Understanding Civil Liability Arising from Dishonored Checks

G.R. Nos. 116602-03, August 21, 1997

Imagine entrusting someone with valuable items to sell on your behalf, only to be paid with a check that bounces. This scenario highlights the intersection of criminal and civil liabilities when dealing with dishonored checks. This case offers valuable insights into when a party can be held civilly liable, even if criminal charges are dismissed.

Introduction

The use of checks in commercial transactions is commonplace, yet it carries inherent risks. What happens when a check issued as payment turns out to be worthless? While criminal charges might be pursued under certain circumstances, the question of civil liability remains crucial. This case, Carmelita Sarao v. Court of Appeals, delves into the nuances of civil obligations arising from transactions involving dishonored checks, offering clarity on when and how such liabilities are established.

In this case, Carmelita Sarao was initially charged with both estafa and violation of B.P. 22 (the Bouncing Checks Law). Although the criminal charges were eventually dismissed, the court found her civilly liable for the amount of the dishonored check. This article explores the legal basis for this civil liability, providing practical lessons for anyone involved in transactions using checks.

Legal Context: B.P. 22 and Civil Obligations

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, penalizes the act of issuing checks without sufficient funds to cover them. However, the dismissal of a criminal case under B.P. 22 does not automatically absolve the issuer of civil liability. The Revised Penal Code and principles of contract law come into play when determining civil obligations.

Article 1157 of the Civil Code outlines the sources of obligations:

“Obligations arise from: (1) Law; (2) Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and (5) Quasi-delicts.”

In cases involving dishonored checks, the obligation to pay can arise from a contract (e.g., a sale agreement) or from an act or omission punished by law (even if the criminal case is dismissed, the underlying obligation may persist).

Case Breakdown: Carmelita Sarao v. Court of Appeals

The facts of the case unfolded as follows:

• Carmelita Sarao received jewelry from Kim del Pilar to be sold on commission.
• Sarao sold the jewelry to Victoria Vallarta, who issued checks that were later dishonored.
• Sarao then issued her own check to del Pilar as partial payment, but this check was also dishonored.
• Del Pilar paid the original owner of the jewelry, Azucena Enriquez, the amount of the dishonored check.
• Sarao was charged with estafa and violation of B.P. 22, but the trial court dismissed the criminal charges.
• Despite the dismissal, the trial court held Sarao civilly liable for the amount del Pilar paid to Enriquez.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Supreme Court, in turn, upheld the appellate court’s ruling, emphasizing that even though the criminal charges were dismissed, Sarao’s civil obligation remained.

A critical piece of evidence was the testimony of Azucena Enriquez, the original owner of the jewelry, regarding the dishonored check:

“According to her she has (sic) fund in the bank but when I encashed the check, she has no fund, sir.”

The Supreme Court highlighted that its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing errors of law unless the factual findings are baseless or constitute grave abuse of discretion. In this case, the Court found no reason to overturn the lower courts’ factual conclusions.

The Supreme Court stated:

“She could no longer insist on the agreement because based on the same circumstance, when she told Enriquez that she had no funds in the bank on 15 June 1986, she thereby acknowledged that her obligation was already due and demandable.”

Practical Implications: Lessons for Businesses and Individuals

This case underscores the importance of due diligence when accepting checks as payment. Even if criminal charges are not pursued, the issuer may still be held civilly liable for the amount of the dishonored check. This has significant implications for businesses and individuals engaged in commercial transactions.

Key Lessons:

• Civil Liability Persists: The dismissal of criminal charges under B.P. 22 does not automatically extinguish civil liability.
• Document Everything: Maintain clear records of all transactions, including agreements regarding payment terms and the issuance of checks.
• Due Diligence: Verify the creditworthiness of individuals or entities before accepting checks as payment.
• Prompt Action: Act promptly upon receiving notice of a dishonored check to mitigate potential losses.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q: Can I still sue if the B.P. 22 case is dismissed?

A: Yes, the dismissal of a criminal case under B.P. 22 does not prevent you from pursuing a civil action to recover the amount of the dishonored check.

Q: What evidence do I need to prove civil liability?

A: You need to present evidence of the transaction, the issuance of the check, and the fact that the check was dishonored due to insufficient funds.

Q: What damages can I recover in a civil case?

A: You can typically recover the face value of the check, legal interest, and attorney’s fees.

Q: How long do I have to file a civil case?

A: The statute of limitations for filing a civil case based on a contract is generally ten years from the date the cause of action accrued (i.e., the date the check was dishonored).

Q: What if the check was postdated?

A: The fact that a check is postdated does not necessarily preclude civil liability. The key is whether there was an agreement that the check would not be encashed until a specific date or event.

Q: What is the difference between estafa and B.P. 22?

A: Estafa involves deceit or fraud, while B.P. 22 focuses on the act of issuing a check with insufficient funds. They are distinct offenses, but both can arise from the same set of facts.

Q: Is it possible to recover damages beyond the face value of the check?

A: Yes, you may be able to recover consequential damages if you can prove that you suffered additional losses as a direct result of the dishonored check.

ASG Law specializes in commercial litigation and debt recovery. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.