Legal Insights
Plain-language guides and case briefs on Philippine law — researched from the firm's law library of 184,000+ statutes, Supreme Court decisions, and agency issuances, and written so non-lawyers can understand and act on them.
B.P. 22 and the Corporate Veil: When Corporate Officers Face Personal Liability
The Supreme Court pierces the corporate veil in B.P. 22 cases, holding officers personally liable for bouncing checks—but only with proper notice of dishonor.
BP 22 Acquittal: Why Actual Receipt of Notice of Dishonor Is Critical
In Robert Chua v. People, the Supreme Court acquitted a BP 22 accused because prosecutors failed to prove actual receipt of the notice of dishonor.
B.P. 22 Conviction Requires Proper Presentation of Notice of Dishonor: The Tan Case
A B.P. 22 conviction requires the prosecution to properly present the notice of dishonor in court; failure to do so negates the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds.
B.P. 22 Conviction Requires Proof of Written Notice of Dishonor: The Sia Case
Conviction under the Bouncing Checks Law requires proof the accused received written notice of dishonor. The Sia case explains why.