Case Digest (G.R. No. 119178)
Facts:
In G.R. No. 119178, decided June 20, 1997 under the 1987 Constitution, petitioner Lina Lim Lao was a junior officer of Premiere Investment House’s Binondo branch whose duties included co-signing corporate checks in blank, to be completed later by her head of operations, Teodulo Asprec. On July 8 and October 7, 1983, three blank Traders Royal Bank checks were signed by Lao and Asprec and delivered to investments client Fr. Artelijo A. Palijo as payment of interest on his P514,484.04 investment. When presented within ninety days, the checks were dishonored for insufficient funds. Palijo demanded payment, securing only P5,000; thereafter he lodged a formal demand letter. Premiere was placed under receivership and Palijo filed an affidavit-complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Informations were filed on May 11, 1984 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 33, charging Lao and Asprec with knowingly issuing worthless checks. At trial, Lao testified she merCase Digest (G.R. No. 119178)
Facts:
- Organizational Structure and Roles
- Petitioner Lina Lim Lao was a junior officer at Premiere Investment House’s Binondo branch, authorized to co-sign corporate checks in blank (no payee, amount or date).
- Teodulo Asprec, head of operations, co-signed, filled in blanks, decided payee/amount; funding and account monitoring were under the main office’s Treasury Department in Cubao, Quezon City.
- Investment Transaction and Check Dishonor
- Father Artelijo Palijo invested ₱514,484.04 with Premiere; received three interest-payment checks (Nos. 299961, 299962 for ₱150,000 each; No. 323835 for ₱26,010.73), all signed by Lao and Asprec.
- Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored for “Insufficient Funds.” Palijo demanded payment, received ₱5,000, sent a formal demand letter; Premiere was subsequently placed under receivership.
- Notice of dishonor was sent only to Premiere’s main office; Lao, stationed at Binondo, received no personal notice.
- Procedural History
- January 24, 1984: Affidavit-complaint filed; May 11, 1984: Informations under B.P. 22 filed against Lao and Asprec.
- RTC (Branch 33, Manila): Convicted Lao in two cases (Nos. 84-26967, 84-26968), acquitted in one (No. 84-26969).
- Court of Appeals: December 9, 1994 decision affirming RTC.
- Supreme Court grant of petition; issues raised concerning knowledge of insufficiency and validity of notice.
Issues:
- Can an employee who co-signs blank corporate checks—without actual knowledge of available funds—be criminally liable under B.P. 22 when the checks bounce?
- Does notice of dishonor sent to the corporation’s main office suffice as notice to an employee signatory located in a separate branch for purposes of Section 2, B.P. 22?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)