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.
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.
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.
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.
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.