Case Digest (G.R. No. 38375)
Facts:
Jose Sy Jong Chuy, Manager of Hoa Hin & Co., Inc. v. Pablo C. Reyes, G.R. No. 38375, December 22, 1933, the Supreme Court En Banc, Malcolm, J., writing for the Court.The parties stipulated the material facts. The plaintiff-appellee, Jose Sy Jong Chuy, sued in his capacity as manager of Hoa Hin & Co., Inc., a shipbuilding corporation with average annual gross receipts of P900,000 for 1925–1928. The defendant-appellant, Pablo C. Reyes, acted as a special deputy of the Collector of Internal Revenue assigned to income-tax investigation; by law he was authorized to administer oaths, take testimony, and issue subpoenas duces tecum for internal-revenue matters.
Prior to July 14, 1930, the defendant repeatedly requested that the plaintiff bring the company’s Chinese books of account for 1925–1928 to the Internal Revenue office in the provincial building in Cebu for inspection; the plaintiff refused and offered instead to make the books available at the corporation’s offices where the defendant could examine them. On July 14, 1930, the defendant served a subpoena duces tecum (Exhibit A) commanding the plaintiff to appear on July 16, 1930 at the Bureau of Internal Revenue office in Cebu and to bring “all the commercial BOOKS OR OTHER PAPERS OF HOA HIN & CO., INC., ON WHICH ARE RECORDED YOUR TRANSACTIONS SHOWING INCOME AND EXPENSES FOR THE YEARS 1925, 1926, 1927, AND 1928, INCLUSIVE.” The subpoena was a mimeographed form and did not identify particular documents beyond that general description.
The parties later agreed (amendment, Sept. 8, 1930) that production of fifty‑three specific Chinese books — detailed by year and type (journals, ledgers, purchase and sales books) — would suffice to comply with the subpoena. The plaintiff nonetheless refused to bring the books to the Internal Revenue office and insisted that any inspection be made at the corporation’s premises. The defendant threatened contempt proceedings, and the plaintiff filed this action. The trial court (Judge Borromeo Veloso) ruled for the plaintiff, holding the su...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the special deputy have statutory authority to issue a subpoena duces tecum in the course of an Internal Revenue investigation?
- Was the subpoena duces tecum Exhibit A properly issued — i.e., sufficiently relevant and sufficiently particular so as not to amount to an unreasonabl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)