G.R. No. L-13463
H.C. Liebenow, – plaintiff-appellant
vs.
The Phil. Vegetable Oil Company- Defendant-appellee
FACTS
a.) March 17, 1914, The contract under which plaintiff rendered the service to which reference has been made is expressed in a letter written by the Phil. Vegetable Oil Company to Liebenow.
b.) The plaintiff entered upon the discharged of his duties as superintendent of the factory on April 1, 1914 until August 1, 1916 and with salary from P500 to P750.
c.) After the employment ceased, the defendant continued to deliver to plaintiff each month until the total sum of P4,500.
d.) The plaintiff alleges by his skill and ability the defendants plant was made much more productive and its profit increased.
e.) The plaintiff, contents that he is entitled to a bonus to be fixed by the court as a reasonable participation in the increased profits of the factory under his care, taking into consideration his technical skill and the greater output therefrom.
f.) He suggest, as the lowest proper minimum that he should be awarded an amount sufficiently to raise his salary for the whole period to the sum of P12,000 per anum, the amount supposedly paid to his predecessor.
g.) Subpoena has been issued duces tecum which the plaintiff caused to be issued a few days prior to the hearing in CFI.
h.) After the defendant move the court to vacate this subpoena in the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to require the production of the documents called for.
i.) The court reserved the matter for later determination and ruled that the evidence which the plantiff sought to elicit was irrelevant. the witness was excused from producing the papers mentioned in the subpoena duces tecum and the plaintiff duly excepted.
ISSUE
Wheather or not that the subpoena duces tecum is needed to determine to justify the awarding of the questioned amount of claim as bonus of the plaintiff from the defendant.
HELD
No, while we do not wish to be understood as attempting to lay down any hard and fast rule upon such a matter, we merely suggest that it is an abuse of legal process to use subpoena “duces tecum” to produce court material which cannot be properly utilized by the court in determining the issues of the case; and in cases of this kind the litigant should be required to resort to some other procedure in order properly to place before the court the evidence upon which the case should be decided.
The judgment is affirmed with cost.
Obligations and Contracts 