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.

A formal demand letter enclosing the notice of dishonor was sent to the spouses’ store. However, the spouses refused to receive the same and instead, instructed their employee, to receive and sign for it on their behalf.

The spouses, for their part, denied all of this. They claimed they never received any notice of dishonor and that they had no personal knowledge of what happened to the checks.

In affirming the conviction, the Supreme Court reiterated the elements needed to convict someone under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22: (1) issuance of a check for value; (2) the issuer’s knowledge, at the time of issuance, that there were insufficient funds to cover it; and (3) the check’s subsequent dishonor for insufficiency of funds. The first and third elements were undisputed since the spouses did not deny signing the checks, and the checks themselves proved dishonor for “Account Closed.”

The dispute centered on the second element, which the law presumes once a valid notice of dishonor is served and the drawer fails to settle the check or make payment arrangements within five banking days. The spouses argued they never received such notice. The Court rejected this defense, finding that Tire Star’s messenger credibly testified to personally attempting service and executed a sworn affidavit of proof of service, while the spouses offered only a bare denial without presenting the employee who allegedly received the letter, and without proving it was physically impossible for them to have received it.

New Standardized Guidelines on Serving Notice of Dishonor

Recognizing that disputes over receipt of the notice of dishonor had become a recurring basis for contesting Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases, the Supreme Court used this case to lay down clear, standardized rules for how notice must be served and proven. These guidelines draw on analogous service requirements from ejectment and labor law and are summarized below:

Mode of Service	Requirements	Supporting Affidavit Must State
1. Personal service (primary mode)	For an individual: delivery directly to the drawer.  For a company: delivery at its office to a clerk or person in charge of receiving documents. If no one is found, or the office is unknown or no longer exists, the notice may instead 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 there.	Date, time, place, and manner of service, plus the recipient’s conduct upon tender of the notice. Service should, where feasible, also be documented with contemporaneous photos or videos, presented in court for authentication.
2. Registered mail (if personal service is not practicable)	Notice deposited at the post office in a sealed, prepaid envelope plainly addressed to the drawer, with instructions to return it to sender if undelivered after 10 days. Ordinary mail is allowed under the same conditions where no registry service exists in the area. This service marks the start of the five-banking-day period.	Date of mailing, post office of deposit, drawer’s name and address, registry number, and the reason personal service was not practicable. The registry receipt and return card must be attached and authenticated, and the signature on the return card must be positively identified as belonging to the drawer or an authorized recipient.
3. Electronic service – primary mode	Available only where the drawer’s email address was made known to the payee through official communications (for example, prior exchanges on the same transaction, the drawer’s own confirmation of the contact details, or the drawer’s use of the same address or account to message the payee). The same standard applies to messaging platforms such as Viber, Facebook Messenger, or similar apps, provided the account is verified as belonging to and actively used by the drawer.	Date and time sent, the email or message containing the notice, the account or number used, evidence of successful transmission such as delivery or read receipts (if available), and, where possible, an exported copy of the conversation.
4. Electronic service – substituted mode	Used only when personal service is shown to be impracticable, such as deliberate evasion, refusal to receive the notice, unreasonable delay in acknowledging it, or receipt by an unauthorized person. The same attribution and verification standards as primary electronic service apply. The electronic message must attach the notice of dishonor and briefly explain the prior attempts at personal service and why the sender is resorting to electronic means. This service must occur within 24 hours of the last attempt at personal service and marks the start of the five-banking-day period.	The same details required for primary electronic service, plus a sworn statement explaining why personal delivery was impracticable and the diligent efforts made to attempt it, together with supporting details of that earlier attempt (date, time, place, and the recipient’s conduct).
Effect of non-compliance / mere denial	An affidavit of service is now mandatory regardless of the mode used. A bank’s own text or email notification of dishonor may support proof of service but cannot replace the sender’s compliance with these modes.	A drawer’s mere denial of receipt is not enough to defeat proof of service. To succeed on this defense, the drawer must show it was physically impossible for them to have received the notice at the time and place service was made.