G.R. No. 269745 - Rebujio vs. Dio Implant Philippines Corporation

Case Summary (G.R. No. 269745)

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statute: Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), Section 1 (checks without sufficient funds). Related authorities: Civil Code principles on civil liability ex delicto and ex contractu; Corporation Code / Revised Corporation Code provisions on corporate officers (Section 25 former; now Section 24 Revised Corporation Code). Controlling jurisprudence referenced: Navarra v. People; Gosiaco v. Ching; Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Duque. The decision is rendered under the 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date is 2025, so the 1987 Constitution is the constitutionally applicable framework).

Criminal Information and Plea

Rebujio was charged with violation of BP 22 for issuing a corporate check knowing there were insufficient funds; the check was presented and dishonored. He pleaded not guilty at arraignment and the matter proceeded to trial on the merits.

Prosecution’s Factual Allegations

DIPC alleges BHMGI, through Dr. Mendoza, purchased merchandise from DIPC. DIPC received Security Bank check No. 0000072006 signed by Rebujio as BHMGI’s finance officer and authorized signatory. The check was presented at Metrobank and dishonored for insufficiency of funds. DIPC informed BHMGI via its sales officer; demands were allegedly ignored, prompting the BP 22 complaint against Rebujio.

Defense’s Factual Assertions

Rebujio contended the check was wrongfully issued: DIPC was not a supplier of BHMGI and Dr. Mendoza purchased the items in her personal capacity and was not authorized under BHMGI policy to transact with DIPC on behalf of the corporation. BHMGI allegedly admonished Dr. Mendoza. Rebujio denied personal liability for the corporate obligation.

MTC Decision: Acquittal on Criminal Charge but Civil Liability Ordered

The Metropolitan Trial Court acquitted Rebujio of the BP 22 criminal charge for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, noting especially that there was no proof Rebujio personally received the notice of dishonor. Nonetheless, the MTC held him civilly liable for the value of the dishonored check (PHP 297,051.86) with 6% legal interest and costs, reasoning that BP 22 fuses criminal and civil liability and permits recovery of the check’s value from the person who signed it.

RTC Decision: Reversal of MTC and Protection of Corporate Separateness

The Regional Trial Court reversed the MTC. It held that a corporate officer may be held civilly liable under BP 22 only if found criminally liable; because Rebujio was acquitted criminally, he could not be civilly liable in the criminal proceeding. The RTC clarified that DIPC’s remedy was to pursue a separate civil action against BHMGI for the check’s value. Reconsideration was denied.

Court of Appeals Decision: Reinstatement of MTC Ruling

The Court of Appeals set aside the RTC decision and reinstated the MTC’s order directing Rebujio to pay the check’s value. The CA concluded that a finance officer is not necessarily a corporate officer as defined by the Corporation Code and, because Rebujio admitted signing the check, an acquittal on reasonable doubt does not preclude the award of civil damages under BP 22.

Issue Presented to the Supreme Court

Whether Rebujio, as finance officer and authorized signatory who was acquitted of BP 22 on reasonable doubt, may nevertheless be held civilly liable for the value of the dishonored corporate check in the criminal case.

Supreme Court Holding and Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the petition. It reversed the Court of Appeals decision and its resolution denying reconsideration, and reinstated the Regional Trial Court decision. The Court held that Rebujio, being acquitted of the BP 22 criminal charge, cannot be held civilly liable for the value of the dishonored corporate check in the criminal case; DIPC remains free to bring a separate civil action for recovery against the appropriate party.

Supreme Court Reasoning — Statutory Text and Jurisprudential Rule

The Court emphasized the text of BP 22, Section 1: where a check is drawn by a corporation, “the person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.” Prior jurisprudence establishes that when a corporate signatory is convicted under BP 22, civil liability for the check’s value follows; conversely, when the corporate signatory is acquitted, civil liability arising from the criminal offense is extinguished (Pilipinas Shell). The Court declined to import the Revised Corporation Code’s enumeration of corporate officers as a qualification for this BP 22 doctrine; BP 22 speaks to the person who actually signed the check irrespective of whether

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 269745)

Nature of the Case and Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court filed by petitioner George Rebujio (Rebujio) assailing: (1) the Court of Appeals Decision dated February 16, 2023 in CA-G.R. SP No. 159880 which reinstated the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) Decision dated July 26, 2018 directing Rebujio to pay the value of the dishonored check; and (2) the Court of Appeals Resolution dated October 3, 2023 denying Rebujio’s Motion for Reconsideration.
The case reached the Supreme Court En Banc after earlier rulings at the Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch 17), the Regional Trial Court (Branch 32), and the Court of Appeals (Thirteenth Division).
Final disposition by the Supreme Court: petition granted; Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution reversed; Regional Trial Court Decision dated November 22, 2018 and Order dated February 6, 2019 reinstated.

Parties

Petitioner: George Rebujio, identified in the record as finance officer and authorized signatory of Beverly Hills Medical Group, Inc. (BHMGI).
Respondent / Private complainant: Dio Implant Philippines Corporation (DIPC), represented by Ronaldo Candido S. Kalaw.
Other persons of factual relevance: Dr. Maria Theresa Mendoza (in-house dentist of BHMGI who purchased goods), Michael R. Reyllo (DIPC sales officer), Christine Millares (BHMGI accountant), spouses Rebujio (Rebujio and his wife).

Charged Offense and Information Allegations

Rebujio was charged with violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22), alleging that sometime prior to August 10, 2016 he willfully, unlawfully and knowingly made, drew and issued Security Bank postdated check No. 0000072006 dated September 7, 2016 payable to DIPC in the amount alleged in the Information (the Information’s stated amount appears in the source text as PHP 279,051.86), well knowing that he did not have sufficient funds or credit in the drawee bank; that the check was deposited and presented within 90 days and was dishonored for the reason “DAIF”; and that despite receipt of notice of dishonor the accused failed to make payment or arrangement within five banking days after receiving such notice.
On arraignment, Rebujio pleaded not guilty.

Prosecution’s Version of Events

In August 2015, Beverly Hills Medical Group, Inc. (BHMGI), through Dr. Maria Theresa Mendoza, purchased from DIPC various merchandise for dental and cosmetic surgery amounting to PHP 299,728.00 and PHP 236,874.00, respectively.
DIPC, through sales officer Michael R. Reyllo, received Security Bank Check No. 0000072006 with a face value indicated in the prosecution narrative as PHP 297,051.86 (the subject check), drawn on BHMGI’s account and signed by Rebujio as finance officer and authorized signatory.
The subject check, when presented for payment at Metrobank Ocean Tower Branch, was dishonored for insufficiency of funds.
Reyllo informed BHMGI, through accountant Christine Millares; spouses Rebujio met with Reyllo, acknowledged the obligation and requested time to review documents, but subsequently failed to contact DIPC and failed to settle the obligation despite demands.
DIPC filed a criminal complaint for violation of BP 22 against Rebujio.

Defense’s Version of Events

Rebujio testified the subject check was wrongfully issued.
He asserted DIPC was not a supplier of BHMGI and that the dental supplies were purchased by Dr. Mendoza in her personal capacity.
Dr. Mendoza was a former consultant of BHMGI and, per the company manual, was not authorized to transact business with DIPC on behalf of BHMGI.
BHMGI admonished Dr. Mendoza for inappropriate conduct.
Defense contended that Rebujio did not personally incur the obligation and that the procurement was not a corporate act properly binding BHMGI.

Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch 17) Ruling — Decision dated July 26, 2018

The MTC acquitted Rebujio of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Simultaneously, the MTC held Rebujio civilly liable — by preponderance of evidence — to pay the private complainant the value of the subject check (stated in the MTC Decision as PHP 297,051.86) with legal interest at 6% per annum from filing of the Information until fully paid, and to pay the costs of suit.
The MTC’s acquittal was grounded on failure to prove all elements of BP 22, specifically noting that it was not established that Rebujio actually received the notice of dishonor (receipt had been by his secretary).
The MTC relied on BP 22 and existing jurisprudence fusing criminal liability with corresponding civil liability to permit recovery from the person who signed the check on behalf of the corporation.

Regional Trial Court (Branch 32) Ruling — Decision dated November 22, 2018 and Order dated February 6, 2019

The Regional Trial Court reversed the MTC Decision.
The RTC held that as a corporate officer of BHMGI, Rebujio could be held civilly liable for the value of the check only if he were found criminally liable, which was not the case here.
The RTC judgment repeatedly indicated that its ruling was without prejudice to DIPC’s right to institute a separate civil action against BHMGI for recovery of the check’s value.
Re