New procedure in notice of dishonor service (1)
In cases involving Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the service of notice of dishonor is likewise material, as it proves an element of the offense.
Text size
In cases involving Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the service of notice of dishonor is likewise material, as it proves an element of the offense.
With the promulgation of the landmark King v. People of the Philippines back in December 1999, the personal service of a notice of dishonor upon an issuer of a bouncing check became the main mode. This is to ensure that the drawer is properly and sufficiently apprised about the bounced check to give him an opportunity to make arrangements for payment.
This has become an almost insurmountable task given that the issuer of the bum check, aware that he would be served a notice, would evade service. Thus, he would hide, pretend not to be home, or simply refuse receipt of the notice. That way, he could invoke the abovementioned case and argue that he was never notified.
Absent a notice, which is an element that must be proven in violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law, such will inevitably result in acquittal. This made our task as lawyers to serve the notice difficult.
In one case, the spouses issued checks to a merchant for the purchase of goods. The checks, however, bounced one by one as they fell due. Naturally, since the spouses failed to settle their debt, the merchant sued them for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law.
The trial court convicted them. On appeal, both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction by the trial court, even further modifying the award of damages.
The spouses went to the Supreme Court. They argued that they were never given a notice of dishonor. While the prosecution proved that the spouses refused to receive the notice served by the merchant’s emissary, the spouses merely denied having received any notice. The Supreme Court, in affirming the conviction in this case, laid down the new procedure for the service of notice of dishonor upon erring drawers.
It ruled that: “At this juncture, the Court takes the opportunity to clarify and refine its jurisprudence regarding the service of the notice of dishonor in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases. While earlier decisions may have allowed acquittal based on alleged non-receipt of notice, the Court now underscores the need to supplement existing rules with clear and standardized procedures in establishing the second element of the offense, i.e., that the drawer, at the time of issuance, had knowledge that he or she did not have enough funds or credit in the bank for payment thereof upon its presentment.
“Now, therefore, the Court hereby adopts and promulgates the following guidelines to further refine and standardize the rules governing the service of the notice of dishonor in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases. In considering how service of notice operates within the criminal proceedings under BP 22, the Court finds instructive the analogies from other areas of law where the service of notice is likewise indispensable to the case.
“Rule 70, Section 2 of the Amended Rules of Court, and jurisprudence on ejectment proceedings underscore the necessity of prior notice as a jurisdictional requisite, without which the case cannot validly prosper. As early as the Court’s ruling in Co Keng Kian 1, JAC (Fourth Special Cases Division), it has been settled that service of notice through registered mail constitutes valid and proper compliance with the Rules.
“The Court stressed therein that notice to vacate the leased premises, required to be served upon the person occupying the same, may be effected by registered mail. The Court therein cites Nunlist v. Motter and Gehring v. Swoll where it was emphasized that service by registered mail cannot be avoided by the mere expediency of declining to accept delivery after notification thereof.
“In labor cases where a return-to-work notice is required, service by registered mail would have sufficed were it not for the absence of the required signatures on the registry return cards. In Lusabia v. Super K Drug Corporation, the respondent company failed to prove the fact of receipt of the notice, as the registry return cards lacked the signatures of the petitioners or their authorized representatives, which would have constituted as acknowledgment of receipt of the notices.
“Similarly, in cases involving Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the service of notice of dishonor is likewise material, as it proves an element of the offense. Specifically, it establishes that the drawer of the check had knowledge of insufficient funds or credit in the bank to cover the amount upon presentment. Given its significance, the notice of dishonor must be served in a manner that ensures its receipt and eventual admissibility in court.”
The facts and redacted quoted portion of the decision are from SC GR 277047 (15 April 2026).
(To be continued)
