Photo from Pexels | cottonbro studio
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
Section 1 of the Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 states that, where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of the drawer shall be liable.
In Llamado v. CA and People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 99032, March 26, 1997, Llamado together with Pascual was charged with violation of BP 22 and pleaded not guilty of the crime charged.
Llamado and Pascual were the Treasurer and President, respectively of the Pan Asia Finance Corporation. Private Complainant, Gaw, delivered to the accused the amount of PhP180,000.00, with the assurance of Tan, the secretary of the accused in the corporation, that it will be repaid with interests at 12% plus a share in the profits of the corporation, if any.
Upon delivery of the money, Llamado took it and placed it inside a deposit box. Pascual and Llamado signed a postdated Philippine Trust Company Check No. 047809, in the amount of PhP186,500.00 in the presence of Gaw.
The said check was issued in payment of the cash money delivered to the accused by Gaw, plus interests thereon for 60 days in the amount of PhP6,500.00
Gaw deposited the check in his current account with the Equitable Banking Corporation which later informed him that the check was dishonored by the drawee bank because payment was stopped, and that the check was drawn against insufficient funds. Gaw was also notified by the Equitable Banking Corporation that his current account was debited because of the said check.
Gaw returned to Tan to inform her of the dishonor of the check. Tan received the check from Gaw with the assurance that she will have said check changed with cash. However, upon his return to Tan, the latter informed him that she had nothing to do with the check.
Thereupon, Gaw went to Llamado to inform him of the dishonor of the check. Llamado offered in writing to pay Gaw a portion of the amount equivalent to 10%, and the balance to be rolled over for a period of 90 days.
Llamado, however, failed to remit to Gaw the aforesaid 10% and to roll over the balance of the money.
Gaw then demanded from Llamado the payment of PhP186,500 but he failed to pay and instead, Llamado offered to return to Gaw only 30% of his money which was refused by the latter. Thus, Gaw filed a complaint for violation of BP 22 against Llamado.
The Supreme Court ruled that Llamado’s argument that he should not be personally liable for the amount of the check because it was a check of the Pan Asia Finance Corporation and he signed the same in his capacity as Treasurer of the corporation, is untenable. The third paragraph of Section 1 of BP 22 states:
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
Related Articles:
- Understanding the Nature of Manager’s Check
- What is the difference between Estafa and Violation of BP Blg. 22?
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.