Costs of Court Attendance Under Rule 21, Section 6 of the Rules of Court in the Philippines

Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, the Rules of Court provide a structured framework for judicial proceedings, ensuring fairness, efficiency, and compliance with due process. Rule 21 governs the issuance and service of subpoenas, which are essential tools for compelling the attendance of witnesses or the production of documents in court. Specifically, Section 6 of Rule 21 addresses the service of subpoenas and includes provisions on the costs associated with court attendance. These costs, often referred to as witness fees, travel allowances (kilometrage), and production expenses, are designed to reimburse individuals for the inconvenience and expenses incurred in complying with a subpoena. This requirement underscores the principle that justice should not impose undue financial burdens on witnesses, promoting voluntary cooperation while upholding the court's authority.

This article explores all aspects of the costs of court attendance under Rule 21, Section 6, within the Philippine context. It examines the rule's text, purpose, components, exceptions, application across civil and criminal proceedings, potential consequences of non-compliance, and interconnections with other legal provisions. By delving into these elements, the discussion highlights the rule's role in balancing judicial needs with individual rights.

Overview of Rule 21, Section 6

Rule 21, Section 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure (as amended) states:

"Service of a subpoena shall be made in the same manner as personal or substituted service of summons. The original shall be exhibited and a copy thereof delivered to the person on whom it is served, tendering to him the fees for one day’s attendance and the kilometrage allowed by these Rules, except that, when a subpoena is issued by or on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines or an officer or agency thereof, the tender need not be made. The service must be made so as to allow the witness a reasonable time for preparation and travel to the place of attendance. If the subpoena is duces tecum, the reasonable cost of producing the books, documents or things demanded shall also be tendered."

This section applies to both subpoena ad testificandum (compelling witness testimony) and subpoena duces tecum (compelling production of documents or objects). The costs outlined here are mandatory tendered amounts paid at the time of service to ensure the witness is not out-of-pocket for initial compliance. The rule draws from common law traditions adapted to Philippine jurisprudence, emphasizing equity and the avoidance of hardship on non-parties.

The purpose of these cost provisions is multifaceted:

To compensate witnesses for lost time and travel expenses, recognizing that court attendance disrupts daily life and work.
To prevent abuse of the subpoena power by requiring the requesting party to bear initial costs.
To facilitate enforcement, as a properly served subpoena with tendered costs is more likely to secure compliance without resorting to contempt proceedings.

In practice, these costs are nominal and standardized to maintain accessibility to justice, but they can be adjusted in specific cases, such as for expert witnesses.

Components of Costs Under Section 6

The costs of court attendance are broken down into three primary categories, each tied to the practical burdens of compliance.

1. Fees for One Day's Attendance

This refers to a per diem allowance for the witness's time spent in court. The fee covers the first day of required attendance and is intended to offset wages or productivity lost due to the obligation. Under the Rules, this amount is "allowed by these Rules," typically specified in related provisions like Rule 141 (Legal Fees), which outlines court-related charges.

Calculation and Payment: The fee is tendered in cash or equivalent at the time of subpoena service. It is a fixed daily rate, not prorated for partial days, and applies regardless of whether the witness testifies or merely waits.
Rationale: This provision protects ordinary citizens, such as employees or self-employed individuals, from financial detriment. For instance, a factory worker subpoenaed to testify would receive this fee to mitigate income loss.
Special Considerations: Expert witnesses (e.g., doctors or engineers) may negotiate higher fees under separate agreements, as their specialized knowledge warrants additional compensation. However, the standard fee applies unless otherwise stipulated.

2. Kilometrage Allowance

Kilometrage, or mileage reimbursement, covers travel expenses from the witness's residence to the court. It is calculated based on the distance traveled, using a rate "allowed by these Rules."

Computation: The allowance is typically a per-kilometer rate, multiplied by the round-trip distance. This is determined using standard maps or estimates, and the tender must reflect a reasonable approximation.
Purpose: Travel can be costly, especially in archipelagic Philippines where witnesses may need to cross islands or endure long commutes. This allowance ensures that geographic location does not deter participation in judicial processes.
Practical Application: If a witness resides 50 kilometers from the court, the kilometrage would cover both to and from travel. In urban areas like Metro Manila, this might include public transport equivalents if driving is impractical.

3. Reasonable Cost of Producing Documents (for Subpoena Duces Tecum)

Exclusive to subpoenas requiring document production, this covers expenses like photocopying, retrieval, or transportation of materials.

Determination: The cost must be "reasonable," assessed based on actual expenditures (e.g., printing fees or courier services). The requesting party estimates and tenders this amount during service.
Scope: It includes tangible costs but not opportunity costs like time spent compiling documents. If disputed, the court may intervene to adjust the amount.
Examples: For a business subpoenaed to produce financial records, costs might include scanning hundreds of pages or hiring temporary staff for compliance.

These components are tendered simultaneously with service, ensuring the witness receives immediate reimbursement for foreseeable expenses. Additional days' attendance may require further payments, arranged separately.

Exceptions to Tendering Costs

A key exception is embedded in Section 6: No tender is required when the subpoena is issued by or on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines or its officers/agencies. This includes government entities like the Department of Justice, Philippine National Police, or courts themselves.

Justification: The state acts in the public interest, and witnesses have a civic duty to assist without financial precondition. This aligns with the principle that government subpoenas serve justice rather than private disputes.
Common Scenarios: In criminal prosecutions (governed by Rule 110 et seq., where Rule 21 applies suppletorily), prosecution witnesses are often not tendered fees, as the case is pursued by the People of the Philippines.
Limitations: Private complainants in criminal cases may still need to tender if acting independently, though practice varies.

Other implicit exceptions include indigent litigants, where courts may waive or subsidize costs under Rule 141 or the Rules on Indigency.

Mode of Service and Timing Implications

Service mirrors Rule 14 (Summons), requiring personal delivery where possible, with substituted service as a fallback. The tender must accompany delivery, and failure to do so can invalidate the service.

Timing: Service must allow "reasonable time" for preparation and travel, factoring in costs. This prevents last-minute subpoenas that could impose undue hardship.
Proof of Tender: Servers (e.g., sheriffs) must document the tender in their return of service, which becomes part of the court record.

Consequences of Non-Compliance with Cost Provisions

Failure to tender required costs can render the subpoena defective, potentially leading to:

Quashing under Section 5 of Rule 21, if the witness moves to quash for unreasonableness or oppression.
Non-enforcement, as courts may decline to compel attendance without proper reimbursement.
Contempt proceedings against the witness only if service was valid; otherwise, the issuing party bears responsibility.

In jurisprudence, Philippine courts have emphasized strict compliance. For example, in cases involving defective service, the Supreme Court has ruled that untendered subpoenas undermine due process, potentially delaying trials or leading to dismissals.

Interconnections with Other Provisions

Rule 21, Section 6 does not operate in isolation:

Rule 141 (Legal Fees): Details specific amounts for attendance fees and kilometrage, subject to periodic amendments by the Supreme Court to reflect economic conditions.
Rule 23-29 (Modes of Discovery): Subpoenas often support depositions or interrogatories, where costs may be allocated to the requesting party.
Criminal Procedure (Rule 119): Trial provisions require witness attendance, with government exemptions applying broadly.
Administrative and Special Proceedings: Similar rules apply in quasi-judicial bodies like the National Labor Relations Commission, adapted via their procedural rules.
Ethical Considerations: The Code of Professional Responsibility mandates lawyers to avoid oppressive subpoenas, tying into cost fairness.

In broader context, these provisions align with Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution (due process) and international standards like the UN Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.

Application in Civil vs. Criminal Contexts

Civil Cases: Costs are routinely tendered by private parties, ensuring witnesses in disputes like contracts or torts are compensated.
Criminal Cases: Government exemptions predominate, but defense subpoenas require tendering, leveling the playing field.
Hybrid Scenarios: In election cases or administrative hearings, costs depend on the issuing authority.

Challenges and Reforms

Practical issues include outdated fee amounts amid inflation, leading to calls for updates. Witnesses in remote areas face higher effective costs, prompting proposals for digital alternatives like virtual testimonies. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated such shifts, with A.M. No. 21-09-03-SC allowing remote hearings to reduce travel burdens.

Conclusion

The costs of court attendance under Rule 21, Section 6 represent a critical safeguard in Philippine jurisprudence, ensuring that the pursuit of truth does not exploit individuals. By mandating tendered fees, kilometrage, and production costs—with exceptions for state actions—the rule promotes equity, compliance, and efficiency. Legal practitioners must adhere meticulously to these requirements to avoid procedural pitfalls, while policymakers continue to refine them for contemporary needs. Ultimately, this provision exemplifies the Philippine legal system's commitment to accessible and humane justice, where witnesses are participants, not victims, in the judicial process.