Title
Co vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 100776
Decision Date
Oct 28, 1993
Albino Co issued a postdated check as a guarantee in 1983, later dishonored. Convicted under B.P. Blg. 22, he argued reliance on a 1981 DOJ circular exempting guarantee checks. Supreme Court ruled in his favor, dismissing the case, emphasizing prospectivity and fair notice in criminal liability.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 13638)

Facts

Petitioner contracted for the salvage and refloating of a sunken vessel. In payment of his share of salvage expenses, he delivered on September 1, 1983 a post-dated check for ₱361,528.00 drawn on Associated Citizens’ Bank (post-date November 30, 1983). The check was deposited January 3, 1984 and dishonored two days later with the notation “CLOSED ACCOUNT.”

Procedural History

  1. Regional Trial Court of Pasay City: Convicted petitioner for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (the “Bouncing Checks Law”), sentenced him to 60 days’ imprisonment and indemnification of ₱361,528.00.
  2. Court of Appeals: Affirmed conviction, rejecting petitioner’s argument that reliance on Ministry of Justice Circular No. 4 (December 15, 1981) (exempting guarantee checks from penal liability) predated any contrary judicial ruling.
  3. Supreme Court Rule 45 Petition: Initially dismissed (Resolution, September 9, 1991); upon motion for reconsideration and comment by the Solicitor General, appeal was reinstated for resolution on the merits.

Issue

Whether the Supreme Court’s September 21, 1987 decision in Que v. People (154 SCRA 160), holding that checks issued as guarantees fall within B.P. Blg. 22, should be applied retroactively to a check issued September 1, 1983—particularly where petitioner relied on the Minister of Justice’s Circular No. 4 (1981).

Applicable Law

• 1987 Constitution of the Philippines (in force at decision date)
• Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (April 3, 1979) – penalizes issuance of dishonored checks
• New Civil Code, art. 4 (no retroactivity unless expressly provided) and art. 8 (judicial decisions form part of the law)
• Revised Penal Code, art. 22 (penal laws retroactive only if favorable to the accused)
• Ministry of Justice Circular No. 4 (December 15, 1981): excludes guarantee checks from BP 22 liability
• Ministry of Justice Circular No. 12 (August 8, 1984): reverses Circular No. 4 prospectively

Analysis: Principle of Prospectivity

The Court reiterated that neither statutes nor judicial interpretations bind retroactively unless expressly so provided. Under art. 4, New Civil Code, laws take effect prospectively. Under art. 8, Supreme Court constructions form part of the law from its enactment date but are themselves not new legislation and thus apply only to future cases, respecting vested rights and settled expectations.

Analysis: Administrative Rulings and Circulars

Circular No. 4 (1981) represented the official construction by the Ministry of Justice that guarantee checks were not penalized under BP 22. Circular No. 12 (1984) reversed that interpretation but expressly limited its application to checks issued after August 8, 1984.

Analysis: Applicability of Que v. People

Que v. People (1987) affirmed that all dishonored checks, including those issued as guarantees, fall within BP 22’s prohibition. However, that decision constitutes a judicial interpretation whose new doctrine applies prospectively. To apply it retroactively would impair rights and expectations of parties who relied on prior administrative interpretation.

Defense of Reliance on Official Interpretation

Petitioner relied in good faith on an official pronouncement by the Secretary of Justice (Circular No. 4).

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms