Supreme Court Sets New Rules on Serving Notice of Dishonor in Bouncing Check Cases

The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, laid down new guidelines on how notice of dishonor should be served in prosecutions for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, the Anti-Bouncing Check Law. In the case of Spouses Carlos v. People of the Philippines and Tire Star, Inc. (G.R. No. 277047, 15 April 2026), the Court seized the opportunity to standardize the rules on proving that a check issuer had been properly notified that his or her check had bounced.

Arnel and Marivic Carlos purchased tires on credit from Tire Star, Inc. To pay for this, the spouses issued six postdated checks, which they personally handed to Tire Star’s administrative supervisor, Ruth. The tires were then delivered to the couple’s store.

When Ruth deposited the checks, one by one, all six bounced due to the account being closed. Ruth informed the spouses that the first check bounced and asked the spouses to pay their obligation or replace the check. Eventually, all the checks were dishonored.