24/08/2026
CASE DIGEST | NEW GUIDELINES ON NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN B.P. BLG. 22 CASES
ARNEL CARLOS and MARIVIC CARLOS v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and TIRE STAR, INC.
G.R. No. 277047, April 15, 2026, En Banc
Ponente: J. Gaerlan
FACTS:
Spouses Arnel and Marivic Carlos purchased tires from Tire Star, Inc. on installment and issued six post-dated checks as payment. The checks were subsequently dishonored because the bank account had been closed.Tire Star, through counsel, sent a formal demand containing the notice of dishonor, requiring the spouses to settle their obligation or make good on the dishonored checks within five banking days. Its messenger personally attempted to serve the notice on the spouses. According to his testimony, the spouses refused to receive the letter and instead instructed their employee to receive and sign for it.
The MeTC found the spouses guilty of six counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, and the conviction was subsequently affirmed by the RTC and the Court of Appeals. Before the Supreme Court, the spouses argued, among others, that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove their receipt of the notice of dishonor.
ISSUE:
Whether spouses Carlos were guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating B.P. Blg. 22, particularly whether the required notice of dishonor was sufficiently established.
RULING:
YES.
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.For a successful prosecution under B.P. Blg. 22, the following elements must be established:The making, drawing, and issuance of a check to apply on account or for value;Knowledge by the maker, drawer, or issuer that, at the time of issuance, he or she does not have sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank; andSubsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or for the same reason had the drawer not ordered a stop payment without valid cause.
As to the second element, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 creates a prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds when the drawer receives notice that the check was dishonored and fails, within five banking days, to pay the amount due or make arrangements for payment. Thus, proof of receipt of the notice of dishonor is material.
In this case, the Court found that the affirmative testimony and affidavit of proof of service prevailed over the spouses’ bare denial of receipt. The Court stressed that allowing a drawer to defeat prosecution simply by refusing to receive or later denying receipt of the notice would frustrate the purpose of B.P. Blg. 22.
IMPORTANT DOCTRINE: NEW GUIDELINES ON SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR
The significance of Carlos v. People lies in the Supreme Court’s clarification and standardization of the manner by which notice of dishonor may be served and proven in B.P. Blg. 22 cases.
1. PERSONAL SERVICE IS THE PRIMARY MODE
Notice of dishonor should primarily be personally delivered to the drawer.When the drawer transacts or issues the check through a company, or uses the company to act on his or her behalf in the ordinary course of business, the notice may be served at the company office upon a clerk or person in charge of the usual receipt of documents.
If no person is found in the office, or the office is unknown or nonexistent, the notice may be left at the drawer’s known residence between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. with a person of sufficient age and discretion residing therein.
For personal service, the person effecting service must execute an affidavit under oath describing the date, time, place, manner of service, and the conduct of the recipient upon tender of the notice.
Whenever feasible, the service should also be documented by photographs and/or video recordings, subject to proper authentication during trial.
2. REGISTERED MAIL MAY BE USED WHEN PERSONAL SERVICE IS NOT PRACTICABLE
If personal service cannot practicably be made, the notice may be served by registered mail.The person effecting service must execute an affidavit stating the circumstances of the mailing, including the date of mailing, post office, name and address of the drawer, registry number, and the reason why personal service was not practicable. The registry receipt and return card should likewise be attached.
However, the Court emphasized that registry receipts and return cards do not, by themselves, prove receipt. The signature appearing on the registry return must be positively identified and authenticated as that of the drawer or of a person who received the notice on the drawer’s behalf.
3. ELECTRONIC SERVICE IS NOW EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED
The Supreme Court expressly recognized service of the notice of dishonor through electronic means, including:
Email, Viber, Facebook Messenger, and other comparable digital channels.
Electronic service may be used:
as a primary mode, when the drawer’s email address has been made available to the payee through official communications; or
as substituted service, when personal service is not practicable, such as when the drawer deliberately evades service, refuses receipt, unreasonably delays acknowledgment, or causes the notice to be received by a person not authorized to receive it.
The electronic contact details must be known, reasonably verified, attributable to, and actively used by the drawer or authorized representative.
Such attribution may be shown through prior message exchanges involving the same transaction, written or electronic confirmation of the account or number, prior use of the account to give instructions or acknowledgments, or other records attributable to the drawer.
When electronic service is used as substituted service, the electronic communication must attach or enclose the notice of dishonor and indicate the previous attempts at personal service. It must generally be sent within 24 hours from the final attempt at personal service.
4. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE IS NOW MANDATORY
The Supreme Court categorically declared:
Regardless of the mode of service employed, an affidavit of service of the notice of dishonor is mandatory.
For electronic service, the affidavit and supporting documentation should establish, among others:
the date and time the communication was sent;
the email or message attaching the notice of dishonor;
the email address, account, or number used;
any delivery or read receipts, when available; and
where possible, an exported conversation file or downloaded chat history.
5. MERE DENIAL OF RECEIPT IS NOT SUFFICIENT
The Court further ruled that the drawer cannot simply claim:
“I did not receive the notice.”
For denial to prosper, the drawer must establish by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him or her to have received the notice at the place and time when service was made.
Absent such proof, mere denial cannot overcome affirmative evidence establishing service.
DOCTRINE:
The notice of dishonor is material in B.P. Blg. 22 cases because it is essential in establishing the drawer’s knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. Hence, it must be served in a manner that ensures its receipt and its eventual admissibility as evidence in court.
A drawer cannot avoid liability merely by refusing to receive the notice or subsequently denying receipt. Properly documented affirmative evidence of service cannot be defeated by a bare denial.
The recognized modes are:
PERSONAL SERVICE → REGISTERED MAIL → ELECTRONIC SERVICE
Electronic service through email, Viber, Facebook Messenger, and comparable digital platforms may now be used, subject to the safeguards laid down by the Court.
Most importantly:
An affidavit of service is now mandatory regardless of the mode of service, and mere denial or refusal to receive the notice will not automatically defeat a B.P. Blg. 22 prosecution.
full case:https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/G.R.-No.-277047-1.pdf?fbclid=IwY2xjawT42bNwZG9mBWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAGJyaWQRMVZpUkN3c3Y0Rlo0ZHBJWTFzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEekHph7hZRKANjxYJMip7CCesoAsY3VdnEbOHiKKH6BRDTUqez9G13YqjoTQg_aem_9iojzOWjvqn0GnQkkEhDAQ
