G.R. No. 119178 – 274 SCRA 572 – Mercantile Law – Negotiable Instruments Law – Notice of Dishonor – Bouncing Checks Law – Corporate Checks Signed By Employee
Father Artelijo Palijo was investing with Premiere Investment House through the latter’s trader, Rosemarie Lachenal. Through the course of his business with Premiere Investment, he was issued three Traders Royal Bank checks in the amounts of P150k, P150k, and P26k, respectively. These checks were eventually dishonored.
The checks, before they were issued to Palijo went through the normal procedure within Premiere investment, to wit; First, the checks are required to be co-signed by Lina Lim Lao, a junior officer of Premiere Investment. Second, the checks are then forwarded to her head office to be co-signed by one Teodulo Asprec. Third, Asprec would then decide to whom the checks were to be ultimately issued and delivered, in this case to Palijo.
Since the checks were dishonored, Palijo sent notices of dishonor to Premiere Investment but he sent the same to the latter’s main office in Cubao (note that Lao and Asprec were holding office in the Binondo Branch of Premiere Investment). Premiere Investment was only able to pay P5k and no further payment was made. Apparently, Premiere Investment was going insolvent and was subsequently placed under receivership.
Palijo filed a criminal case against Lao and Asprec for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
ISSUE: Whether or not Lao is guilty of the crime charged.
HELD: No. The elements of violations against BP 22 are as follows:
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check.
2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value.
3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the check knows at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment.
4. That the check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment.
In the present case, the fact alone that petitioner was a signatory to the checks that were subsequently dishonored merely engenders the prima facie presumption that she knew of the insufficiency of funds, but it does not render her automatically guilty under B.P. 22. After a thorough review of the case at bar, the SC finds that Petitioner Lao did not have actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds in the corporate accounts at the time she affixed her signature to the checks involved in this case, at the time the same were issued, and even at the time the checks were subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank. The scope of Lao’s duties and responsibilities did not encompass the funding of the corporation’s checks; her duties were limited to the marketing department of the Binondo branch.
Further, there can be no prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds in the instant case because no notice of dishonor was actually sent to or received by Lao. Pariljo sent the notices of dishonor to Premiere Investment’s main branch. The main branch did not send the notices to the Binondo branch because it deemed it futile because at that time it knows that it does not have sufficient funds to cover the debt anyway. Notice to the main branch does not serve as constructive notice to Lao. BP 22 is a personal crime hence notice should have been sent to her personally if she were to be made liable.
