In B.P. 22 cases, service of notice of dishonor through electronic means is allowed by attaching the notice and briefly stating the following: (1) the dates and details of the sender’s prior attempts at personal service; and (2) that due to such failure or frustrated attempts, the sender is resorting to electronic service.

To ensure prompt notice, service by electronic means must be made within 24 hours from the final attempt at personal service.

The Supreme Court, in Arnel Carlos and Marivic Carlos v. People of the Philippines and Tire Star, Inc. (G.R. No. 277047, April 15, 2025), ruled that proper service of a notice of dishonor is essential in establishing the drawer’s knowledge of insufficient funds in cases involving violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, otherwise known as the Anti-Bouncing Check Law.

The Court explained that one of the essential elements of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is the drawer’s knowledge that there were insufficient funds or credit in the bank at the time the check was issued. Under Section 2 of the law, such knowledge is presumed when the check is dishonored and the drawer fails to pay or make arrangements for payment within five banking days after receiving notice of dishonor.

The Court further clarified that notice of dishonor must primarily be served personally. If personal service is not practicable, it may be served through registered mail. Electronic means may likewise be used as a primary or substituted mode of service under the circumstances provided by the Court. Thus:

“To that end, the Court finds it proper to apply to the service of notice of dishonor, as relevant herein, the same modes of service recognized in analogous cases where notice or demand is a condition precedent to legal action. Accordingly, service shall primarily be made personally. If personal service is not practicable, service may be effected by registered mail. Significantly, service through electronic means may likewise be undertaken, either as a primary mode or as a form of substituted service, in recognition of the evolving modes of communication and in line with the Court’s Strategic Plan for Judicial Innovations 2022-2027. The applicable rules and requisites for each mode of service are set forth below.”

The Court also emphasized that an affidavit of service of the notice of dishonor is mandatory. Mere denial of receipt is not sufficient to overcome affirmative evidence of service. For denial to prosper, the drawer must show that it was physically impossible for them to have been present at the place and time of service. Thus:

“Where electronic means are resorted to in effecting substituted service, the electronic communication transmitting the notice of dishonor shall attach or enclose the notice of dishonor, and shall also briefly state: (1) the dates and details of the sender’s prior attempts at personal service; and (2) that due to such failure or frustrated attempts, the sender is resorting to electronic service. To ensure prompt notice, service by electronic means must be made within 24 hours from the final attempt at personal service. Said service shall constitute as the final notice that such check has not been paid for purposes of reckoning the five-banking day period.”

Applying these principles, the Court found that spouses Carlos failed to show that it was physically impossible for them to have been at their office when the notice was served. The Court therefore upheld their conviction for six counts of violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 and affirmed the penalties and civil liability imposed by the lower courts.