The Supreme Court (SC) has recognized email and messaging platforms such as Viber and Facebook Messenger as valid ways of serving notices of dishonor in cases involving bouncing checks, while laying down safeguards for proving electronic service in court.
In a decision penned by SC associate justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the court en banc ruled that a notice of dishonor under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), or the Anti-Bouncing Check Law, may be served through email as a primary mode when the issuer had previously provided the email address.
The notice may also be sent through Viber, Facebook Messenger, or similar applications, provided there is sufficient proof that the electronic account belongs to the check issuer.
Electronic service may also be resorted to when the issuer refuses to receive the notice, avoids service, or when personal service is otherwise impracticable.
In such cases, the electronic notice must be sent within 24 hours of the final unsuccessful attempt at personal service and must state the dates and details of the failed attempts.
The sender must execute an affidavit describing the electronic service and preserve evidence that can establish transmission or receipt, including screenshots, messages, delivery or read receipts, and chat histories.
The court stressed that a simple denial of receipt would not be enough to defeat electronic service.
The guidelines were issued as the court affirmed the conviction of spouses Arnel and Marivic Carlos for six counts of violating BP 22.
The spouses had issued six checks to Tire Star Inc. as payment for car tires. The checks were subsequently dishonored because the account on which they were drawn had been closed.
According to the prosecution, Tire Star’s messenger personally attempted to serve the notice of dishonor at the spouses’ office. The spouses refused to receive the notice and instead instructed an employee to sign for it.
The spouses argued before the SC that they should be acquitted because they had not been properly served with a notice of dishonor.
The court rejected the argument, saying an accused cannot defeat a BP 22 prosecution simply by denying receipt or refusing to accept a notice, as this would allow check issuers to evade liability by deliberately avoiding service.
While expanding the rules to electronic communications, the SC said personal service remains the preferred mode. A notice may be delivered directly to the issuer or, in the case of a business, to an authorized representative.
If the issuer cannot be served at the office, the notice may be left at the issuer’s residence with an adult resident between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
The person serving the notice must execute an affidavit stating when, where, and how service was made. When practicable, the attempt may also be documented through photographs or video recordings, subject to authentication in court.
If personal service is not practicable, the notice may be sent by registered mail or, when registry service is unavailable, by ordinary mail. The sender must execute an affidavit explaining why personal service could not be made and attach the relevant postal records.
For electronic service, the ruling effectively recognizes digital communications as evidence that a check issuer had been notified of the dishonor, provided the prosecution can establish the identity of the account holder and properly authenticate the electronic records.
In all modes of service, the court said an issuer seeking to successfully dispute service must show that it was physically impossible to have received the notice at the time and place where it was served.
The spouses were fined a total of P609,972.58 for the six BP 22 violations, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment. They were also ordered to pay Tire Star the same amount plus interest.
In a concurring opinion, SC senior associate justice Marvic Leonen said electronic service should not merely serve as an alternative to traditional methods but should be considered a primary mode in light of contemporary communications and the judiciary’s digital reforms.
