Case Summary (G.R. No. 27415)
Key Dates
– August 25, 2006: Issuance of RCBC Check No. 0201234 for ₱436,800.00
– September 15, 2006 to November 3, 2006: Demand letters sent and settlement attempts
– May 28, 2013: Metropolitan Trial Court (METC) decision acquitting petitioner criminally but imposing civil liability
– February 23, 2015: Regional Trial Court (RTC) judgment affirming METC with modified interest rate and reckoning date
– April 20, 2017: Court of Appeals (CA) decision affirming RTC with interest-rate modification under Nacar v. Gallery Frames
– November 23, 2021: Supreme Court decision on Petition for Review under Rule 45
Applicable Law
– 1987 Philippine Constitution
– Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Dishonored Checks Law)
– Negotiable Instruments Law, Sec. 29 (Accommodation Party)
– Civil Code, Arts. 1156–1157 (Sources of Obligations), 1161 (Civil Obligations Arising from Crimes), 2177 (Prohibition of Double Recovery)
– Revised Penal Code, Art. 100 (Civil Liability of a Person Guilty of Felony), Arts. 112–113 (Survival and Extinction of Civil Liability)
Facts
Petitioner issued a postdated personal check for ₱436,800.00 to secure deliveries of 12,000 liters of diesel to RB Freight. The check was dishonored on presentment due to a closed account. Respondent sent successive demand letters to both RB Freight and petitioner, including one via registered mail, all of which went unheeded. A criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22 was filed. Petitioner admitted issuing the check but denied receiving notice of its dishonor.
Procedural History
METC (Branch 40, Quezon City) acquitted petitioner of the criminal charge for lack of proof that he knew of insufficient funds, yet held him civilly liable for the check’s face value with 6% interest from last demand, attorney’s fees, and costs. The RTC (Branch 226) affirmed the acquittal but increased interest to 12% per annum reckoned from judicial demand (October 3, 2007). The CA applied Nacar v. Gallery Frames to split interest at 12% until June 30, 2013, and 6% thereafter. Petitioner’s Rule 45 petition followed.
Issue
Whether petitioner, acquitted of criminal liability under B.P. 22, remains civilly liable for the face value of the dishonored check.
Court’s Analysis
Civil Liability Ex Delicto vs. Other Sources
– An acquittal based on reasonable doubt extinguishes civil liability ex delicto (arising directly from a criminal conviction).
– Surviving civil liability must be founded on another source: law, contract, quasi-contract, or quasi-delict.Civil Code and Procedural Rule Guidance
– Art. 29, Civil Code: acquittal on reasonable doubt allows a separate civil action by preponderance of evidence.
– Arts. 112–113, Revised Penal Code: criminal acquittal does not per se extinguish civil obligations unless the act or omission did not exist.Existence of Underlying Contractual Obligation
– The check was issued in payment of RB Freight’s corporate obligation for diesel deliveries; RB Freight’s own correspondence admitted this debt.
Accommodation Party Liability
Under Sec. 29 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, an accommodation party is one who signs an instrument without receiving value, to lend his name for another’s credit. Petitioner signed and delivered his personal check solely to facilitate RB Freight’s purchases; he received no consideration. He therefore assumed liability “as if the contract was not for accommodation,” making him civilly liable to a hol
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 27415)
Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking to reverse and set aside the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated April 20, 2017 in CA-G.R. SP No. 139973.
- CA affirmed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judgment dated February 23, 2015 with modification on the applicable rate and reckoning date of legal interest.
- RTC had affirmed the Metropolitan Trial Court (METC) Decision dated May 28, 2013, modifying only the rate and reckoning date of legal interest.
- METC had acquitted petitioner of the criminal charge under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 but found him civilly liable for the face value of the dishonored check with interest, attorney’s fees, and costs.
Relevant Facts
- Roqson Industrial Sales, Inc. (respondent) delivered 12,000 liters of diesel to RB Freight International, Inc., then managed by petitioner.
- Petitioner issued post-dated RCBC Check No. 0201234 dated August 25, 2006 for ₱436,800.00, drawn on a closed account; the check was dishonored upon presentment.
- Respondent sent demand letters (Sept. 15, 2006; Sept. 18, 2006; Oct. 14, 2006; final demand unheeded) to both RB Freight and petitioner proposing and counter-proposing settlement schemes or moratorium.
- With no payment, respondent filed a criminal complaint for violation of B.P. 22. After preliminary investigation, probable cause was found.
- At trial, respondent introduced the dishonored check, demand letters, registry receipts, and the testimony of its collection officer, Alfredo D. Crisostomo.
- Petitioner admitted issuing the check but denied receiving any written notice of dishonor.
METC Decision (May 28, 2013)
- Acquitted petitioner of B.P. 22 on ground of reasonable doubt for failure to prove knowledge of insufficient funds and receipt of notice of dishonor beyond reasonable doubt.
- Held that registry return receipt was unauthenticated and insufficient to prove actual receipt of notice.
- Nonetheless, imposed civil liability ex del