Free Legal Advice Philippines

Disclaimer: This web site is designed for general information only and does not create attorney-client relationship. Persons accessing this site are encouraged to seek independent counsel for legal advice regarding their individual legal issues.

Log in

I forgot my password




You are not connected. Please login or register

Confusion regarding BP 22...pls. help clarify

View previous topic View next topic Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1 Confusion regarding BP 22...pls. help clarify on Thu Aug 04, 2011 1:02 am

zagwire


Arresto Menor
I have this confusion regarding the duration of validity of issued checks, as defined in the Bouncing Checks Law, and that of the Banks, i hope you can help clarify. According to the banks, the validity of an issued check is up to 6 (six) months from date of issuance, but according to BP 22, the validity of an issued check is only 90 days or 3 (three) months from date of issuance.

Does that mean that if i deposited a check after 90 days, and it bounced, i cannot file a case of violation of BP 22 anymore?

Please help clarify, thanks!

View user profile

attyLLL


moderator
no, case can be filed even after the 90 days as long as the check was deposited within 6 months. the clarification was made by the supreme court.


_________________
[i] Visit our FB Page: BPO Employee Legal Advice
Warning and Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer; and you are not my client. With the limitations of an  Internet forum, a thorough review of your concern is not possible. View my comments at YOUR OWN RISK. It is best to actually retain a lawyer for your individual concerns.
View user profile

zagwire


Arresto Menor
Thank you so much for the clarification, Atty. I really appreciate it.

However, last night i came across this forum in another site, and it reads as follows:


I just want to know if the checks were deposited beyond the 90-day period from its date, the issuer of the rubber checks still liable for violation of BP22?

Thanks.
August 21, 2009 7:51 PM
LawReal said...

NO longer liable, as held in the case of PP vs. Lagui case, the presumption of drawer's insufficient of funds lies only when the check is presented WITHIN 90 days from the date of the check.


the drawer may still be liable for other crime like estafa.. but no longer liable for B.P 22 if a check is deposited beyond the 90-day period.

Can you comment on this, Atty?..So i can be enlightened some more...The reason i am interested is bec. i am holding a check that is almost 6 months due, and i am worried that if it bounces, i just might lose the case in court when i cite violation of BP 22...Thanks again!

View user profile

attyLLL


moderator
deposit it asap.

The fact that the checks were presented beyond the 90-day period provided in Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 is of no moment. We held in Wong v. Court of Appeals[27] that the 90-day period is not an element of the offense but merely a condition for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds; thus:

That the check must be deposited within ninety (90) days is simply one of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to arise. It is not an element of the offense. Neither does it discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time thereof. Under Section 186 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, “a check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.” By current banking practice, a check becomes stale after more than six (6) months, or 180 days.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2002/aug2002/146211.htm

Contrary to petitioner’s assertions, nowhere in said provision does the law require a maker to maintain funds in his bank account for only 90 days. Rather, the clear import of the law is to establish a prima facie presumption of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds under the following conditions (1) presentment within 90 days from date of the check, and (2) the dishonor of the check and failure of the maker to make arrangements for payment in full within 5 banking days after notice thereof. That the check must be deposited within ninety (90) days is simply one of the conditions for the prima facie presumption of knowledge of lack of funds to arise. It is not an element of the offense. Neither does it discharge petitioner from his duty to maintain sufficient funds in the account within a reasonable time thereof. Under Section 186 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, “a check must be presented for payment within a reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of the loss caused by the delay.” By current banking practice, a check becomes stale after more than six (6) months,[23] or 180 days. Private respondent herein deposited the checks 157 days after the date of the check. Hence said checks cannot be considered stale. Only the presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of funds was lost, but such knowledge could still be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence. As found by the trial court, private respondent did not deposit the checks because of the reassurance of petitioner that he would issue new checks. Upon his failure to do so, LPI was constrained to deposit the said checks. After the checks were dishonored, petitioner was duly notified of such fact but failed to make arrangements for full payment within five (5) banking days thereof. There is, on record, sufficient evidence that petitioner had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of issuance of the checks. And despite petitioner’s insistent plea of innocence, we find no error in the respondent court’s affirmance of his conviction by the trial court for violations of the Bouncing Checks Law.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2001/feb2001/117857.htm


_________________
[i] Visit our FB Page: BPO Employee Legal Advice
Warning and Disclaimer: I am not your lawyer; and you are not my client. With the limitations of an  Internet forum, a thorough review of your concern is not possible. View my comments at YOUR OWN RISK. It is best to actually retain a lawyer for your individual concerns.
View user profile

zagwire


Arresto Menor
Thank you so much again, Atty. for commenting on this. Now i understand more clearly the issues surrounding this law. I really appreciate the time you spend responding to my questions. This site is a blessing to many of us.

THANK YOU SO MUCH!

View user profile

6 BP 22 on Tue May 07, 2013 12:26 pm

paodman_dpmc


Arresto Menor
greetings... my question is who will serve the notice of dishonor to the issuer of the check? Is it the bank or reciever of the check? thank you.

View user profile

pro_reo


Arresto Menor
it is the bank who usually gives notice of dishonor...but for reasons of public policy and exigency the receiver is also given the prerogative to inform the maker.

View user profile

Lydiav69


Arresto Menor
Hi!

Please enlighten my basic knowledge regarding BP22… Can I file a BP 22 case with bouncing cheque 10 years ago? I don’t have money to file a case before but due to these cheques I am being chase by banks due to unpaid loans and credit cards. My fallback position right now in order to pay my debts is to collect this money. I just need to prepare a certain amount in filing a case.

Kindly advise me please.

Thank you


View user profile

9 Initial step in filing a BP 22 case on Thu Sep 03, 2015 10:21 pm

zagwire


Arresto Menor
Hello Atty, i have a question...i'm about to file a BP 22 case, is it necessary that I file a complaint first in the Barangay where the respondent resides? Is that a requirement?....Can't I proceed at once in filing the case in the court?

View user profile

Sponsored content


View previous topic View next topic Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum