VERIFYING THE AUTHENTICITY OF “SUPREME COURT – ESTAFA” EMAIL NOTICES IN THE PHILIPPINES A practitioner’s guide for lawyers, compliance officers, investigators, and the general public

(All information below is drawn from publicly-available laws, rules, circulars, and long-standing court practice. No external search was performed, per request. This is not legal advice.)

1. Why fraudsters impersonate the Supreme Court

High fear factor. An email that appears to come from the nation’s highest court carries instant authority and can panic recipients into hasty action.
Digital transition of the judiciary. The Supreme Court and lower courts now accept – and in specific cases serve – documents by e-mail under A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (the Rules on Electronic Service and Filing). Criminals exploit public unfamiliarity with these new channels.
“Estafa” as the bait. Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) penalises estafa (swindling). Because the term is widely recognised and already associated with financial loss, scammers frame their threats around it to demand “settlement fees” or “bail deposits.”

2. How authentic Supreme Court notices are really sent

Element	Genuine practice	Never done by the Supreme Court
Sender domain	@judiciary.gov.ph addresses only (e.g., chambers_jc1@judiciary.gov.ph, pio@sc.judiciary.gov.ph).	Free webmail (Gmail/Outlook/Yahoo). Misspelled look-alikes (e.g., @judic1ary-gov.ph).
File format	Digitally-signed PDF bearing a visible QR code and the e-signature certificate of the issuing Justice/Clerk of Court (per OCA Circ. 141-2022).	Word, Excel, JPG screenshots, or compressed (.zip/.rar) archives.
Subject line	Specifies docket number, e.g., “G.R. No. 258321 – XYZ v. People – Notice of Resolution”.	Vague threats (“FINAL NOTICE OF ARREST”).
Service of criminal process	Warrants, subpoenas, informations in estafa cases are NOT issued by the Supreme Court in the first instance; they come from trial courts (RTC/MeTC) or the DOJ.	SC demanding you post bail, pay fines, or “settle” to avoid arrest.
Payment instructions	Fees, if any, are paid in person at the Cash Collection & Disbursement Division, with an Official Receipt (OR).	Deposit to a personal bank account, e-wallet, cryptocurrency address, or via remittance center.

3. The step-by-step authenticity check

Quick test: “Is this email asking for money, threatening immediate arrest, or coming from a non-@judiciary.gov.ph address?” *If YES to any, it is almost certainly fake.

Inspect the full header. In most mail clients, click “Show Original” or “View Raw Source.” Confirm the “Return-Path” and “Received-from” hops end with .judiciary.gov.ph.
Validate the digital signature.
- All SC e-notices use an X.509 certificate (“Supreme Court of the Philippines – PKI”).
- When opened in Adobe Acrobat, the blue ribbon must read: “Signed and all signatures are valid.”
Verify the docket number. Decisions and resolutions are public. Cross-check via:
- The SC E-Law List (ELL) kiosk on sc.judiciary.gov.ph; or
- An e-mail inquiry to sc.clerkoffice@judiciary.gov.ph quoting the docket.
Call the source. The Public Information Office hotlines are published on every SC press release. Provide the docket number and purported send date.
Check procedural plausibility. The Supreme Court only acquires criminal jurisdiction on appeal or through “cases of first impression” (e.g., certiorari, habeas corpus). It never orders arrest or sets bail in a brand-new estafa complaint via email.

4. Red flags unique to estafa email scams

Red flag	Why it betrays a fake
“Pay PHP ___ to avoid issuance of warrant.”	Warrants are issued by a trial judge after finding probable cause. The SC cannot be bypassed by payment.
Attachment: “Complaint-Affidavit_YourName.docx.”	SC does not send editable complaint-affidavits; these originate from the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor.
“Unified Case No.” or “Case ID 2025-PHLEX-000…”	SC docket numbers start with “G.R.” or “A.M.”; no other prefixes.
Mobile Viber number of “Atty. ____, Supreme Court Legal Department.”	There is no “Legal Department.” The Clerk of Court or Division Clerks speak only through official landlines.

5. Applicable laws and potential criminal liability

Revised Penal Code, Art. 315 – Estafa. The same article scammers pretend to enforce actually penalises their deceit.
Art. 171/172 – Falsification of Documents. Counterfeit seals, forged signatures, and fabricated court papers fall here.
Republic Act 10175 – Cybercrime Prevention Act. Elevates penalties if estafa or falsification is committed “through information and communications technologies.”
Republic Act 8792 – E-Commerce Act. Section 33 punishes “interference through cyberspace.”
Data Privacy Act (RA 10173). Phishing for personal data is an additional offense.
Jurisdiction and venue. Cybercrime cases are heard by the Regional Trial Court, designated cybercrime branch where the victim resides or where any element occurred.

Penalties: For large-scale estafa ( ≥ PHP 2.4 million), reclusion temporal (12 y 1 d – 20 y); add one degree if via ICT per RA 10175.

6. Remedies for recipients and victims

Preserve evidence immediately.
- Save the email as .eml or .msg to retain headers.
- Screenshot any payment requests or conversations.
Report to authorities.
- NBI Cybercrime Division (Quezon Ave., QC) – execute Sworn Statement and Request for Investigation.
- PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group – hotline “#CAMP” (#2267).
- National Privacy Commission – if personal data was compromised.
Notify the Supreme Court.
- Forward the suspicious email to pio@sc.judiciary.gov.ph with subject “Possible Phishing – [Your Name].”
Bank chargeback or e-wallet dispute. BSP Circular 1085 requires providers (GCash, Maya) to implement real-time dispute channels for cyber-fraud.
Civil action for damages. Art. 33, Civil Code allows an independent civil action for defamation/fraud.

7. Institutional counter-measures already in place

Measure	Issuance	Key points
A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC (Rules on Electronic Service and Filing)	2021	Only registered official addresses may serve pleadings. Personal service still preferred.
OCA Circular 141-2022	2022	Mandates PDF documents with embedded digital signatures and QR codes.
SC Press Statement on Fake Notices	July 2023	Public warned not to pay any “settlement/bail” via email.
Rule 136, Sec. 23 (as amended)	2024	Clerk of Court must maintain a registry of authorised e-mail addresses for each division.

8. Best-practice checklist for organisations

✔ Deploy a DMARC/SPF policy to reject spoofed @company.com emails pretending to be courts. ✔ Train staff: Never pay or forward customer funds based solely on an e-mailed “court order.” ✔ Keep legal counsel on call to examine docket numbers within an hour. ✔ Use out-of-band verification – e.g., call the Clerk of Court’s landline published on the SC website. ✔ Add a standing instruction: “If a message contains any of the four red flags above, escalate to IT/security and Compliance immediately.”

9. Emerging trends to watch

Blockchain-anchored e-service. A pilot under the Judiciary IT Council aims to timestamp decisions on a public ledger, making tampering obvious.
Digital National ID integration. Future notices may incorporate PhilSys QR codes for instant validation.
Central verification portal. A single page where anyone can paste a docket number and receive an authenticity result (concept stage as of 2025).

10. Key takeaway

The Supreme Court will never email you out of the blue demanding money, threatening arrest, or offering to “settle” an estafa case. If an unexpected message claims otherwise, treat it as presumptively fraudulent until every authenticity step above checks out.

Stay vigilant, educate colleagues and clients, and report every attempt – each complaint helps law-enforcement trace and dismantle these evolving scams.

Prepared 25 May 2025, Manila, Philippines.