People v. Mitra
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Eumelia R. Mitra was the Treasurer and Florencio L. Cabrera, Jr. was the President of Lucky Nine Credit Corporation (LNCC). Private respondent Felicisimo S. Tarcelo invested money in LNCC between 1996 and 1999, receiving checks as evidence of investment plus interest. These checks, signed by Mitra and Cabrera, were subsequently dishonored for the reason "account closed" when presented for payment. Tarcelo made oral demands for payment, but these were frustrated. In 2002, Tarcelo filed seven informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) against Mitra and Cabrera for a total amount of ₱925,000.00. Procedural History: The Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) found Mitra and Cabrera guilty of violating BP 22 and ordered them to pay fines and subsidiary imprisonment, and to pay Tarcelo ₱925,000.00 in solidum for civil liability. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTCC decision. Mitra and Cabrera appealed to the RTC, arguing they signed the checks in blank, without payee, amount, or maturity date, and that they signed them to avoid delaying LNCC's transactions as they did not regularly hold office. The RTC affirmed the MTCC decision. Cabrera died during the pendency of the case. Mitra alone filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA), claiming, among others, lack of proper service of notice of dishonor. The CA dismissed her petition for lack of merit. The Petition: Mitra filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. She raised two issues: (1) whether the elements of BP 22 must be proved against the corporation before liability attaches to the signatories, and (2) whether there was proper service of notice of dishonor and demand to pay on her and the late Florencio Cabrera, Jr.
Issue(s)
Whether the elements of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 must be proved beyond reasonable doubt as against the corporation who owns the current account where the subject checks were drawn before liability attaches to the signatories. Whether there is proper service of notice of dishonor and demand to pay to the petitioner and the late Florencio Cabrera, Jr.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the person who actually signs a corporate check is liable under BP 22, regardless of whether the corporation itself was first found to have committed the violation. The Court also gave full faith and credit to the findings of the lower courts regarding the proper service of the notice of dishonor.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of corporate liability versus signatory liability: The Court disagreed with Mitra's posture that the elements of BP 22 must first be proven against the corporation before liability attaches to the signatories. The third paragraph of Section 1 of BP 22 explicitly 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." This provision is unequivocal and mandatory, recognizing that a corporation acts through its officers. The Court cited Llamado v. Court of Appeals, ruling that the accused was liable on an unfunded corporate check he signed as treasurer, and that he could not invoke lack of involvement in the transaction as a defense because BP 22 punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check. Therefore, Mitra, having signed the LNCC checks as treasurer, must be held liable for violating BP 22. On the issue of proper service of notice of dishonor: The Court found that Mitra's contention of no proper service of notice of dishonor raises a factual issue, which is not proper for review by the Supreme Court. The Court reiterated its function is limited to errors of law, not errors of fact, unless specific exceptions are met. The Court gave full faith and credit to the consistent findings of the MTCC, RTC, and CA regarding the propriety of the service of notice of dishonor. The Court noted the prosecution's positive allegation and proof that a demand letter was served on April 10, 2000, during a court hearing, and that the accused refused to sign the acknowledgment of receipt. The Court held that actual receipt acknowledgment is not required by law or jurisprudence, and that the prosecution successfully proved the receipt of the demand letter. With the notice of dishonor duly served and disregarded, the presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds arose, especially since the account was closed. The elements of BP 22 were thus proven: (1) issuance of a check for value; (2) knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issue (presumed from dishonor and failure to pay within five banking days after notice); and (3) subsequent dishonor by the drawee bank. Mitra failed to pay or make arrangements for payment within five days from notice, thus she cannot escape civil and criminal liabilities.
Main Doctrine
The person who actually signs a corporate check, even if drawn by a corporation, shall be liable for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, as the law punishes the mere issuance of a bouncing check and does not require prior proof of the corporation's violation against it.