The Real Struggles Behind BP 22 Cases: Unravelling the Technical Nature of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law
By: Atty. Ariadne Kirsten Hornilla and Atty. Rhenelle Mae O. Operario
It usually starts with trust.
A friend who was down on his luck from a failed business venture approached you as he badly needed money to get through a tough week. Considering that you had some savings, you didn’t think twice about helping him out. He handed you a post-dated check saying, “Pang-seguro lang,” he said.
Then, you deposited it on the date he promised. A few hours later, your phone buzzed. The bank’s message was brief, cold, and disappointing: “Check returned due to insufficient funds or closed account.”
But what happens next? What can you do?
In the Philippines, the issuance of a worthless check or “tumalbog na cheke” is considered a crime. It is governed by the law of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (“BP 22”) which is also known as the Bouncing Checks Law which punishes the act of issuing a check to apply on account or for value when the account in which the check was drawn has insufficient funds, drawn on a closed account or when a stop payment order was issued without any valid reason.
To understand BP 22, imagine each check as a promise backed by trust. When that trust is broken, the whole system crumbles.
In Lozano vs. Martinez1 , the Honorable Supreme Court said that the heart of the crime is simple: issuing a check that bounces when presented for payment. That’s it.
Further, in Maria Nympha Mandagan vs. Jose M. Valero Construction 2, the Honorable Supreme Court explained that three things must happen before someone can be held liable:
1. A check was issued.
2. The issuer knew there wasn’t enough money in the bank.
3. The check bounced.
Sounds simple enough…until you get to the part that trips up almost everyone.
First, the demand letter or notice of dishonor that can make or break a case.
If you tell the issuer their check bounced and they pay you back within five banking days, the law says they should not be punished. But here's the catch,you must prove that you actually sent them a written notice and that they received it.
In Jaime Dico vs. Court of Appeals 3, the Supreme Court said that without proof the issuer received this letter or notice, a BP 22 case can be dismissed, even if the check is undeniably worthless.
Imagine that. After pouring everything including your time, energy, and money, your case can crumble just because the letter or notice was not received or documented properly.
People think filing a BP 22 case is easy. “Just show the bounced check and the bank slip.” But complainants know the reality is far from simple.
Sometimes the letter or notice never reaches the issuer because:
· They moved addresses.
· They refuse delivery.
· The mail courier cannot find them.
· The complainant does not know the difference between “sent” and “received.”
One mistake in the process of serving this document can ruin the entire case.
As if this is not enough. People are made to believe that the proceedings are summary in nature as it is governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. But, the reality is BP 22 cases do not end quickly. Weeks turn into months. Months turn into years. People lose patience, savings, and sometimes even hope. Hearings get reset. Accused parties do not show up. Complainants take time off work to sit in crowded courtrooms waiting for their turn only to be told, “Come back next month.”
But the most difficult part is sometimes the issuer is a friend, and even a relative. Filing a case feels like betrayal. Family members get involved. People take sides. A simple loan becomes an emotional battlefield. In most cases, accused issuers do not apologize, they attack. They even blame the lender. They threaten countersuits. They shame them on social media.
Instead of settling their debt, they make noise to make the complainant back down.
And then, there’s additional expenses. If the check was for ₱5,000, but you spend ₱20,000 on transportation, notarization, and legal fees, is it still worth it? Many complainants say yes, not for the money, but for the principle. They want accountability. They want justice.
So, what happens if the Court convicts the issuer? Instead of jail, most courts nowadays usually impose a fine, which can be up to double the amount of the check (but only up to ₱200,000 per check). This is because of Supreme Court Administrative Circulars 12-2000 and 13-2001. But if the issuer refuses to pay the fine, subsidiary imprisonment can still follow.
So yes, BP 22 has not been decriminalized.
However, despite the difficulties, BP 22 continues to serve as an indispensable instrument in safeguarding the integrity and reliability of commercial transactions in the Philippines. By imposing sanctions on the issuance of unfunded or dishonored checks, the law strengthens public confidence in the banking system and affirms the fundamental principle that financial commitments must be honored diligently. Although ongoing discussions persist regarding the law’s penalties and their implications for economically vulnerable individuals, BP 22 remains vital in promoting accountability and deterring fraudulent or irresponsible financial conduct.
The law is not perfect, and it can feel overwhelming for ordinary people. But at its core, BP 22 protects one simple truth: a check is a promise, and promises should be honored.
