Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LDG Final Thesis
LDG Final Thesis
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Laws
by
April 2018
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………………i
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………........ii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………iv
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 The Problem and Its Background .................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope and Limitations of the Study ................................................................ 8
1.3 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 10
1.4 Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 14
1.5 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................... 15
1.6 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................. 17
1.7 Definition of Terms ....................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................. 28
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................................................... 28
2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... 28
2.2 Historical Development of Bouncing Checks Law in the Philippines .......... 28
2.3 Developments After Passage of B.P. 22 ...................................................... 36
2.4 Congestion of MTC Dockets ...................................................................... 44
2.5 Countermeasures to Reduce Congestion ..................................................... 68
2.6 The Turkey Model ........................................................................................ 75
Chapter 3 .................................................................................................................... 82
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 82
Chapter 4…………………………………………………………………………….85
DISCUSSIONS...........………………………………………………………….......85
4.1 B.P. 22 as a Major Source of Action……………………………………………86
4.2 Factors of Delay…………………………………………………………89
4.3 Procedural Gaps…………………………………………………………92
Chapter 5……………………………………………………………………………95
SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…....……………........95
5.1 Summary………………………………………………………………...95
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE iii
ABSTRACT
indiscriminate filing of cases for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law or B.P.
22. The volume of these cases has drastically risen at an alarming rate as courts
are apparently transformed into collection agencies by creditors who receive bad
B.P. 22 has failed its declared objective to deter the proliferation of worthless
checks and, instead, became one of the primary sources of case congestion.
claims involving bad checks. The Bouncing Checks Law, it can be gainsaid, has
outlived its purpose and must be reviewed to decongest court dockets in order to
afford the fullest protection to the public and the country’s economy.
Being in the forefront of the judicial process, the performance of the first
cases pending and continuously filed before them. The resources allocated to
prosecuting worthless checks evidently surpass all other actions within the
jurisdiction of the first level courts, thus depriving the expeditious disposition
thereof and the appropriate attention due them, which results to lengthened delay
of all cases in the overall judicial hierarchy. Brought about by the leniency in
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE v
to, and procedure necessary for, worthless checks cases is now presented as the
patterned from other legal jurisdictions and finetuned under the Philippine context
without compromising the policy of the State against worthless checks. Other
solutions are also thoroughly discussed and evaluated taking into account working
worthless checks and the clogging effect in their respective court dockets.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
chronic problems in our country and, for that matter, in any democratic republic.
This problem seems to be part and parcel of any country under a democratic
system of government where every citizen has the right to “due process of law”
which oftentimes is the battle cry of anyone who wants to have his day in court.
Filing of cases in court therefore is the right of anyone who seeks justice.
Of course, ‘justice1’ here means “the constant and perpetual disposition to render
to every man his due” which is to be rendered by our courts. But this judicial
remedy has overtime become the subject of “overuse, misuse and abuse” and one
of the causes for overcrowding of court dockets. This means that a person seeking
1
Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuens.The opening maxim of Justinian’s Institutes
Book 1 Title 1.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 2
hypothesis is that litigation prone individuals have the courts as their place of
initial settlement rather than the ultimate place of dispute resolution that they
were originally meant to be. As a result, court dockets are heavily and
for further action or resolution. Further, the cases pending in all levels of the
Studies show that there are a huge number of cases now pending in courts
these cities have 1,000 or more cases in their dockets that may mean almost more
than three cases to resolve in a day. And through the years, they keep on piling up
If we drop by any of these courts in the urban areas and look at their
daily calendar, we will indeed shake our heads in disbelief upon seeing that there
become worse and the backlog will continue to grow rather than diminish unless
judges are able to dispose of more cases through a systematic and sustained
judicial reform program. The slow or delayed processing of earlier cases affects
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 3
the progress of other following cases. Court docket congestion deprives the courts
of the essential element of time. The quality of justice is, therefore, adversely
affected.
There are too many cases to resolve, but the supply of judges is so short.
With barely enough funding from the government to support the much-needed
reforms and even the basic necessities of the judiciary to fast track the wheels of
More often than not, the failure to abide by, and the abuse of some
lawyers of remedial procedures contribute to the ailing dockets, which are already
teeming with frivolous suits filed by complainants awaiting resolution that, in the
The filing of Bouncing Checks cases is the focal of these suits and it
mostly attributes to the blockage of our First Level Court dockets2. With the ever-
2Alfredo F. Tadiar, UNCLOGGING THE COURT DOCKET, p.3, Paper presented in the Symposium on
Economic Policy Agenda for the Estrada Administration, June 1, 1999 at INNOTECH, Commonwealth Avenue,
Diliman, Quezon City
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 4
commercial instruments in the form of bouncing checks will also increase, due to
serial fraudsters.
means to prosecute and make civilly liable those who issue bouncing checks that
is now encumbered by the sheer delay brought about by the staggering number of
these cases. An approach has to be arrived upon where the law and procedure
must be made effective yet dynamic, taking into consideration all the needs of the
Bench, the Bar, and the litigating parties to ensure the speedy, but quality
daily business and to avert not only the undermining of the banking system of the
country, but also the infliction of damage and injury upon trade and commerce
Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), also known as “An Act Penalizing the Making or
Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For
Other Purposes,” was approved on April 3, 1979. This law is clear on its mandate
worthless commercial papers that will inevitably pollute the market channels to
ultimately, the whole of the Philippine economy. The law punishes distinct acts of
making and issuing a check with knowledge by the issuer that at the time the
check is issued, he does not have sufficient funds, and the failure to keep
sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period
of 90 days from the date appearing on the check. Another manner in which a
person becomes liable under B.P. 22 is when the issuer orders his or her bank to
make a stop payment of the check without any valid reason whereas the check
would have been dishonored for insufficiency of funds had it not been for the stop
payment order given by the issuer. By its very nature, the offenses defined by
B.P.22 and may be held liable for imprisonment of 30 days to one year or a fine
of not less but not more than double the value of the check or both at the
discretion of the court. Moreover, the issuer of the check may also be liable for
subsidiary imprisonment, even if only a fine is imposed by the court upon failure
to pay the same. In this case, he or she shall be liable to serve a prison term at the
rate of one day for every eight pesos of the unpaid fine.
At the time B.P. 22 was passed, many questioned the statute’s validity
vis-à-vis the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be imprisoned for non-
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 6
Supreme Court held that “the gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the
act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its
law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his
debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the
deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The
law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against
public order3.” With criminal penalties imposed, it is hoped that not only will the
issuance of a bouncing check be deterred, but also payment of the value of the
Majority of the cases that clog the court dockets of the First Level Courts
today are those filed under B.P. 22 or the “Bouncing Checks Law”. There is no
in-depth study so far on whether there are less bouncing checks now due to this
open question but what is clear though is that victims of bouncing checks find it
3
(Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, 18 December 1986)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 7
bouncing checks. Thus, the volume of cases filed has drastically risen with courts
being transformed into collection agencies by creditors who receive bad checks .
bouncing checks, judgment is only rendered upon a process more tedious than
that applied in civil cases, further adding to the clogging of court dockets.
Thirty-eight years from its passage, there have been many questions as to
the efficacy of B.P. 22 despite the move to include it under the ambit of summary
procedure4 to ease the clogged dockets in the First Level Courts. With the advent
of Vaca5, the punitive purpose of the law was taken down a notch when the
Supreme Court ruled that imprisonment for conviction under B.P. 22 can be
meted by discretion of the judge without clear-cut guidelines when such can be
4
A. M. No. 00-11-01-SC (April 15, 2003)
5
Eduardo R. Vaca And Fernando Nieto vs. Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 131714, November 16, 1998
6
A. M.No. 13-2001 (February 14, 2001)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 8
B.P. 22 cases comprise the majority of litigation in our First Level Courts
and it unduly hampers the ability of these courts to dispose of the cases in their
administering justice over other cases in its jurisdiction, further adding delay to
This study shall focus on how the present implementation of B.P. 22 and
other allied laws and procedure has lost its efficacy resulting to undue delay in the
time and requires the highest quantum of proof to garner conviction. A shift to
clogging of court dockets due to the obvious ease of establishing liability through
jurisprudence allowed the researcher to lay out the evolution of the state policy as
to how the growing problem of bad check circulation was answered and is being
currently addressed with regard to future legislative action. To date, the question
on the effectivity of the criminal statute is pushed to the limits as nearly 200
million pesos worth of bad checks are issued per day in the country. This is a
monumental hazard to our economy and a harmful source of cases that will soon
find its way to the First Level Courts all throughout the country.
The researcher also availed of court data and statistics relevant to pending
Cities and Metropolitan Trial Courts with the heaviest criminal caseloads. The
data gathered would show the dynamics of B.P. 22 case disposition within the
period of 2013-2017, this period of time was specifically chosen by the researcher
for the reason that case law and procedure were at optimum with no new doctrinal
treatment of B.P. 22 cases. The data presented was gathered, assessed, and
(METCJAP) from 2013 until her assumption to presidency in 2017.For this study,
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 10
data from various first level courts were gathered, specifically the Metropolitan
Trial Courts (MeTCs) and City Courts (MTCCs), wherein many judicial reform
Metropolitan Trial Courts and City Courts have the most number of caseloads
compared to other first level courts due to the fact that they are more populated.
For which reasons, much reliance will be made on the data or information
surveyed agree that it is too long7.Due to the massive amount of cases for B.P.22
pending before the First Level Courts, the judges are deprived of the precious
time to hear and resolve other cases which entail more complex issues, further
adding to the delay in the resolution thereof along the judicial hierarchy, all
The norm for businessmen, lenders, landlords, and the like is to require
those who they transact with to issue a number of post-dated checks which
represent the number of installments for the respective transaction. Come default,
the creditors will coerce payment by filing cases for violation of B.P. 22 against
the debtor, and for which the latter can be imprisoned if he does not make good
the dishonor of said check. The abuse can also be shown by the practice of some
creditors who file as much cases for violation of B.P. 22 as there are many checks
that bounced, regardless if said checks are issued on the same instance or when a
7
Maria Dakolias Court Performance Around the World: A Comparative Perspective, Issue 1 Yale Human Rights
and Development Journal, February 18, 2014
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 12
These are some of the well-known causes for the indiscriminate filing of
cases under B.P. 22 and the largest contributing factor to the clogging of almost
30% of Metropolitan Trial Courts and MTC dockets8, which results in the
conclusion that this law is nothing more than a tool to blackmail defaulting
debtors, which in turn, unnecessarily chokes the First Level Court dockets.
cases plaguing our First Level Court dockets, the mandate of the law in curbing
would-be offenders that it is difficult and takes a long prosecution for one to be
criminal action where bail is not required, no warrant of arrest can be applied for,
except in cases of securing the attendance of the accused, and most importantly,
8
Explanatory Note of Senate SB 135 introduced by Senator Franklin M . Drilon, July 5, 2010
9
Dalla Pellegrina, Lucia. (2007). Courts Delays and Crime Deterrence (An Application to Crimes
Against Property in Italy). Universitas degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Dipartimento di Statistica,
Working Papers. 26.. 10.2139/ssrn.921049.
10
Supranote 4
11
Supranote 5
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 13
to the traditional theory12 that stiffer penalties mean a higher expected cost of
committing a crime and, therefore, the crime becomes less attractive to a rational
this Damocles problem, it is the very stand of this study to provide for an
additional procedure for causes of action involving B.P 22, one which is a pure
civil action in order to unclog court dockets and be able to dispatch more cases at
The core of this research dwells on the substantial and procedural aspects
for prosecuting B.P. 22 cases as observed and practiced by First Level Courts for
the years 2013-2017. Particularly, this work seeks to answer these questions:
(1) What constitutes the bulk of cases which congest the first level court
dockets?
(2) What contributes to the delay in the disposition of these cases?
(a) Is it attributable to the substantive aspect of the law?
(b) Is it attributable to the procedural aspect of the law?
(3) What are the urgent and necessary reforms that will reverse the effect
of congestion by these cases before our first level court dockets
12
Gary S. Becker, "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," Journal of Political Economy 76,
no. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1968): 169-217. https://doi.org/10.1086/259394
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 14
The findings of this study will redound to the benefit of the Judiciary as a
whole, considering the speed of the judicial process along the judicial hierarchy
that will greatly improve, brought about by the initial decongesting of the First
Level Court dockets once the proposed reforms for B.P. 22 cases is put into
action. Logically, the ease in the workload will also improve the quality of
decisions rendered by the first-level judges, not only with problematic B.P. 22
cases, but also with all the matters set before them for resolution that concern
more complex and urgent issues. With unimpeded court dockets, litigation will
now be resorted to more often and the people’s reluctance brought about by the
This shift in the judicial process will restore the trust of the public as a
whole and will further establish the best ends of civilized society. It is an effort
which is most commendable to avoid the failure of ordinary people to find justice
13
Courts: the Lex Mundi Project Simeon Djankov, Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes and
Andrei Shleifer NBER Working Paper No. 8890 April 2002
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 15
criminal prosecution for the issuance of bouncing checks will contribute to the
chance to make good on their default, rather than be branded with a criminal
record or, worse, be imprisoned and be removed from the labor force, which will
proceeding for B.P. 22, due to the length of time it takes for the completion of its
prosecution and also because the civil aspect of the offense cannot be
improving the heavily laden First Level Court dockets in the country. This is in
response to the high volume of cases currently and continuously being filed
before the courts that take generations to dispose of and necessarily affect other
14
Shavell, Steven, The Optimal Structure of Law Enforcement Journal of Law and Economics, vol.
36 April 1993
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 16
B.P. 22 cases, that is, the collection of the proceeds of the dishonored check,
which proves to be difficult and lengthy under the current legal system. This
the criminal procedure for B.P. 22 case disposition in the dockets allow the
proceedings to drag on while new B.P. 22 actions accumulate faster than it takes
the accused in a B.P. 22 case is given under this study a better option to have his
liability satisfied without the social stigma of a criminal record. This is to give the
respondent, especially those who are honest, but financially stricken, a better
chance to make good his obligations without being imprisoned and taken out of
the labor force, thus ensuring his place as a member of productive society.
This study aims to provide a source for a policy change all geared towards
areas of the law and the establishment of a new procedure that ensures the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 17
a criminal action.
objective in preventing the evils of issuing worthless checks. Our Supreme Court
had been clear in stating that a violation of B.P. 22 is an offense against public
the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Germany, bouncing
checks are summarily dealt with civil sanctions except when such issuances are in
exchange of goods or when attended with fraud, excluding post-dated checks, and
with penalties that are proportionate to how much value the check represents.
These jurisdictions treat these acts as petty economic offenses, while still
economies.
administrative proceedings. This is in recognition also that the bulk of such cases,
15
Ricaforte vs. Jurado G.R. NO. 154438, September 5, 2007
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 18
if tried under criminal procedure, would unduly burden their court dockets. The
tendency is to only prosecute those issuances coupled with criminal intent, rather
employ the resources of police, prosecutors, and the criminal process generally in
order to supplement civil remedies, even though such use entails a diversion of
22 fits under this category. Although it is inimical to the country’s economy, the
real and physical end of B.P. 22 is the collection of the amount of the check. This
matter was first opened in the case of Lozano18, where the matter of a bad check
law vis-à-vis a bad debt law was propounded by Judge David G.Nitafan but was
not ruled upon by the High Court in the decision. Understandably, resort to the
dockets slackens the overall speed of resolution in our country. The State of
16
Sanford H. Kadish, The Crisis of Overcriminalization, 374 Annals Amer. Acad. Pol.& Soc. Sci. 157 (1967)
17
Supra note 15
18
Supra note 2
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 19
the Pennsylvania bad check law20 is resorted to for debt collection guised as a
19
486 Pa. 428 (1979) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
20
18 Pa.C. S.A. § 4105 of 1973
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 20
not just harmful to commerce, but also to the public in general. Due to admitted
deficiencies in the penal law, the bad practice of issuing worthless checks is still
Code with two more amendments22 to Art. 315 section 2 paragraph (d).These
pieces of legislations ushered in B.P.22, with the same problem that is still felt
today.
21
Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code
22
Republic Act 4885 on June 17, 1967 and Presidential Decree 818 on October 22, 1975
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 21
development since its enactment. The article actually emphasizes the deficiencies
of the statute in pursuing a bounced check in the courts and these are:
(3) The aggrieved parties have also failed to pursue the case for BP 22
since the Courts require them to pay the corresponding filing fees. They
need to shell out amounts for filing fees after they have been duped and
victimized with checks, which they cannot encash.”
Based on the model for comparison and the approach for the problem, the
theory sought in this research is that First Level Court dockets will be
23
https://businessmirror.com.ph/revisiting-batas-pambansa-blg-22-or-the-bouncing-checks-law/
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 22
1.7Definition of Terms
Overcriminalization
providing a social service25 (e.g. bad check laws, family support laws).
- laws that penalize the mere issuance of a check which is not covered by
intent to defraud or for o valid reason. This is the definition in most foreign
- laws and procedures that regulate the conduct of collecting debts, defining
rights of both debtors, creditors, and third persons acting in behalf of the latter26.
24
Larkin, Paul Jr. J.The Extent of America’s Overcriminalization Problem, The Heritage Foundation
LEGAL MEMORANDUM No. 121, May 9, 2014
25
Kadish, The Crisis of Overcriminalization, 374 AN ALS 157, 157 (1967).
26
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular 454 Series of 2004, Provisions of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines, Revised Rules of Court ad other similar laws.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 23
Most foreign jurisdictions include the recovery of a bounced check, unlike in our
jurisdiction.
Debtor’s prisons
- the place of imprisonment of persons unable to pay their debts. The place
Americans at the turn of the century and embodied in our organic laws.
Later, our fundamental law outlawed not only imprisonment for debt, but
27
Section 20, Article III 1987 Philippine Constitution, International Bill of Human Rights
28
SupraNote 2
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 24
also the infamous practice, native to our shore, of throwing people in jail
- the first level courts as defined by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 29 which are
Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuits Trial Courts (MCTC).For
purposes of this study, all First Level Courts that are conferred jurisdiction for
MCTC or MTCC, and is limited to the actual courts from which data is derived to
Civil Sanctions
Judicial Hierarchy
29
An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor, And for Other Purposes Or The
Judiciary Reorganization Act Of 1980
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 25
Courts, Regional Trial Courts, Sandigan Bayan, Court of Appeals, and the
Supreme Court.
Jurisprudence
- derives from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study,
knowledge, or science of law30.” For purposes of this research, this term will
embrace only the case law that is appurtenant to Bouncing Checks, local or
foreign.
Bouncing Checks
time of issue the issuer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. The check is
or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment31. It may also mean a check
drawn or issued with sufficient funds, but has been subsequently dishonored when
presented within 90 days from issue for failure to maintain sufficient funds to
30
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisprudence
31
Section 1 par. 1 B.P. 22
32
Section 1 par. 2 B.P. 22
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 26
- Also known as bad check, worthless check, rubber check, dud check or hot
1930, superseding the Spanish Codigo Penalof 1870, enforced during the latter
times of the Spanish Colonial Period. For purposes of this research, the specific
term is used.
33
An Act Revising The Penal Code And Other Penal Laws (December 8, 1930)
34
An Act To Amend Section Two, Paragraph (d), Article Three Hundred Fifteen Of Act Numbered Thirty-Eight
Hundred And Fifteen, As Amended, Otherwise Known As The Revised Penal Code . (June 17, 1967)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 27
The phrases “knowing that at the time” and “without informing the payee of
35
Amending Article 315 Of The Revised Penal Code By Increasing The Penalties For Estafa
Committed By Means Of Bouncing Checks, October 22, 1975
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 28
CHAPTER 2
2.1 Overview
in relation to the Bouncing Checks Law. It will present the evolution of the law,
its effects and how it contributes to the problem of court congestion in the
Philippines. Reference will also be made to studies and proposals for reforms in
the said law sourced from other countries that adopted changes in their respective
already penalized, albeit, as estafa, in the Old Penal Code36. The practice of
issuing worthless checks as a means for fraud and deceit has been identified
further when an amendment37 to the Old Penal Code was made to expand the
36
Article 535 section.1 punishes the act of issuing a check in exchange for cash or valuable goods as
estafa under false pretenses, if dishonored.
37
Act 3313 as paragraph 10 of Article 535 of the Old Penal Code
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 29
consideration“, where the person issuing it (1) knows that he does not have at the
time of its issuance sufficient funds in the bank to cover the amount of the check;
or (2) having such funds, shall maliciously and feloniously sign his check
differently from the signature registered at the bank as his authentic signature, in
order that the bank shall refuse to pay the check; or (3) postdates the check, and
“at the time set for the payment of it, the drawer of the check does not have
The above cited provisions from the Old Penal Code are to be reintroduced as
Article 315, Section 1 paragraph 2 (a) and paragraph 2 (d) of Act 3815 or the
ART. 315. Swindling ( estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by
any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
On June 16, 1967, 35 years after the effectivity of the Revised Penal
Code, Republic Act 4885 was passed into law to amend Article 315 section 2
38
People of the Philippines vs. Sabio,, G.R. No. L-45490 November 20, 1978
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 30
circulation, due to the identified defenses such as the payee was informed that
there are no sufficient funds to cover the check issued and the check was in
payment of a pre-existing obligation. During the deliberations for this law, the
recognition of the defenses and the resulting increase in the number of issuances
of bouncing checks that evade prosecution under Art. 315,Section 2 paragraph (d)
In the same vein, it has been held that if the check is used to
in payment of an existing obligation, it cannot be considered as
estafa, even if the obligor had the fraudulent intent of issuing a
check without funds and he knows that his check will be dishonored
by the drawee bank. Now, this practice of issuing bouncing checks
has had a very deleterious effect on our commercial transaction(s).
as a matter of fact, even tax obligations are being paid by taxpayers
whose checks are not good. And it has been reported once that even
the Bureau of Internal Revenue has received a number of checks
amounting to substantial amounts which are covered by bad checks,
and the drawers of these checks are really animated by fraudulent
intent to deceive the payee, to disturb banking transactions and to
impair negotiability and acceptability of checks as negotiable
instruments.
39
Pp. 932-933, Senate Congressional Record, Volume II No . 37(1967)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 31
checks of the same import, would not be acceptable because the fees
should be paid in cash. This is not a good practice, because we
should encourage the use of checks. However, if the use of checks
can be abused and misused without any liability on the part of the
drawer to the great prejudice of the payee, then this obnoxious
practice of not accepting checks even in the payment of taxes and
fees may become the rule.
It is clear that bad check writers have grown in numbers and schemes to
warrant this amendment. This was clearly seen when former President Ferdinand
E. Marcos signed Presidential Decree 818, which amended further Article 315,
Section 2 paragraph (d) by increasing the penalties thereof. The new amendment
40
Senate Bill 413
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 32
P.D. 818 was signed into law on October 22, 1975, eight years after
Republic Act 4885, signifying that the problem of bouncing checks sought to be
addressed by the latter amendment still remains rampant. A close reading of the
P.D. 818’s whereas clauses would show that what was being penalized was estafa
bounced checks at that time that were being issued as security, guaranty, or
The Batasang Pambansa then passed into law Batas Pambansa Bilang 22,
commonly known as the Bouncing Checks Law, four years afterthe passage of
P.D. 818, which penalizes mala prohibita, the mere issuance of a check that will
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented
within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon,
for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
By this, a person who issues a check that will fall under the circumstances
of Section 1 of B.P. 22 and whose acts also fall under the elements of Art. 315
can be prosecuted separately under each law. This provision was included in the
law to supplant with severity the act of issuing worthless checks and, at the same
time, inflict damage on the property rights of a person with the bouncing of the
same check, validly and separately prosecuted under Art.315, Section 2 paragraph
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 34
(d).The intention was made clear during the sponsorship speech41 made by the
then Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza during the deliberations on the said
proposed law:
41
pages 1037-1038, Record of the Batasan, Plenary Session No. 70, Dec. 4, 1978
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 35
issuance of the check does not cause damage to the payee and so it is but
appropriate that he should not be Held for estafa but only for violating
this Act. But if he issued a check to induce another to part with a
valuable consideration and the check bounces, then he does inflict an
injury to the payee of the check apart from violating this law. In that
case, it should be but fair that he be subject to prosecution not only for
estafa but also for violating this law.
"MR. VELOSO, F. Yes, I agree with the Solicitor General an that point
but my worry is with respect to situations where there is prosecution first
to estafa.
42
As cited in Nierras v. Dacuycuy, GR Nos. 59568-76, Jan 11, 1990
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 36
Philippines, unless elements for estafa are also present, which will warrant a
simultaneous prosecution.
Since its enactment into law on April 3, 1979, the prosecution of cases for
Courts(RTCs) as the fine imposed for its violation is more than P4,00044. A new
jurisdiction law45 came into force that expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC to
hear criminal cases that are punishable with imprisonment of not more than six
by the Regional Trial Courts in hearing criminal actions for B.P. 22. The criminal
prosecution was governed by ordinary criminal procedure, which allowed for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused and the right to bail is
43
Recudero vs. People and the Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 133036. January 22, 2003], Saguiguit vs.
People [G.R. No. 144054, June 30, 2006], Sumbilla vs Matrix Finance Corporation, G.R. 197582, June 29,
2015
44
Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 or The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
45
An Act Expanding The Jurisdiction Of The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, And Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, Amending For The Purpose Batas Pambansa, Blg. 129, Otherwise Known As The
"Judiciary Reorganization Act Of 1980" Republic Act 7691March 25, 1994
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 37
recognized in the same proceedings, not to mention the fact that convictions are
traditionally met with imprisonment rather than a fine. This was the initial stage
regarding B.P. 22 judicial enforcement which made the violation of the law
appear “deterring”, however, it was only a matter of time before the RTCs
became swamped with cases involving violations of B.P. 22 since the effectivity
of the law way back on June 29, 197946 and the rigors of criminal procedure over
The effectivity of RA 7691, which allowed MTCs to hear cases for B.P.
22, was on April 25, 1994 and this will be the reckoning point of the application
of data for purposes of this study. It has already been almost 15 years after the
effectivity of B.P. 22 since this measure was adopted by the Legislature and it
was the turn of the MTCs to face the gargantuan number of cases being filed for
The shift to the MTCs addressed only the issue of congestion of RTCs,
procedure; thus, the MTC dockets steadily became overcrowded with B.P.22
cases.
46
As cited in the case of People Of The Philippines Vs.Hon. Regino Veridiano Ii, As Presiding Judge Of The
Court Of First Instance Of Zambales And Olongapo City, Branch I, And Benito Go Bio, Jr ., G.R. No. L-62243
October 12, 1984
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 38
Court issued Circular No. 57-9747 to expedite the prosecution of the said cases by
merging the criminal action with the civil aspect and prohibiting the separate
filing and prosecution of the civil liability with respect thereto. The Circular
provides:
2. Upon the filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based upon the amount of the
check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed, in
accordance with the schedule of fees in Section 7(a) and Section 8(a), Rule
141 of the Rules of Court, as last amended by Administrative Circular No.
11-94 effective August 1, 1994. Where the offended party further seeks to
enforce against the accused civil liability by way of liquidated, moral,
nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, he shall pay the corresponding
filing fees therefor based on the amounts thereof as alleged either in his
complaint or in the information. If not so alleged but any of these damages
are subsequently awarded by the court, the amount of such fees shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment.
3. Where the civil action has heretofore been filed separately and trial
thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal
action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance
47
Subject: Rules and Guidelines In The Filing And Prosecution Of Criminal Cases Under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, issued on September 16, 1997, made effective November 1, 1997
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 39
with the pertinent procedure outlined in Section 2(a) of Rule III governing
the proceedings in the actions as thus consolidated.
suits that inherently increase the number of cases that are triable under the same
separately the civil aspect of B.P. 22 cases is, indeed, a showing of the strong
effort in reducing the caseload of the MTCs while ensuring quality disposition by
“Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 (An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and
Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds for Credit and for Other
Purposes) imposes the penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30)
days but not more than one (1) year or a fine of not less than but not more
than double the amount of the check, which fine shall in no case exceed
P200,000, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
this appeal, believing in all good faith, although mistakenly that they had
not committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Otherwise, they could simply
have accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to
evade a prison term. It would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in
fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by Section 1, par.
1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is
observed, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and
preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic
usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order. In this
case, we believe that a fine in an amount equal to double the amount of
the check involved is an appropriate penalty to impose on each of the
petitioners in the recent case of Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines (G.
R. No. 130038, 18 September 2000), the Supreme Court en banc,
applying Vaca also deleted the penalty of imprisonment and sentenced the
drawer of the bounced check to the maximum of the fine allowed by B.P.
Blg. 22, i.e., P200,000, and concluded that “such would best serve the
ends of criminal justice.”
All courts and judges concerned should henceforth take note of the
foregoing policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposition of
penalties for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The Court Administrator shall cause
the immediate dissemination of this Administrative Circular to all courts and
judges concerned.
Xxx xxx xxx”
litigants in thinking that B.P. 22 has been decriminalized. This instilled in the
49
Josef vs. People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 146424, November 18, 2005], Young vs Court of Appeals and
the People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 140425. March 10, 2005]
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 41
The Supreme Court subsequently issued A.M. 13-200150 to clarify the earlier
The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 was
not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a
50
Issued on February 14, 2001
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 42
The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of
imprisonment for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat the
legislative intent behind the law.
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the
fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal
Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.
Xxx xxx xxx”
The above quoted Administrative Matter sought to dispel the notion that
substantial justice for first-time offenders, the matter emphasized the resort to
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 43
On April 15, 2003, B.P. 22 cases were included in the coverage of the
by the Supreme Court, which mandated the disposition of B.P. 22 cases under a
summary procedure for criminal cases. This was done nine years after RA 7691,
which allowed B.P. 22 cases to accumulate further in the MTC dockets. Despite
its title as Summary Procedure, the actual handling of the cases still required a
marked the defanging of B.P. 22, as criminal cases governed by the Summary
Procedure53 do not allow the arrest of the accused, except to secure his attendance
in the proceedings and bail was only recognized when the accused has been
arrested for his absence at a scheduled hearing and has been arrested. These
51RevisedRules on Summary Procedure: Resolution of The Court En Banc Dated October 15, 1991 Providing
for The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure for Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Effective on November 15, 1991
52
Amendment to The Rule on Summary Procedure of Criminal Cases to Include Within Its Coverage Violations
of B.P. Blg. 22, Otherwise Known as The Bouncing Checks Law
53
Sec. 16. Arrest of accused. — The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear
whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a responsible
citizen acceptable to the court.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 44
cases filed for violation thereof as not effectively deterred. This is after all
about by the sheer number of cases being filed for its violation thereof easily
made the First Level Court dockets overflow to the detriment of the judicial
process.
increase of litigation are B.P. 22 cases, which are the direct result of an economy
bad debts and more common that these bad debts take the form of bad checks.
54
R. Soberano, Nature and Causes of Judicial Delay 1-2 (1984) (unpublished paper).
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 45
Justice Fernando for former President Ferdinand E. Marcos that raised two causes
with problems of even greater complexity and intricacy"; and 2) "new social
55
E. Fernando, Report to His Excellency President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E . Marcos by the Committee
on Judicial Reorganization (1980).
56
Dissertation delivered at the Annual Convention of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ 14th House of
Delegates, held at the Crown Peak Garden Hotel, Subic, Olongapo City, on May 7, 2000 .
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 46
TABLE 1
NUMBER OF PENDING CASES IN THE RTCs AND MTCs IN THE
PHILIPPINES57(1993-2001)
1993 - 2001
COURT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Regional Trial 230,305 216,607 194,939 199,501 214,453 225,188 251,351 265,957 279,241
Court
Metropolitan 21,749 65,048 82,148 134,085 185,242 183,024 186,799 185,192 200,271
Trial Court
Municipal 24,602 56,475 83,878 131,031 165,194 177,310 180,456 157,199 143,211
Trial Court in
Cities
Municipal 44,109 66,553 77,133 102,109 134,861 121,214 118,255 117,010 108,519
Trial Court
Municipal 27,025 31,850 36,311 43,011 50,698 64,153 66,191 67,454 67,865
Circuit Trial
Court
can be seen that there is a short decline in cases pending before the RTCs in the
years 1993 up to 1995. This can be explained by the effect of RA 769158, which
as Chairman Benipayo aptly pointed out in his above quoted part of his speech59,
spike of cases in the first-level courts followed after. Based on the data, there
occurred a slight decrease in cases handled by the METCs in the years 1997 and
57
Source: Philippine Statistical Yearbook, National Statistical Coordination Board, 2002 . As cited in
Private Sector Assessment Philippines, Asian Development Bank, May 2005, pp 24
58
Supra Note 45
59
Supra Note 57
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 47
2000, which may be owed to the consolidating effect of Circular 57-9760 and
A.M. 12-2000.61
made by the researcher, where she is the Metropolitan Trial Court Executive
Judge, to show the status quo treatment of first level courts towards the
disposition of B.P. 22 cases, specifically Branches 87, 88,89, 90, and 91 for the
years 2014, 2015, and 2016, with the immediacy of experience arising from
TABLE 2
ACTUAL NUMBER OF BP 22 CASES IN PARANAQUE MeTCs
(2014-2017)
indicates that 41.2% of all the cases filed in the sample courts are comprised of
B.P. 22 cases. Based on that figure alone, it can be taken that MTC dockets are
60
Supra Note 47
61
Supra Note 48
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 48
of B.P. 22 cases actually filed, shows a trend that a 50% increase occurred from
year 2014 to 2015, ending with an innocuous decline in the year 2016. This is
TABLE 3
DISPOSAL RATE
(ARRAIGNMENT TO PROMULGATION)
PERIOD 87 88 89 90 91
0-6 0 13 0 9 0
MONTHS
<6-12 0 2 1 32 7
MONTHS
<12-18 0 10 14 24 8
MONTHS
<18-24 1 1 25 2 0
MONTHS
<24 9 1 5 1 2
MONTHS
TOTAL 10 27 45 68 17
DISPOSAL 2 4 2 4 3
RATE
TABLE 4
DISPOSAL RATE PER BRANCH
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 49
To arrive at the disposal rate of each sample court, the formula requires
that the number of decided cases multiplied by the number of months for the case
To arrive at the grading, the interval between the slowest disposal and the
fastest disposal rate divided by five, the number of sample courts, thus:
TABLE 5
NUMERICAL GRADE AND ADJECTIVAL RATING
AVERAGE
16mpc+4= 20 16 – 20 mpc 3 AVERAGE
21mpc+4=-25 21 – 25 mpc 2 BELOW
AVERAGE
- 26 mpc and above 1 SLOWEST
Paranaque Metcs are rated better compared to other courts but this may, in part,
TABLE 6
DISPOSAL RATE PER BRANCH
These data show that B.P. 22 cases filed in the sample courts which
congest up to more than 40% of their total dockets, remain in their active files for
at least one (1) year and are resolved with finality after more than two (2) years.
TABLE 7
PERCENTAGE OF DECIDED CASES WITH PENALTY OF FINE ONLY,
IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH
PENALTY 87 88 89 90 91
FINE ONLY 8 14 32 19 6
IMPRISONMENT 0 9 0 3 0
BOTH 0 0 0 21 0
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 51
TOTAL 8 23 32 43 6
convictions for B.P.22 violations. These data represent that the decisions or
judgments rendered with conviction impose a penalty of fine most of the time. To
legal objective of B.P.22. It projects that the trend of B.P.22 convictions, to the
mind of the layman, B.P. 22 cases have been decriminalized. In relation to the
mandate of B.P. 22, the data presented proves that the delay in the disposition of
said cases is a fact. The lack of usual coercing measures of arrest, bail,
imprisonment, and with the trend of flight to other countries, the inability of the
MTC judges to issue hold departure orders among others add to the rise of more
cases for violations of the said law but which end up in less imprisonment of the
culprits or the ever-slow grinding the proceedings thereof. With the heavy
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 52
caseload, the length of time to dispose of a case will necessarily increase as well,
thereby the deterring effect of punishment is further decreased by the longer time
presented, which echoes the foregoing results from the minor sampling above.
This data is taken from 37 MeTC and MTCC’s out of 366 combined courts from
all over the Philippines and these courts which are considered to have heavy
dockets for having more than 500 criminal cases currently pending before their
inseparable civil and criminal suits against the accused, thus requiring double the
effort of the judge presiding over the same. The following representation is taken
from the selected MeTC’s and MTCC’s that comprises about 10% of all said first
TABLE 862
62
MeTC Br 77 Parañaque was ordered by the OCA to stop raffle and all filed cases were raffled to
the newly created MeTC Branches 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, and 91 from 2013 to 2017.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 53
MTCC-2
Zamboanga 210 507 41.42
City
The above table shows that as against the whole criminal docket of the
participating courts, the average of 46.71% or almost half of the sample case
dockets are B.P. 22 violations. This is together with other cases under the
physical injuries, unjust vexation, drinking in public, and other similar light
offenses. The information above is more illustrative that B.P. 22 cases form most
of the bulk of the court dockets. It is more than what was previously computed in
the Parañaque MeTC’s which only proves that the “case bulk issue” is felt more
on the national level and indeed, a reflection indicating the congestion problem
TABLE 9
DISPOSAL RATE63
63
MeTC Br 77 Parañaque was ordered by the OCA to stop raffle and all filed cases were raffled to
the newly created MeTC Branches 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, and 91 from 2013 to 2017.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 56
To arrive at the disposal rate of each sample court, the formula requires that
the number of decided cases multiplied by the number of months for the case to
Total # DISPOS
OFFICE of Dividen AL Adjectival
0-6 <6-12 <12-18 <18-24 Decided d RATE Rating
Mos Mos Mos Mos <24 Mos Cases (mpc)
MeTC-1 Below
0 2 33 55 69 159 4008 25
Manila Average
MeTC-32 0 1 11 41 163 216 6084 28 Slowest
QC
MeTC-55 0 0 9 32 75 116 3180 27 Slowest
Malabon
MeTC-56 0 0 1 21 26 48 1302 27 Slowest
Malabon
MeTC-18 0 1 3 12 34 50 1374 27 Slowest
Manila
MeTC-21 0 0 10 71 80 161 4284 27 Slowest
Manila
MeTC-16 0 1 11 50 81 143 3840 27 Slowest
Manila
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 57
MTCC-3 Below
0 12 15 34 37 98 2340 24
Antipolo Average
MTCC-2 0 0 12 22 41 75 1974 26 Slowest
Tacloban
MTCC-2 Below
Mandaue 0 20 32 52 71 175 4194 24
Average
City
MTCC-2 0 0 30 70 95 195 5070 26 Slowest
CDO
MTCC-4 Below
0 20 32 52 71 175 4194 24
Baguio Average
MTCC-3 Below
Puerto 0 10 12 32 45 99 2454 25
Average
Princesa
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 58
MTCC
Dasmarin 0 2 15 32 99 148 4032 27 Slowest
as
MTCC-2 Below
Zamboan 5 10 22 23 30 90 1998 22
Average
ga City
MTCC-1
Ozamis 0 0 10 12 23 45 1158 26 Slowest
City
MTCC-1 0 0 10 12 23 45 1158 26 Slowest
GenSan
MTCC-1 Below
Legazpi 0 5 10 22 23 60 1458 24
Average
City
897
Below
24
Average
To arrive at the grading, the interval between the slowest disposal and the
fastest disposal rate divided by five, the number of sample courts. Thus:
resolved the longest in 29 months and earliest in 6 months with majority of said
cases aging for more than 1 year in the court docket on average. This
participating courts at mostly below average, the efficiency of the first level
greatly affected by the bulk of B.P. 22 cases before their dockets and establishes
the first point of this study that the number of B.P. 22 cases do constitute the bulk
for the sheer number of actions being filed and maybe taken as an obstruction for
taking a considerable amount of time for resolution in the first level court
dockets.
TABLE 1064
DISMISSAL DUE TO
COMPROMISE OR OTHER REASONS
120 12.18
MTCC Bacoor
59 34.91
MeTC-30 Manila
64
MeTC Br 77 Parañaque was ordered by the OCA to stop raffle and all filed cases were raffled to
the newly created MeTC Branches 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, and 91 from 2013 to 2017.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 60
110 28.57
MeTC-1 Iloilo
277 36.40
MeTC-11 Manila
MeTC-93 101 12.45
Marikina
61 27.60
MeTC-17 Manila
105 24.25
MeTC-1 Manila
383 43.72
MeTC-32 QC
MeTC-55 69 32.70
Malabon
MeTC-56 29 6.79
Malabon
134 63.51
MeTC-18 Manila
66 14.63
MeTC-21 Manila
128 74.85
MeTC-16 Manila
428 59.94
MeTC-2 Iloilo
58 21.48
MeTC-9 Iloilo
% OF DISMISSED CASES (DUE TO COMPROMISE OR
OFFICE
OTHER REASONS)
95 62.09
MeTC-8 Iloilo
328 49.25
MeTC-87 Pque
117 17.31
MeTC-88 Pque
89 19.02
MeTC-89 Pque
291 29.54
MeTC-90 Pque
264 32.67
MeTC-91 Pque
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 61
0.00
MeTC-77 Pque
4 9.52
MeTC-78 Pque
MTCC-2 90 42.86
Zamboanga City
well over a third of private complainants either lose interest in prosecuting both
collect the proceeds of the dishonored check. Dismissals based on form and non-
TABLE 1165
CONVICTIONS AND PENALTIES
65
MeTC Br 77 Parañaque was ordered by the OCA to stop raffle and all filed cases were raffled to
the newly created MeTC Branches 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, and 91 from 2013 to 2017.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 63
of the cases from the sample courts imposed imprisonment as sole penalty for
conviction under B.P. 22.95.59% of the cases for conviction from the sample
courts are meted with only a fine as penalty, while 2.3% of convictions in the
imposition of both fine and imprisonment. The data embodies the discretionary
attitude of judges as guided by the Supreme Court via jurisprudence and issued
circulars, that those accused of B.P.22, despite the law’s mandate of penalty of
TABLE 1266
CONVICTION AND ACQUITTAL RATE
TOTAL #
OF % OF TOTAL # OF % OF TOTAL
OFFICE
CONVICTI CONVICTION ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL %
ON
MTCC 268 78.36 74 21.64 100.00
Bacoor
MeTC-30 34 69.39 15 30.61 100.00
Manila
66
MeTC Br 77 Parañaque was ordered by the OCA to stop raffle and all files cases were raffled to
the newly created MeTC Branches 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, and 91 from 2013 to 2017.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 66
MTCC-3
Puerto 74 74.75 25 25.25 100.00
Princesa
MTCC-1 28 62.22 17 37.78 100.00
Bacolod
MTCC-1 75 75.76 24 24.24 100.00
Dagupan
MTCC
Dasmarina 74 50.00 74 50.00 100.00
s
MTCC-2
Zamboang 56 62.22 34 37.78 100.00
a City
MTCC-1
Ozamis 31 68.89 14 31.11 100.00
City
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 68
1038.24 500.44
31.27724813
64.89004223%
%
In this representation, 64.89% of the cases from the sample courts end with
convictions and 31.28%, on the other hand resulted in acquittals. The data shows
in consonance with Table 11, that out of the 64.89% of the convictions decided,
penalty of fine, and finally, 2.3% are penalized with both. This cements the
position that B.P. 22 case prosecution and disposition at 64.89% conviction rate
litigating public a more civil action attitude of the courts towards B.P. 22
violations.
There have been many studies conducted to address the delay in the
Philippine judicial system and solutions that have become the usual propositions
range from the amendment of certain laws to the institution of new procedural
mechanisms. At this point in time, when our courts are continuously strained by
dockets, especially for the tier of First Level Courts, would be greatly relieved
upon revisiting of the Bouncing Checks Law with the corresponding reforms to
better suit the demands of the litigants. Such revisit points towards an
source of delayed and mounting cases in the MTCs involving dishonored checks.
22 was proposed in order to stop the indiscriminate filing of cases for its
violation, where such checks were not issued as checks per se, but to be used as
pre-existing obligation.
67
Supra Note 2
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 70
as well, due to the wide practice in the Philippines wherein checks are being used
transactions. These are some of the identified causes of filing cases for violation
of B.P.22.The drawer, most of the time in these situations, issued such check just
to comply with the requirements of the creditor, lest the transaction will not push
through. What should be the controlling law on worthless checks is Article 315,
means of deceit, or even mere disturbance in property rights. The State response
to this malady is to enact a bad checks law to plug in certain painful gaps in
familiar false pretense statutes as applied to bad checks passing, like when a
check is issued for the payment of pre-existing obligation and subsequently gets
dishonored for insufficient of funds, the same will not be punishable under our
false pretense statute (Article 315), but will be penalized under B.P. 22 just for
the act of mere issuance of a worthless check as an offense against public order,
pursuing criminal action, which is highly applicable under the Philippine context
68
Robert J. Staal, Worthless Check Statute -- Penalty Provision, 14U. Miami L. Rev. 486 (1960) page 487
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 71
as the current legal environment dictates the better choice for a quick disposition
of a civil claim rather than resorting to a criminal action where prosecution may
take a very long time due to technicalities or party instigated delays and even if a
Civil Penalties may work in the Philippine setting, but caution must be
deterred by it; only when the poor has nothing to lose does liberty come to view.69
Lastly, the paper suggests that bounced checks that do not fall within the
purview of Art. 315, Section 2(d) to have its own civil claims procedure which is
summary in nature and akin to the Small Claims Cases procedure. Currently,
there is a Small Claims Court system pursuant to A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC70, issued
by the Supreme Court with the specific aim to reduce clogging of MTC dockets.
However, the present Small Claims rules do not provide for coverage of bounced
checks that can be prosecuted under its procedure. A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC provides:
69 Laspa, Christina. (2013). Do the economic factors affect criminality? Evidence from Greece, 1991–2010.
European Journal of Law and Economics. 39.. 10.1007/s10657-013-9403-2.
70
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES, effective February 1, 2016
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 72
Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions that are purely civil in nature
where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
payment or reimbursement of sum of money.
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage;
favorable as the majority of current bouncing checks cases involve issuances for
debt, security, or collateral, all pointing towards a civil obligation, perhaps a loan,
such as the U.S.71is the adoption of a private credit ratings system which will
keep record of any issued bounced check with its corresponding judgments civil
or criminal, if any were pursued by the payee. In connection with this and with
the current computer and technology advances, banks themselves can join the
fight against bouncing checks by setting up monitoring screens that can detect
bad banking behavior and mete out account closure for those with a history of
writer.
With this revisit of the Bouncing Checks Law,, an initiative can also be
taken by the legislature. B.P. 22 has already existed for more than 38 years and
not a single amendment has been enacted to answer the prevailing and focal issue
of court congestion. There has been a disagreement as to how the law should be
amended. Some lawmakers72believe that increasing the penalties would help B.P.
71
Chex Systems, Inc. (ChexSystems) is a nationwide specialty consumer reporting agency under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) . ChexSystems' clients regularly contribute information on
closed checking and savings accounts. ChexSystems provides services to financial institutions and
other types of companies that have a permissible purpose under the FCRA . ChexSystems' services
primarily assist its clients in assessing the risk of opening new
accounts.https://www.chexsystems.com/web/chexsystems/consumerdebit/otherpage/AboutChexSystems/!ut/p/
z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8zizQIsPN2NLAx8_AOcDAwcXcM8DcPMzYwNDAz0w8EKDBxdH
A1NgoEKnN3NgQpcLJwd_ZyMQAqiSNLvHuDvBlTg62cRHOoD1G9OnH48CkD6DXAAR5D-
KIgSPD5AVYDFiYQsKcgNDY0wyPQEAGk02jQ!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh /
72
House Bill No. 2515 which seeks to amend Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 or the “Anti-Bouncing
Checks Law,” increasing the penalties for making or drawing and issuance of a check without
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 74
22 fully realize its mandate, making it more socially and morally expensive to
The amendments that seek to push for an increase in penalty will not be
resort and against those offenders that warrant the penalty, provided the same
provisions of the law and increase in the fine with the corresponding removal of
the maximum limit of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 200,000.00).If deemed
amount of good an unperturbed judicial docket might bring will not last long once
sufficient funds, or credit and for other purposes including making or drawing and issuance of a check
with a closed bank account. Sponsored by Cebu 5th District Representative Ramon Durano VI
Senate Bill 1202 An Actamending Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, “An Act Penalizing The Making Or
Drawing And Issuanceof A Check Without Sufficient Funds Or Creditand For Other Purposes”.
Sponsored by Senator Ramon Revilla, Jr.
73
Supra Note 51
74
Senate Bill 807 An Act Amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 De-Criminalizing TheMaking Or Drawing And
Issuance Of A Check Without Sufficient Funds Or Credit And For Other Purposes . Sponsored by Senator
Manuel B. Villar, Jr.
Supra Note 8
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 75
the loose floodgates of bouncing checks overrun the country’s trade and
bordering Europe. This country underwent legal issues concerning their bad-
checks law and sought to decriminalize penal sanctions for issuing bad checks.
This portion of the research will establish the relevance of the Turkey Model to
Checks are being used greatly in Turkey and are governed by the former
issued more for payment of obligations and these instruments are payable at sight,
with no entries for their due dates77. On this score alone, abuses of checks are
easily perpetrated because there is absolutely no law that penalizes the issuance of
75
Babaoglu, Basak & Wulf, Alexander. (2015). Decriminalizing the issuance of bad checks in
Turkey: an analysis of the effects of changes in penalties. European Journal of Law and Economics .
42.. 10.1007/s10657-015-9502-3.
76
Law No. 6762 on Turkish Commercial Code OG 9353 dated September 7, 1956.
77
Article 707 of Law No. 6762
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 76
a bad check at the time. The most a holder of a bad check can do under the law is
to prosecute the drawer for fraud punishable under the Turkish Criminal Code78.
Come 1985, the first bad check law was passed79 and this penalizes the act of
fine80. The said law allows the offender seven days from notice of dishonor from
the drawee bank to satisfy81 the amount of the check that bounced, wherein the
complaint for its violation can be withdrawn by the complainant any time before
Creditors who received bad checks would coerce the violator-debtor to pay large
amounts of money, most of the time even exceeding the value of the bounced
check, or else threaten to pursue criminal action against the latter. The violator-
issue with the law was the irrevocability of a judgment of conviction as there
were those debtor-violators who would settle the amount of the bounced check
78
Türk Ceza Kanunu (Kanunu No. 765, daled:1 Mareh 1926), ÜÇÜNCÜ FASIL :
DOLANDIRICILIK VE İFLAS Madde 503: Turkish Penal Code (Law No. 765, daled: 1 Mareh
1926,THIRD SECTION: Fraud and Inflation Article 503
79
Law No. 3176
80
Article 16 of Supra Note 75
81
Article 8 of Supra Note 75 also known as correction right . The offender is also mandated by law to
pay an additional 10% of the amount that bounced in addition to the face value . This right can only be
exercised twice in a year.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 77
and would not be absolved of the criminal and civil liability, if done after
the action futile and even if there was receipt of such notice, the offender must
1993, eight years after the latter law was enacted. The amendment introduced the
charges upon settlement of the offender and payment of the administrative fine to
the drawee bank. It also added cessation of all proceedings that were pending
three months before its enactment if the offender had paid the value of the
bounced check with the corresponding fines or when the charges against them
cessation of proceedings only to those cases pending three (3) months prior to the
was at this point that bouncing checks cases began to clog Turkish court dockets,
82
Law 3863, amending Article 16 of Law 3176
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 78
that there were320 bouncing checks cases in 1999 amounting to 18.4% of the
total criminal actions filed in their courts pending in that year alone83.
imprisonment should be the final resort penalty. Changes in the law included the
imposition of a severe fine for first-time offenders and a repeat offense would be
In 2009, the second Check Law86 of Turkey came into effect providing for
checks and the corresponding rise of cases that overloaded Turkish court dockets.
83Number of Proceedings at Criminal Courts for Offence of Law No. 3167 (Prime Ministry. General Directorate
of Laws and Decisions 2002, 2003), as cited in Supra Note 71
Year Number of
proceedings
1986 10,644
1990 134,612
1999 320,320
2000 262,211
20001 307, 391
84 Law 4814
85 Criminal acts that subvert or undermines the commercial effectiveness of normative business practices and the
negative consequences (second theory) Mitchell B. Chamlin and Mary Baldwin Kennedy, The Impact of the
Wilson Administration onEconomic Crime Rates, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1991
86 Law 5941
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 79
issuances of bouncing checks, run afoul with the Turkish Constitution87. This law
prohibited the immediate imprisonment and only imposed a fine, but the
prosecution for issuing a bounced check is still criminal in nature and tried before
criminal courts and in case the offender is unable to pay the fine, subsidiary
imprisonment will be imposed. This change in the law was faced with criticisms,
TURKEY MODEL
TABLE 188
Year Law 3176 Total Special Total
& Laws Criminal
Law 5941 Courts
2006 115,076 926,397 1,659,143
87THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY, PART TWO, C. Principles Relating to Offences
and Penalties
ARTICLE 38. (As amended on October 17, 2001)
Xxx xxx xxx
No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual
obligation.
Xxx xxx xxx
88
Number of Cases Filed (Ministry of Justice 2006, 2008, 2009), as cited in Supra Note 71
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 80
began to steadily decline as compared to the starting point shown in the table
above:
In 2012, a law90 was passed to amend Law 5941 which fully decriminalized
the act of issuing a bounced check and abolition of the administrative fine, in case
of conviction; bouncing a check under this law would be met with administrative
prohibitions of stop check issue and opening of checking accounts with banks for
a period of time. The law also introduced measures imposed on banks as to record
civil sanctions.
In summary, the current check law of Turkey treats the act of issuing a
procedure initiated in the Prosecutor’s Office and, once found liable, will be
ordered to pay the value of the bounced check and may be subjected to
account.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 82
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The point in this study is to project the current issue of court congestion
brought about by B.P. 22 cases and how the law and the use of an alternative civil
procedure will help free MTC court dockets. Towards this end, the methods
adopted in this research focus on history and documentations and best available
statistical data, including first-level court statistics for the years 2013-2017.
A historical account and overview of the check laws procedure, and effect on
countries were taken into account throughout this presentation are taken account.
utilized as well. Studies on how bad checks cases in other countries have affected
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 83
the quality of administration of judicial processes that were conducted and the
respective measures taken to solve the issue on decongestion were used in this
paper.
cases was made. The researcher applies the analytical research method. This
study deemed it as necessary the conduct of a critical analysis of all related laws
and issuances in the Philippines applicable to B.P. 22 and its congesting effect on
MTC dockets.
the MTC dockets sourced from existing data base of various MTCs, published
studies, government and related publication. The data on the number of filed B.P.
22 cases, the number of pending cases and its main causes, the time it takes to
complete the whole criminal process, the trend of success as to conviction, and
the leniency of the penalty imposed, have been given much attention to in the
course of this study. The data presented in this study is sourced from MeTC’s and
MTCC’s which have heavy criminal dockets, possessing at least 500 criminal
actions pending before their salas, all sourced from Docket Management Access,
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 84
Cities and Metropolitan Trial Courts, requested by the researcher in her capacity
as both Executive Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Courts of Parañaque City and
Foreign court processes and procedure were given great weight through
comparative analysis in order to formulate a civil procedure which would best fit
for this research and its corresponding procedure were subjected to criteria of
liability; such factors were adopted as such are the most relevant and akin issues
present a timely revisit of B.P. 22 and come up with an adequate proposals for
Chapter 4
DISCUSSIONS
This chapter deals with the discussions of the answers to the questions
presented from the foregoing, the researcher shall discuss the aim of the study,
proving the issues set forth and aimed towards the findings to be introduced in the
next chapter.
The first part of this chapter shall lay down the bases in establishing the
actions for violations of B.P. 22 which comprise the greater bulk of cases among
other cases pending in the first level court criminal dockets. This portion of the
chapter shall also treat the factors why B.P. 22 cases congest the first level court
dockets through the substantive and procedural aspects in current legal practice
The last part shall deal with the possible reforms that the study proposes to
be adopted to counteract the clogging effect of B.P. 22 cases in the first level
court dockets. There will be emphasis on the time factor involved in the
disposition of B.P. 22 cases. Further, other highlighted reasons for the clogging
procedure for bouncing checks, referred to as the “bouncing check civil claim
action”.
complemented by the rapid growth of the economy, not just in the country, but
the present consumerist cycle of buying and selling of goods or services, making
major tool in the economic pursuit that is constantly expanding from urban to
previously rural, but urbanizing localities all throughout the country. The issue
91
Supra Note 54
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 87
now shifts to the proliferation of bad credit in the form of bouncing checks,
Courts show that among other criminal actions within its jurisdiction, cases for
threats, unjust vexation, drinking in public place and other light offenses. It is
important to recall that an action for B.P. 22 entails both criminal and civil
aspects that cannot be filed separately93, thus, providing the courts where such
cases are filed twice the number of actions for every single violation of B.P. 22.
reflected in Table 8, would readily show the congesting effect of B.P. 22 cases,
thus negating the idea that this phenomenon is exclusive to highly commercial or
B.P.22 actions filed in courts, sheer volume thereof becomes the first factor that
attributes to the clogging effect in the first-level court dockets. The first part of
the problem, the piling effect, would logically result to a bigger docket that tests
the judicial efficiency of the courts concerned, which are embattled regularly with
92
See Table 8, page 51
93
Supra Note 47
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 88
other external factors contributive to this point established in this study, such as
resulting to the clogging effect of B.P. 22 cases is now considered in this portion
remains pending before the same is judicially disposed of. This factor worsens
the volume issue of B.P. 22 actions that steadily scourge the First Level Courts,
cases, thus affecting the overall administration of justice in the judicial hierarchy.
Table 994 establishes this factor of aging B.P. 22 actions and this event in
the gathered data displays the gravity of the problem as most of the cases are
attributed to first level courts with previous large dockets, even before ushering in
the volume of B.P. cases in the covered period from 2013-2017. This issue
cannot avoid the usual problems currently badgering the first level courts like
presented, there are those courts which have disposed of B.P. 22 cases in a period
94
Page 54
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 89
It is the researcher’s stand that aging of actions plays a bigger role in the
clogging effect in the First Level Court dockets as the manner of disposition is
highly affected by legally intimate factors such as matters of the law, on one hand
and procedural element, on the other. Practice of law is highly dynamic and
entails strategy more on the side of the litigants, whether to shorten or delay in the
by the Supreme Court, most especially in the niche of B.P. 22, where the latter
has innovated in terms of putting in place expediting measures, but the same is
still insufficient to cope with the presently growing gargantuan B.P. 22 caseload.
the heavier impact in the delay felt by the First Level Courts. The question why
B.P. 22 actions take longer to resolve than other actions to resolve can be
explained in two parts; firstly, B.P. 22, as a law in itself, requires matters before it
delaying tactics.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 90
Considering the elements required for conviction under the law, the
prosecution has to prove the following: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of
any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker,
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment95.
securing conviction for B.P. 22 is the failure of the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the actual and personal receipt of the notice of dishonor by the
issuer; though not a direct element of the offense, the notice of dishonor is
instrumental in establishing the second element of B.P. 22, the prima facie
95
B.P. 22 Sec. 1 - 3
96
Danao v. Court of Appeals, 411 Phil. 63, 71 [2001], King vs. People, 377 Phil. 692 [1999],
Domagasang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139292, 5 December 2000, 347 SCRA 75 . Lao vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139292, 5 December 2000, 347 SCRA 75 . Marigomen vs. People. San
Mateo vs. People,G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013. Dela Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 163494,
August 03, 2016.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 91
actions, that one is presumed innocent until contrary is proved beyond reasonable
right of the accused. The anima legis of B.P. 22 in requiring actual and personal
make good on the dishonor of the issued check by means of payment or striking a
compromise with the payee. To note, the notice of dishonor required by law and
jurisprudence must be one written, verbal demands or notice will not suffice; this
is in line with proving the elements of the case beyond reasonable doubt that
By observation in the cases above cited, the difficulty posed in securing the
actual receipt of the notice of dishonor is one of the main hurdles that has become
a time-honored defense the accused takes refuge in. The accused, in abusing this
defense, would expend every possible effort to avoid receiving the notice of
dishonor from the complainant but even despite the actual demands, the bad
check issuer already knows of the fact of dishonor, usually through verbal
becomes diluted; the researcher does not put in any degree of disregard the
alleviating the Judiciary frontline of which this study revolves around, the
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 92
identification of this legal stumbling block must proceed towards a more just and
practical perspective of protecting the interest also of the complainants who are
deprived of the redeeming effects of criminal act that is being penalized by B.P.
22, at the same time, the delay in collecting the proceeds of the dishonored check.
Being the basic law of the land, all laws prior to or subsequent to the
Constitution must yield to its provisions. Under this principle, the rights of the
protect the life, liberty, and property of the accused, are, however employed,
bettered by this study, an entitlement which by reason of the clogging effect in the
court dockets, unintentionally causes delay in the proceedings. The right of the
accused to have a trial, to meet the complainant’s witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf; all these rights are unfortunately affected by the undue
A case for B.P. 22 is an action with both criminal and civil aspects that are
simultaneously instituted being in the sole jurisdiction of the First Level Courts,
regardless of the amount of the bouncing check. This is the present procedure for
regarding the difficulty of achieving conviction, the data presented confirms that
it is not enough to produce dispositions, since B.P. 22 cases are being filed in
action for collection of sum of money, it cannot be avoided that the rules on
misses out on the “summary” nature of the usual procedure mentioned, and
instead the same will be tried under normal civil procedure if beyond the
jurisdictional amount for the First Level Courts. In turn, complainant can prove
his case using only preponderant evidence to establish his claim, an advantage
availing of the Small Claims Procedure. This procedure entails a civil and
summary procedure, triable for recoveries for sum of money not exceeding
can enforce the evidenced obligation, however only for the maximum amount; in
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 94
the event that the complainant holds a check for a value higher than Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php 200,000.00), this requires a different procedure that is now
being contemplated by this study but a waiver must be done on the latter’s part
As seen from above, there are only few options to enforce claims for
bounced checks and chances are delays would be present, save in Small Claims
Augmenting rules for claims arising from bouncing checks must have to be
considered to hasten proceedings before the first level courts with the
procedure, which takes all matters that contribute to delay in the disposition as
causes of action under other modes. The proposed set of rules takes into great
involved parties. A claim to be made under this procedure must first show the
elements prescribed under B.P. 22 before the action can be tried under civil and
Chapter 5
5.1 Summary
The study has laid down the effects of B.P. 22 cases on court dockets using
Monthly Reports of Cases of the participating heavy docket first level courts
Such a summary arose from the identification of difficulties, both in law and
The urgency of the matter is that present law and procedure are strained to their
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 96
limits but do not address the issues of volume and aging of cases. These issues
can fester into a swollen docket that ultimately affects the overall efficiency of the
judicial hierarchy, to the overall detriment to the right of due process of law.
despite the worrisome speed of disposition, such an attitude points towards the
speeding up the process of collection, which validates the need for reform so as to
the reversal of the latter law’s effect on the First Level Court dockets.
It has been established throughout this study that B.P. 22 cases would
stagger steadily if the trial courts are not duly armed to afford them a chance to
reduce the pending cases or clogged dockets. The contributors to the piling effect
was shown to be the continuously growing number of new filed cases for
disposition.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 97
based on the representative sample courts which are afflicted with a heavy
caseload, are for violations of B.P. 22. This sheer volume of B.P. 22 cases,
coupled with the identified difficulties in prosecution would result to the next
factor of delay, which is the aging of actions. By the data presented, an action for
violation of B.P.22 can consume two years before the same can be resolved by a
court; without being disposed of, this would add up to the pile and finally clog
the court dockets. The tendency of B.P. 22 cases being filed becomes more
common due to the expansion of trade and commerce paralleled with a growing
population that increase human interaction and use of credit, thereby creating
dishonored check by the complainants therein, but such a goal is hampered by the
doubt. As already discussed, 34. 76% of the cases for B.P. 22 are settled through
the length of time required for prosecuting B.P. 22, a third of complainants in the
cases were willing to settle the matter involving the bounced check.
To stress, the number of cases being filed in First Level Courts (as
cases which in turn, will age due to the lack of time and attention for their due
disposition, ushering in the aging of actions. Once B.P. 22 cases are instituted in
court, the resolution by the tribunal aims to decide civil and criminal liabilities of
the accused, as cases for B.P. 22 cannot be split into a civil action and another
criminal action. The Supreme Court has issued the said pronouncement to
mitigate the likeliness of multiplicity of suits arising from the single act of
5.3 Recommendations
drive to combat the ill-effects of a crowded docket. The researcher has formulated
a procedure for enforcing civil claims arising from bounced checks without the
usual restrictions of criminal actions and with the speed sufficient to dispose
actions in order to clear up the dockets. For purposes of this study, then,
SEC. 2. Scope.– These Rules shall govern the procedure in an action before
the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs),
Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) to
recover civil liability or payment of money obligations or claims arising from or
evidenced by a dishonored or bouncing check, irrespective of the amount indicated
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 99
therein, that would have otherwise been subject to a criminal action under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22).
SEC. 3.Objectives. The objectives of these Rules are to establish a new civil
procedure that will ensure the collection of the money claims or amounts due
under a dishonored or bounced check in a summary nature without the procedural
restrictions of criminal actions and to provide a better alternative or option that is
simple and inexpensive for the disposition of a civil liability or claim arising from a
dishonored or bouncing check.
SEC. 4. Applicability.– The MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs and MCTCs shall apply
these Rules in any action that arises from the issuance of a dishonored or bouncing
check where the principal claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
payment of the amount covered by the dishonored or bouncing check. Unless
otherwise stated, the regular rules on venue shall apply.
i. that the claim arose from a check or checks issued by the defendant as
security or guarantee for a loan or civil obligation;
ii. that the check or checks bounced due to insufficient funds, account closed
or stopped payment without any justifiable ground or reason;
iii. that written demand was made and duly received by the defendant for
him/her to make good his/her obligation within five (5) days from receipt thereof;
iv. that the defendant failed to make good his obligation or pay his/her
indebtedness despite said demand; and,
v. that a criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 is ripe for filing against the
defendant owing to the dishonored or bouncing check but the plaintiff chose or
opted to resort to a bouncing check civil claim action instead.
In addition, the plaintiff should include in his/her complaint two (2) duly
certified photocopies of the subject dishonored or bouncing check, other documents
supporting the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and additional evidence
to substantiate the same.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 100
For this purpose, it must also be alleged in the verified complaint for a
bouncing check civil claim case that the plaintiff is waiving the filing of a criminal
case for violation of B.P. 22 insofar as the subject check or checks is/are
concerned.
SEC. 7. Payment of Filing Fees.– The plaintiff shall pay the docket and
other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, unless
allowed to litigate as an indigent. Exemption from the payment of filing fees shall
be granted only by the Supreme Court.
SEC. 8. Dismissal of the Action. — After determining that the case falls
under these Rules the court may, from an examination of the allegations in the
verified complaint and such evidence attached thereto, by itself or motu propio,
dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the
dismissal of a civil action. If no ground for dismissal is found, the court shall
forthwith issue summons which shall state that the procedure under these Rules
shall apply.
SEC. 9. Summons and Notice of Hearing.– Once the herein Rules have
been determined to be applicable, the court shall issue the summons on the same
day of receipt of the verified complaint, directing the defendant to submit a verified
answer within (10) days from receipt of the summons and serving a copy thereof on
the plaintiff.
Further, the court shall also issue together with the summons a notice
directing the parties to appear before it on a specific date and time for the hearing,
with a warning that no unjustified postponement shall be allowed, as provided in
Sec. 13 (i) of these Rules.
The notice of hearing shall contain the following information: (i) the date of
the hearing, which shall not be more than thirty (30) days from the filing of the
verified complaint and (ii) the express prohibition against the filing of a motion to
dismiss or any other motion under Sec. 13 of these Rules.
SEC. 10. Answer. – The defendant shall file with the court and serve on the
plaintiff a duly accomplished and verified answer within a non-extendible period of
ten (10) days from receipt of summons. It shall be accompanied by certified
photocopies of documents, as well as affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in
support thereof. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not
attached to or submitted together with the answer, unless good cause is shown
before the court for the admission of additional evidence.
SEC. 12. Counterclaims within the Coverage of these Rules.– If at the time
the action is commenced, the defendant possesses a claim against the plaintiff that
(a) arises out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of
plaintiff’s claim; (b) does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third
parties; and (c) is not the subject of another pending action, the claim shall be filed
as a counterclaim in the answer; otherwise, the defendant shall be barred from
suing on the counterclaim.
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other
paper;
(f) Memoranda;
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 102
(l) Interventions.
SEC. 14. Appearance at the Hearing.– The parties shall personally appear
on the designated date for the hearing. Failure of the plaintiff to appear at the
scheduled hearing shall be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint, without
prejudice. Nonetheless, the defendant who appears at the hearing, wherein the
plaintiff is absent, shall be entitled to a judgment on the counterclaim, if any, as
allowed by Sec. 11 hereof.
SEC. 15. Matters to be Taken up at the Hearing.– The judge shall first
exert efforts to bring the parties to an amicable settlement of their dispute. Any
settlement between the parties shall be reduced into writing, signed by the parties
and submitted to the court for approval on the same day.
(ii) On the basis of the pleadings and stipulations and admissions made by
the parties, judgment will be rendered without the need of further proceedings, in
which event the judgment shall be rendered within thirty (30) days from the date of
the hearing, unless position papers are required to be submitted prior thereto;
(iv) Such other matters intended to expedite the disposition of the case.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 103
SEC. 17. Rendition of Decision. — Within thirty (30) days after receipt of
the position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing of the same, the court
shall render the decision. The decision shall immediately be entered by the clerk of
court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith served on the
parties. The decision shall be final, executory and unappealable.
SEC. 18. Execution.– When the decision is rendered, execution shall issue
upon motion of the winning party.
SEC 19. Period of Proceedings. The period required in these Rules shall
not exceed ninety (90) days from the filling of the verified complaint up to the
rendition of the decision.
SEC. 21. Applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure.– The Rules of Civil
Procedure shall apply suppletorily insofar as they are not inconsistent with these
Rules.
check. The first level Courts such as the MeTC, MTC, MCTC, and MTCC’s are
solely given the jurisdiction to hear and try cases under this procedure. It is
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 104
complaint by the claimant. This action covers all dishonored checks regardless of
the amount including the value of the counterclaim that may be claimed by the
welcomes any compromise at any stage in the proceedings. Another key feature is
considered dilatory, ensuring that only relevant processes are resorted to in order to
mere preponderance of proof, and the usual difficulty being encountered to establish
a right of action for B.P. 22 cases, the actual receipt of the notice of dishonor beyond
reasonable doubt, has been done away with and the due presentation of a certified
mail would suffice the requirement of notice. Under these rules, the claimant can
avail of remedies under the Rules of Court to exact the effects of a favorable
judgment, due to the suppletory effect thereof in support of these rules. Execution of
civil liability may be had by resorting to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court after motion
by the winning party; provisional remedies can also be applied under these rules, if
warranted by the circumstances of the case. Decisions rendered under these rules are
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 105
non-appealable and immediately executory, but a petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court may be taken as a remedy there being no other available,
To conclude, all the identified issues that cause delay in prosecuting massive
criminal, civil or summary means. In doing so, a practical instrument in relieving the
undue clogging of cases in the first level court dockets has been devised. The
applicability and relevance of these rules, together with the expertise of first level
courts in handling bouncing checks cases is deemed by the researcher, also a judge
resolution of bouncing checks cases through a more practical civil and summary
procedure.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 106
REFERENCES
BOOKS
JOURNALS
Dalla Pellegrina, Lucia. (2007). Courts Delays and Crime Deterrence (An
Application to Crimes Against Property in Italy). Universitas degli Studi di
Milano-Bicocca, Dipartimento di Statistica, Working Papers. 26..
10.2139/ssrn.921049.
Available at:
http://www.statistica.unimib.it/utenti/WorkingPapers/WorkingPapers/20070403
.pdf
Last accessed October 29, 2017
Djankov, S., La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and Shleifer, A., Courts: the Lex
Mundi Project NBER Working Paper No. 8890 April 2002
Available at: http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/images/uploads/faculty/rafael-
laporta/Courts.pdf
Last accessed November 12, 2017
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 107
Shavell, Steven, The Optimal Structure of Law Enforcement Journal of Law and
Economics, vol. 36 April 1993 Available at :
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/shavell/pdf/36_J_law_Econ_255.pdf
Last accessed November 5, 2017
Soberano, R., Nature and Causes of Judicial Delay 1-2 (1984) (unpublished paper).
Staal, Robert J., Worthless Check Statute -- Penalty Provision, 14U. Miami L. Rev.
486 (1960) page 487
Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol14/iss3/12
Last accessed November 22, 2017
Babaoglu, Basak & Wulf, Alexander. (2015). Decriminalizing the issuance of bad
checks in Turkey: an analysis of the effects of changes in penalties. European
Journal of Law and Economics. 42.. 10.1007/s10657-015-9502-3.
Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2608374
Last accessed November 25, 2017
Chamlin, Mitchell B. and Kennedy, Mary Baldwin, The Impact of the Wilson
Administration on Economic Crime Rates, Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
Vol. 7, No. 4, 1991
Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226841367_The_impact_of_the_wilson_
administration_on_economic_crime_rates?ev=publicSearchHeader&_sg=IrsIkx6cx
T1GbuJAnubYzF6zEFNqdgF3fU-jfa7m4o1tqwKhkp_niv-
Gyv43xMFu4C397AwV5lgCLL8
Last accessed November 27, 2017
DELIVERED LECTURES
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
Eduardo R. Vaca And Fernando Nieto Vs. Court Of Appeals And The People
Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 131714. November 16, 1998
People of the Philippines vs. Sabio,, G.R. No. L-45490 November 20, 1978
Recudero vs. People and the Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 133036. January 22,
2003]
People Of The Philippines Vs.Hon. Regino Veridiano II, G.R. No. L-62243
October 12, 1984
Josef vs. People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 146424, November 18, 2005]
Young vs Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 140425.
March 10, 2005]
FOREIGN LAWS
Law No. 6762 on Turkish Commercial Code OG 9353 dated September 7, 1956.
FOREIGN JURISPRUDENCE
Pages. 1037-1038, Record of the Batasan, Plenary Session No. 70, Dec. 4, 1978
LAWS
1987 Constitution
Rules of Court
STATISTICS
Appendix I
Appendix II
BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS
Items
CURRICULUM VITAE
Despite being busy in her judicial work, Judge Grimares has been
teaching Civil Law as a faculty member of the University of Perpetual
Help System DALTA College of Law Biñan campus since 2012.
Likewise, for the past three years already, Judge Grimares is the
administrative head or Executive Judge in her court station and was
given the responsibility by the Supreme Court to lead and represent her
colleagues, including the court personnel, in Parañaque City.