A bounced check can create more than a payment problem. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. Blg. 22), or the Bouncing Checks Law, the issuer must be notified that the check has been dishonored in order to prosecute a case of B.P. 22. For years, recipients have encountered difficulties proving receipt of notices of dishonor, particularly when issuers evade service or refuse to receive the same.
In Carlos and Carlos v. People (G.R. No. 277047, 15 April 2026), the Supreme Court clarified and standardized the rules on serving notices of dishonor. The ruling recognizes that while personal service remains as the preferred mode, registered mail and electronic service may now be used as a primary mode of service, or as substituted service when personal service cannot be reasonably made.
One of the most significant points of the Carlos ruling is the recognition of electronic service as a valid means of serving a notice of dishonor.
Electronic Service as a Primary Mode
Electronic service may be used as a primary mode when the issuer’s email address is known and was previously used in official communications.
The email address, electronic account, or mobile number used must be reasonably verified as belonging to, or being actively used by, the check issuer or an authorized representative.
Prior communications, confirmations, contracts, transaction records, and similar documents may be used to establish the connection between the issuer and the electronic account used for service.
Electronic Service as a Substituted Service
Substituted service may be used when personal service of the notice is impracticable, including situations where the issuer deliberately refuses to receive the notice, or provides unreasonable delays in acknowledging it.
When electronic service is used as a substituted service, the electronic communication must:
- Attach the Notice of Dishonor;
- State the dates and details of the prior attempts at personal service;
- Explain that electronic service is being used due to the failed attempts;
- Be sent within 24 hours from the final unsuccessful attempt at personal service.
The electronic service will constitute the final notice of dishonor, from which the five (5) banking-day period to pay or make arrangements for payment will be counted. An Affidavit of Service must also be executed by the person who effected the electronic service, showing when, where, and how the notice was served.
The Supreme Court recognized that electronic service, whether primary or substituted, may include email and messaging applications such as Viber, Messenger, or other comparable digital communication channels. However, the electronic account, email address, or mobile number, must be reasonably verified and shown to belong to, or actively used by, the issuer or an authorized representative. Prior communications, confirmations, transaction records, contracts or similar documents may be used to establish the connection.
Proof of Electronic Service
The Court, likewise, emphasized the importance of documentation. The person effecting the electronic service must execute an Affidavit of Service of Notice of Dishonor detailing the date and time of transmission, the email address or account used, the notice of dishonor sent, and available proof of transmission such as exported conversation files or downloaded chat logs.
Where the requirements for electronic service have been properly observed, mere denial of receipt or a claim that the recipient disregarded or failed to notice the electronic communication will not, by itself, invalidate the service.
With these standards in place, the court stresses that mere denial of receipt or a claim of having disregarded or failed to take notice of the electronic communication shall not be sufficient to invalidate service.
Ultimately, the Carlos ruling modernizes the service of notices of dishonor with clearer and more practical ways while ensuring clear procedures and proper safeguards for both creditors and check issuers.