From Envelope to Inbox: The Supreme Court Clarifies Electronic Service in BP 22 Cases
By: Atty. Deanne Collen M. Amurao
Atty. Ariadne Kirsten E. Hornilla
Atty. Rhenelle Mae O. Operario
SEPTEMBER 2026
A bounced check does not automatically result in a criminal liability under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (“BP 22”). Among the critical requirements in establishing the offense under BP 22 is proof that the drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to cover the check. This knowledge is ordinarily established when the drawer receives a Notice of Dishonor and fails to pay the amount due or make arrangements for its payment within five banking days.
However, what happens when the drawer denies physically receiving the Notice of Dishonor? May the Notice of Dishonor be validly served instead through electronic means, especially in an increasingly digital environment where people now regularly communicate through messaging applications and electronic mail?
These questions were addressed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Arnel Carlos and Marivic Carlos v. People of the Philippines and Tire Star, Inc., G.R. No. 277047, 15 April 2025, where the High Court clarified the permissible modes of service of a Notice of Dishonor in BP 22 cases and recognized electronic service as a valid mode of service, subject to certain requirements. In doing so, the Court leaped forward to recognize the realities of modern communication and technology, acknowledging that electronic means have become an integral part of present-day commercial transactions and communications.
However, what happens when the drawer denies physically receiving the Notice of Dishonor? May the Notice of Dishonor be validly served instead through electronic means, especially in an increasingly digital environment where people now regularly communicate through messaging applications and electronic mail?
These questions were addressed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of Arnel Carlos and Marivic Carlos v. People of the Philippines and Tire Star, Inc., G.R. No. 277047, 15 April 2025, where the High Court clarified the permissible modes of service of a Notice of Dishonor in BP 22 cases and recognized electronic service as a valid mode of service, subject to certain requirements. In doing so, the Court leaped forward to recognize the realities of modern communication and technology, acknowledging that electronic means have become an integral part of present-day commercial transactions and communications.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Tire Star, Inc. is engaged in the business in the business of trading various types
of tires for cars, sports utility vehicles, and trucks.
On 06 March 2014, Spouses Carlos purchased tires from tire Star on installment basis and issued six postdated checks payable to Tire Star. The checks were delivered to Ruth, Tire Star’s administrative supervisor, and the tires were subsequently delivered to Spouses Carlos’ store and warehouse.
One of the checks was deposited on the same day but was dishonored because and tagged as “Account Closed”. Ruth informed the spouses that the check was dishonored, and demanded payment or replacement of the dishonored check. Tire Star later deposited the five remaining checks on separate occasions, but each was likewise dishonored for the same reason.
Tire Star referred the matter to its counsel, who sent Spouses Carlos a formal demand letter containing the Notice of Dishonor. The demand letter was personally served by Reynaldo, Tire Star’s messenger, on 08 June 2016 at the spouses’ store. However, the spouses refused to personally receive it and instead instructed their employee, Edrick, to receive and sign the letter on their behalf.
Spouses Carlos claimed that they had been regular customers of Tire Star since 2012 and had maintained a good payment history, which prompted Tire Star to extend them a credit line for the purchase of tires. They attributed their financial difficulties to business losses caused by pilferage. However, they maintained that, on March 06, 2014, they were in their office and could not have personally gone to Tire Star’s office. They also explained that, pursuant to their usual credit arrangement, they placed orders through email or telephone and left the checks with their staff for collection by Tire Star.
They further asserted that the accounting personnel who previously handled the Tire Star account was no longer their employee. Hence, they do not have any personal knowledge of what transpired with the bounced checks. They denied receiving the notice of dishonor allegedly served on 08 June 2016, and denied instructing their employee to receive it on their behalf. They also claimed to have partially settled their obligation by paying Php 300,000.00 in cash which were allegedly supported by vouchers. However, the Spouses claimed that the said vouchers were subsequently lost when their office was padlocked by the Quezon City Business Permit and License Office.
The Metropolitan Trial Court found the spouses guilty of six counts of violation of BP 22. The Regional Trial Court affirmed the conviction with modifications, and the Court of Appeals likewise sustained the conviction, finding that the Notice of Dishonor was properly served and that the spouses failed to settle the amounts of the checks or make arrangements for payment within the prescribed period.
The spouses thereafter elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning, among others, the sufficiency of the service of the Notice of Dishonor.
On 06 March 2014, Spouses Carlos purchased tires from tire Star on installment basis and issued six postdated checks payable to Tire Star. The checks were delivered to Ruth, Tire Star’s administrative supervisor, and the tires were subsequently delivered to Spouses Carlos’ store and warehouse.
One of the checks was deposited on the same day but was dishonored because and tagged as “Account Closed”. Ruth informed the spouses that the check was dishonored, and demanded payment or replacement of the dishonored check. Tire Star later deposited the five remaining checks on separate occasions, but each was likewise dishonored for the same reason.
Tire Star referred the matter to its counsel, who sent Spouses Carlos a formal demand letter containing the Notice of Dishonor. The demand letter was personally served by Reynaldo, Tire Star’s messenger, on 08 June 2016 at the spouses’ store. However, the spouses refused to personally receive it and instead instructed their employee, Edrick, to receive and sign the letter on their behalf.
Spouses Carlos claimed that they had been regular customers of Tire Star since 2012 and had maintained a good payment history, which prompted Tire Star to extend them a credit line for the purchase of tires. They attributed their financial difficulties to business losses caused by pilferage. However, they maintained that, on March 06, 2014, they were in their office and could not have personally gone to Tire Star’s office. They also explained that, pursuant to their usual credit arrangement, they placed orders through email or telephone and left the checks with their staff for collection by Tire Star.
They further asserted that the accounting personnel who previously handled the Tire Star account was no longer their employee. Hence, they do not have any personal knowledge of what transpired with the bounced checks. They denied receiving the notice of dishonor allegedly served on 08 June 2016, and denied instructing their employee to receive it on their behalf. They also claimed to have partially settled their obligation by paying Php 300,000.00 in cash which were allegedly supported by vouchers. However, the Spouses claimed that the said vouchers were subsequently lost when their office was padlocked by the Quezon City Business Permit and License Office.
The Metropolitan Trial Court found the spouses guilty of six counts of violation of BP 22. The Regional Trial Court affirmed the conviction with modifications, and the Court of Appeals likewise sustained the conviction, finding that the Notice of Dishonor was properly served and that the spouses failed to settle the amounts of the checks or make arrangements for payment within the prescribed period.
The spouses thereafter elevated the case to the Supreme Court, questioning, among others, the sufficiency of the service of the Notice of Dishonor.
THE SUPREME COURT’S RULING
In finding the spouses guilty of violating BP 22 despite their denial of receipt of the Notice of Dishonor, the Court reiterated that the offense consists of three essential elements:
a.
the making, drawing, and issuance of a check to apply on account or for value;
b.
knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer, at the time of issuance, that there were insufficient funds or credit in the bank to cover the check; and
c.
subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit, or for the same reason had the drawer not ordered the bank to stop payment.
The Court emphasized that the first and third elements are undisputed. As to the second element, the Court explained that Section 2 of BP
22 establishes a prima facie presumption that the drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or credit once the first and third elements are established.
The Court noted, however, that the presumption arises only after the drawer receives notice of dishonor and fails to pay the amount due or make arrangements for its payment within five banking days thereafter. Thus, proper service and receipt of the notice of dishonor are crucial to establish the second element. In the instant case, Reynaldo testified that he personally served the notice of dishonor and demand letter upon spouses Carlos on 08 June 2016, but they refused to acknowledge receipt thereof. Reynaldo likewise executed an Affidavit of Proof of Service upon serving the same to the employee of Spouses Carlos. However, the spouses merely denied knowledge and receipt of the notice.
The Court further held that mere denial is inherently weak and unreliable to prosper. Spouses Carlos could not rely on bare denials, which carry no greater evidentiary value than the affirmative testimony of a credible witness. The Court further observed that allowing such a defense would undermine the prosecution of BP 22 cases, as drawers could simply deny or refuse to acknowledge receipt of notices of dishonor. Such a result would run counter to the purpose of BP 22, which is to safeguard the stability and integrity of commercial transactions and deter the deleterious effects of issuing worthless checks.
The Court noted, however, that the presumption arises only after the drawer receives notice of dishonor and fails to pay the amount due or make arrangements for its payment within five banking days thereafter. Thus, proper service and receipt of the notice of dishonor are crucial to establish the second element. In the instant case, Reynaldo testified that he personally served the notice of dishonor and demand letter upon spouses Carlos on 08 June 2016, but they refused to acknowledge receipt thereof. Reynaldo likewise executed an Affidavit of Proof of Service upon serving the same to the employee of Spouses Carlos. However, the spouses merely denied knowledge and receipt of the notice.
The Court further held that mere denial is inherently weak and unreliable to prosper. Spouses Carlos could not rely on bare denials, which carry no greater evidentiary value than the affirmative testimony of a credible witness. The Court further observed that allowing such a defense would undermine the prosecution of BP 22 cases, as drawers could simply deny or refuse to acknowledge receipt of notices of dishonor. Such a result would run counter to the purpose of BP 22, which is to safeguard the stability and integrity of commercial transactions and deter the deleterious effects of issuing worthless checks.
CONTEMPORARY MODES OF SERVICE THAT MAY BE USED TO SERVE A NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN BP 22 CASES
The Court recognized the need for clear and standardized rules on the service of notice of dishonor, considering its importance in establishing the drawer’s knowledge of the insufficiency of funds under BP 22. Thus, the Court provided that personal service is the primary mode, while mail may be used when personal service is not practicable. In appropriate cases, electronic means may likewise be used as either primary or substituted service.
For personal service, the notice may be delivered directly to the drawer or, where applicable, to a clerk or person authorized to receive documents at the drawer’s office. If service at the office is not possible, the notice may be left at the drawer’s known residence, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., with a person of sufficient age and discretion residing therein. The person effecting service must execute an affidavit of service detailing the date, time, place, and manner of service, as well as the recipient’s conduct upon tender of the notice. Photographs or video recordings should likewise be taken whenever feasible to document the service.
For service by mail, the notice of dishonor may be served by registered mail, or by ordinary mail if registry service is unavailable in the locality of either the sender or the addressee. The notice must be properly addressed to the drawer, with postage fully prepaid, and, in the case of registered mail, accompanied by instructions to return the mail to the sender after 10 days if undelivered. The person effecting service must execute an affidavit under oath detailing the circumstances of the mailing, including the date and place of mailing, the drawer’s name and address, the registry number, and the reason personal service was not practicable, with the registry receipt and return card attached as supporting evidence.
For personal service, the notice may be delivered directly to the drawer or, where applicable, to a clerk or person authorized to receive documents at the drawer’s office. If service at the office is not possible, the notice may be left at the drawer’s known residence, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., with a person of sufficient age and discretion residing therein. The person effecting service must execute an affidavit of service detailing the date, time, place, and manner of service, as well as the recipient’s conduct upon tender of the notice. Photographs or video recordings should likewise be taken whenever feasible to document the service.
For service by mail, the notice of dishonor may be served by registered mail, or by ordinary mail if registry service is unavailable in the locality of either the sender or the addressee. The notice must be properly addressed to the drawer, with postage fully prepaid, and, in the case of registered mail, accompanied by instructions to return the mail to the sender after 10 days if undelivered. The person effecting service must execute an affidavit under oath detailing the circumstances of the mailing, including the date and place of mailing, the drawer’s name and address, the registry number, and the reason personal service was not practicable, with the registry receipt and return card attached as supporting evidence.
ELECTRONIC MEANS NOW CONSTITUTE A VALID MODE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR IN BP 22 CASES
Service by electronic means may be used either as a primary mode of service or as substituted service. As a primary mode, it may be used when the drawer’s email address has been made available to the payee through official communications. As substituted service, it may be resorted to when personal service is not practicable, such as when the drawer deliberately evades service, refuses receipt, unreasonably delays acknowledgment, or causes the notice to be received by an unauthorized person.
Electronic service, whether as a primary or substituted mode, may be effected through email or messaging applications such as Viber, Facebook Messenger, or other comparable digital channels, provided that the electronic contact details are known, reasonably verified, attributable to, and actively used by the drawer or the drawer’s authorized representative. Attribution and reasonable verification may be established through:
Electronic service, whether as a primary or substituted mode, may be effected through email or messaging applications such as Viber, Facebook Messenger, or other comparable digital channels, provided that the electronic contact details are known, reasonably verified, attributable to, and actively used by the drawer or the drawer’s authorized representative. Attribution and reasonable verification may be established through:
a)
Prior message exchanges with the sender regarding the same transaction;
b)
The drawer’s prior written or electronic confirmation of the email address, account, or number;
c)
The drawer’s use of the same email address, account, or number to send instructions, acknowledgments, or confirmations to the sender; and/or
d)
Other analogous circumstances.
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.
For substituted electronic service, the sender must first show that personal service was not practicable and must document the prior attempts at personal service. The electronic communication must attach the notice of dishonor, and state:
For substituted electronic service, the sender must first show that personal service was not practicable and must document the prior attempts at personal service. The electronic communication must attach the notice of dishonor, and state:
a)
the dates and details of the sender’s prior attempts at personal service; and
b)
that due to such failure or frustrated attempts, the sender is resorting to electronic service.
It must be sent within 24 hours from the final attempt at personal service , and shall constitute the final notice for purposes of reckoning the
five-banking-day period.
An affidavit must also be executed, stating the circumstances rendering service through personal delivery impracticable, and detail the diligent efforts made to effect service through such mode. It shall likewise include the details and supporting attachments, proving the date, time, place, and the conduct of the recipient upon the personal tender of the notice.
In both primary and substituted electronic service, the person effecting service must execute an affidavit under oath narrating the details of service, including, among others:
An affidavit must also be executed, stating the circumstances rendering service through personal delivery impracticable, and detail the diligent efforts made to effect service through such mode. It shall likewise include the details and supporting attachments, proving the date, time, place, and the conduct of the recipient upon the personal tender of the notice.
In both primary and substituted electronic service, the person effecting service must execute an affidavit under oath narrating the details of service, including, among others:
a)
the date and time the electronic communication was sent;
b)
the email or message attaching the notice of dishonor;
c)
the email address, account, or number used;
d)
any indications of successful transmission, such as delivery or read receipts, if available; and
e)
where the platform allows, an exported conversation file or download of chat history reflecting the same content.
ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS ON SERVICE OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR
Beyond the authorized modes of service of Notice of Dishonor, the Court likewise emphasized that regardless of the mode of service employed, an Affidavit of Service of the Notice of Dishonor is mandatory. This requirement applies whether the notice is served personally, by mail, or through electronic means.
Moreover, the Court also recognized that, where the drawee bank notifies the drawer of the dishonor of the check through a text message and/or email address on record, such notification may be presented to corroborate the fact of service, subject to proper authentication.
Finally, on the part of the drawer, the Court noted that a mere denial of receipt of the Notice of Dishonor is insufficient. For the defense of denial to prosper, the drawer must establish that it was physically impossible for them to have been present at the place and time when the Notice of Dishonor was served. Absent proof of such impossibility, a mere denial of receipt cannot overcome affirmative evidence establishing its service.
Moreover, the Court also recognized that, where the drawee bank notifies the drawer of the dishonor of the check through a text message and/or email address on record, such notification may be presented to corroborate the fact of service, subject to proper authentication.
Finally, on the part of the drawer, the Court noted that a mere denial of receipt of the Notice of Dishonor is insufficient. For the defense of denial to prosper, the drawer must establish that it was physically impossible for them to have been present at the place and time when the Notice of Dishonor was served. Absent proof of such impossibility, a mere denial of receipt cannot overcome affirmative evidence establishing its service.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court’s recognition of the electronic service of Notices of Dishonor marks an important development in the prosecution of BP 22 cases. While personal service remains a primary mode of service, registered or ordinary mail may still be utilized when personal service is not practicable. Similarly, electronic means may likewise constitute valid service, whether as a primary or substituted mode, provided that the requirements on attribution, verification, and documentation are satisfied.
The above ruling reflects the realities of modern commercial transactions, where communications concerning purchases, payments, obligations, and demands are now regularly conducted through various electronic platforms. In recognizing electronic service, however, the Court did not dispense with the safeguards traditionally associated with the proper modes of service. Rather, it underscored the importance of verification, attribution, and documentation, among others in establishing that the notice was validly served.
For drawees, this means that simply sending a Notice of Dishonor through email or a messaging application does not automatically establish valid service. The circumstances surrounding the service must be properly documented, and the electronic account, email address, or contact number used must be reasonably attributable to the drawer or the drawer’s authorized representative.
For drawers, the ruling likewise underscores the importance of promptly responding to notices concerning dishonored checks. A mere denial of receipt may not be sufficient where the prosecution presents credible and affirmative evidence of service. To overcome such evidence, the drawer must establish circumstances demonstrating the impossibility of having received the Notice of Dishonor.
Ultimately, the case of Carlos v. People and Tire Star, Inc. demonstrates that the law may accommodate technological advancements without abandoning the evidentiary safeguards necessary in criminal proceedings. In BP 22 cases, the inquiry is no longer confined to whether a Notice of Dishonor was physically delivered. It may also extend to whether the notice was validly transmitted through a reliable and attributable electronic channel, and whether such service can be competently established in court.
The ruling therefore makes it clear that a Notice of Dishonor may now travel beyond the traditional envelope and into the digital inbox. In the digital age, while the mode of service may evolve, its legal significance remains firmly anchored in the requirements of the law.
The above ruling reflects the realities of modern commercial transactions, where communications concerning purchases, payments, obligations, and demands are now regularly conducted through various electronic platforms. In recognizing electronic service, however, the Court did not dispense with the safeguards traditionally associated with the proper modes of service. Rather, it underscored the importance of verification, attribution, and documentation, among others in establishing that the notice was validly served.
For drawees, this means that simply sending a Notice of Dishonor through email or a messaging application does not automatically establish valid service. The circumstances surrounding the service must be properly documented, and the electronic account, email address, or contact number used must be reasonably attributable to the drawer or the drawer’s authorized representative.
For drawers, the ruling likewise underscores the importance of promptly responding to notices concerning dishonored checks. A mere denial of receipt may not be sufficient where the prosecution presents credible and affirmative evidence of service. To overcome such evidence, the drawer must establish circumstances demonstrating the impossibility of having received the Notice of Dishonor.
Ultimately, the case of Carlos v. People and Tire Star, Inc. demonstrates that the law may accommodate technological advancements without abandoning the evidentiary safeguards necessary in criminal proceedings. In BP 22 cases, the inquiry is no longer confined to whether a Notice of Dishonor was physically delivered. It may also extend to whether the notice was validly transmitted through a reliable and attributable electronic channel, and whether such service can be competently established in court.
The ruling therefore makes it clear that a Notice of Dishonor may now travel beyond the traditional envelope and into the digital inbox. In the digital age, while the mode of service may evolve, its legal significance remains firmly anchored in the requirements of the law.
*The views and opinions expressed are based on applicable laws, constitutional provisions, and/or jurisprudence in force at the time of writing, and do not constitute legal advice or an official stance on any political matter. Subsequent legal or factual developments may affect the relevance or applicability of the views and opinions herein expressed.