The notice of dishonor of a check under the Bouncing Checks Law can now be served electronically aside from personal service and through the mails, whether registered or ordinary mail, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.

A violation of the Bouncing Checks Law under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 happens when someone issues a check for payment, knowing there are not enough funds, and the bank later dishonors the check.

Under BP 22, the issuer of a dishonored check has five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to pay the amount due. If payment is not made within that period, the law presumes that the issuer knew there were insufficient funds when the check was issued.

In a full court decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan in GR No. 277047 that was made public last August 24, the SC pointed out that an issuer of a bouncing check charged in court cannot defeat prosecution simply by denying receipt of the notice or refusing to accept it.

Otherwise, the SC said that issuers of bouncing checks could easily evade liability by avoiding service.

A summary of the decision issued by the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson stated that personal service remains the preferred mode. The notice may be delivered directly to the issuer or, in the case of a business, to an authorized representative.

If the issuer cannot be served at the office, the notice may be left at the issuer’s residence with an adult resident between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. The person serving the notice must execute an affidavit stating when, where, and how the service was made.

When practicable, service should be documented through photographs or video recordings, subject to proper authentication in court.

If personal service is not practicable, the notice of dishonor may be sent by registered mail, or where registry service is unavailable, by ordinary mail.

The person serving the notice must likewise execute an affidavit explaining why personal service could not be made and attach the supporting postal documents.

The SC also recognized electronic service. It said a notice of dishonor may now be served through email as a primary mode of service when the issuer previously provided their email address.

Electronic service may likewise be used through platforms such as Viber, Facebook Messenger, or similar applications, provided it can be verified that the electronic account belongs to the issuer, it added.

At the same time, the SC said that electronic service may also be used when the issuer refuses to receive the notice, avoids service, or when personal service is otherwise impracticable.

In such cases, the electronic notice must be sent within 24 hours after the final unsuccessful attempt at personal service and must state the dates and details of those failed attempts, it said.

The sender must also execute an affidavit and preserve supporting evidence, such as screenshots, messages, delivery or read receipts, or chat histories, it added.

The SC pointed out that a simple denial of receipt is not enough to invalidate electronic service. In all instances, to successfully dispute service, the issuer must show that it was physically impossible to have received the notice at the time and place it was served, it said.

It clarified that bank-generated text messages or emails informing a customer that a check has been dishonored may help corroborate service but cannot replace the notice of dishonor required by BP 22.

The decision was issued on the appeal filed before the SC by a couple who were charged with six counts of violations of BP 22. The couple (whose names the Manila Bulletin redacted) were engaged in tire dealerships. They were charged in court by their tire supplier for the six bouncing checks involving P609,972.58.

The tire supplier presented evidence that the firm’s messenger personally attempted to serve the notice of dishonor at the spouses’ office. The spouses refused to receive it and instead instructed an employee to sign for it.

The metropolitan trial court, regional trial court, and Court of Appeals all found the spouses guilty.

In their appeal, the spouses told the SC that they should be acquitted because they were not properly served with a notice of dishonor. The SC rejected their argument and affirmed the rulings of the lower courts.

The SC found that the spouses merely questioned the credibility of the messenger’s testimony but failed to challenge his affidavit of service or prove that they could not have been at their office when service was attempted.

The SC ruled: “All things considered, the Court reiterates that there is no dispute that spouses signed the checks and that the bank dishonored the checks because the account had been closed. Notice of dishonor was properly given, but the spouses failed to pay the checks or make arrangements for their payment within five days from notice. With all the above elements duly proven, the spouses cannot escape the criminal and civil liabilities that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 imposes for its violation.”

The spouses were fined a total of P609,972.58 for the six BP 22 violations, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment. They were also ordered to pay the tire supplier the same amount, plus six percent interest until fully paid.