New procedure in notice of dishonor service (3)

This is the last part of this article on service of notice of dishonor. I broke the article down into three parts as each segment has vital information that we all must take note of.

And so the Supreme Court continued to discuss that:

“Whether primary or substituted, electronic means of service, including, but not limited to, email and messaging applications (such as Viber, Facebook Messenger, or other comparable digital channels), may be resorted to, provided that the recipient’s electronic contact details (i.e., email address, account, or number) must be known and reasonably verified, and shown to be attributable to, and actively used by, the drawer or his or her authorized representative, where applicable.

“For this purpose, attribution and reasonable verification shall be established through official communications, which include: (1) prior message exchanges with the sender regarding the same transaction; (2) the drawer’s prior written or electronic confirmation of the email address, account, or number; (3) the drawer’s use of the same email address, account, or number to send instructions, acknowledgments, or confirmations to the sender; and/or (4) other analogous circumstances.

“The email address, account, or number appearing in the drawer’s check issuance records; loan or contract documents, or other records attributable to the drawer and made known to the payee shall likewise be sufficient proof of attribution and reasonable verification.

“Where electronic means are resorted to in effecting substituted service, the electronic communication transmitting the notice of dishonor shall attach or enclose the notice of dishonor, and shall also briefly state: (1) the dates and details of the sender’s prior attempts at personal service; and (2) that due to such failure or frustrated attempts, the sender is resorting to electronic service.

“To ensure prompt notice, service by electronic means must be made within 24 hours from the final attempt at personal service. Said service shall constitute the final notice that such check has not been paid for purposes of reckoning the five-banking-day period.

“In addition, an affidavit must be executed, clearly stating the circumstances rendering service through personal delivery impracticable, and detail the diligent efforts made to effect service through such mode. It shall likewise include the details and supporting attachments, proving the date, time, place, and the conduct of the recipient upon the personal tender of the notice.

“In both instances of primary and substituted services, the person effecting service by electronic means must execute an affidavit under oath, together with supporting documentation, narrating the details of the service, including, among others: (1) the date and time the electronic communication was sent; (2) the email or message attaching the notice of dishonor; (3) the email address, account, or number used; (4) any indications of successful transmission, such as delivery or read receipts, if available; and (5) where the platform allows, an exported conversation file or download of chat history reflecting the same content.

“At this point, the Court need only stress that mere denial of receipt or a claim of having disregarded or failed to take notice of the electronic communication shall not be sufficient to invalidate service.”

“The foregoing safeguards aim to ensure that service by electronic means remains both effective and legally defensible.

“Clearly, regardless of the mode of service employed, the requirement for an affidavit of service of notice of dishonor is now mandatory. This requirement ensures clear and reliable evidence of service, thereby preventing unfounded claims of non-receipt and ensuring that the adjudication of cases under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is not unduly hindered by mere denials of service of notice of dishonor.

“Additionally, in instances where the drawee bank notifies the drawer of the dishonor of the check through a text message and/or email address on record, such notification may be presented to corroborate the fact of service, subject to proper authentication under the Rules of Court and Rules on Electronic Evidence. However, this shall serve only as supporting evidence and does not dispense with the requirement of proper service laid down herein.”

The redacted quoted portion of the decision is from SC G.R. 277047 (15 April 2026).