move
for the quashal thereof if it is unreasonable or oppressive, or the relevancy of
the books, documents or things sought to be produced does not appear, or if
the person in whose behalf the subpoena's issued fails to advance the
reasonable cost of the production thereof (Section 4, Rule 23, of the Revised
Rules of Court, formerly Section 4, Rule 29). If the person subpoenaed may
question the propriety of a writ issued by the Court, then in the same manner
he should be afforded the opportunity to question the propriety and
reasonableness of a similar process issued by the City Fiscal or by an
assistant of his. And this chance is afforded him when the latter applies to the
proper court for enforcement of the subpoena thus issued. 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 PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AGAINST MRS.
DOLORES H. SISON, ALFREDO V. CRUZ, JR. vs. MRS. DOLORES H. SISON, G.R.
No. L-15902, December 23, 1964)