G.R. No. 217787 - Ongkingco vs. Sugiyama

On April 6, 2001, Kazuhiro Sugiyama entered into a Contract Agreement with New Rhia Car Services, Inc., where Socorro F. Ongkingco was President and Chairperson and Marie Paz B. Ongkingco was a Board Director. Under the contract, Sugiyama invested ₱2,200,000 and was to receive monthly dividends of ₱90,675 for five years.
Petitioners issued six checks to cover Sugiyama’s dividends. The first three (September 10, October 10, and November 10, 2001) were good; the last three bounced due to insufficient funds.
In October 2001, Socorro obtained a loan of ₱500,000 from Sugiyama with 5% interest for one month, secured by a check (No. 0000127109, November 30, 2001) which was dishonored for insufficient funds.
Formal demand for payment was made through a letter dated March 5, 2002, but payment was not made.

Sugiyama filed four (4) separate criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22) (bouncing checks), docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 318339 to 318342, concerning the dishonored checks.
The charges alleged that petitioners, as corporate officers and authorized signatories of New Rhia, issued checks knowing insufficient funds existed, which were subsequently dishonored.
Petitioners pleaded not guilty. On February 4, 2003, Socorro and Sugiyama executed an Addendum to the Contract Agreement for a new payment schedule with interest, but the obligation remained unsettled.

The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) convicted petitioners of four counts of B.P. 22 violation, imposing fines totaling ₱500,000 and ordering them to pay Sugiyama ₱797,025, plus 12% interest per annum from April 11, 2002, until full payment, and costs of suit.
The MeTC found:

The first and third elements of B.P. 22 were satisfied — issuance of checks for value and dishonor due to insufficient funds.
Proof was sufficient that Socorro received the demand letter via her secretary, and Marie Paz failed to rebut this evidence.
Both petitioners were found jointly and severally civilly liable for the amounts covered by the dishonored checks.

Issuance of a check creates a presumption of value received.
Corporate officers who sign checks on behalf of the corporation are personally liable under B.P. 22.
The purpose or consideration behind the check issuance is immaterial for criminal liability.
Marie Paz’s denial of being a signatory and participation was insufficient as a defense.

Approval of the filing was valid, as the 1st Assistant City Prosecutor acted “for the city prosecutor” based on a Resolution approving the filing.
Petitioners’ failure to timely raise the approval defect before trial bars relief on this ground by estoppel and laches.
Socorro received the notice of dishonor through her secretary with her permission; Marie Paz did not.
Socorro was convicted and civilly liable; Marie Paz was acquitted for lack of proof of receipt of dishonor notice.
Socorro personally bound herself to pay the monthly dividends and loan, despite acting as corporate officer, so she cannot invoke corporate fiction to escape liability.
Interest awarded was modified following jurisprudential standards.

The lack of prior written approval by the city prosecutor is a jurisdictional defect not subject to waiver and should have led to dismissal.
The supposed approval by the 1st Assistant City Prosecutor is insufficient without proof of delegation or authority.
The prosecution failed to prove actual receipt of the notice of dishonor, particularly for both petitioners, citing similarity with Chua v. People.
Thus, both petitioners should have been acquitted and not held civilly liable.
The private complainant retains the right to pursue civil action against New Rhia Car Services, Inc.

Whether the trial courts and CA erred in finding petitioners guilty of violating B.P. 22 based on the issuance of dishonored checks.
Whether there was sufficient proof that petitioners, particularly Socorro and Marie Paz, received the notice of dishonor as required under B.P. 22.
Whether the petitioners could be held personally liable despite acting as corporate officers issuing checks in the corporation's name.
Whether the Informations filed against petitioners were valid despite the alleged lack of prior written approval from the city prosecutor.
Whether the Addendum to Contract Agreement executed between the parties extinguished the obligation arising from the dishonored checks.