Supreme Court: BP 22 Notice of Dishonor May Be Sent by Email or Chat (Carlos v. People)
In Carlos v. People (G.R. No. 277047, April 15, 2026), the Supreme Court En Banc affirmed a conviction for six counts under the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) and set guidelines on how a notice of dishonor must be served. Personal service comes first, then registered mail. Service by email or messaging app is now recognized, as the main mode when the drawer gave an email address in official dealings, or as a substitute when personal service is clearly impracticable. Every mode now needs a sworn affidavit of service.
Read the full text: Carlos v. People, G.R. No. 277047, April 15, 2026 (En Banc)
What is the case about?
A couple bought tires on installment from a supplier and paid with six post-dated checks dated March to June 2014, totaling ₱609,972.58. The bank dishonored all six because the account was closed.
The supplier's messenger testified that he brought the demand letter to the couple's store on June 8, 2016. He said the couple refused to receive it and that their employee signed for it. He also executed an affidavit of service. The couple denied receiving any notice and claimed they had paid part of the debt.
What did the lower courts rule?
Metropolitan Trial Court: guilty of six counts of BP 22, with fines and payment of ₱609,972.58.
Regional Trial Court: affirmed, with changes to the interest.
Court of Appeals: affirmed. It found that the notice of dishonor was properly served.
What did the Supreme Court decide?
The Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. It imposed a fine for each check equal to its amount, with subsidiary imprisonment if the fines are not paid. It also ordered payment of ₱609,972.58 with 6% interest a year from June 8, 2016, the date of demand, plus costs.
Why did the Court rule that way?
Only questions of law. A petition under Rule 45 does not reopen facts that three courts found the same way. The couple's arguments were factual.
Elements of the offense. BP 22 punishes making or issuing a check for value, knowing that funds are insufficient, when the check is later dishonored (Section 1, BP 22). The first and third elements were not disputed.
Knowledge is presumed after notice. The law presumes knowledge of insufficient funds if the drawer does not pay, or arrange to pay, within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor (Section 2, BP 22). That is why proof of notice often decides the case.
Bare denial is weak. The messenger's testimony and affidavit were not rebutted. A simple denial of receipt could not overcome them.
What is the main doctrine?
The Court used the case to set guidelines for serving a notice of dishonor.
Personal service is the first choice. Deliver the notice to the drawer. If the check was issued through a company, deliver it at the company's office to the person in charge of receiving documents. If no one is there, it may be left at the drawer's home with a suitable person living there.
Registered mail is next, when personal service is impracticable. The sender must explain why, and keep the registry receipt and return card. A receipt alone does not prove that the drawer received the notice.
Electronic service is recognized. It is the main mode when the drawer gave an email address to the payee in their official dealings. It is a substitute when personal service is clearly impracticable, such as when the drawer avoids or refuses the notice.
The address or account must be the drawer's. The sender must show that the email or messaging account is known, reasonably verified and tied to the drawer, for example through earlier exchanges or the contract.
An affidavit of service is required for every mode. It must state the date, time, place and manner of service. For electronic service, attach screenshots or delivery records.
Denial alone does not defeat service. A drawer who claims non-receipt must present clear and convincing proof.
Bank alerts are not enough. A bank's own text or email about the dishonor may support the proof but does not replace proper service.
Was there a separate opinion?
Yes.
Senior Associate Justice Leonen concurred in the result. He welcomed the guidelines and urged the Court to revisit whether BP 22 is consistent with the constitutional ban on imprisonment for debt.
What does the ruling mean for businesses?
Get the email address and mobile number of the person who signs the checks, and put them in the contract or purchase order.
Try personal service first and record each attempt. Take photos or video where possible.
If you serve by email or chat, send the notice promptly after the last failed attempt, attach the notice itself, and keep the delivery records.
Prepare the affidavit of service right away, while details are fresh.
If you receive a notice, act within five banking days. Ignoring an email or chat notice is no longer a safe defense.
A clear written contract makes all of this easier. See how to draft an enforceable contract and what to check before signing supplier agreements. On proving electronic records in court, see the original document rule.
Frequently asked questions
Is a text or chat message now a valid notice of dishonor?
It can be, if the account is shown to be the drawer's, the conditions for electronic service are met, and the sender executes an affidavit of service with supporting records.
How long does the drawer have to pay after notice?
Five banking days from receipt, to avoid the presumption of knowledge under Section 2 of BP 22.
Does paying the check later erase the case?
Payment within five banking days prevents the presumption. Payment after that does not by itself end a criminal case, but it affects civil liability.
Sources
Arnel Carlos and Marivic Carlos v. People of the Philippines and Tire Star, Inc., G.R. No. 277047, April 15, 2026 (En Banc)
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law), Sections 1 and 2
Rules of Court, Rule 45
Need help with SEC or corporate compliance?
We handle SEC registration and reportorial filings, corporate governance, contracts and transactions for Philippine corporations and foreign investors. See our corporate services.
You can also email info@aureadalaw.com or call (02) 8812-9990.
Related guides
This article is general information as of its publication date, not legal advice, and does not create a lawyer-client relationship. For advice on your situation, consult a lawyer.
Comments