April 15, 2026 | GAERLAN, J.
Case Digest by Myle Isobel Bayani
FACTS OF THE CASE
Spouses Arnel Carlos and Marivic Carlos, petitioners herein, went to private respondent Tire Star, Inc’s office to purchase car tires on an installment basis via six post-dated checks. These tires were delivered to Spouses Carlos. However, when Ruth, the administrative supervisor of Tire Star, deposited the checks issued by petitioners, the same were dishonored and returned unpaid due to the account being tagged as “Account Closed.” Ruth promptly called spouses Carlos to notify them and demanded payment of their obligation as well as replacement of the dishonored check. The five remaining checks were likewise dishonored for the same reason. Hence, Tire Star sent a formal demand, containing the notice of dishonor to spouses Carlos, requiring them to settle their outstanding obligations or make good on the dishonored checks within five banking days from notice. The demand letter was personally served by Reynaldo, the private respondent’s messenger, on June 8, 2016 at spouses Carlos’ store. However, petitioners refused to receive the letter and instead instructed their employee Edrick San Juan (Edrick) to receive the notice and sign it on their behalf.
As their defense, Spouses Carlos maintained that on one of the dates of the alleged incidents, they were in their office and denied having been served with a notice of dishonor on June 8, 2016. They further denied that they asked their staff Edrick to receive said notice.
ISSUE
Whether or not the notice of dishonor was validly served.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in the AFFIRMATIVE. There was a valid service of the notice of dishonor.
The Court clarified and refined its jurisprudence regarding the service of the notice of dishonor in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases. Service shall primarily be made personally or though registered mail. Significantly, service through electronic means may likewise be undertaken, either as a primary mode or as a form of substituted service, in line with the Court’s Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027.
Service by electronic means may be resorted to (a) as a primary mode of service if the email of the issuer of the check had been made available to the payee in official communications; or (b) as a substituted service, through other electronic means, when there is a clear showing that the personal service is not practicable, including but not limited to, instances where the drawer deliberately evades services, refuses receipt, unreasonably delays acknowledgment of the notice of dishonor, and/or causes the notice to be received by a person not duly authorized to accept the notice on his or her behalf.
Moreover, electronic means of service, including but not limited to, email and messaging applications may be resorted to, provided that the recipient’s electronic contact details (i.e., email address, account, or number) must be known and reasonably verified, and shown to be attributable to, and actively used by the drawer or his or her authorized representative, where applicable. The email address, account, or number appearing in the drawer’s check issuance records; loan or contract documents, or other records attributable to the drawer and made known to the payee shall likewise be sufficient proof of attribution and reasonable verification.
The Court stressed that mere denial of receipt or a claim of having disregarded or failed to take notice of the electronic communication shall not be sufficient to invalidate service. In the case at bar, spouses Carlos merely denied knowledge and receipt of the said notice against the testimony of Reynaldo and his execution of an Affidavit of Proof of Service. The Court reiterates that there is no dispute that spouses Carlos signed the checks and that the bank dishonored the checks because the account had been closed. Notice of dishonor was properly given, but spouses Carlos failed to pay the checks or make arrangements for their payment within five days from notice. With all the above elements duly proven, spouses Carlos cannot escape the criminal and civil liabilities that Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 imposes for its violation.