MANILA—The Supreme Court has formally recognized electronic communication as a valid way to serve notices of dishonor in cases involving violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, or the Anti-Bouncing Check Law, while laying down requirements to establish that such service was properly made.

The ruling was issued by the SC En Banc in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, which upheld the conviction of spouses Arnel and Marivic Carlos on six counts of violating BP 22.

The case stemmed from six checks the spouses issued to Tire Star as payment for car tires. All six checks were subsequently dishonored after the bank found that the account from which they were drawn had already been closed.

According to the prosecution, Tire Star’s messenger personally went to the spouses’ office to serve the notice of dishonor. The spouses declined to personally receive the document and directed an employee to sign for it instead.

The Metropolitan Trial Court, Regional Trial Court, and Court of Appeals all found the spouses guilty.

The spouses later questioned their convictions before the SC, arguing that they had not been properly served with the required notice of dishonor.

The SC disagreed, stressing that an issuer cannot avoid the consequences of a dishonored check simply by refusing to receive a notice or denying that it was received.

Under BP 22, an issuer of a dishonored check is given five banking days from receipt of the notice of dishonor to settle the amount. Failure to pay within that period gives rise to a presumption that the issuer knew there were insufficient funds or credit when the check was issued.

The Court said allowing issuers to defeat prosecution by simply avoiding service would provide an easy way to evade liability.

To establish more consistent procedures, the SC outlined the acceptable methods for serving notices of dishonor.

Personal service remains the preferred method. A notice may be delivered directly to the issuer or, when the issuer is a business, to an authorized representative. If service at the office is unsuccessful, the notice may be left at the issuer’s residence with an adult resident between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.

The person making personal service must execute an affidavit detailing when, where, and how the notice was served. When practicable, photographs or video recordings should also be taken to document the service, subject to authentication before the court.

When personal service cannot reasonably be made, the notice may be sent through registered mail, or through ordinary mail if registry service is unavailable. An affidavit must likewise explain the circumstances preventing personal service and include the relevant postal records.

The Court also recognized electronic means, including email, as a valid mode of service.

Email may be used as a primary method when the issuer had previously provided the email address. Platforms such as Viber and Facebook Messenger, as well as similar applications, may also be used if it can be established that the account belongs to the issuer.

Electronic service is likewise allowed when an issuer refuses to receive the notice, evades service, or cannot practicably be personally served. In these circumstances, the electronic notice must be sent within 24 hours of the last unsuccessful attempt at personal service and must include the dates and circumstances of those attempts.

The sender must execute an affidavit and preserve evidence supporting the electronic service, including screenshots, messages, delivery or read receipts, and chat histories.

The SC said merely denying receipt of an electronically served notice does not, by itself, invalidate the service. To successfully contest service, the issuer must demonstrate that it was physically impossible for them to have received the notice at the stated time and place.

The Court also distinguished bank notifications from the legally required notice of dishonor. Text messages or emails automatically generated by a bank informing a customer that a check has been dishonored may support or corroborate proof of service, but they do not substitute for the notice required under BP 22.

In the Carlos spouses’ case, the SC found that they only challenged the credibility of the messenger who testified about the attempted service. They did not contest his affidavit of service or establish that they could not have been present at their office when the notice was delivered.

The spouses were ordered to pay a total fine of PHP 609,972.58 for the six BP 22 violations, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment. They were also ordered to pay Tire Star the same amount, plus interest.

In a Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that electronic service should be treated not merely as an alternative to traditional methods but as a primary mode of service, given contemporary communication practices and the Judiciary’s continuing digital reforms.

Leonen also called for a possible reconsideration of the SC’s ruling in Lozano v. Hon. Martinez, which upheld BP 22 as a valid exercise of police power and rejected arguments that the law violates the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.

He said the Court has repeatedly raised questions about whether BP 22 addresses a sufficiently serious social or economic problem to warrant criminal punishment, or whether the courts are effectively being used as debt collectors. He further noted that large lending institutions may use the law while continuing to profit from high interest charges.