29/08/2026
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1BogZGCQLM/
Originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office.
The (SC) has clarified the rules on serving notices of dishonor in cases involving Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) or the ๐๐ฏ๐ต๐ช-๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ค๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ค๐ฌ ๐๐ข๐ธ. The SC formally recognized electronic service as a valid mode of serving notice of dishonor, while requiring safeguards to ensure that service can be reliably proven in court.
In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC ๐๐ฏ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ค affirmed the conviction of spouses Arnel and Marivic Carlos for six counts of violating BP 22.
The spouses issued six checks to respondent Tire Star, Inc. as payment for car tires. All six checks were dishonored by the bank as the account they were drawn from had been closed.
The prosecution presented evidence that Tire Starโs messenger personally attempted to serve the notice of dishonor at the spousesโ office, and that the spouses refused to receive it, instructed an employee instead to sign for it.
The spouses then claimed before the SC that they should be acquitted because they were not properly served with a notice of dishonor.
The SC rejected the spousesโ argument, emphasizing that an accused cannot defeat a BP 22 prosecution simply by denying receipt of the notice or refusing to accept it. Otherwise, issuers could easily evade liability by avoiding service.
To promote uniformity and reduce disputes, the SC clarified the acceptable modes of serving notices of dishonor.
๐ฃ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ผ๐ป๐ฎ๐น ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ 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 issuerโs residence with an adult resident between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.
The person serving the notice must execute an affidavit stating when, where, and how 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 ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ด๐ถ๐๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ถ๐น, or where registry service is unavailable, by ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐บ๐ฎ๐ถ๐น. 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 ๐ฒ๐น๐ฒ๐ฐ๐๐ฟ๐ผ๐ป๐ถ๐ฐ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ฐ๐ฒ, ruling that 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 ๐๐ช๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ณ, ๐๐ข๐ค๐ฆ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ฌ ๐๐ฆ๐ด๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ๐จ๐ฆ๐ณ, or similar applications, provided it can be verified that the electronic account belongs to the issuer.
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.
The sender must also execute an affidavit and preserve supporting evidence, such as screenshots, messages, delivery or read receipts, or chat histories., stressing 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.
The spouses were fined a total 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 his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that electronic service should not merely be a substitute but a primary mode of service consistent with contemporary means of communication and the Judiciaryโs ongoing digital reforms.
Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172159.
Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171528.
Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171527.
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.
