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.
When a Corporate Officer Escapes Civil Liability for a Bounced Check Under BP 22
The Supreme Court clarifies that an acquitted corporate officer cannot be held personally liable for a dishonored corporate check under BP 22.
Acquitted Corporate Officer Not Civilly Liable for Bouncing Check: Supreme Court Ruling
Supreme Court clarifies that a corporate officer acquitted of BP 22 violations cannot be held civilly liable for the dishonored check's value.
Fraud and Writs of Preliminary Attachment: Lessons from a Philippine Supreme Court Ruling
When does non-payment of a debt amount to fraud justifying a writ of preliminary attachment? A recent Supreme Court ruling provides clear guidance.
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.
Venue in Estafa Cases: Where Does a Bouncing Check Crime Occur?
The Supreme Court clarifies that in estafa cases involving bouncing checks, venue lies where the check was issued and dishonored, not where negotiations occurred.
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.
When Checks Prove a Loan: The Supreme Court Ruling on Evidence of Indebtedness
The Supreme Court clarifies when checks alone establish a loan obligation and shift the burden of proof to the debtor under Philippine law.
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.
Bouncing Checks Law: The 90-Day Rule and Proof of Knowledge Under BP 22
Presenting a check after 90 days does not bar prosecution under BP 22—knowledge of insufficient funds can still be proven by other evidence.
Bouncing Checks Under B.P. 22: When a Check Used as Loan Security Still Leads to Criminal Liability
The Supreme Court clarifies that issuing a bouncing check is a crime under B.P. 22, even if the check was only security for a loan.
Notice of Dishonor Under BP 22: Why Actual Receipt Matters in Bouncing Check Cases
Under BP 22, a bounced check issuer can only be convicted if properly notified of dishonor. The Betty King case shows why actual notice is crucial.