The Supreme Court ruled that corporate officers who sign checks on behalf of a corporation can be held liable for violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, even if they did so in their official capacity. This decision reinforces the principle that issuing a worthless check is a crime, regardless of the intent or agreements surrounding the transaction, ensuring that individuals cannot use corporate entities to evade responsibility for issuing unfunded checks.
Corporate Responsibility: When a Bounced Check Leads to Individual Liability
This case revolves around Claro E. Narte and Winston Tomas L. Cadhit, officers of Norphil Transport Corporation, who were convicted of multiple violations of B.P. 22 for issuing checks that were subsequently dishonored due to insufficient funds or closed accounts. Narte and Cadhit argued that they issued the checks in their capacity as corporate officers and that the intended payee was not properly identified, thus they should not be held personally liable. The Supreme Court disagreed, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision and solidifying the principle that the issuance of a bouncing check is a crime, regardless of the surrounding circumstances or intent.
The heart of B.P. 22 lies in the prohibition against issuing checks without sufficient funds. The law, in effect, makes the mere act of issuing a worthless check a criminal offense. The elements of the offense are straightforward: a person makes or draws and issues a check; the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on account or for value; the person knows at the time of issuance that they do not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank; and the check is subsequently dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds or credit. These elements were clearly established in the case against Narte and Cadhit, as they issued the checks, they were dishonored, and there was evidence suggesting they were aware of the insufficient funds.
The defense raised by Narte and Cadhit centered on the claim that the checks were not made out to the correct payee, and thus there was no valid consideration for the checks’ issuance. However, the Court dismissed this argument, emphasizing that B.P. 22 is a special law where the intent of the parties or the underlying agreement is irrelevant. The crucial point is the issuance of a check that is subsequently dishonored. The checks were issued as payment for buses purchased by Norphil Transport Corporation. The fact that there might have been confusion regarding the exact name of the payee does not negate the fact that the checks were issued for value and subsequently dishonored.
A key aspect of the ruling is the application of subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. This means that if Narte and Cadhit are unable to pay the fines imposed for the B.P. 22 violations, they would have to serve time in prison as a substitute. This stems from the supplementary application of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) to special laws like B.P. 22. The RPC provides that if a person is unable to pay a fine, they shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment. The Supreme Court has affirmed the applicability of this provision to B.P. 22 cases, further emphasizing the seriousness with which the law treats the issuance of bouncing checks.
The Supreme Court’s decision is consistent with the intent of B.P. 22 to promote confidence in the banking system and deter the issuance of worthless checks. By holding corporate officers liable for checks issued on behalf of a corporation, the Court prevents individuals from hiding behind the corporate veil to commit fraudulent activities. The ruling serves as a reminder to all who issue checks, whether personally or on behalf of a company, that they must ensure sufficient funds are available to cover the check upon presentment. Failure to do so carries significant legal consequences, including fines and potential imprisonment.
FAQs
| What is B.P. 22? | B.P. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, is a Philippine law that penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds to cover them. It aims to maintain confidence in the country’s banking system. |
| Can corporate officers be held liable for B.P. 22 violations? | Yes, corporate officers who sign checks on behalf of a corporation can be held personally liable for violations of B.P. 22 if the checks are dishonored due to insufficient funds. |
| What are the elements of a B.P. 22 violation? | The elements are: issuing a check, issuing it for value, knowing there are insufficient funds, and the check being dishonored by the bank. |
| Is intent relevant in B.P. 22 cases? | No, the law is malum prohibitum, meaning the mere act of issuing a bouncing check is punishable regardless of intent or the underlying agreement. |
| What is subsidiary imprisonment? | Subsidiary imprisonment is a provision where a person who is unable to pay a fine is required to serve time in prison as a substitute for the unpaid fine. |
| Does the Revised Penal Code apply to B.P. 22? | Yes, the Revised Penal Code has supplementary application to special laws like B.P. 22, especially concerning subsidiary imprisonment. |
| What was the main argument of the petitioners in this case? | The petitioners argued that they issued the checks in their capacity as corporate officers and that the complainant was not the intended payee, so they should not be held personally liable. |
| What was the court’s ruling on the issue of subsidiary imprisonment? | The court ruled that subsidiary imprisonment is applicable in B.P. 22 cases if the accused is unable to pay the imposed fine. |
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case reinforces the stringent measures against the issuance of bouncing checks in the Philippines. By holding corporate officers accountable, the ruling aims to protect commercial transactions and foster greater responsibility in financial dealings.
For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.
Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Narte v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132552, July 14, 2004
Leave a Reply