(Philippine context)

1) Why this matters

Fake “court notices,” “summons,” and “subpoenas” are common tools for scams because they trigger fear and urgency. The scammer’s goal is usually to make you (a) pay “fees,” “settlements,” or “clearances,” (b) click a link or open a file that steals passwords or installs malware, or (c) give personal data (IDs, selfies, OTPs, bank details).

In the Philippines, real court processes follow formal rules on service of summons/notices and have identifiable features that are difficult (though not impossible) to fake. Knowing how legitimate service works is the best defense.

2) Common scam patterns in the Philippines

A. “Summons” by email with a payment demand

Typical lines:

“Pay docket fee to avoid warrant/arrest.”
“Pay for subpoena clearance / court stamp / sheriff delivery.”
“Pay to stop case filing.”

Reality check: Courts do not demand payment through personal bank accounts, e-wallets, crypto, gift cards, or “processing fees” to “cancel” a case.

B. “Final demand” disguised as a court order

Often uses:

“Immediate arrest warrant” threats for a purely civil dispute (debt, non-payment).
“Cybercrime complaint” threats to push you to pay quickly.

Reality check: Arrest warrants are issued by judges under specific circumstances; they are not casually “released” via random email, and civil non-payment is not automatically criminal.

C. Attachments and links

Files named “Summons.pdf.exe” or “Notice.zip”
Links to “view case file” that lead to phishing pages

Reality check: Treat unexpected legal attachments/links as hostile until verified.

D. Impersonation of lawyers, “court clerks,” “sheriffs,” or prosecutors

They may claim they will “settle it quietly” for a fee.

Reality check: Real officials do not negotiate case dismissal in exchange for personal payments. Bribery/extortion tactics often appear dressed up as “facilitation.”

3) What legitimate court communications usually look like

Philippine court documents commonly include:

Complete court identification
- Court name (e.g., Metropolitan Trial Court / Municipal Trial Court / Regional Trial Court / Court of Appeals / Supreme Court)
- Branch number and station (city/municipality)
- Court address and contact details (or at least location)
Case details
- Case title (e.g., “X vs. Y”)
- Case number/docket number
- Nature of case (civil/criminal/special proceeding)
- Issuing office (Clerk of Court, Branch Clerk of Court)
Signatures and roles
- Judge’s name (for orders) or Clerk/Branch Clerk (for many notices)
- Sheriff/process server information (for service returns)
- Official designation (not just a typed name)
Formatting cues
- Caption format
- “Republic of the Philippines” header is common, but easy to counterfeit—never rely on header alone.
Service method consistent with procedure
- Many critical documents (like summons) are typically served through formal means (often personal/substituted service), not casually via random email to a personal address—though electronic service exists in certain contexts and under court-issued directions.

Key point: A convincing-looking PDF is not proof. Verification must be independent.

4) Summons, subpoena, notice, warrant: know the difference

Scammers mix these terms to confuse people. In practice:

A. Summons (civil case)

A summons tells a defendant/respondent that a civil case has been filed and commands them to answer within a period stated by the rules/court order. It is a “start-the-case” document for the defendant.

Red-flag scam use: “Summons = pay now to stop.”

B. Subpoena

A subpoena compels appearance (subpoena ad testificandum) or production of documents (subpoena duces tecum). It usually specifies date/time and where to appear.

Red-flag scam use: “Subpoena = pay clearance fee.”

C. Notices (hearings, orders, settings)

A notice can be a hearing notice, order setting a case, notice of raffle, pre-trial notice, etc.

Red-flag scam use: “Notice of hearing tomorrow—click link for details.”

D. Warrants

A warrant of arrest is issued by a judge in criminal cases under legal standards; a search warrant authorizes search/seizure.

Red-flag scam use: “Warrant released today—pay to lift.” That is a classic extortion script.

5) How legitimate service typically works (practical Philippine guide)

Under Philippine procedure, service of key court papers generally follows ordered methods. While details vary by case type and court directives, these principles help you spot fakes:

A. For a civil summons

Often served by a sheriff or authorized process server/court personnel, or as otherwise allowed by the court.
Personal service is preferred; substituted service may occur if personal service fails under conditions.
There is usually a Return of Service describing how/when/where service was made.

What scammers do instead: email you a “summons” with no clear branch, no docket traceability, and a payment ultimatum.

B. Service by registered mail/courier

Some notices/orders may be mailed to the address on record, especially after a party appears through counsel.

Scam cue: they claim “served” but cannot state to what address, on what date, and by whom, and they refuse to provide verifiable docket info.

C. Electronic service (email, e-filing systems, etc.)

Philippine courts have adopted electronic processes in certain situations and under specific rules/circulars and court directions. In real matters:

The court or opposing counsel typically uses official, consistent contact information already on record.
There is a paper trail in the case record.
The communication references the exact case and matches prior filings.

Scam cue: it comes out of nowhere, from a free email account, with a link/attachment and threats.

6) Step-by-step verification checklist (do this before replying, paying, clicking, or opening attachments)

Step 1: Pause and preserve

Do not click links or open attachments yet.
Screenshot the email/header and save the file for evidence.

Step 2: Identify the supposed issuing body

Is it from:

A specific court branch?
A prosecutor’s office (Department of Justice / Office of the Prosecutor)?
Law enforcement (National Bureau of Investigation or Philippine National Police)?
A regulator (Securities and Exchange Commission)?
A labor tribunal (National Labor Relations Commission)? Different agencies have different authentic formats and service practices.

Step 3: Demand verifiable case identifiers

Legitimate notices can be checked using:

Court name + branch + station
Case number/docket number
Full names of parties
Date of issuance
Title of pleading/order

If any of those are missing, treat as highly suspicious.

Step 4: Independently verify using official channels

Do not use the phone number, link, or email address inside the suspicious message.

Use independent methods:

Call the court’s published trunkline or numbers from official directories (not from the email).
If you can physically go: inquire at the Office of the Clerk of Court for the named court/branch.
If a lawyer allegedly sent it: verify the lawyer’s identity through the Integrated Bar of the Philippines chapter or legitimate office contact details you source independently.

Step 5: Check the sender’s technical tells (quick triage)

Free email domains pretending to be government/court (e.g., “courtbranch12@gmail.com”)
Misspellings, awkward phrasing, inconsistent fonts/seals
Pressure tactics: “within 24 hours,” “final warning,” “arrest today”
Payment instructions to a personal name/e-wallet
Attachments with unusual extensions or password-protected archives “to bypass security”

Step 6: Verify service logic

Ask yourself:

If this is the first time you are hearing of a case, why would the first contact be an email to a random address?
Do they state how they obtained your email?
Do they mention your correct address and full legal name?

Mismatch on basic identity details is a strong indicator of fraud.

7) High-confidence red flags (treat as scam unless proven otherwise)

Asks for money to “lift,” “cancel,” “clear,” or “settle” a case immediately.
Threatens arrest for a civil matter (debt/non-payment) without clear criminal basis.
No docket/case number, no branch, no station, no verifiable clerk/judge identity.
Sender refuses verification (“Don’t call the court; coordinate only with me”).
Payment to personal accounts or use of remittance/crypto/gift cards.
Link/attachment urgency (“open within 30 minutes”).
Claims secrecy (“confidential warrant—don’t tell anyone”).
Uses shame/blackmail (“we will post your case online,” “we will contact your employer/family”) to force payment.

8) If you receive a suspicious “summons” by email: safest handling

A. Do not engage emotionally or financially

Do not negotiate or explain.
Do not send IDs, selfies, OTPs, bank details.
Do not pay “fees.”

B. Do not open attachments directly

If you must inspect a file for verification:

Use a secure viewer environment (at minimum, avoid enabling macros; do not install anything).
Prefer to verify via the court/agency first rather than relying on the file.

C. Do not “reply-all” with personal data

Scammers reuse whatever you send.

D. Document everything

Keep:

Full email headers (if possible)
Screenshots
File hashes if you know how (optional)
Payment instructions, account numbers, names used

9) If it turns out to be real: what to do next (without panic)

If independent verification confirms authenticity:

Read the exact directive
- Is it a summons requiring an Answer?
- A subpoena requiring appearance/production?
- A notice of hearing?
Check deadlines Deadlines can be short. Missing them can cause adverse consequences (e.g., default in civil cases).
Consider counsel For court cases, consult a lawyer promptly, especially if you are a named party/accused.
Respond through proper channels File the required pleading or appear as directed—following the court’s instructions.

10) Reporting scams and protecting yourself (Philippines)

Depending on the scam’s nature, documentation supports reports for cybercrime, fraud, identity theft, or extortion.

Relevant legal frameworks commonly implicated:

Estafa (fraud) and related crimes under the Revised Penal Code (e.g., deceit, damage).
Falsification/forgery where fake documents, seals, or signatures are used.
Cybercrime-related offenses when committed through ICT, including phishing and online fraud (often addressed under the Cybercrime Prevention framework).
Data Privacy issues if personal data was unlawfully collected/used.

Practical protective steps:

Change passwords if you clicked links or entered credentials.
Enable multi-factor authentication on email and banking.
Monitor accounts and consider reporting compromised credentials to providers.
Inform your workplace/contacts if impersonation is spreading.

11) Special situations that confuse people (and scammers exploit)

A. Barangay “summons” vs court summons

The barangay may issue notices/summons for conciliation under local dispute mechanisms. These are not the same as a court summons. They will reference the barangay/lupon and local procedures.

Scam cue: Someone uses “barangay summons” language but claims it is from a court branch, or demands “court fees.”

B. Prosecutor’s office vs court

A complaint may start at the prosecutor level (inquest/preliminary investigation) before reaching court. A prosecutor communication is not automatically a “court summons.”

Scam cue: They label a prosecutor letter as “court warrant.”

C. Labor cases (NLRC) and administrative agencies

Labor and administrative bodies issue their own summons/notices with their own formats. Verification is still by independent official contact, not by links in messages.

12) Quick “authenticity” decision tree

No case number / no court branch / no verifiable office → treat as fake.
Has details but asks for payment to a person/e-wallet → treat as fake/extortion.
Has details and no payment demand → still verify independently.
Verified by the actual court/office → act promptly on deadlines and seek legal advice as needed.

13) A short script for verification calls (phone/in-person)

Use this structure:

“I received a document claiming to be from your office.”
Provide: court/office name, branch/station, case number, party names, date on document.
Ask: “Can you confirm whether this case/document exists and whether it was issued by your office?”
Ask: “What is the correct procedure for receiving official copies and verifying service?”

If they cannot confirm with those identifiers, the document is likely not legitimate—or the sender omitted essential data.

14) Bottom line

In the Philippine setting, real court and government processes are traceable: there is an issuing office, a case or reference number, and a verification path that does not require you to pay a stranger, click a link, or surrender personal data under threat. Scams rely on urgency, fear, secrecy, and off-channel payments. Verification through independent official channels breaks the scam’s power.

Supreme Court sets and supervises procedural rules and court administration through mechanisms including the Office of the Court Administrator; authentic court processes ultimately tie back to that formal structure.