Summon- the request to appear in court by the issuance of summon.

The paper that tells a defendant that he or she is being sued and asserts the power of the court to hear
and determine the case. A form of legal process that commands the defendant to appear before the
court on a specific day and to answer the complaint made by the plaintiff.

The summons is the document that officially starts a lawsuit. It must be in a form prescribed by the law
governing procedure in the court involved, and it must be properly served on, or delivered to, the
defendant. If the prescribed formalities are not observed, the court lacks authority to hear the dispute.

In the federal district courts, the summons is prepared by the attorney for the plaintiff and given to the
clerk of the court where the case will be heard. When the plaintiff's complaint, setting out his claim, is
filed with the court, the clerk signs the summons and gives it and a copy of the complaint to a U.S.
marshal or to someone else appointed to serve the papers. Once the summons and complaint are served
on the defendant, she must respond to them within twenty days or whatever other time the court allows.

Some states follow this same procedure, but other states allow service of the summons and complaint
by delivery directly to the defendant. In those states, the lawsuit is considered begun as soon as the
defendant receives the papers,

even though nothing has yet been filed with a court. Actions commenced in this way are sometimes
called "hip pocket" suits.

Subpoena (subpoena) (suh-pea-nah) n. an order of the court for a witness to appear at a particular time
and place to testify and/or produce documents in the control of the witness (if a "subpena duces
tecum"). A subpena is used to obtain testimony from a witness at both depositions (testimony under
oath taken outside of court) and at trial. The procedure to get a subpena issued is basically to apply to
the court with a brief written declaration of the need for the testimony or documents. Such subpenas are
usually issued automatically by the court clerk, but must be served personally on the party being
summoned. Failure to appear as required by the subpena can be punished as contempt of court if it
appears the absence was intentional or without cause. (See: subpena duces tecum, witness, deposition,
contempt of court)

SUMMON VS SUBPOENA
Summons is normally a request, either by deliver of mail or in person depending on the type of
judgement. Summons is a request for more information and an appearance in court for a judgement
against you.

A subpeona is directly from the judge or court clerk. This is almost always "blank" and it is up to the
lawyer to deliver. This is almost always "served" to the defendant. A subpeona is normally to prove
your case or against the other party. i.e. You dispute a charge on credit report that the charge is not
yours. The charge is large enough or they have enough evidence to prove that it is yours then they will
issue a subpeona to require you to repsond to the said charge. If you need more help determining how
you should respond maybe I can help determine.
Subpoenas & Summons
What is a subpoena?
A subpoena is a document or writ issued under authority of the court for service upon a witness to
compel their appearance in court. The attorney of record may sign civil subpoenas but the Clerk of
Court must sign criminal subpoenas.
What is a summons?
A summons is a notice that a person or business has been sued. It is a mandate calling a person or
business before the court to answer the claims or allegations made in a complaint attached to the
summons. The person or business that issued the summons is called the "plaintiff". The person or
business that receives the summons is called the "defendant".

If you receive a subpoena or summons, it is not necessary that you call the Clerk of Court. An attorney
who is representing one of the parties in a lawsuit or a criminal case almost always issues the subpoena
or summons. You should call your own attorney as to how to respond to the subpoena or summons. In
the case of a subpoena, you might contact the attorney who issued the subpoena as to the exact date,
time, and place you should appear to testify. In the case of a summons you should contact your own
attorney as soon as possible.

Nurse's Legal Rights

Right to adequate and classified assistance as necessary

Right to adequate working condition.
Right to compensation of services rendered.
Right to respect byu
Right to reasonable and prudent conduct for clients.

PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE - FULL TEXT

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
G.R. No. L-15903 December 23, 1964
IN RE: ALFREDO V. CRUZ, JR., ET AL., vs. BENJAMIN
RAVANERA

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
 EN BANC

G.R. No. L-15902 December 23, 1964

IN RE PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AGAINST MRS. DOLORES H. SISON,

ALFREDO V. CRUZ, JR., petitioner-appellant,
vs.
MRS. DOLORES H. SISON, respondent-appellee.

----------------------------------------

G.R. No. L-15903 December 23, 1964

IN RE PETITION FOR CONTEMPT AGAINST BENJAMIN RAVANERA,

ALFREDO V. CRUZ, JR., petitioner-appellant,
vs.
BENJAMIN RAVANERA respondent-appellee.

City Fiscal H. Concepcion and Asst. City Fiscal M. T. Reyes for petitioner-appellant.
Sison, Dominguez & Cervantes for respondent-appellee.

MAKALINTAL, J.:

Alfredo V. Cruz, Jr., as Assistant Fiscal of Manila filed two petitions for contempt in the
Court of First Instance of Manila, one against Dolores H. Sison and the other against
Benjamin Ravanera. In the said petitions it is alleged that respondent Sison, as Secretary of
the Bicol Electric Company in Naga City, and respondent Ravanera, as Secretary of the
University of Nueva Caceres, also in Naga City, refused to receive the subpoenas duces
tecum issued to them by petitioner and failed to appear before the latter to give evidence in
Criminal Case No. 47152 of the said Court, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Secretary
Jaime Hernandez."

The Court of First Instance decided the two cases jointly and dismissed both petitions on the
ground that respondents were not bound by the processes issued by petitioner because their
place of residence, which is Naga City, is more than 50 kilometers from Manila, where the
investigation was being conducted.

Petitioner appealed and now claims that the lower court erred (1) in holding that Section 9 of
Rule 29 (now Sec. 9, Rule 23 of the revised Rules) applies to both civil and criminal cases;
and (2) in not holding appellees in contempt for refusing to comply with the subpoenas
issued to them by appellant.

The rule above cited provides that a witness, is not bound to attend as such before any court,
judge, or other officers out of the province in which he resides, unless the distance be less
than fifty (50) kilometers from his place of residence to the place of trial by the usual course
of travel. Without going, however, into the question discussed at length by the parties in
their respective briefs, namely, whether the said rule covers civil cases alone or both civil
and criminal cases, we are of the opinion that the petitions for contempt were prematurely
filed and hence their dismissal was in order.

Appellant issued the subpoenas in question on the authority of the Revised Charter of the
City of Manila, Republic Act No. 409 (Sec. 38-B), as amended by Republic Act No. 1201,
which provides:

The fiscal of the City shall cause to be investigated all charges of crimes,
misdemeanors, and violations of ordinances and have the necessary informations or
complaints prepared or made against the persons accused. He or any of his assistants
may conduct such investigations by taking oral evidence of reputed witnesses, and
for this purpose may issue subpoena, summon witnesses to appear and testify under
oath before him, and the attendance or evidence of an absent or recalcitrant witness
may be enforced by application to the municipal court or the Court of First Instance.
No witness summoned to testify under this section shall be under obligation to give
any testimony tending to incriminate himself.

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.

The contempt proceedings against appellees here were instituted without a previous
application to the court for the enforcement of the subpoenas issued by appellant and were,
therefore, premature.

It further appears, as alleged by appellees and not contradicted by appellant, that the
subpoenas were issued. So that they could give evidence in Criminal Case No. 47152,
"People of the Philippines v. Secretary Jaime Hernandez," which was then already pending
trial before a branch of the Court of First Instance of Manila. The power of the City Fiscal of
Manila to issue subpoenas extends to cases pending investigation before him, but not where
the Complaint or information has been filed in court, in which case it is the court that should
issue the necessary processes (Concepcion v. Gonzales, L-15638, April 26, 1962).

For the reasons hereinabove set forth, the decision appealed from is affirmed, without
pronouncement as to costs.
Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Dizon,
Regala, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation