LDG Final Thesis

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE i
REVISITING THE BOUNCING CHECKS LAW

AND
REVERSING ITS EFFECTS ON COURT CONGESTION
Research Study Presented to the Graduate School

University of Santo Tomas
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Laws
by
LEILANI MARIE DACANAY-GRIMARES
April 2018
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………………i
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………........ii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………iv
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 The Problem and Its Background .................................................................... 1
1.2 Scope and Limitations of the Study ................................................................ 8
1.3 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................. 10
1.4 Significance of the Study .............................................................................. 14
1.5 Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................... 15
1.6 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................. 17
1.7 Definition of Terms ....................................................................................... 22
CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................. 28
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................................................... 28
2.1 Overview ....................................................................................................... 28
2.2 Historical Development of Bouncing Checks Law in the Philippines .......... 28
2.3 Developments After Passage of B.P. 22 ...................................................... 36
2.4 Congestion of MTC Dockets ...................................................................... 44
2.5 Countermeasures to Reduce Congestion ..................................................... 68
2.6 The Turkey Model ........................................................................................ 75
Chapter 3 .................................................................................................................... 82
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ........................................................................ 82
Chapter 4…………………………………………………………………………….85
DISCUSSIONS...........………………………………………………………….......85
4.1 B.P. 22 as a Major Source of Action……………………………………………86
4.2 Factors of Delay…………………………………………………………89
4.3 Procedural Gaps…………………………………………………………92
Chapter 5……………………………………………………………………………95
SUMMARY, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…....……………........95
5.1 Summary………………………………………………………………...95
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE iii
5.2 Findings and Conclusion………………………………………………..96

5.3 Recommendations……………………………………………………….98
References………………………………………………………………………….106
Appendix I (Timetable of Research) ………...........................................................118
Appendix II (Budgetary Requirements) ………......................................................119
Curriculum Vitae…………………………………………………………………..120
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE iv
ABSTRACT
Court dockets are heavily and unjustifiably congested as a result of the
indiscriminate filing of cases for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law or B.P.
22. The volume of these cases has drastically risen at an alarming rate as courts
are apparently transformed into collection agencies by creditors who receive bad
or dishonoredchecks. With most courts no longer imposing the penalty of
imprisonment due to recent jurisprudence and Supreme Court pronouncements,
B.P. 22 has failed its declared objective to deter the proliferation of worthless
checks and, instead, became one of the primary sources of case congestion.
Accordingly, there is a need to revisit this law and establish in addition to
criminal prosecution, a specific civil procedure that will facilitate collection of
claims involving bad checks. The Bouncing Checks Law, it can be gainsaid, has
outlived its purpose and must be reviewed to decongest court dockets in order to
afford the fullest protection to the public and the country’s economy.
Being in the forefront of the judicial process, the performance of the first
level courts is unduly hampered by the bulk of worthless or bouncing checks
cases pending and continuously filed before them. The resources allocated to
prosecuting worthless checks evidently surpass all other actions within the
jurisdiction of the first level courts, thus depriving the expeditious disposition
thereof and the appropriate attention due them, which results to lengthened delay
of all cases in the overall judicial hierarchy. Brought about by the leniency in
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE v
imposing the proper punishment, the deterring effect of B.P. 22 as a criminal
sanction must be reconsidered and the urgency of redefining treatment accorded
to, and procedure necessary for, worthless checks cases is now presented as the
eminent focus of this study.
This research will be establishing a new summary civil procedure that
willhasten or speed up the resolution of worthless checks cases. The procedure is
patterned from other legal jurisdictions and finetuned under the Philippine context
without compromising the policy of the State against worthless checks. Other
solutions are also thoroughly discussed and evaluated taking into account working
models or jurisdictions that experienced the same predicament involving
worthless checks and the clogging effect in their respective court dockets.
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
“Nothing is so fatiguing as the eternal hanging on of an uncompleted task.”

—William James
1.1 The Problem and Its Background
It cannot be denied that delay in the administration of justice is one of the
chronic problems in our country and, for that matter, in any democratic republic.
This problem seems to be part and parcel of any country under a democratic
system of government where every citizen has the right to “due process of law”
which oftentimes is the battle cry of anyone who wants to have his day in court.
Filing of cases in court therefore is the right of anyone who seeks justice.
Of course, ‘justice1’ here means “the constant and perpetual disposition to render
to every man his due” which is to be rendered by our courts. But this judicial
remedy has overtime become the subject of “overuse, misuse and abuse” and one
of the causes for overcrowding of court dockets. This means that a person seeking
redress of a grievance is most likely to go directly to court when it probably is
1
Iustitia est constans et perpetua voluntas ius suum cuique tribuens.The opening maxim of Justinian’s Institutes
Book 1 Title 1.
more practical to have availed of other modes of dispute resolution. The
hypothesis is that litigation prone individuals have the courts as their place of
initial settlement rather than the ultimate place of dispute resolution that they
were originally meant to be. As a result, court dockets are heavily and
unjustifiably congested as a result of the indiscriminate filing and delayed
processing of cases in the courts. Hundreds of thousands of cases remain pending
for further action or resolution. Further, the cases pending in all levels of the
judicial system keep piling up at an alarming rate.
Studies show that there are a huge number of cases now pending in courts
especially in cities where most of the population is concentrated. Many courts in
these cities have 1,000 or more cases in their dockets that may mean almost more
than three cases to resolve in a day. And through the years, they keep on piling up
higher instead of dwindling down.
If we drop by any of these courts in the urban areas and look at their
daily calendar, we will indeed shake our heads in disbelief upon seeing that there
are 30 to 50 cases scheduled for hearing in a day. The situation is believed to
become worse and the backlog will continue to grow rather than diminish unless
judges are able to dispose of more cases through a systematic and sustained
judicial reform program. The slow or delayed processing of earlier cases affects
the progress of other following cases. Court docket congestion deprives the courts
of the essential element of time. The quality of justice is, therefore, adversely
affected.
There are too many cases to resolve, but the supply of judges is so short.
With barely enough funding from the government to support the much-needed
reforms and even the basic necessities of the judiciary to fast track the wheels of
justice, it is no wonder the Philippine Judicial System is considered as one of the
slowest judicial system in the world.
More often than not, the failure to abide by, and the abuse of some
lawyers of remedial procedures contribute to the ailing dockets, which are already
teeming with frivolous suits filed by complainants awaiting resolution that, in the
meantime, worsens the already deplorable work schedule of our courts.
The filing of Bouncing Checks cases is the focal of these suits and it
mostly attributes to the blockage of our First Level Court dockets2. With the ever-
growing economy, trade and commerce activities dictate heavy reliance on
commercial papers, especially on checks, for day-to-day transactions and
convenience. Where it stands now, it cannot be avoided that the misuse of
2Alfredo F. Tadiar, UNCLOGGING THE COURT DOCKET, p.3, Paper presented in the Symposium on
Economic Policy Agenda for the Estrada Administration, June 1, 1999 at INNOTECH, Commonwealth Avenue,
Diliman, Quezon City
commercial instruments in the form of bouncing checks will also increase, due to
reasons ranging from lack of foresight to unscrupulous intentions perpetrated by
serial fraudsters.
The intendment of the law is to afford the citizenry with an effective
means to prosecute and make civilly liable those who issue bouncing checks that
is now encumbered by the sheer delay brought about by the staggering number of
these cases. An approach has to be arrived upon where the law and procedure
must be made effective yet dynamic, taking into consideration all the needs of the
Bench, the Bar, and the litigating parties to ensure the speedy, but quality
administration of the law.
To prevent the proliferation of worthless checks in the mainstream of
daily business and to avert not only the undermining of the banking system of the
country, but also the infliction of damage and injury upon trade and commerce
occasioned by the indiscriminate issuance and circulation of such checks, Batas
Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), also known as “An Act Penalizing the Making or
Drawing and Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or Credit and For
Other Purposes,” was approved on April 3, 1979. This law is clear on its mandate
to prevent, by criminalizing mala prohibita, the mere introduction or issuance of
worthless commercial papers that will inevitably pollute the market channels to
the detriment of public welfare, dilution of reputable commercial practices and

ultimately, the whole of the Philippine economy. The law punishes distinct acts of
making and issuing a check with knowledge by the issuer that at the time the
check is issued, he does not have sufficient funds, and the failure to keep
sufficient funds to cover the full amount of the check if presented within a period
of 90 days from the date appearing on the check. Another manner in which a
person becomes liable under B.P. 22 is when the issuer orders his or her bank to
make a stop payment of the check without any valid reason whereas the check
would have been dishonored for insufficiency of funds had it not been for the stop
payment order given by the issuer. By its very nature, the offenses defined by
B.P. 22 are those against public order.
In any of these cases, the issuer of the check commits a violation of
B.P.22 and may be held liable for imprisonment of 30 days to one year or a fine
of not less but not more than double the value of the check or both at the
discretion of the court. Moreover, the issuer of the check may also be liable for
subsidiary imprisonment, even if only a fine is imposed by the court upon failure
to pay the same. In this case, he or she shall be liable to serve a prison term at the
rate of one day for every eight pesos of the unpaid fine.
At the time B.P. 22 was passed, many questioned the statute’s validity
vis-à-vis the constitutional guarantee that no person shall be imprisoned for non-
payment of debt. However, in upholding the constitutionality of B.P. 22, the
Supreme Court held that “the gravamen of the offense punished by B.P. 22 is the
act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its
presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the
law punishes. The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his
debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the
making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its
deleterious effects on the public interest, the practice is proscribed by law. The
law punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an offense against
public order3.” With criminal penalties imposed, it is hoped that not only will the
issuance of a bouncing check be deterred, but also payment of the value of the
bouncing check by those who issued it will be enhanced.
Majority of the cases that clog the court dockets of the First Level Courts
today are those filed under B.P. 22 or the “Bouncing Checks Law”. There is no
in-depth study so far on whether there are less bouncing checks now due to this
law. Whether or not B.P. 22 is successful in its declared objective remains an
open question but what is clear though is that victims of bouncing checks find it
convenient to file criminal cases in court as a means of collecting from drawers of
3
(Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, 18 December 1986)
bouncing checks. Thus, the volume of cases filed has drastically risen with courts
being transformed into collection agencies by creditors who receive bad checks .
Furthermore, due to the criminal nature of the charges against drawers of
bouncing checks, judgment is only rendered upon a process more tedious than
that applied in civil cases, further adding to the clogging of court dockets.
Thirty-eight years from its passage, there have been many questions as to
the efficacy of B.P. 22 despite the move to include it under the ambit of summary
procedure4 to ease the clogged dockets in the First Level Courts. With the advent
of Vaca5, the punitive purpose of the law was taken down a notch when the
Supreme Court ruled that imprisonment for conviction under B.P. 22 can be
meted by discretion of the judge without clear-cut guidelines when such can be
imposed. Such a pronouncement effectively declawed B.P. 22 as a deterrent for
issuance of bouncing checks, regardless of the clarifications made by the
Supreme Court in its subsequent issuances6.
4
A. M. No. 00-11-01-SC (April 15, 2003)
5
Eduardo R. Vaca And Fernando Nieto vs. Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 131714, November 16, 1998
6
A. M.No. 13-2001 (February 14, 2001)
1.2 Scope and Limitations of the Study
B.P. 22 cases comprise the majority of litigation in our First Level Courts
and it unduly hampers the ability of these courts to dispose of the cases in their
dockets, thereby affecting the speed of the Judiciary’s frontline efforts in
administering justice over other cases in its jurisdiction, further adding delay to
appellate remedies in said other cases upwards the hierarchy of courts.
This study shall focus on how the present implementation of B.P. 22 and
other allied laws and procedure has lost its efficacy resulting to undue delay in the
case disposition and ultimately, for the formulation of an alternative civil
summary procedure which will effectively cater to the ever-growing number of
cases for bouncing checks in our jurisdiction.
This study will establish that the importance of REASSESSING THE
EFFICACY OF B.P. 22 as criminal prosecution in our jurisdiction entails more
time and requires the highest quantum of proof to garner conviction. A shift to
imposition of civil sanctions is theorized to be instrumental in decreasing the
clogging of court dockets due to the obvious ease of establishing liability through
a lower quantum of proof and the simple conduct of collection proceedings.

A utilized view of the Philippine bouncing check legislation history and
jurisprudence allowed the researcher to lay out the evolution of the state policy as
to how the growing problem of bad check circulation was answered and is being
currently addressed with regard to future legislative action. To date, the question
on the effectivity of the criminal statute is pushed to the limits as nearly 200
million pesos worth of bad checks are issued per day in the country. This is a
monumental hazard to our economy and a harmful source of cases that will soon
find its way to the First Level Courts all throughout the country.
The researcher also availed of court data and statistics relevant to pending
and continuously filed B.P. 22 cases based on Docket Management Access,
Inventory Reports, and Monthly Reports of Cases of Municipal Trial Court in
Cities and Metropolitan Trial Courts with the heaviest criminal caseloads. The
data gathered would show the dynamics of B.P. 22 case disposition within the
period of 2013-2017, this period of time was specifically chosen by the researcher
for the reason that case law and procedure were at optimum with no new doctrinal
developments introduced by the Supreme Court which pertained to the legal
treatment of B.P. 22 cases. The data presented was gathered, assessed, and
synthesized through the researcher’s duties as a member of the Board of Trustee
of the Metropolitan Trial Courts Judges Association of the Philippines
(METCJAP) from 2013 until her assumption to presidency in 2017.For this study,
data from various first level courts were gathered, specifically the Metropolitan
Trial Courts (MeTCs) and City Courts (MTCCs), wherein many judicial reform
programs and/or activities are being piloted or implemented. Likewise, these
Metropolitan Trial Courts and City Courts have the most number of caseloads
compared to other first level courts due to the fact that they are more populated.
For which reasons, much reliance will be made on the data or information
sourced from the Metropolitan Trial Courts and City Courts.
1.3 Statement of the Problem
The 1987 Constitution provides for the following provisions:
Section 16 Article III,
“All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their

cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative
bodies.”
in relation to Section 1 Article III,
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without

due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.”
in order to consummate Section 15 (1) Article VIII,
“All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution

must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from
date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced
by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate
courts, and three months for all other lower courts.”
The time needed to dispose of a case at the first instance level is an
indicator of efficiency. In many developing countries, the public considers the
time required to resolve cases as excessive, and a large majority of judges
surveyed agree that it is too long7.Due to the massive amount of cases for B.P.22
pending before the First Level Courts, the judges are deprived of the precious
time to hear and resolve other cases which entail more complex issues, further
adding to the delay in the resolution thereof along the judicial hierarchy, all
pointing towards the people’s loss of trust in the judicial system.
The norm for businessmen, lenders, landlords, and the like is to require
those who they transact with to issue a number of post-dated checks which
represent the number of installments for the respective transaction. Come default,
the creditors will coerce payment by filing cases for violation of B.P. 22 against
the debtor, and for which the latter can be imprisoned if he does not make good
the dishonor of said check. The abuse can also be shown by the practice of some
creditors who file as much cases for violation of B.P. 22 as there are many checks
that bounced, regardless if said checks are issued on the same instance or when a
check has been issued as a replacement of another.
7
Maria Dakolias Court Performance Around the World: A Comparative Perspective, Issue 1 Yale Human Rights
and Development Journal, February 18, 2014
These are some of the well-known causes for the indiscriminate filing of
cases under B.P. 22 and the largest contributing factor to the clogging of almost
30% of Metropolitan Trial Courts and MTC dockets8, which results in the
conclusion that this law is nothing more than a tool to blackmail defaulting
debtors, which in turn, unnecessarily chokes the First Level Court dockets.
The deterring effect of punishment decreases the longer expected time
required to complete judicial proceedings9. Due to the high volume of B.P. 22
cases plaguing our First Level Court dockets, the mandate of the law in curbing
issuances of worthless checks is significantly eroded as it engenders a belief in
would-be offenders that it is difficult and takes a long prosecution for one to be
convicted under the said law.
In addition to the recent administrative circulars10 and pronouncements of
the Supreme Court in certain jurisprudence11, a case for violation of B.P. 22 is a
criminal action where bail is not required, no warrant of arrest can be applied for,
except in cases of securing the attendance of the accused, and most importantly,
imprisonment is not the primary penalty upon conviction. These necessarily
8
Explanatory Note of Senate SB 135 introduced by Senator Franklin M . Drilon, July 5, 2010
9
Dalla Pellegrina, Lucia. (2007). Courts Delays and Crime Deterrence (An Application to Crimes
Against Property in Italy). Universitas degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Dipartimento di Statistica,
Working Papers. 26.. 10.2139/ssrn.921049.
10
Supranote 4
11
Supranote 5
lessen the “scare” of committing this particular crime, which is disproportionate
to the traditional theory12 that stiffer penalties mean a higher expected cost of
committing a crime and, therefore, the crime becomes less attractive to a rational
person and less of it occurs.
With the apparent policy inclination to light penalties and in response to
this Damocles problem, it is the very stand of this study to provide for an
additional procedure for causes of action involving B.P 22, one which is a pure
civil action in order to unclog court dockets and be able to dispatch more cases at
a faster rate, and with relative ease.
The core of this research dwells on the substantial and procedural aspects
for prosecuting B.P. 22 cases as observed and practiced by First Level Courts for
the years 2013-2017. Particularly, this work seeks to answer these questions:
(1) What constitutes the bulk of cases which congest the first level court
dockets?
(2) What contributes to the delay in the disposition of these cases?
(a) Is it attributable to the substantive aspect of the law?
(b) Is it attributable to the procedural aspect of the law?
(3) What are the urgent and necessary reforms that will reverse the effect
of congestion by these cases before our first level court dockets
12
Gary S. Becker, "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," Journal of Political Economy 76,
no. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1968): 169-217. https://doi.org/10.1086/259394
1.4 Significance of the Study
The findings of this study will redound to the benefit of the Judiciary as a
whole, considering the speed of the judicial process along the judicial hierarchy
that will greatly improve, brought about by the initial decongesting of the First
Level Court dockets once the proposed reforms for B.P. 22 cases is put into
action. Logically, the ease in the workload will also improve the quality of
decisions rendered by the first-level judges, not only with problematic B.P. 22
cases, but also with all the matters set before them for resolution that concern
more complex and urgent issues. With unimpeded court dockets, litigation will
now be resorted to more often and the people’s reluctance brought about by the
length of time attributed to the justice system will now be dispelled.
This shift in the judicial process will restore the trust of the public as a
whole and will further establish the best ends of civilized society. It is an effort
which is most commendable to avoid the failure of ordinary people to find justice
in state courts and their likely alternative to an inefficient method of private
dispute resolution, violence or acceptance of injustice13.
13
Courts: the Lex Mundi Project Simeon Djankov, Rafael La Porta, Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes and
Andrei Shleifer NBER Working Paper No. 8890 April 2002
Incidentally, a more convenient and reliable alternative to the usual
criminal prosecution for the issuance of bouncing checks will contribute to the
betterment of honest but financially struggling debtors who will be given a
chance to make good on their default, rather than be branded with a criminal
record or, worse, be imprisoned and be removed from the labor force, which will
result to difficulty in securing employment and failure to become a contributing
member of society14. The chief objectives of the complainants is to collect the
proceeds of the dishonored check which is not readily attainable in a criminal
proceeding for B.P. 22, due to the length of time it takes for the completion of its
prosecution and also because the civil aspect of the offense cannot be
independently or separately instituted.
1.5 Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to come up with proposals in reviewing B.P.
22 and providing an alternative civil procedure, with the ultimate objective of
improving the heavily laden First Level Court dockets in the country. This is in
response to the high volume of cases currently and continuously being filed
before the courts that take generations to dispose of and necessarily affect other
cases pending before said courts.
14
Shavell, Steven, The Optimal Structure of Law Enforcement Journal of Law and Economics, vol.
36 April 1993
This study highlights the ultimate objective of private complainants in
B.P. 22 cases, that is, the collection of the proceeds of the dishonored check,
which proves to be difficult and lengthy under the current legal system. This
particular attention is key to the researcher’s main issue of court congestion, as
the criminal procedure for B.P. 22 case disposition in the dockets allow the
proceedings to drag on while new B.P. 22 actions accumulate faster than it takes
to dispose of one case.
The study recognizes the importance of the accused’s rights as protected
by the 1987 Constitution particularized in criminal summary procedure. However,
the accused in a B.P. 22 case is given under this study a better option to have his
liability satisfied without the social stigma of a criminal record. This is to give the
respondent, especially those who are honest, but financially stricken, a better
chance to make good his obligations without being imprisoned and taken out of
the labor force, thus ensuring his place as a member of productive society.
This study aims to provide a source for a policy change all geared towards
declogging the obstructed court dockets through the identification of problem
areas of the law and the establishment of a new procedure that ensures the
collection of the bounced checks in a summary nature, without the restrictions of
a criminal action.
1.6 Theoretical Framework
A revisit of B.P. 22 is necessitated by the seeming failure of the statute’s
objective in preventing the evils of issuing worthless checks. Our Supreme Court
had been clear in stating that a violation of B.P. 22 is an offense against public
order, rather than an offense against property15. In foreign jurisdictions such as
the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and Germany, bouncing
checks are summarily dealt with civil sanctions except when such issuances are in
exchange of goods or when attended with fraud, excluding post-dated checks, and
with penalties that are proportionate to how much value the check represents.
These jurisdictions treat these acts as petty economic offenses, while still
recognizing the negative effects of worthless checks in their respective
economies.
In such jurisdictions, the adopted countermeasures against issuance of
bouncing checks are mainly administrative fines resolved in civil or
administrative proceedings. This is in recognition also that the bulk of such cases,
15
Ricaforte vs. Jurado G.R. NO. 154438, September 5, 2007
if tried under criminal procedure, would unduly burden their court dockets. The
tendency is to only prosecute those issuances coupled with criminal intent, rather
than overcriminalize those issued without mens rea. Is it ultimately worthwhile to
employ the resources of police, prosecutors, and the criminal process generally in
order to supplement civil remedies, even though such use entails a diversion of
law-enforcement energies from more threatening criminal conduct16
"Overcriminalization" refers to criminal laws that enforce society's moral
values or that criminalize activity as means of providing a social service17, B.P.
22 fits under this category. Although it is inimical to the country’s economy, the
real and physical end of B.P. 22 is the collection of the amount of the check. This
matter was first opened in the case of Lozano18, where the matter of a bad check
law vis-à-vis a bad debt law was propounded by Judge David G.Nitafan but was
not ruled upon by the High Court in the decision. Understandably, resort to the
courts in enforcing judicially demandable rights is the very function of the
Judiciary as enshrined in our Constitution. However, the strain of crowded
dockets slackens the overall speed of resolution in our country. The State of
Pennsylvania also criminalized all forms of issuances of bouncing checks, except
post-dated ones; it has been discussed in a dissenting yet enlightening opinion in
16
Sanford H. Kadish, The Crisis of Overcriminalization, 374 Annals Amer. Acad. Pol.& Soc. Sci. 157 (1967)
17
Supra note 15
18
Supra note 2
the case of COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Marvin MUTNIK19 on how
the Pennsylvania bad check law20 is resorted to for debt collection guised as a
criminal action, similar to B.P. 22:
MANDERINO, Justice, dissenting.
I dissent. I agree with Judge Hoffman, dissenting in the

Superior Court, that a construction of 4105 which does not require an
intent to defraud, invites litigants to use the criminal justice system to
collect civil debts.
The majority opinion states that appellant is not being

imprisoned for being a debtor but "for intentionally disrupting the flow
of and undermining the soundness of commercial paper in this
Commonwealth." Under this guise or a similar one, every civil default
could be converted into a criminal offense by stating that the accused
is not being imprisoned for the civil default but rather is "being
imprisoned for intentionally disrupting the flow of and undermining
the soundness of [something] in this Commonwealth" undermining
deeds (trespass actions) support agreements (nonsupport actions),
newspapers (defamation actions), traffic flow (negligence actions),
any written contract (breach of contract actions). In all civil actions, it
can be said that someone intentionally disrupted the flow of something
and undermined the soundness of something. What is sacred about
checks that they deserve special protection in the world of private
commerce?
Moreover, the majority opinion starts out with the proposition

that it was not proven that the defendant had an intent to defraud the
opinion ends up by concluding that the defendant had an intent to
disrupt and undermine something. Where is the evidence as to the
intent to disrupt and undermine? It is as lacking in the record as the
intent to defraud.
I completely disagree with the majority's interpretation of

Article I, 16 (of the Constitution). The majority opinion says that you
19
486 Pa. 428 (1979) Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
20
18 Pa.C. S.A. § 4105 of 1973
cannot be imprisoned for debt only if you voluntarily show up at the

courthouse and hand over your assets. That is not the meaning of
Article I, § 16. In the civil law, there is an entire system in existence
for reaching the assets of debtors including judgment, levy, execution,
and sale. A citizen must deliver his assets for the benefit of creditors,
under the constitutional provision, in such manner as shall be
prescribed by law. This means he must not conceal nor assign assets
from the process of judgment, levy, execution, and sale. Even in the
case of concealment or the assignment of assets to a third party there
must be a strong presumption of fraud. See In Re Young's Petition,
327 Pa. 267, 192 A. 911 (1937). The burden is not on the citizen to
prove he showed up at the courthouse and deposited his assets in the
courtroom. The burden is on the prosecution to establish fraud, beyond
a reasonable doubt, in the concealment of assets from the established
processes of the law.
I must respectfully dissent from a conclusion that takes a

dangerous step in bringing back debtors' prisons.
Relating to the Philippine context, current criminal legislation already
provides for penalizing issuances of checks attended by fraud21, a serious conduct
not just harmful to commerce, but also to the public in general. Due to admitted
deficiencies in the penal law, the bad practice of issuing worthless checks is still
unhampered. In response to this, lawmakers slaved in finding solutions to stop the
growing practice of issuing worthless checks by reinforcing the Revised Penal
Code with two more amendments22 to Art. 315 section 2 paragraph (d).These
pieces of legislations ushered in B.P.22, with the same problem that is still felt
today.
21
Art. 315, par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code
22
Republic Act 4885 on June 17, 1967 and Presidential Decree 818 on October 22, 1975
In 2015, Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan wrote an article23 which discussed
factors for deterrence of B.P. 22 brought by the statute and jurisprudential
development since its enactment. The article actually emphasizes the deficiencies
of the statute in pursuing a bounced check in the courts and these are:
“(1) It is undeniable that what deters a person from committing a crime is

the possibility of arrest and imprisonment. When violation of BP 22 was
included in those governed by the Summary Procedure, a warrant of arrest
is not anymore issued when the case is filed in Court. It is only when the
accused fails to appear in Court that a warrant of arrest may be issued
against him;
(2) Since the Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts have exclusive

jurisdiction over violations of BP 22, no Hold Departure Orders can be
issued against those violators since Metropolitan/Municipal Trial Courts
have no power to issue the same. Accused under trial can thus easily
evade prosecution by leaving the country; and
(3) The aggrieved parties have also failed to pursue the case for BP 22
since the Courts require them to pay the corresponding filing fees. They
need to shell out amounts for filing fees after they have been duped and
victimized with checks, which they cannot encash.”
Based on the model for comparison and the approach for the problem, the
theory sought in this research is that First Level Court dockets will be
uncongested of B.P 22 cases in the event the introducing reforms and an
alternative civil summary procedure, with possible government support programs,
are put into action.
23
https://businessmirror.com.ph/revisiting-batas-pambansa-blg-22-or-the-bouncing-checks-law/
1.7Definition of Terms
Overcriminalization
- is the neologism given to the overuse and misuse of the criminal
law24."Overcriminalization" refers to criminal laws that enforce society's moral
values (e.g. prostitution, abortion, gambling) or criminalize activity as means of
providing a social service25 (e.g. bad check laws, family support laws).
Bad checks law
- laws that penalize the mere issuance of a check which is not covered by
sufficient funds or an existing account, or by stopping an order for payment with
intent to defraud or for o valid reason. This is the definition in most foreign
jurisdictions of the acts covered by the statute.
Bad debt law
- laws and procedures that regulate the conduct of collecting debts, defining
rights of both debtors, creditors, and third persons acting in behalf of the latter26.
24
Larkin, Paul Jr. J.The Extent of America’s Overcriminalization Problem, The Heritage Foundation
LEGAL MEMORANDUM No. 121, May 9, 2014
25
Kadish, The Crisis of Overcriminalization, 374 AN ALS 157, 157 (1967).
26
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular 454 Series of 2004, Provisions of the New Civil Code of the
Philippines, Revised Rules of Court ad other similar laws.
Most foreign jurisdictions include the recovery of a bounced check, unlike in our
jurisdiction.
Debtor’s prisons
- the place of imprisonment of persons unable to pay their debts. The place
where debt bondage is consummated. It is outlawed and constitutionally
mandated in most jurisdictions in civilized society27. The case of Lozano28 gave
a brief history in the manner:
... Viewed in its historical context, the constitutional prohibition

against imprisonment for debt is a safeguard that evolved gradually
during the early part of the nineteenth century in the various states of
the American Union as a result of the people’s revulsion at the cruel
and inhumane practice, sanctioned by common law, which permitted
creditors to cause the incarceration of debtors who could not pay their
debts. At common law, money judgments arising from actions for the
recovery of a debt or for damages from breach of a contract could be
enforced against the person or body of the debtor by writ of capias ad
satisfaciendum. By means of this writ, a debtor could be seized and
imprisoned at the instance of the creditor until he makes the satisfaction
awarded. As a consequence of the popular ground swell against such a
barbarous practice, provisions forbidding imprisonment for debt came
to be generally enshrined in the constitutions of various states of the
Union.
This humanitarian provision was transported to our shores by the
Americans at the turn of the century and embodied in our organic laws.
Later, our fundamental law outlawed not only imprisonment for debt, but
27
Section 20, Article III 1987 Philippine Constitution, International Bill of Human Rights
28
SupraNote 2
also the infamous practice, native to our shore, of throwing people in jail
for non-payment of the cedula or poll tax.
First Level Courts
- the first level courts as defined by Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 29 which are
Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTC), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCC),
Municipal Trial Courts (MTC) and Municipal Circuits Trial Courts (MCTC).For
purposes of this study, all First Level Courts that are conferred jurisdiction for
hearing cases for violations of B.P. 22 may either be referred to as METC,MTC,
MCTC or MTCC, and is limited to the actual courts from which data is derived to
represent the hypothesis.
Civil Sanctions
- pertain to fines, administrative fines or monetary fines. This term includes
treble cost which will be discussed later on in the study.
Judicial Hierarchy
- means the hierarchy of courts in the Philippine Judiciary, specifically,
Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, Municipal Circuit Trial
29
An Act Reorganizing the Judiciary, Appropriating Funds Therefor, And for Other Purposes Or The
Judiciary Reorganization Act Of 1980
Courts, Regional Trial Courts, Sandigan Bayan, Court of Appeals, and the
Supreme Court.
Jurisprudence
- derives from the Latin term juris prudentia, which means "the study,
knowledge, or science of law30.” For purposes of this research, this term will
embrace only the case law that is appurtenant to Bouncing Checks, local or
foreign.
Bouncing Checks
- a check drawn or issued to apply on account or for value, knowing at the
time of issue the issuer does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment. The check is
subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
or would have been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment31. It may also mean a check
drawn or issued with sufficient funds, but has been subsequently dishonored when
presented within 90 days from issue for failure to maintain sufficient funds to
cover the same32.
30
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jurisprudence
31
Section 1 par. 1 B.P. 22
32
Section 1 par. 2 B.P. 22
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22
- Also known as bad check, worthless check, rubber check, dud check or hot
check in some foreign jurisdictions.
Revised Penal Code
- the general penal laws in Philippine jurisdiction, enacted as Act 381533 in
1930, superseding the Spanish Codigo Penalof 1870, enforced during the latter
times of the Spanish Colonial Period. For purposes of this research, the specific
provision of Article 315 section 2 paragraph(d) is referred to in events that this
term is used.
Republic Act 488534
- legislation that amended Art. 315 section 2 paragraph (d) on matters of
issuance of checks. The original provision was amended as follows:
By postdating a check, or issuing such check in payment of an

obligation, the offender knowing at the time he had no funds in
the bank, or the funds deposited by him in the bank are not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check, and without informing
the payee of such circumstances.
33
An Act Revising The Penal Code And Other Penal Laws (December 8, 1930)
34
An Act To Amend Section Two, Paragraph (d), Article Three Hundred Fifteen Of Act Numbered Thirty-Eight
Hundred And Fifteen, As Amended, Otherwise Known As The Revised Penal Code . (June 17, 1967)
The phrases “knowing that at the time” and “without informing the payee of
such circumstances” were eliminated.
Presidential Decree 81835
- legislation enacted by the former President Ferdinand E. Marcos further
amending issuances of bouncing checks punished by the Revised Penal Code by
increasing the penalties for the violation of the said law.
35
Amending Article 315 Of The Revised Penal Code By Increasing The Penalties For Estafa
Committed By Means Of Bouncing Checks, October 22, 1975
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Overview
This chapter presents a historical and general overview of available literature
in relation to the Bouncing Checks Law. It will present the evolution of the law,
its effects and how it contributes to the problem of court congestion in the
Philippines. Reference will also be made to studies and proposals for reforms in
the said law sourced from other countries that adopted changes in their respective
legal system as to bouncing checks.
2.2Historical Development of Bouncing Checks Law in the Philippines
Checks which have been dishonored by reason of insufficient funds were
already penalized, albeit, as estafa, in the Old Penal Code36. The practice of
issuing worthless checks as a means for fraud and deceit has been identified
further when an amendment37 to the Old Penal Code was made to expand the
coverage of illegal acts to include issuance of a check or any other commercial
document against a bank * * * in payment of a debt, or for any other valuable
36
Article 535 section.1 punishes the act of issuing a check in exchange for cash or valuable goods as
estafa under false pretenses, if dishonored.
37
Act 3313 as paragraph 10 of Article 535 of the Old Penal Code
consideration“, where the person issuing it (1) knows that he does not have at the
time of its issuance sufficient funds in the bank to cover the amount of the check;
or (2) having such funds, shall maliciously and feloniously sign his check
differently from the signature registered at the bank as his authentic signature, in
order that the bank shall refuse to pay the check; or (3) postdates the check, and
“at the time set for the payment of it, the drawer of the check does not have
sufficient deposit in the bank to pay for the check”38.
The above cited provisions from the Old Penal Code are to be reintroduced as
Article 315, Section 1 paragraph 2 (a) and paragraph 2 (d) of Act 3815 or the
Revised Penal Code in the following manner:
ART. 315. Swindling ( estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by
any of the means mentioned herein below shall be punished by:
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent

acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud:
(d) By postdating a check, or issuing such check in payment

of an obligation, the offender knowing that at the time he had no
funds in the bank, or the funds deposited by him in the bank were
not sufficient to cover the amount of the check, and without
informing the payee of such circumstances.
On June 16, 1967, 35 years after the effectivity of the Revised Penal
Code, Republic Act 4885 was passed into law to amend Article 315 section 2
38
People of the Philippines vs. Sabio,, G.R. No. L-45490 November 20, 1978
paragraph(d) in response to the upsurge of worthless checks in Philippine
circulation, due to the identified defenses such as the payee was informed that
there are no sufficient funds to cover the check issued and the check was in
payment of a pre-existing obligation. During the deliberations for this law, the
recognition of the defenses and the resulting increase in the number of issuances
of bouncing checks that evade prosecution under Art. 315,Section 2 paragraph (d)
was made by Senator Ambrosio Padilla in his sponsorship speech39:
“Under the present situation, Mr. President, it has been held

that if the issuer or drawer of the check would give some
information to the payee [pertaining to the old version of Article 315
section 2 paragraph (d)] that he is not certain of the amount of his
deposit, he can no longer be prosecuted for estafa for having issued
a bad check or what is commonly known as bouncing check or
rubber check.
In the same vein, it has been held that if the check is used to
in payment of an existing obligation, it cannot be considered as
estafa, even if the obligor had the fraudulent intent of issuing a
check without funds and he knows that his check will be dishonored
by the drawee bank. Now, this practice of issuing bouncing checks
has had a very deleterious effect on our commercial transaction(s).
as a matter of fact, even tax obligations are being paid by taxpayers
whose checks are not good. And it has been reported once that even
the Bureau of Internal Revenue has received a number of checks
amounting to substantial amounts which are covered by bad checks,
and the drawers of these checks are really animated by fraudulent
intent to deceive the payee, to disturb banking transactions and to
impair negotiability and acceptability of checks as negotiable
instruments.
I was paying once certain fees to the City of Manila with my

check, thru a messenger and I was informed that my check, or other
39
Pp. 932-933, Senate Congressional Record, Volume II No . 37(1967)
checks of the same import, would not be acceptable because the fees
should be paid in cash. This is not a good practice, because we
should encourage the use of checks. However, if the use of checks
can be abused and misused without any liability on the part of the
drawer to the great prejudice of the payee, then this obnoxious
practice of not accepting checks even in the payment of taxes and
fees may become the rule.
So, Mr. President, I submit that public interest, particularly

the regularity of commercial payments by checks, would justify the
amendment of Article 315 section 2, paragraph (d) of the Revised
Penal Code as proposed in this bill40.
The intention precisely is to discourage persons from making

use of this devise of issuing checks -- not to pay their just
obligations but to embarrass the payee as well as commercial
transaction.”
It is clear that bad check writers have grown in numbers and schemes to
warrant this amendment. This was clearly seen when former President Ferdinand
E. Marcos signed Presidential Decree 818, which amended further Article 315,
Section 2 paragraph (d) by increasing the penalties thereof. The new amendment
was designed to discourage the practice with heavier terms of imprisonment, as
enunciated in the whereas clauses:
“WHEREAS, reports received of late indicate an upsurge of estafa

(swindling) cases committed by means of bouncing checks;
WHEREAS, if not checked at once, these criminal acts would erode

the people's confidence in the use of negotiable instruments as a medium
of commercial transaction and consequently result in the retardation of
trade and commerce and the undermining of the banking system of the
country;
40
Senate Bill 413
WHEREAS, it is vitally necessary to arrest and curb the rise in this

kind of estafa cases by increasing the existing penalties provided
therefor;
X X X”
P.D. 818 was signed into law on October 22, 1975, eight years after
Republic Act 4885, signifying that the problem of bouncing checks sought to be
addressed by the latter amendment still remains rampant. A close reading of the
P.D. 818’s whereas clauses would show that what was being penalized was estafa
by means of a bounced check, which is non-responsive towards the bulk of
bounced checks at that time that were being issued as security, guaranty, or
collateral to an obligation, or issuances that are not attended by damage or deceit.
The Batasang Pambansa then passed into law Batas Pambansa Bilang 22,
commonly known as the Bouncing Checks Law, four years afterthe passage of
P.D. 818, which penalizes mala prohibita, the mere issuance of a check that will
subsequently be dishonored. This legislative measure was adopted to plug in the
loopholes of previous laws on estafa by means of a bounced check, by deeming it
illegal under Section 1, thus:
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds.- Any person who makes

or draws and issues any check to apply on account or for value,
knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment, which check is subsequently dishonored by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been
dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by

imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year
or by a fine of not less than but not more than double the amount of the
check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos,
or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check, shall fail to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented
within a period of ninety (90) days from the date appearing thereon,
for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the

person or persons who actually signed the check in behalf of such
drawer shall be liable under this Act.
To bolster the drive against bouncing checks, Section 5 of B.P. 22
explicitly provides that:
Section 5. Liability under the Revised Penal Code. - Prosecution under

this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation of any
provision of the Revised Penal Code.
By this, a person who issues a check that will fall under the circumstances
of Section 1 of B.P. 22 and whose acts also fall under the elements of Art. 315
can be prosecuted separately under each law. This provision was included in the
law to supplant with severity the act of issuing worthless checks and, at the same
time, inflict damage on the property rights of a person with the bouncing of the
same check, validly and separately prosecuted under Art.315, Section 2 paragraph
(d).The intention was made clear during the sponsorship speech41 made by the
then Solicitor General Estelito P. Mendoza during the deliberations on the said
proposed law:
"MR. MENDOZA. If there is evidence demonstrating that the act

committed does not only violate this proposed Act but also the Revised
Penal Code, there will be further prosecution under the Revised Penal
Code. That is why it is proposed in this Act that there be a single uniform
penalty for all violations in this Act. However, the court is given the
discretion whether to impose imprisonment or fine or both or also in
whatever severity the court may consider appropriate under the
circumstances.
xxx xxx xxx
"MR. VELOSO, F. The other way around, it is not so. So precisely, if I

file a case for estafa against a particular person for issuance of a
bouncing check, then necessarily I can also be prosecuted under this
proposed bill. On the other hand, if a person is prosecuted under the
proposed bill, it does not necessarily follow that he can be prosecuted for
estafa.
"MR. MENDOZA. This is simply because that in a certain set of

circumstances, the offense under this Act is the only offense committed
while under a different set of circumstances, not only the offense
described in this Act is committed but also estafa. So that, for example, if
a check with sufficient funds is issued in payment of a pre-existing
obligation and the position of the Government should turn out to be
correct that there is no estafa, then the drawer of the check would only be
liable under this Act but not under the Revised Penal Code. But if he
issues a check in payment, or contemporaneously with incurring, of an
obligation, then he will be liable not only for estafa but also for violation
for this Act. There is a difference between the two cases. In that situation
where the check was issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation, the
41
pages 1037-1038, Record of the Batasan, Plenary Session No. 70, Dec. 4, 1978
issuance of the check does not cause damage to the payee and so it is but
appropriate that he should not be Held for estafa but only for violating
this Act. But if he issued a check to induce another to part with a
valuable consideration and the check bounces, then he does inflict an
injury to the payee of the check apart from violating this law. In that
case, it should be but fair that he be subject to prosecution not only for
estafa but also for violating this law.
"MR. VELOSO, F. Yes, I agree with the Solicitor General an that point
but my worry is with respect to situations where there is prosecution first
to estafa.
"MR. MENDOZA. Well, if there is estafa.....
"MR. VELOSO, F.Estafa committed by the issuance of a bouncing

check, in which case it will be mandatory on the part of the prosecuting
official to also file a case for violation of this offense under the proposed
bill.
"MR. MENDOZA. Yes, that is correct. In such a situation because of the

offender did not only cause injury on account of the issuance of the check
but did issue a bouncing check penalized under this Act, then he will be
liable for prosecution under both laws. I would admit that perhaps in
such situation, the penalty may be somewhat severe. As a matter of fact,
in other jurisdictions, the issuance of bouncing checks is penalized with
substantially lower penalty. However, because of the situation in the
Philippines, the situation being now relatively grave that practically
everybody is complaining about bouncing checks, may be it is necessary
at least initially, at this point in time for us to impose a rather severe
penalty and even allow liability not only under this Act but also for
estafa. Then perhaps after the necessary discipline has been inculcated in
our people and that the incidence of the offense has been reduced, we
may then decide to amend the law and reduce the penalty. But at this
time, shall we say the evil is of such magnitude that only a dramatic and
expeditious effort to prosecute persons who issue bouncing checks
maybe necessary to curb quickly this evil."42
42
As cited in Nierras v. Dacuycuy, GR Nos. 59568-76, Jan 11, 1990
Upheld by the Supreme Court as valid in many instances 43, B.P. 22 is
currently the applicable penal law on matters of bouncing checks in the
Philippines, unless elements for estafa are also present, which will warrant a
simultaneous prosecution.
2.3 Developments After Passage of B.P. 22
Since its enactment into law on April 3, 1979, the prosecution of cases for
violations of B.P. 22 was within the jurisdiction of the Regional Trial
Courts(RTCs) as the fine imposed for its violation is more than P4,00044. A new
jurisdiction law45 came into force that expanded the jurisdiction of the MTC to
hear criminal cases that are punishable with imprisonment of not more than six
years, regardless of the amount of the fine.
This development in jurisdiction signifies the difficulty first experienced
by the Regional Trial Courts in hearing criminal actions for B.P. 22. The criminal
prosecution was governed by ordinary criminal procedure, which allowed for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest against the accused and the right to bail is
43
Recudero vs. People and the Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 133036. January 22, 2003], Saguiguit vs.
People [G.R. No. 144054, June 30, 2006], Sumbilla vs Matrix Finance Corporation, G.R. 197582, June 29,
2015
44
Batas Pambansa Bilang 129 or The Judiciary Reorganization Act of 1980
45
An Act Expanding The Jurisdiction Of The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts, And Municipal
Circuit Trial Courts, Amending For The Purpose Batas Pambansa, Blg. 129, Otherwise Known As The
"Judiciary Reorganization Act Of 1980" Republic Act 7691March 25, 1994
recognized in the same proceedings, not to mention the fact that convictions are
traditionally met with imprisonment rather than a fine. This was the initial stage
regarding B.P. 22 judicial enforcement which made the violation of the law
appear “deterring”, however, it was only a matter of time before the RTCs
became swamped with cases involving violations of B.P. 22 since the effectivity
of the law way back on June 29, 197946 and the rigors of criminal procedure over
piling cases finally took its toll.
The effectivity of RA 7691, which allowed MTCs to hear cases for B.P.
22, was on April 25, 1994 and this will be the reckoning point of the application
of data for purposes of this study. It has already been almost 15 years after the
effectivity of B.P. 22 since this measure was adopted by the Legislature and it
was the turn of the MTCs to face the gargantuan number of cases being filed for
prosecution of the said law.
The shift to the MTCs addressed only the issue of congestion of RTCs,
with criminal prosecution of B.P. 22 still governed by ordinary rules of criminal
procedure; thus, the MTC dockets steadily became overcrowded with B.P.22
cases.
46
As cited in the case of People Of The Philippines Vs.Hon. Regino Veridiano Ii, As Presiding Judge Of The
Court Of First Instance Of Zambales And Olongapo City, Branch I, And Benito Go Bio, Jr ., G.R. No. L-62243
October 12, 1984
Again, in response to the high volume of B.P. 22 cases, the Supreme
Court issued Circular No. 57-9747 to expedite the prosecution of the said cases by
merging the criminal action with the civil aspect and prohibiting the separate
filing and prosecution of the civil liability with respect thereto. The Circular
provides:
Any provision of law or Rules of Court to the contrary notwithstanding,

the following rules and guidelines shall henceforth be observed in the filing
and prosecution of all criminal cases under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 which
penalizes the making or drawing and issuance of a check without funds or
credit:
1. The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be

deemed to necessarily include the corresponding civil action, and no
reservation to file such civil action separately shall be allowed or recognized.
2. Upon the filing of the aforesaid joint criminal and civil actions, the
offended party shall pay in full the filing fees based upon the amount of the
check involved, which shall be considered as the actual damages claimed, in
accordance with the schedule of fees in Section 7(a) and Section 8(a), Rule
141 of the Rules of Court, as last amended by Administrative Circular No.
11-94 effective August 1, 1994. Where the offended party further seeks to
enforce against the accused civil liability by way of liquidated, moral,
nominal, temperate or exemplary damages, he shall pay the corresponding
filing fees therefor based on the amounts thereof as alleged either in his
complaint or in the information. If not so alleged but any of these damages
are subsequently awarded by the court, the amount of such fees shall
constitute a first lien on the judgment.
3. Where the civil action has heretofore been filed separately and trial
thereof has not yet commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal
action upon application with the court trying the latter case. If the
application is granted, the trial of both actions shall proceed in accordance
47
Subject: Rules and Guidelines In The Filing And Prosecution Of Criminal Cases Under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, issued on September 16, 1997, made effective November 1, 1997
with the pertinent procedure outlined in Section 2(a) of Rule III governing
the proceedings in the actions as thus consolidated.
The introduction of this Circular is intended to avoid the multiplicity of
suits that inherently increase the number of cases that are triable under the same
set of facts, evidence, and parties. The prohibition of reserving or prosecuting
separately the civil aspect of B.P. 22 cases is, indeed, a showing of the strong
effort in reducing the caseload of the MTCs while ensuring quality disposition by
avoiding disparate opinions and appreciation of the case.
In consideration to substantial justice, the Supreme Court issued A.M. 12-
200048, which reads:
“Section 1 of B.P. Blg. 22 (An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and
Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds for Credit and for Other
Purposes) imposes the penalty of imprisonment of not less than thirty (30)
days but not more than one (1) year or a fine of not less than but not more
than double the amount of the check, which fine shall in no case exceed
P200,000, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
In its decision in Eduardo Vaca, v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 131714,

16 November 1998; 298 SCRA 656, 664) the Supreme Court (Second
Division) per Mr. Justice V. Mendoza, modified the sentence imposed for
violation of B.P. Blg. 22 by deleting the penalty of imprisonment and
imposing only the penalty of fine in an amount double the amount of the
check. In justification thereof, the Court said:
Petitioners are first-time offenders. They are Filipino entrepreneurs who

presumably contribute to the national economy. Apparently, they brought
48
Effective upon issuance on November 21, 2000
this appeal, believing in all good faith, although mistakenly that they had
not committed a violation of B.P. Blg. 22. Otherwise, they could simply
have accepted the judgment of the trial court and applied for probation to
evade a prison term. It would best serve the ends of criminal justice if in
fixing the penalty within the range of discretion allowed by Section 1, par.
1, the same philosophy underlying the Indeterminate Sentence Law is
observed, namely, that of redeeming valuable human material and
preventing unnecessary deprivation of personal liberty and economic
usefulness with due regard to the protection of the social order. In this
case, we believe that a fine in an amount equal to double the amount of
the check involved is an appropriate penalty to impose on each of the
petitioners in the recent case of Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines (G.
R. No. 130038, 18 September 2000), the Supreme Court en banc,
applying Vaca also deleted the penalty of imprisonment and sentenced the
drawer of the bounced check to the maximum of the fine allowed by B.P.
Blg. 22, i.e., P200,000, and concluded that “such would best serve the
ends of criminal justice.”
All courts and judges concerned should henceforth take note of the
foregoing policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposition of
penalties for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. The Court Administrator shall cause
the immediate dissemination of this Administrative Circular to all courts and
judges concerned.
Xxx xxx xxx”
This caused confusion to trial and appellate judges, practitioners, and
litigants in thinking that B.P. 22 has been decriminalized. This instilled in the
public mindset49 that issuance of bouncing checks is not punishable anymore by
imprisonment, adding to more prosecutions for violations of the said law.
49
Josef vs. People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 146424, November 18, 2005], Young vs Court of Appeals and
the People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 140425. March 10, 2005]
The Supreme Court subsequently issued A.M. 13-200150 to clarify the earlier
pronouncements made in the latter Administrative Matter that imprisonment as
penalty for conviction in cases for B.P. 22 was not removed.
“Xxx xxx xxx
TO: ALL JUDGES
SUBJECT: CLARIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR

NO. 12-2000 ON THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION OF BATAS
PAMBANSA BLG. 22, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE BOUNCING
CHECK LAW.
Clarification has been sought by concerned Judges and other parties

regarding the operation of Administrative Circular 12-2000 issued on 21
November 2000. In particular, queries have been made regarding the
authority of Judges to:
1. Impose the penalty of imprisonment for violations of Batas Pambansa

Blg. 22; and
2. Impose subsidiary imprisonment in the event that the accused who is

found guilty of violating the provisions of B.P. Blg. 22, is unable to pay
the fine which he is sentenced to pay considering that Administrative
Circular No. 12-2000 adopted the rulings in Eduardo Vaca v. Court of
Appeals (G.R. No. 131714, 16 November 1998, 298 SCRA 656) and
Rosa Lim v. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 130038, 18 September
2000) as a policy of the Supreme Court on the matter of the imposition of
penalties for violations of B.P. Blg. 22, without mentioning whether
subsidiary imprisonment could be resorted to in case of the accused's
inability to pay the fine.
The clear tenor and intention of Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 was
not to remove imprisonment as an alternative penalty, but to lay down a
50
Issued on February 14, 2001
rule of preference in the application of the penalties provided for in B.P.

Blg. 22.
The pursuit of this purpose clearly does not foreclose the possibility of
imprisonment for violations of B.P. Blg. 22. Neither does it defeat the
legislative intent behind the law.
Thus, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 establishes a rule of

preference in the application of the penal provisions of B.P. Blg. 22 such
that where the circumstances of both the offense and the offender clearly
indicate good faith or a clear mistake of fact without taint of negligence,
the imposition of a fine alone should be considered as the more
appropriate penalty. Needless to say, the determination of whether the
circumstances warrant the imposition of a fine alone rests solely upon the
Judge. Should the Judge decide that imprisonment is the more appropriate
penalty, Administrative Circular No. 12-2000 ought not be deemed a
hindrance.
It is, therefore, understood that:
1. Administrative Circular 12-2000 does not remove imprisonment as an

alternative penalty for violations of B.P. Blg. 22;
2. The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of sound discretion, and

taking into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each case,
determine whether the imposition of a fine alone would best serve the
interests of justice or whether forbearing to impose imprisonment would
depreciate the seriousness of the offense, work violence on the social
order, or otherwise be contrary to the imperatives of justice;
3. Should only a fine be imposed and the accused be unable to pay the
fine, there is no legal obstacle to the application of the Revised Penal
Code provisions on subsidiary imprisonment.
Xxx xxx xxx”
The above quoted Administrative Matter sought to dispel the notion that
the Supreme Court decriminalized B.P. 22. Reiterating consideration of
substantial justice for first-time offenders, the matter emphasized the resort to
preferential application of penalties through fines by the judges rather than
impose imprisonment at the outset of conviction.
On April 15, 2003, B.P. 22 cases were included in the coverage of the
Revised Rules of Summary Procedure51as amended by A.M.00-11-01-SC52issued
by the Supreme Court, which mandated the disposition of B.P. 22 cases under a
summary procedure for criminal cases. This was done nine years after RA 7691,
which allowed B.P. 22 cases to accumulate further in the MTC dockets. Despite
its title as Summary Procedure, the actual handling of the cases still required a
full-blown trial, departing from the traditional submission of position papers of
both parties as applied in civil cases governed by summary procedure. This
marked the defanging of B.P. 22, as criminal cases governed by the Summary
Procedure53 do not allow the arrest of the accused, except to secure his attendance
in the proceedings and bail was only recognized when the accused has been
arrested for his absence at a scheduled hearing and has been arrested. These
developments in the judicial enforcement involving B.P. 22 cases rendered new
51RevisedRules on Summary Procedure: Resolution of The Court En Banc Dated October 15, 1991 Providing
for The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure for Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts in Cities,
Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts. Effective on November 15, 1991
52
Amendment to The Rule on Summary Procedure of Criminal Cases to Include Within Its Coverage Violations
of B.P. Blg. 22, Otherwise Known as The Bouncing Checks Law
53
Sec. 16. Arrest of accused. — The court shall not order the arrest of the accused except for failure to appear
whenever required. Release of the person arrested shall either be on bail or on recognizance by a responsible
citizen acceptable to the court.
cases filed for violation thereof as not effectively deterred. This is after all
brought about by the dilution of criminal sanctions pertaining to bouncing checks.
2.4 Congestion of MTC Dockets
The unnecessary diversion of concentration on cases for B.P. 22 brought
about by the sheer number of cases being filed for its violation thereof easily
made the First Level Court dockets overflow to the detriment of the judicial
process.
Undeniably, the growing population and the rural-urban migration leading to
increases in criminality heightened the consciousness towards rights and
privileges. The resulting expansion of business, industry, trade and commerce
will equate to a direct and proportionate increase in litigation54. Focal in this
increase of litigation are B.P. 22 cases, which are the direct result of an economy
rapidly growing through trade and commerce. It is a normal business experience
in the Philippines for a person engaging in an economic pursuit to come across
bad debts and more common that these bad debts take the form of bad checks.
54
R. Soberano, Nature and Causes of Judicial Delay 1-2 (1984) (unpublished paper).
As early as 1980, these findings have been confirmed in a report prepared by
Justice Fernando for former President Ferdinand E. Marcos that raised two causes
for the continuing upswing in litigation: 1) economic and commercial
development in the Philippines which incoming decades "are likely to be attended
with problems of even greater complexity and intricacy"; and 2) "new social
interests...primarily those economically underprivileged [which] have found legal
spokesmen and are asserting grievances previously ignored55.”
Former COMELEC Chairman and at the time Court Administrator Alfredo
L. Benipayo highlighted B.P. 22 cases as one of the main source congestion of
MTC dockets and, previously, also of the RTCs. In a speech56, he stated:
“ Xxx xxx xxx

Another reason for the swollen caseload is B.P. 22. However, this is
neither the time nor the place to open that can of worms. Suffice
it to say that, statistically, the bulk of cases which congest the
courts involve violations of the Bouncing Checks Law.
Besides these two, many other factors contribute to the increase in
the volume of cases now being handled by our trial courts .
Some measures, which were meant to alleviate the situation – such as
the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Municipal-level courts – have
managed only to shift the burden around. Redistributing the
caseload may give the illusion of lighter dockets, but the truth
is, by decongesting the RTC’s, we have effectively choked up the
MTC’s.
55
E. Fernando, Report to His Excellency President and Prime Minister Ferdinand E . Marcos by the Committee
on Judicial Reorganization (1980).
56
Dissertation delivered at the Annual Convention of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ 14th House of
Delegates, held at the Crown Peak Garden Hotel, Subic, Olongapo City, on May 7, 2000 .
Xxx xxx xxx”
TABLE 1
NUMBER OF PENDING CASES IN THE RTCs AND MTCs IN THE
PHILIPPINES57(1993-2001)
1993 - 2001
COURT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Regional Trial 230,305 216,607 194,939 199,501 214,453 225,188 251,351 265,957 279,241
Court
Metropolitan 21,749 65,048 82,148 134,085 185,242 183,024 186,799 185,192 200,271
Trial Court
Municipal 24,602 56,475 83,878 131,031 165,194 177,310 180,456 157,199 143,211
Trial Court in
Cities
Municipal 44,109 66,553 77,133 102,109 134,861 121,214 118,255 117,010 108,519
Trial Court
Municipal 27,025 31,850 36,311 43,011 50,698 64,153 66,191 67,454 67,865
Circuit Trial
Court
Despite the efforts initiated by the Supreme Court as earlier discussed, it
can be seen that there is a short decline in cases pending before the RTCs in the
years 1993 up to 1995. This can be explained by the effect of RA 769158, which
as Chairman Benipayo aptly pointed out in his above quoted part of his speech59,
resulted only in a temporary alleviation of RTC dockets and the corresponding
spike of cases in the first-level courts followed after. Based on the data, there
occurred a slight decrease in cases handled by the METCs in the years 1997 and
57
Source: Philippine Statistical Yearbook, National Statistical Coordination Board, 2002 . As cited in
Private Sector Assessment Philippines, Asian Development Bank, May 2005, pp 24
58
Supra Note 45
59
Supra Note 57
2000, which may be owed to the consolidating effect of Circular 57-9760 and
A.M. 12-2000.61
A recently conducted minor sampling of courts in Parañaque has been
made by the researcher, where she is the Metropolitan Trial Court Executive
Judge, to show the status quo treatment of first level courts towards the
disposition of B.P. 22 cases, specifically Branches 87, 88,89, 90, and 91 for the
years 2014, 2015, and 2016, with the immediacy of experience arising from
exercising judicial functions:
TABLE 2
ACTUAL NUMBER OF BP 22 CASES IN PARANAQUE MeTCs
(2014-2017)
YEAR BP 22 CASES TOTAL CASES % OF BP 22

FILED FILED CASES
2014 617 1,761 38.1%
2015 970 2,198 44.1%
2016 919 2,221 41.4%
An average of the percentage of B.P. 22 cases for the given period
indicates that 41.2% of all the cases filed in the sample courts are comprised of
B.P. 22 cases. Based on that figure alone, it can be taken that MTC dockets are
constantly occupied mostly by B.P. 22 cases, which, in relation to the number of
60
Supra Note 47
61
Supra Note 48
of B.P. 22 cases actually filed, shows a trend that a 50% increase occurred from
year 2014 to 2015, ending with an innocuous decline in the year 2016. This is
without prejudice to the respective backlog of each of the sample courts
representing the data above.
TABLE 3
DISPOSAL RATE
(ARRAIGNMENT TO PROMULGATION)
PERIOD 87 88 89 90 91
0-6 0 13 0 9 0
MONTHS
<6-12 0 2 1 32 7
MONTHS
<12-18 0 10 14 24 8
MONTHS
<18-24 1 1 25 2 0
MONTHS
<24 9 1 5 1 2
MONTHS
TOTAL 10 27 45 68 17
DISPOSAL 2 4 2 4 3
RATE
TABLE 4
DISPOSAL RATE PER BRANCH
To arrive at the disposal rate of each sample court, the formula requires
that the number of decided cases multiplied by the number of months for the case
to be resolved divided by total number of cases filed, to wit:
DISPOSAL RATE = # OF DECIDED CASES X # OF MONTHS for resolution

TOTAL # OF CASES
Branch 87 Branch 88 Branch 89 Branch 90 Branch 91

0X6=0 13X6=78 0X6=0 9X6=54 0X6=0
0X12=0 2X12=24 1X12=12 32X12=384 7X12=84
3X18=54 10X18=180 14X18=252 24X18432 8X18=144
1X24=24 1X24=24 25X24=600 2X24=48 0X24=24
6X30=180 1X30=30 5X30=150 1X30=30 2X30=60
258 months 336 months 1,104 948 months 288 months
/ 10 cases / 27 cases months / 45 / 68 cases / 17 cases
cases
25.8 12.4 22.5 13.9 16.9
months months months months months
per case per case per case per case per cases
To arrive at the grading, the interval between the slowest disposal and the
fastest disposal rate divided by five, the number of sample courts, thus:
(SLOWEST DR – FASTEST DR) / 5 = INTERVAL

26 months per case- 6 months per case = 20 / 5 = 4
TABLE 5
NUMERICAL GRADE AND ADJECTIVAL RATING
DISPOSAL DISPOSAL GRADE ADJECTIVAL

RATE + RATE (mpc) RATING
INTERVAL
(mpc)
6mpc+4=10 6 – 10 mpc 5 FASTEST
11mpc+4=15 11 – 15 mpc 4 ABOVE
AVERAGE
16mpc+4= 20 16 – 20 mpc 3 AVERAGE
21mpc+4=-25 21 – 25 mpc 2 BELOW
AVERAGE
- 26 mpc and above 1 SLOWEST
In applying the above formulations, we can logically conclude that the
Paranaque Metcs are rated better compared to other courts but this may, in part,
be explained by the fact that these are newly created MeTCs.
TABLE 6
DISPOSAL RATE PER BRANCH
Branch 87 Branch 88 Branch 89 Branch 90 Branch 91

25.8 mpc 12.4 mpc 22.5 mpc 13.9 mpc 16.9 mpc
2 4 2 4 3
BELOW ABOVE BELOW ABOVE AVERAGE
AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
These data show that B.P. 22 cases filed in the sample courts which
congest up to more than 40% of their total dockets, remain in their active files for
at least one (1) year and are resolved with finality after more than two (2) years.
TABLE 7
PERCENTAGE OF DECIDED CASES WITH PENALTY OF FINE ONLY,
IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH
PENALTY 87 88 89 90 91
FINE ONLY 8 14 32 19 6
IMPRISONMENT 0 9 0 3 0
BOTH 0 0 0 21 0
TOTAL 8 23 32 43 6
% OF CASES 100% 61% 100% 45% 100%

WITH FINE ONLY
% OF CASES 0% 39% 0% 55% 0%
WITH
IMPRISONMENT
Table 7 provides for the trend in the imposition of penalties in
convictions for B.P.22 violations. These data represent that the decisions or
judgments rendered with conviction impose a penalty of fine most of the time. To
be exact, 82% of the decisions imposed a penalty of fine only. Imprisonment is
seldom imposed by the judges, showing only 18.8%, in adherence to the SC
pronouncements of last resort to imprisonment.
This reflects the arduous prosecution of a criminal action, which if it ends in
conviction will not necessarily warrant imprisonment, to the detriment of the
legal objective of B.P.22. It projects that the trend of B.P.22 convictions, to the
mind of the layman, B.P. 22 cases have been decriminalized. In relation to the
mandate of B.P. 22, the data presented proves that the delay in the disposition of
said cases is a fact. The lack of usual coercing measures of arrest, bail,
imprisonment, and with the trend of flight to other countries, the inability of the
MTC judges to issue hold departure orders among others add to the rise of more
cases for violations of the said law but which end up in less imprisonment of the
culprits or the ever-slow grinding the proceedings thereof. With the heavy
caseload, the length of time to dispose of a case will necessarily increase as well,
thereby the deterring effect of punishment is further decreased by the longer time
required to complete judicial proceedings in addition to the seemingly
decriminalized treatment towards violations of B.P. 22.
A bigger collection of data from 37 MeTC and MTCC’s nationwide is now
presented, which echoes the foregoing results from the minor sampling above.
This data is taken from 37 MeTC and MTCC’s out of 366 combined courts from
all over the Philippines and these courts which are considered to have heavy
dockets for having more than 500 criminal cases currently pending before their
salas. This is also to emphasize that a single B.P. 22 case is composed of
inseparable civil and criminal suits against the accused, thus requiring double the
effort of the judge presiding over the same. The following representation is taken
from the selected MeTC’s and MTCC’s that comprises about 10% of all said first
level courts in the Philippines:
TABLE 862
ACTUAL NUMBER OF B.P. 22 CASES AS AGAINST THE WHOLE

CRIMINAL DOCKET
% OF BP 22 CASES TO OTHER CRIMINAL CASES

OFFICE
BP 22 Others %
62
MeTC Br 77 Parañaque was ordered by the OCA to stop raffle and all filed cases were raffled to
the newly created MeTC Branches 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, and 91 from 2013 to 2017.
MTCC 985 1422 69.27

Bacoor
MeTC-30 169 270 62.59
Manila
MeTC-1 385 1100 35.00
Iloilo
MeTC-11 761 1500 50.73
Manila
MeTC-93 811 1488 54.50
Marikina
MeTC-17 221 523 42.26
Manila
MeTC-1 433 641 67.551
Manila
MeTC-32 876 2467 35.509
QC
MeTC-55 211 588 35.884
Malabon
MeTC-56 427 513 83.236
Malabon
MeTC-18 211 341 61.877
Manila
MeTC-21 451 857 52.625
Manila
MeTC-16 171 430 39.767
Manila
MeTC-2 714 1128 63.298
Iloilo
% OF BP 22
CASES TO
% OF BP 22 CASES TO OTHER
OFFICE OTHER OTHERS
CRIMINAL CASES
CRIMINAL
CASES
MeTC-9 270 525 51.429
Iloilo
MeTC-8 153 333 45.946
Iloilo
MeTC-87 666 1558 42.747
Pque
MeTC-88 676 1920 35.208
Pque
MeTC-89 468 1302 35.945

Pque
MeTC-90 985 2003 49.176
Pque
MeTC-91 808 2025 39.901
Pque
MeTC-77 27 294 9.1837
Pque
MeTC-78 42 285 14.737
Pque
MTCC-5 193 403 47.891

Davao City
MTCC-3 325 703 46.23
Antipolo
MTCC-2 193 503 38.37
Tacloban
MTCC-2
Mandaue 493 903 54.596
City
MTCC-2 350 703 49.787
CDO
MTCC-4 403 903 44.629
Baguio
MTCC-3
Puerto 303 702 43.162
Princesa
% OF BP 22
CASES TO
% OF BP 22 CASES TO OTHER
OFFICE OTHER OTHERS
CRIMINAL CASES
CRIMINAL
CASES
MTCC-1 123 303 40.594
Bacolod
MTCC-1 293 603 48.59
Dagupan
MTCC 525 1012 51.877

Dasmarinas
MTCC-2
Zamboanga 210 507 41.42
City
MTCC-1 125 303 41.254

Ozamis City
MTCC-1 193 502 38.446
GenSan
MTCC-1 358 833 42.977

Legazpi City
46.17%
The above table shows that as against the whole criminal docket of the
participating courts, the average of 46.71% or almost half of the sample case
dockets are B.P. 22 violations. This is together with other cases under the
criminal jurisdiction of first level courts, such as reckless imprudence, theft,
physical injuries, unjust vexation, drinking in public, and other similar light
offenses. The information above is more illustrative that B.P. 22 cases form most
of the bulk of the court dockets. It is more than what was previously computed in
the Parañaque MeTC’s which only proves that the “case bulk issue” is felt more
on the national level and indeed, a reflection indicating the congestion problem
sought in this study.
TABLE 9
DISPOSAL RATE63
63
To arrive at the disposal rate of each sample court, the formula requires that
the number of decided cases multiplied by the number of months for the case to
be resolved divided by total number of cases filed, to wit:
DISPOSAL RATE = # OF DECIDED CASES X # OF MONTHS for resolution

TOTAL # OF CASES
Total # DISPOS
OFFICE of Dividen AL Adjectival
0-6 <6-12 <12-18 <18-24 Decided d RATE Rating
Mos Mos Mos Mos <24 Mos Cases (mpc)
MTCC 0 2 53 99 188 342 8994 26 Slowest

Bacoor
MeTC-30 0 0 7 19 23 49 1272 26 Slowest
Manila
MeTC-1
0 0 48 64 104 216 5520 26 Slowest
Iloilo
MeTC-11 0 0 3 14 90 107 3090 29 Slowest
Manila
MeTC-93 0 5 12 45 91 153 4086 27 Slowest
Marikina
MeTC-17 0 0 10 19 48 78 2076 27 Slowest
Manila
Total # DISPOS
of Dividen AL Adjectival
OFFICE
MeTC-1 Below
0 2 33 55 69 159 4008 25
Manila Average
MeTC-32 0 1 11 41 163 216 6084 28 Slowest
QC
MeTC-55 0 0 9 32 75 116 3180 27 Slowest
Malabon
MeTC-56 0 0 1 21 26 48 1302 27 Slowest
Malabon
MeTC-18 0 1 3 12 34 50 1374 27 Slowest
Manila
MeTC-21 0 0 10 71 80 161 4284 27 Slowest
Manila
MeTC-16 0 1 11 50 81 143 3840 27 Slowest
Manila
MeTC-2 0 0 0 123 227 350 9762 28 Slowest

Iloilo
MeTC-9 Below
0 0 29 45 63 137 3492 25
Iloilo Average
MeTC-8 0 0 0 12 18 30 828 28 Slowest
Iloilo
MeTC-87 Below
0 0 17 17 8 42 954 23
Pque Average
MeTC-88 23 12 20 11 11 77 1236 16 Average
Pque
MeTC-89 Below
0 11 24 35 15 85 1854 22
Pque Average
MeTC-90 9 10 48 13 29 109 2220 20 Average
Pque
MeTC-91 Above
21 0 12 7 7 47 720 15
Pque Average
MeTC-77 0 0
Pque
MeTC-78 7 0 0 16 0 23 426 19 Average
Pque
MTCC-5
Davao 0 0 12 22 41 75 1974 26 Slowest
City
Total # DISPOS
of Dividen AL Adjectival
OFFICE
MTCC-3 Below
0 12 15 34 37 98 2340 24
Antipolo Average
MTCC-2 0 0 12 22 41 75 1974 26 Slowest
Tacloban
MTCC-2 Below
Mandaue 0 20 32 52 71 175 4194 24
Average
City
MTCC-2 0 0 30 70 95 195 5070 26 Slowest
CDO
MTCC-4 Below
0 20 32 52 71 175 4194 24
Baguio Average
MTCC-3 Below
Puerto 0 10 12 32 45 99 2454 25
Average
Princesa
MTCC-1 0 0 0 22 23 45 1218 27 Slowest

Bacolod
MTCC-1 Below
0 10 12 32 45 99 2454 25
Dagupan Average
MTCC
Dasmarin 0 2 15 32 99 148 4032 27 Slowest
as
MTCC-2 Below
Zamboan 5 10 22 23 30 90 1998 22
Average
ga City
MTCC-1
Ozamis 0 0 10 12 23 45 1158 26 Slowest
City
MTCC-1 0 0 10 12 23 45 1158 26 Slowest
GenSan
MTCC-1 Below
Legazpi 0 5 10 22 23 60 1458 24
Average
City
897
Below
24
Average
To arrive at the grading, the interval between the slowest disposal and the
fastest disposal rate divided by five, the number of sample courts. Thus:
(SLOWEST DR – FASTEST DR) / 5 = INTERVAL
NUMERICAL GRADE AND ADJECTIVAL RATING
DISPOSAL DISPOSAL GRADE ADJECTIVAL

RATE + RATE (mpc) RATING
INTERVAL
(mpc)
6mpc+4=10 6 – 10 mpc 5 FASTEST
11mpc+4=15 11 – 15 mpc 4 ABOVE
AVERAGE
16mpc+4= 20 16 – 20 mpc 3 AVERAGE
21mpc+4=-25 21 – 25 mpc 2 BELOW
AVERAGE
- 26 mpc and above 1 SLOWEST
In this representation, it shows that virtually all cases of B.P. 22 get
resolved the longest in 29 months and earliest in 6 months with majority of said
cases aging for more than 1 year in the court docket on average. This
interpretation of Table 9 points toward the overall speed of disposition of the
participating courts at mostly below average, the efficiency of the first level
courts as a whole, as taken from this data, can be necessarily assumed to be
greatly affected by the bulk of B.P. 22 cases before their dockets and establishes
the first point of this study that the number of B.P. 22 cases do constitute the bulk
for the sheer number of actions being filed and maybe taken as an obstruction for
taking a considerable amount of time for resolution in the first level court
dockets.
TABLE 1064
DISMISSAL DUE TO
COMPROMISE OR OTHER REASONS
% OF DISMISSED CASES (DUE TO COMPROMISE OR

OFFICE
OTHER REASONS)
120 12.18
MTCC Bacoor
59 34.91
MeTC-30 Manila
64
110 28.57
MeTC-1 Iloilo
277 36.40
MeTC-11 Manila
MeTC-93 101 12.45
Marikina
61 27.60
MeTC-17 Manila
105 24.25
MeTC-1 Manila
383 43.72
MeTC-32 QC
MeTC-55 69 32.70
Malabon
MeTC-56 29 6.79
Malabon
134 63.51
MeTC-18 Manila
66 14.63
MeTC-21 Manila
128 74.85
MeTC-16 Manila
428 59.94
MeTC-2 Iloilo
58 21.48
MeTC-9 Iloilo
OFFICE
OTHER REASONS)
95 62.09
MeTC-8 Iloilo
328 49.25
MeTC-87 Pque
117 17.31
MeTC-88 Pque
89 19.02
MeTC-89 Pque
291 29.54
MeTC-90 Pque
264 32.67
MeTC-91 Pque
0.00
MeTC-77 Pque
4 9.52
MeTC-78 Pque
MTCC-5 Davao 97 50.26

City
124 38.15
MTCC-3 Antipolo
MTCC-2 97 50.26
Tacloban
MTCC-2 197 39.96

Mandaue City
139 39.71
MTCC-2 CDO
106 26.30
MTCC-4 Baguio
MTCC-3 Puerto 97 32.01

Princesa
47 38.21
MTCC-1 Bacolod
MTCC-1 97 33.11
Dagupan

OFFICE
OTHER REASONS)
MTCC 190 36.19

Dasmarinas
MTCC-2 90 42.86
Zamboanga City
MTCC-1 Ozamis 65 52.00

City
98 50.78
MTCC-1 GenSan
MTCC-1 Legazpi 153 42.74

City
1285.95
34.76%
Due to the length of time before civil liability can be resolved by the courts,
well over a third of private complainants either lose interest in prosecuting both
criminal and civil aspects of B.P. 22 or resort to alternative dispute resolution in
coming up with a settlement, usually through a compromise agreement, to just
collect the proceeds of the dishonored check. Dismissals based on form and non-
payment of docket fees is also considered in this data representation, constituting a
minor percentage of the dismissals due to other reasons.
TABLE 1165
CONVICTIONS AND PENALTIES
% OF CONVICTION IMPOSING THE PENALTY OF

FINE, IMPRISONMENT OR BOTH
OFFICE
Imprisonment % Fine % Both %
MTCC 0 0.00 268 100.00 0 0.00

Bacoor
MeTC-30 0 0.00 34 100.00 0 0.00
Manila
MeTC-1 0 0.00 16 100.00 0 0.00
Iloilo
MeTC-11 0 0.00 10 100.00 0 0.00
Manila
MeTC-93 0 0.00 130 100.00 0 0.00
Marikina
65
MeTC-17 0 0.00 65 100.00 0 0.00

Manila
MeTC-1 0 0.00 146 100.00 0 0.00
Manila
MeTC-32 0 0.00 36 100.00 0 0.00
QC
MeTC-55 0 0.00 47 100.00 0 0.00
Malabon
MeTC-56 0 0.00 45 100.00 0 0.00
Malabon
MeTC-18 0 0.00 37 100.00 0 0.00
Manila
MeTC-21 0 0.00 95 100.00 0 0.00
Manila
MeTC-16 0 0.00 92 100.00 0 0.00
Manila
MeTC-2 0 0.00 302 100.00 0 0.00
Iloilo
MeTC-9 0 0.00 122 100.00 0 0.00
Iloilo
OFFICE
MeTC-8 0 0.00 27 100.00 0 0.00
Iloilo
MeTC-87 0 0.00 10 100.00 0 0.00
Pque
MeTC-88 19 44.19 24 55.81 0 0.00
Pque
MeTC-89 0 0.00 42 100.00 0 0.00
Pque
MeTC-90 0 0.00 31 51.67 29 48.33
Pque
MeTC-91 0 0.00 29 100.00 0 0.00
Pque
MeTC-77
Pque
MeTC-78 0 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00
Pque
MTCC-5 5 9.80 36 70.59 10 19.61
Davao City
MTCC-3 3 4.35 63 91.30 3 4.35

Antipolo
MTCC-2 5 9.80 36 70.59 10 19.61
Tacloban
MTCC-2
Mandaue 5 4.50 96 86.49 10 9.01
City
MTCC-2 6 6.59 75 82.42 10 10.99

CDO
MTCC-4 5 4.50 96 86.49 10 9.01
Baguio
MTCC-3
Puerto 5 6.76 59 79.73 10 13.51
Princesa
MTCC-1 0 0.00 28 100.00 0 0.00

Bacolod
MTCC-1 0 0.00 65 86.67 10 13.33
Dagupan
OFFICE
MTCC 0 0.00 71 95.95 3 4.05
Dasmarinas
MTCC-2
Zamboanga 3 5.36 43 76.79 10 17.86
City
MTCC-1
Ozamis 2 6.45 29 93.55 0 0.00
City
MTCC-1 0 0.00 31 100.00 0 0.00

GenSan
MTCC-1
Legazpi 5 13.51 32 86.49 0 0.00
City
44.19 2007.48 48.33

2.10% 95.59% 2.30%
Table 11 represents the current trend of penalty imposition in the event of
a conviction. Following jurisprudence and Supreme Court issuances, only 2.1 %
of the cases from the sample courts imposed imprisonment as sole penalty for
conviction under B.P. 22.95.59% of the cases for conviction from the sample
courts are meted with only a fine as penalty, while 2.3% of convictions in the
imposition of both fine and imprisonment. The data embodies the discretionary
attitude of judges as guided by the Supreme Court via jurisprudence and issued
circulars, that those accused of B.P.22, despite the law’s mandate of penalty of
imprisonment, must have their circumstances be weighed accordingly, most
especially in the cases where “good faith” is present.
TABLE 1266
CONVICTION AND ACQUITTAL RATE
TOTAL #
OF % OF TOTAL # OF % OF TOTAL
OFFICE
CONVICTI CONVICTION ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL %
ON
MTCC 268 78.36 74 21.64 100.00
Bacoor
MeTC-30 34 69.39 15 30.61 100.00
Manila
66
MeTC Br 77 Parañaque was ordered by the OCA to stop raffle and all files cases were raffled to
MeTC-1 16 7.41 19 8.80 16.20

Iloilo
MeTC-11 10 9.35 14 13.08 22.43
Manila
MeTC-93 130 84.97 23 15.03 100.00
Marikina
MeTC-17 65 83.33 13 16.67 100.00
Manila
MeTC-1 146 91.82 13 8.18 100.00
Manila
MeTC-32 36 16.67 180 83.33 100.00
QC
MeTC-55 47 40.52 23 19.83 60.34
Malabon
MeTC-56 45 93.75 3 6.25 100.00
Malabon
MeTC-18 37 74.00 13 26.00 100.00
Manila
MeTC-21 95 59.01 66 40.99 100.00
Manila
TOTAL #
OF % OF TOTAL # OF % OF TOTAL
OFFICE
CONVICTI CONVICTION ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL %
ON
MeTC-16 92 64.34 51 35.66 100.00
Manila
MeTC-2 302 86.29 48 13.71 100.00
Iloilo
MeTC-9 122 89.05 15 10.95 100.00
Iloilo
MeTC-8 27 90.00 3 10.00 100.00
Iloilo
MeTC-87 10 23.81 0 0.00 23.81
Pque
MeTC-88 43 55.84 34 44.16 100.00
Pque
MeTC-89 42 49.41 43 50.59 100.00
Pque
MeTC-90 60 55.05 49 44.95 100.00
Pque
MeTC-91 29 61.70 0.00 61.70

Pque
MeTC-77 0 0.00
Pque
MeTC-78 7 30.43 0.00 30.43
Pque
MTCC-5 51 68.00 0.00 68.00

Davao City
MTCC-3 69 70.41 24 24.49 94.90
Antipolo
MTCC-2 51 68.00 24 32.00 100.00
Tacloban
MTCC-2
Mandaue 111 63.43 64 36.57 100.00
City
MTCC-2 91 46.67 104 53.33 100.00
CDO
MTCC-4 111 63.43 64 36.57 100.00
Baguio
TOTAL # OF
% OF TOTAL # OF % OF TOTAL
OFFICE CONVICTIO
CONVICTION ACQUITTAL ACQUITTAL %
N
MTCC-3
Puerto 74 74.75 25 25.25 100.00
Princesa
MTCC-1 28 62.22 17 37.78 100.00
Bacolod
MTCC-1 75 75.76 24 24.24 100.00
Dagupan
MTCC
Dasmarina 74 50.00 74 50.00 100.00
s
MTCC-2
Zamboang 56 62.22 34 37.78 100.00
a City
MTCC-1
Ozamis 31 68.89 14 31.11 100.00
City
MTCC-1 31 68.89 14 31.11 100.00

GenSan
MTCC-1
Legazpi 37 61.67 23 38.33 100.00
City
1038.24 500.44
31.27724813
64.89004223%
%
In this representation, 64.89% of the cases from the sample courts end with
convictions and 31.28%, on the other hand resulted in acquittals. The data shows
in consonance with Table 11, that out of the 64.89% of the convictions decided,
2.1% of those decisions imposed the penalty of imprisonment, 95.59% with
penalty of fine, and finally, 2.3% are penalized with both. This cements the
position that B.P. 22 case prosecution and disposition at 64.89% conviction rate
yield so little in terms of imprisonment or penalized with both fine and
imprisonment, a representation that necessarily produces in the mind of the
litigating public a more civil action attitude of the courts towards B.P. 22
violations.
2.5 Countermeasures to Reduce Congestion

There have been many studies conducted to address the delay in the
Philippine judicial system and solutions that have become the usual propositions
range from the amendment of certain laws to the institution of new procedural
mechanisms. At this point in time, when our courts are continuously strained by
corpulent caseloads, considerations on such proposals will be scrutinized and
tested against the current Philippine context.
Limited by the scope of the theory, it appears nonetheless that court
dockets, especially for the tier of First Level Courts, would be greatly relieved
upon revisiting of the Bouncing Checks Law with the corresponding reforms to
better suit the demands of the litigants. Such revisit points towards an
establishment of a new procedure to practically do away with the unhealthy
source of delayed and mounting cases in the MTCs involving dishonored checks.
In a paper study67 made in 1999, a move for full decriminalization of B.P.
22 was proposed in order to stop the indiscriminate filing of cases for its
violation, where such checks were not issued as checks per se, but to be used as
collateral, security or guaranty for an obligation. This is applicable when the
issuance of a check that is not covered by insufficient funds is for payment of a
pre-existing obligation.
67
Supra Note 2
The paper seeks to have issuances of post-dated checks to be not included
as well, due to the wide practice in the Philippines wherein checks are being used
to secure obligations for rent, payment on installments, and other future
transactions. These are some of the identified causes of filing cases for violation
of B.P.22.The drawer, most of the time in these situations, issued such check just
to comply with the requirements of the creditor, lest the transaction will not push
through. What should be the controlling law on worthless checks is Article 315,
Section 2 paragraph (d), as such provision penalizes actual damage done by
means of deceit, or even mere disturbance in property rights. The State response
to this malady is to enact a bad checks law to plug in certain painful gaps in
familiar false pretense statutes as applied to bad checks passing, like when a
check is issued for the payment of pre-existing obligation and subsequently gets
dishonored for insufficient of funds, the same will not be punishable under our
false pretense statute (Article 315), but will be penalized under B.P. 22 just for
the act of mere issuance of a worthless check as an offense against public order,
unlike in Art. 315, which is an offense against property68.
The paper continues by citing American legal concepts on how to curb
proliferation of bad checks through the institution of civil penalties instead of
pursuing criminal action, which is highly applicable under the Philippine context
68
Robert J. Staal, Worthless Check Statute -- Penalty Provision, 14U. Miami L. Rev. 486 (1960) page 487
as the current legal environment dictates the better choice for a quick disposition
of a civil claim rather than resorting to a criminal action where prosecution may
take a very long time due to technicalities or party instigated delays and even if a
conviction is made, imprisonment is not the primary penalty.
Civil Penalties may work in the Philippine setting, but caution must be
had as to the socio-psychological issues of an underdeveloped country, where the
tendency of such countries to rely on imprisonment as the less privileged is fully
deterred by it; only when the poor has nothing to lose does liberty come to view.69
Lastly, the paper suggests that bounced checks that do not fall within the
purview of Art. 315, Section 2(d) to have its own civil claims procedure which is
summary in nature and akin to the Small Claims Cases procedure. Currently,
there is a Small Claims Court system pursuant to A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC70, issued
by the Supreme Court with the specific aim to reduce clogging of MTC dockets.
However, the present Small Claims rules do not provide for coverage of bounced
checks that can be prosecuted under its procedure. A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC provides:
SEC. 5.Applicability. – The Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial

Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial
69 Laspa, Christina. (2013). Do the economic factors affect criminality? Evidence from Greece, 1991–2010.
European Journal of Law and Economics. 39.. 10.1007/s10657-013-9403-2.
70
THE RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES, effective February 1, 2016
Courts shall apply this Rule in all actions that are purely civil in nature
where the claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
payment or reimbursement of sum of money.
The claim or demand may be:
(a) For money owed under any of the following:
1. Contract of Lease;
2. Contract of Loan;
3. Contract of Services;
4. Contract of Sale; or
5. Contract of Mortgage;
(b) For liquidated damages arising from contracts;
(c) The enforcement of a barangay amicable settlement or an arbitration

award involving a money claim covered by this Rule pursuant to Sec.
417 of Republic Act 7160, otherwise known as The Local Government
Code of 1991.
A similar procedure can easily be formulated which shall solely cover
collection of sums of money evidenced by Bounced Checks. This shift is
favorable as the majority of current bouncing checks cases involve issuances for
debt, security, or collateral, all pointing towards a civil obligation, perhaps a loan,
or any of those instances mentioned under the same paragraph.

Another measure proposed and being applied in other foreign jurisdictions
such as the U.S.71is the adoption of a private credit ratings system which will
keep record of any issued bounced check with its corresponding judgments civil
or criminal, if any were pursued by the payee. In connection with this and with
the current computer and technology advances, banks themselves can join the
fight against bouncing checks by setting up monitoring screens that can detect
bad banking behavior and mete out account closure for those with a history of
issuing bouncing checks, so as to prevent further issuances by the bad-check
writer.
With this revisit of the Bouncing Checks Law,, an initiative can also be
taken by the legislature. B.P. 22 has already existed for more than 38 years and
not a single amendment has been enacted to answer the prevailing and focal issue
of court congestion. There has been a disagreement as to how the law should be
amended. Some lawmakers72believe that increasing the penalties would help B.P.
71
Chex Systems, Inc. (ChexSystems) is a nationwide specialty consumer reporting agency under the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) . ChexSystems' clients regularly contribute information on
closed checking and savings accounts. ChexSystems provides services to financial institutions and
other types of companies that have a permissible purpose under the FCRA . ChexSystems' services
primarily assist its clients in assessing the risk of opening new
accounts.https://www.chexsystems.com/web/chexsystems/consumerdebit/otherpage/AboutChexSystems/!ut/p/
z1/04_Sj9CPykssy0xPLMnMz0vMAfIjo8zizQIsPN2NLAx8_AOcDAwcXcM8DcPMzYwNDAz0w8EKDBxdH
A1NgoEKnN3NgQpcLJwd_ZyMQAqiSNLvHuDvBlTg62cRHOoD1G9OnH48CkD6DXAAR5D-
KIgSPD5AVYDFiYQsKcgNDY0wyPQEAGk02jQ!/dz/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh /
72
House Bill No. 2515 which seeks to amend Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 or the “Anti-Bouncing
Checks Law,” increasing the penalties for making or drawing and issuance of a check without
22 fully realize its mandate, making it more socially and morally expensive to
commit issuance of bouncing checks.
The amendments that seek to push for an increase in penalty will not be
compatible with A.M. 13-200173 as imprisonment will only be imposed as a last
resort and against those offenders that warrant the penalty, provided the same
coincides with the judge’s discretion. Decriminalization is also sought by some
lawmakers74, which aims to delete the penalty of imprisonment from the
provisions of the law and increase in the fine with the corresponding removal of
the maximum limit of Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 200,000.00).If deemed
by the Legislative branch, decriminalization must be weighed carefully and must
be meticulously prepared so as to still recognize the mandate of the law, any
amount of good an unperturbed judicial docket might bring will not last long once
sufficient funds, or credit and for other purposes including making or drawing and issuance of a check
with a closed bank account. Sponsored by Cebu 5th District Representative Ramon Durano VI
Senate Bill 1202 An Actamending Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, “An Act Penalizing The Making Or
Drawing And Issuanceof A Check Without Sufficient Funds Or Creditand For Other Purposes”.
Sponsored by Senator Ramon Revilla, Jr.
73
Supra Note 51
74
Senate Bill 807 An Act Amending Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 De-Criminalizing TheMaking Or Drawing And
Issuance Of A Check Without Sufficient Funds Or Credit And For Other Purposes . Sponsored by Senator
Manuel B. Villar, Jr.
Supra Note 8
the loose floodgates of bouncing checks overrun the country’s trade and
commerce, which maybe considered as the contagion of economic ruin.
2.6 The Turkey Model75
The Republic of Turkey is a country located in Western Asia and
bordering Europe. This country underwent legal issues concerning their bad-
checks law and sought to decriminalize penal sanctions for issuing bad checks.
This portion of the research will establish the relevance of the Turkey Model to
the Philippine context in relation to B.P. 22.
Checks are being used greatly in Turkey and are governed by the former
Turkish Commercial Code76 or the f-TCC. Checks in Turkish jurisdiction are
issued more for payment of obligations and these instruments are payable at sight,
with no entries for their due dates77. On this score alone, abuses of checks are
easily perpetrated because there is absolutely no law that penalizes the issuance of
75
Babaoglu, Basak & Wulf, Alexander. (2015). Decriminalizing the issuance of bad checks in
Turkey: an analysis of the effects of changes in penalties. European Journal of Law and Economics .
42.. 10.1007/s10657-015-9502-3.
76
Law No. 6762 on Turkish Commercial Code OG 9353 dated September 7, 1956.
77
Article 707 of Law No. 6762
a bad check at the time. The most a holder of a bad check can do under the law is
to prosecute the drawer for fraud punishable under the Turkish Criminal Code78.
Come 1985, the first bad check law was passed79 and this penalizes the act of
issuing a worthless check with 1-5 years imprisonment or an administrative
fine80. The said law allows the offender seven days from notice of dishonor from
the drawee bank to satisfy81 the amount of the check that bounced, wherein the
complaint for its violation can be withdrawn by the complainant any time before
judgment and conviction become irrevocable.
The law had implications on how it was used to prosecute offenders.
Creditors who received bad checks would coerce the violator-debtor to pay large
amounts of money, most of the time even exceeding the value of the bounced
check, or else threaten to pursue criminal action against the latter. The violator-
debtor, to avoid imprisonment, would give in to the blackmail. Another major
issue with the law was the irrevocability of a judgment of conviction as there
were those debtor-violators who would settle the amount of the bounced check
78
Türk Ceza Kanunu (Kanunu No. 765, daled:1 Mareh 1926), ÜÇÜNCÜ FASIL :
DOLANDIRICILIK VE İFLAS Madde 503: Turkish Penal Code (Law No. 765, daled: 1 Mareh
1926,THIRD SECTION: Fraud and Inflation Article 503
79
Law No. 3176
80
Article 16 of Supra Note 75
81
Article 8 of Supra Note 75 also known as correction right . The offender is also mandated by law to
pay an additional 10% of the amount that bounced in addition to the face value . This right can only be
exercised twice in a year.
and would not be absolved of the criminal and civil liability, if done after
judgment. Notice of dishonor issues on non-receipt by the drawer would render
the action futile and even if there was receipt of such notice, the offender must
first be apprised in court if an option to exercise correction rights would be made,
and failure to apprise would render the conviction void.
Turkish Legislature responded to the issues by amending82 Law 3176 in
1993, eight years after the latter law was enacted. The amendment introduced the
cessation of criminal proceedings without the complainant having to withdraw the
charges upon settlement of the offender and payment of the administrative fine to
the drawee bank. It also added cessation of all proceedings that were pending
three months before its enactment if the offender had paid the value of the
bounced check with the corresponding fines or when the charges against them
were withdrawn by the complainants.
This amendment was opposed heavily for being arbitrary in allowing
cessation of proceedings only to those cases pending three (3) months prior to the
effectivity of the amendment as many offenders have already been convicted. It
was at this point that bouncing checks cases began to clog Turkish court dockets,
82
Law 3863, amending Article 16 of Law 3176
that there were320 bouncing checks cases in 1999 amounting to 18.4% of the
total criminal actions filed in their courts pending in that year alone83.
In 2003, another amendment84 was made, couched in a policy of modern
criminal law doctrine of economic punishment for economic crimes85 that
imprisonment should be the final resort penalty. Changes in the law included the
imposition of a severe fine for first-time offenders and a repeat offense would be
punishable by imprisonment of one to five years. This amendment was made 10
years after Law 3863 came into effect.
In 2009, the second Check Law86 of Turkey came into effect providing for
partial decriminalization in response to non-deterrence of issuances of bouncing
checks and the corresponding rise of cases that overloaded Turkish court dockets.
Another consideration in passing Law 5941 is that Law 3176, in penalizing
83Number of Proceedings at Criminal Courts for Offence of Law No. 3167 (Prime Ministry. General Directorate
of Laws and Decisions 2002, 2003), as cited in Supra Note 71
Year Number of
proceedings
1986 10,644
1990 134,612
1999 320,320
2000 262,211
20001 307, 391
84 Law 4814
85 Criminal acts that subvert or undermines the commercial effectiveness of normative business practices and the
negative consequences (second theory) Mitchell B. Chamlin and Mary Baldwin Kennedy, The Impact of the
Wilson Administration onEconomic Crime Rates, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, Vol. 7, No. 4, 1991
86 Law 5941
issuances of bouncing checks, run afoul with the Turkish Constitution87. This law
prohibited the immediate imprisonment and only imposed a fine, but the
prosecution for issuing a bounced check is still criminal in nature and tried before
criminal courts and in case the offender is unable to pay the fine, subsidiary
imprisonment will be imposed. This change in the law was faced with criticisms,
particularly imprisonment for the non-payment of the imposed fine in case of
conviction which effectively ends the economic productivity of the offender,
rendering it more difficult to pay the debt.
TURKEY MODEL
TABLE 188
Year Law 3176 Total Special Total
& Laws Criminal
Law 5941 Courts
2006 115,076 926,397 1,659,143
2008 203,885 855,271 1,848,906
2009 484, 372 1,069,712 2,023,307
87THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF TURKEY, PART TWO, C. Principles Relating to Offences
and Penalties
ARTICLE 38. (As amended on October 17, 2001)
Xxx xxx xxx
No one shall be deprived of his liberty merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual
obligation.
Xxx xxx xxx
88
Number of Cases Filed (Ministry of Justice 2006, 2008, 2009), as cited in Supra Note 71
Another presentation89 below would show that since the partial
decriminalization in 2009, the number of cases prosecuting bouncing checks
began to steadily decline as compared to the starting point shown in the table
above:
In 2012, a law90 was passed to amend Law 5941 which fully decriminalized
the act of issuing a bounced check and abolition of the administrative fine, in case
of conviction; bouncing a check under this law would be met with administrative
prohibitions of stop check issue and opening of checking accounts with banks for
a period of time. The law also introduced measures imposed on banks as to record
keeping over banking practices history of individuals as to checks and an

89
As cited in Supra Note 71
90
Law 6273
administrative procedure for collection of bounced checks with corresponding
civil sanctions.
In summary, the current check law of Turkey treats the act of issuing a
bounced check, not covered by fraud criminal provisions, as an administrative
procedure initiated in the Prosecutor’s Office and, once found liable, will be
ordered to pay the value of the bounced check and may be subjected to
administrative sanctions of prohibition against issuing checks and opening a bank
account.
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The point in this study is to project the current issue of court congestion
brought about by B.P. 22 cases and how the law and the use of an alternative civil
procedure will help free MTC court dockets. Towards this end, the methods
adopted in this research focus on history and documentations and best available
statistical data, including first-level court statistics for the years 2013-2017.
A historical account and overview of the check laws procedure, and effect on
court dockets in the Philippines and in foreign applications pertaining to cited
countries were taken into account throughout this presentation are taken account.
Revisiting B.P. 22 by highlighting its history and developments since its
enactment, in legal, procedural, and jurisprudential applications have been
utilized as well. Studies on how bad checks cases in other countries have affected
the quality of administration of judicial processes that were conducted and the
respective measures taken to solve the issue on decongestion were used in this
paper.
A dedicated documentary analysis of laws, jurisprudence, rules and
regulations, journals, publications, lectures, commentaries, both paper and
electronic, pertinent to B.P 22 and court decongestion, in relation to bad-checks
cases was made. The researcher applies the analytical research method. This
study deemed it as necessary the conduct of a critical analysis of all related laws
and issuances in the Philippines applicable to B.P. 22 and its congesting effect on
MTC dockets.
Statistics were employed to establish the relation of B.P. 22 cases affecting
the MTC dockets sourced from existing data base of various MTCs, published
studies, government and related publication. The data on the number of filed B.P.
22 cases, the number of pending cases and its main causes, the time it takes to
complete the whole criminal process, the trend of success as to conviction, and
the leniency of the penalty imposed, have been given much attention to in the
course of this study. The data presented in this study is sourced from MeTC’s and
MTCC’s which have heavy criminal dockets, possessing at least 500 criminal
actions pending before their salas, all sourced from Docket Management Access,
Inventory Reports, and Monthly Reports of Cases of Municipal Trial Court in
Cities and Metropolitan Trial Courts, requested by the researcher in her capacity
as both Executive Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Courts of Parañaque City and
President of the Metropolitan Trial Court Judges Association of the Philippines
for the relevant periods of 2013-2017.
Foreign court processes and procedure were given great weight through
comparative analysis in order to formulate a civil procedure which would best fit
the Philippine context in relation to prosecution of bouncing checks. The
consideration on small claims courts throughout different jurisdictions were focal
for this research and its corresponding procedure were subjected to criteria of
simplicity and brevity, swiftness of prosecution, and just enforcement in cases of
liability; such factors were adopted as such are the most relevant and akin issues
facing the Philippine court congestion situation.
The Research Methodologies employed established the aim of this study, to
present a timely revisit of B.P. 22 and come up with an adequate proposals for
the decongestion of MTC dockets.

Chapter 4
DISCUSSIONS
This chapter deals with the discussions of the answers to the questions
posed in the Statement of the Problem. Guided by the information already
presented from the foregoing, the researcher shall discuss the aim of the study,
proving the issues set forth and aimed towards the findings to be introduced in the
next chapter.
The first part of this chapter shall lay down the bases in establishing the
actions for violations of B.P. 22 which comprise the greater bulk of cases among
other cases pending in the first level court criminal dockets. This portion of the
chapter shall also treat the factors why B.P. 22 cases congest the first level court
dockets through the substantive and procedural aspects in current legal practice
anchored on the letter of the law and jurisprudential analysis.

The last part shall deal with the possible reforms that the study proposes to
be adopted to counteract the clogging effect of B.P. 22 cases in the first level
court dockets. There will be emphasis on the time factor involved in the
disposition of B.P. 22 cases. Further, other highlighted reasons for the clogging
effect will be addressed in the discussion of the proposed countermeasure in the
form of an alternative summary civil procedure as compared to the existing
procedure for bouncing checks, referred to as the “bouncing check civil claim
action”.
4.1 B.P. 22 as a Major Source of Action
It cannot be denied that the continuous growth of the Philippine population
complemented by the rapid growth of the economy, not just in the country, but
worldwide, would inevitably lead to an equally proportionate increase in
litigation91. Trade and commerce dictates massive participation of the populace in
the present consumerist cycle of buying and selling of goods or services, making
it very significant to use commercial documents, such as a check, to constantly
fuel the exchanges and transactions as a substitute to cash. Credit becomes a
major tool in the economic pursuit that is constantly expanding from urban to
previously rural, but urbanizing localities all throughout the country. The issue
91
Supra Note 54
now shifts to the proliferation of bad credit in the form of bouncing checks,
resulting in an imminent and alarming resort to judicial enforcement.
The information gathered from the heavy-laden dockets of First Level
Courts show that among other criminal actions within its jurisdiction, cases for
violation of B.P. 22 constitute an average of 46.71% of the criminal dockets92.It
ranks first among reckless imprudence, attempted homicide, physical injuries,
threats, unjust vexation, drinking in public place and other light offenses. It is
important to recall that an action for B.P. 22 entails both criminal and civil
aspects that cannot be filed separately93, thus, providing the courts where such
cases are filed twice the number of actions for every single violation of B.P. 22.
Statistics from participating First level courts in Visayas and Mindanao as
reflected in Table 8, would readily show the congesting effect of B.P. 22 cases,
thus negating the idea that this phenomenon is exclusive to highly commercial or
densely populated centers in Luzon. As this pertains only to the number of
B.P.22 actions filed in courts, sheer volume thereof becomes the first factor that
attributes to the clogging effect in the first-level court dockets. The first part of
the problem, the piling effect, would logically result to a bigger docket that tests
the judicial efficiency of the courts concerned, which are embattled regularly with
92
See Table 8, page 51
93
Supra Note 47
other external factors contributive to this point established in this study, such as
shortage of staff or personnel, equipment, and presiding judges.
The aging of actions, which has been determined as a relevant factor
resulting to the clogging effect of B.P. 22 cases is now considered in this portion
of the chapter. “Aging of actions” is the period of time wherein an action
remains pending before the same is judicially disposed of. This factor worsens
the volume issue of B.P. 22 actions that steadily scourge the First Level Courts,
further downgrading the already ailing judicial efficiency in disposition of all
cases, thus affecting the overall administration of justice in the judicial hierarchy.
Table 994 establishes this factor of aging B.P. 22 actions and this event in
the gathered data displays the gravity of the problem as most of the cases are
judicially disposed of in a period of more than 2 years. This occurrence can be
attributed to first level courts with previous large dockets, even before ushering in
the volume of B.P. cases in the covered period from 2013-2017. This issue
cannot avoid the usual problems currently badgering the first level courts like
shortage in manpower or equipment, but despite the overwhelming data
presented, there are those courts which have disposed of B.P. 22 cases in a period
of 0-6 months, a feat worthy of distinction in the realm of judicial function.
94
Page 54
It is the researcher’s stand that aging of actions plays a bigger role in the
clogging effect in the First Level Court dockets as the manner of disposition is
highly affected by legally intimate factors such as matters of the law, on one hand
and procedural element, on the other. Practice of law is highly dynamic and
entails strategy more on the side of the litigants, whether to shorten or delay in the
litigation of cases, is up to the parties, an institutionalized issue always addressed
by the Supreme Court, most especially in the niche of B.P. 22, where the latter
has innovated in terms of putting in place expediting measures, but the same is
still insufficient to cope with the presently growing gargantuan B.P. 22 caseload.
4.2 Factors of Delay
As mentioned in the preceding portion of this chapter, aging of actions has
the heavier impact in the delay felt by the First Level Courts. The question why
B.P. 22 actions take longer to resolve than other actions to resolve can be
explained in two parts; firstly, B.P. 22, as a law in itself, requires matters before it
to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and lastly, legal practitioners resort to
delaying tactics.
Considering the elements required for conviction under the law, the
prosecution has to prove the following: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of
any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the knowledge of the maker,
drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon its
presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or dishonor for the same reason had not the
drawer, without any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment95.
In a line of cases96 decided by the High Court, the usual deficiency in
securing conviction for B.P. 22 is the failure of the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt the actual and personal receipt of the notice of dishonor by the
issuer; though not a direct element of the offense, the notice of dishonor is
instrumental in establishing the second element of B.P. 22, the prima facie
evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds in the account of the issuer at
the time a check has been issued or drawn.
95
B.P. 22 Sec. 1 - 3
96
Danao v. Court of Appeals, 411 Phil. 63, 71 [2001], King vs. People, 377 Phil. 692 [1999],
Domagasang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139292, 5 December 2000, 347 SCRA 75 . Lao vs.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 139292, 5 December 2000, 347 SCRA 75 . Marigomen vs. People. San
Mateo vs. People,G.R. No. 200090, March 6, 2013. Dela Cruz vs. People, G.R. No. 163494,
August 03, 2016.
The prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of funds is a state
of mind which is difficult to prove, yet in yielding to the strictness of criminal
actions, that one is presumed innocent until contrary is proved beyond reasonable
doubt, the prosecution cannot do away with such a Constitutionally protected
right of the accused. The anima legis of B.P. 22 in requiring actual and personal
receipt of the notice of dishonor is predicated on the opportunity of the accused to
make good on the dishonor of the issued check by means of payment or striking a
compromise with the payee. To note, the notice of dishonor required by law and
jurisprudence must be one written, verbal demands or notice will not suffice; this
is in line with proving the elements of the case beyond reasonable doubt that
indeed the accused is apprised through receipt of a written notice of dishonor.
By observation in the cases above cited, the difficulty posed in securing the
actual receipt of the notice of dishonor is one of the main hurdles that has become
a time-honored defense the accused takes refuge in. The accused, in abusing this
defense, would expend every possible effort to avoid receiving the notice of
dishonor from the complainant but even despite the actual demands, the bad
check issuer already knows of the fact of dishonor, usually through verbal
demands of the creditor-complainant. The practicality of prosecution therefore,
becomes diluted; the researcher does not put in any degree of disregard the
Constitutional requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, but for purposes of
alleviating the Judiciary frontline of which this study revolves around, the
identification of this legal stumbling block must proceed towards a more just and
practical perspective of protecting the interest also of the complainants who are
deprived of the redeeming effects of criminal act that is being penalized by B.P.
22, at the same time, the delay in collecting the proceeds of the dishonored check.
Being the basic law of the land, all laws prior to or subsequent to the
Constitution must yield to its provisions. Under this principle, the rights of the
accused as guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, constitutionally designed to
protect the life, liberty, and property of the accused, are, however employed,
works to, or availed of as a means of delay in the proceedings. This is in
deference to the accused’s right to due process of law, a right sought to be
bettered by this study, an entitlement which by reason of the clogging effect in the
court dockets, unintentionally causes delay in the proceedings. The right of the
accused to have a trial, to meet the complainant’s witnesses face to face, and to
have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf; all these rights are unfortunately affected by the undue
delay plaguing the crowded dockets of trial courts.
4.3 Procedural Gaps

A case for B.P. 22 is an action with both criminal and civil aspects that are
simultaneously instituted being in the sole jurisdiction of the First Level Courts,
regardless of the amount of the bouncing check. This is the present procedure for
prosecuting violations of B.P. 22, however, with the foregoing discussions
regarding the difficulty of achieving conviction, the data presented confirms that
it is not enough to produce dispositions, since B.P. 22 cases are being filed in
volumes thus resulting to the piling effect.
If a complainant opts to collect the proceeds of the check through a civil
action for collection of sum of money, it cannot be avoided that the rules on
jurisdictional amounts would now be required for consideration. The complainant
misses out on the “summary” nature of the usual procedure mentioned, and
instead the same will be tried under normal civil procedure if beyond the
jurisdictional amount for the First Level Courts. In turn, complainant can prove
his case using only preponderant evidence to establish his claim, an advantage
gained if this would ensue.
Another alternative in recovering the proceeds of a dishonored check is
availing of the Small Claims Procedure. This procedure entails a civil and
summary procedure, triable for recoveries for sum of money not exceeding
Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 200,000.00). A holder of a dishonored check
can enforce the evidenced obligation, however only for the maximum amount; in
the event that the complainant holds a check for a value higher than Two Hundred
Thousand Pesos (Php 200,000.00), this requires a different procedure that is now
being contemplated by this study but a waiver must be done on the latter’s part
regarding the excess in the value of the check.
As seen from above, there are only few options to enforce claims for
bounced checks and chances are delays would be present, save in Small Claims
actions, which in this case, is limited to a maximum recoverable amount.
Augmenting rules for claims arising from bouncing checks must have to be
considered to hasten proceedings before the first level courts with the
corresponding quality dispatch. This study proposes a civil and summary
procedure, which takes all matters that contribute to delay in the disposition as
balanced against the rights of both parties involved.
This summary civil procedure will be an alternative, in addition to those
mentioned, but resort to it would constitute as a bar in enforcing their respective
causes of action under other modes. The proposed set of rules takes into great
consideration the convenience of true summary proceedings requiring mere
preponderance of proof, without bargaining away the rights and interest of
involved parties. A claim to be made under this procedure must first show the
elements prescribed under B.P. 22 before the action can be tried under civil and
summary proceedings set therein.

Chapter 5
SUMMARY, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary
The study has laid down the effects of B.P. 22 cases on court dockets using
data synthesized from Docket Management Access, Inventory Reports, and
Monthly Reports of Cases of the participating heavy docket first level courts
through the periods of 2013-2017. It sufficiently establishes the peculiar effect of
B.P. 22 cases, by its nature, as a time-consuming proceeding and brought about
by factors that induce delay in the disposition thereof.
Such a summary arose from the identification of difficulties, both in law and
procedure, as echoed by pronouncements of the Supreme Court in decisive cases.
The urgency of the matter is that present law and procedure are strained to their
limits but do not address the issues of volume and aging of cases. These issues
can fester into a swollen docket that ultimately affects the overall efficiency of the
judicial hierarchy, to the overall detriment to the right of due process of law.
Considering the ultimate end of why complainants file B.P. 22 actions
despite the worrisome speed of disposition, such an attitude points towards the
main goal of recovery of civil liability of the worthless check issuer.
Other modes of filing a claim for a bounced check are insufficient in
speeding up the process of collection, which validates the need for reform so as to
accentuate judicial efficiency in the due disposition of B.P. 22 cases, to achieve
the reversal of the latter law’s effect on the First Level Court dockets.
5.2 Findings and Conclusion
It has been established throughout this study that B.P. 22 cases would
stagger steadily if the trial courts are not duly armed to afford them a chance to
reduce the pending cases or clogged dockets. The contributors to the piling effect
was shown to be the continuously growing number of new filed cases for
violations of B.P. 22 that results to a lengthened period of time to attend to its
disposition.
An average of almost half or 46.71% of cases in the criminal dockets as
based on the representative sample courts which are afflicted with a heavy
caseload, are for violations of B.P. 22. This sheer volume of B.P. 22 cases,
coupled with the identified difficulties in prosecution would result to the next
factor of delay, which is the aging of actions. By the data presented, an action for
violation of B.P.22 can consume two years before the same can be resolved by a
court; without being disposed of, this would add up to the pile and finally clog
the court dockets. The tendency of B.P. 22 cases being filed becomes more
common due to the expansion of trade and commerce paralleled with a growing
population that increase human interaction and use of credit, thereby creating
opportunities for the unwanted behavior of proliferating worthless checks.
A prosecution for B.P. 22 is mainly hinged on collecting the proceeds of the
dishonored check by the complainants therein, but such a goal is hampered by the
phenomenon of prolonged litigation of establishing a claim beyond reasonable
doubt. As already discussed, 34. 76% of the cases for B.P. 22 are settled through
mediation and other means of alternative dispute resolution. Not subscribing to
the length of time required for prosecuting B.P. 22, a third of complainants in the
cases were willing to settle the matter involving the bounced check.
To stress, the number of cases being filed in First Level Courts (as
represented in the data) initiates the clogging effect by introducing volume of

cases which in turn, will age due to the lack of time and attention for their due
disposition, ushering in the aging of actions. Once B.P. 22 cases are instituted in
court, the resolution by the tribunal aims to decide civil and criminal liabilities of
the accused, as cases for B.P. 22 cannot be split into a civil action and another
criminal action. The Supreme Court has issued the said pronouncement to
mitigate the likeliness of multiplicity of suits arising from the single act of
uttering a worthless check.
5.3 Recommendations
The addition of an alternative civil and summary procedure is the main
drive to combat the ill-effects of a crowded docket. The researcher has formulated
a procedure for enforcing civil claims arising from bounced checks without the
usual restrictions of criminal actions and with the speed sufficient to dispose
actions in order to clear up the dockets. For purposes of this study, then,
hereunder is the proposed rules:
RULES OF PROCEDURE TO RECOVER CIVIL LIABILITY OR CLAIM

ARISING FROM A BOUNCING CHECK
SECTION 1. Title.– These Rules shall be known as the “Rules of Procedure

to Recover Civil Liability or Claim Arising from a Bouncing Check”.
SEC. 2. Scope.– These Rules shall govern the procedure in an action before
the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs),
Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs) to
recover civil liability or payment of money obligations or claims arising from or
evidenced by a dishonored or bouncing check, irrespective of the amount indicated
therein, that would have otherwise been subject to a criminal action under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 (B.P. 22).
SEC. 3.Objectives. The objectives of these Rules are to establish a new civil
procedure that will ensure the collection of the money claims or amounts due
under a dishonored or bounced check in a summary nature without the procedural
restrictions of criminal actions and to provide a better alternative or option that is
simple and inexpensive for the disposition of a civil liability or claim arising from a
dishonored or bouncing check.
SEC. 4. Applicability.– The MeTCs, MTCCs, MTCs and MCTCs shall apply
these Rules in any action that arises from the issuance of a dishonored or bouncing
check where the principal claim or relief prayed for by the plaintiff is solely for
payment of the amount covered by the dishonored or bouncing check. Unless
otherwise stated, the regular rules on venue shall apply.
The civil action herein contemplated shall be referred to as the “bouncing

check civil claim action”.
SEC. 5. Commencement of a Bouncing Check Civil Claim Action.– A

bouncing check civil claim action is commenced by filing with the appropriate first
level court a verified complaint stating the primary basis of the claim that includes
the following allegations, among others, to wit:
i. that the claim arose from a check or checks issued by the defendant as
security or guarantee for a loan or civil obligation;
ii. that the check or checks bounced due to insufficient funds, account closed
or stopped payment without any justifiable ground or reason;
iii. that written demand was made and duly received by the defendant for
him/her to make good his/her obligation within five (5) days from receipt thereof;
iv. that the defendant failed to make good his obligation or pay his/her
indebtedness despite said demand; and,
v. that a criminal action for violation of B.P. 22 is ripe for filing against the
defendant owing to the dishonored or bouncing check but the plaintiff chose or
opted to resort to a bouncing check civil claim action instead.
In addition, the plaintiff should include in his/her complaint two (2) duly
certified photocopies of the subject dishonored or bouncing check, other documents
supporting the claim, as well as the affidavits of witnesses and additional evidence
to substantiate the same.
SEC. 6. Waiver of Criminal Action under B.P. 22. – When commencing a

bouncing check civil claim case, the plaintiff is required to waive his right of action
to initiate or file a criminal case for violation of B.P. 22 over the dishonored or
bouncing check or checks; otherwise, the herein Rules shall not apply.
For this purpose, it must also be alleged in the verified complaint for a
bouncing check civil claim case that the plaintiff is waiving the filing of a criminal
case for violation of B.P. 22 insofar as the subject check or checks is/are
concerned.
SEC. 7. Payment of Filing Fees.– The plaintiff shall pay the docket and
other legal fees prescribed under Rule 141 of the Revised Rules of Court, unless
allowed to litigate as an indigent. Exemption from the payment of filing fees shall
be granted only by the Supreme Court.
SEC. 8. Dismissal of the Action. — After determining that the case falls
under these Rules the court may, from an examination of the allegations in the
verified complaint and such evidence attached thereto, by itself or motu propio,
dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds apparent therefrom for the
dismissal of a civil action. If no ground for dismissal is found, the court shall
forthwith issue summons which shall state that the procedure under these Rules
shall apply.
SEC. 9. Summons and Notice of Hearing.– Once the herein Rules have
been determined to be applicable, the court shall issue the summons on the same
day of receipt of the verified complaint, directing the defendant to submit a verified
answer within (10) days from receipt of the summons and serving a copy thereof on
the plaintiff.
Further, the court shall also issue together with the summons a notice
directing the parties to appear before it on a specific date and time for the hearing,
with a warning that no unjustified postponement shall be allowed, as provided in
Sec. 13 (i) of these Rules.
The notice of hearing shall contain the following information: (i) the date of
the hearing, which shall not be more than thirty (30) days from the filing of the
verified complaint and (ii) the express prohibition against the filing of a motion to
dismiss or any other motion under Sec. 13 of these Rules.
If summons is returned without being served on the defendant, the court

shall order the plaintiff to cause the service of the summons and the latter shall
inform the court within thirty (30) days from notice if said summons was served or
not; otherwise, the complaint shall be dismissed, without prejudice, as to the

defendant who was not served with summons.
SEC. 10. Answer. – The defendant shall file with the court and serve on the
plaintiff a duly accomplished and verified answer within a non-extendible period of
ten (10) days from receipt of summons. It shall be accompanied by certified
photocopies of documents, as well as affidavits of witnesses and other evidence in
support thereof. No evidence shall be allowed during the hearing which was not
attached to or submitted together with the answer, unless good cause is shown
before the court for the admission of additional evidence.
SEC. 11. Effect of Failure to File Answer or Appear at a Hearing.–

Failure on the part of the defendant to file an answer within the required period, or
to appear on the date set for hearing, shall authorize the court to render judgment
as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the verified complaint and limited to
what is prayed for therein: Provided, however, that the court may, in its discretion,
reduce the amount of damages, interest and attorney's fees claimed for being
excessive or otherwise unconscionable.
SEC. 12. Counterclaims within the Coverage of these Rules.– If at the time
the action is commenced, the defendant possesses a claim against the plaintiff that
(a) arises out of the same transaction or event that is the subject matter of
plaintiff’s claim; (b) does not require for its adjudication the joinder of third
parties; and (c) is not the subject of another pending action, the claim shall be filed
as a counterclaim in the answer; otherwise, the defendant shall be barred from
suing on the counterclaim.
SEC. 13. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions.– The following pleadings,

motions, or petitions shall not be allowed in the cases covered by these Rules:
(a) Motion to dismiss the Statement of Claim/s;
(b) Motion for a bill of particulars;
(c) Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for

reopening of trial;
(d) Petition for relief from judgment;
(e) Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other
paper;
(f) Memoranda;
(g) Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any

interlocutory order issued by the court;
(h) Motion to declare the defendant in default;

(i) Dilatory motions for postponement;
(j) Reply and rejoinder;
(k) Third-party complaints; and
(l) Interventions.
SEC. 14. Appearance at the Hearing.– The parties shall personally appear
on the designated date for the hearing. Failure of the plaintiff to appear at the
scheduled hearing shall be a cause for the dismissal of the complaint, without
prejudice. Nonetheless, the defendant who appears at the hearing, wherein the
plaintiff is absent, shall be entitled to a judgment on the counterclaim, if any, as
allowed by Sec. 11 hereof.
In case there are several defendants, the plaintiff shall be entitled to

judgment in accordance with Sec. 11 hereof when one of the defendants fails to
appear. Failure of both parties to appear shall cause the dismissal of the case, with
prejudice on both the complaint and the counterclaim.
SEC. 15. Matters to be Taken up at the Hearing.– The judge shall first
exert efforts to bring the parties to an amicable settlement of their dispute. Any
settlement between the parties shall be reduced into writing, signed by the parties
and submitted to the court for approval on the same day.
If efforts at settlement fail, the hearing shall immediately proceed in an

informal and expeditious manner and be terminated within the same day after the
following matters have been taken up:
(i) The stipulations or admissions entered into by the parties;
(ii) On the basis of the pleadings and stipulations and admissions made by
the parties, judgment will be rendered without the need of further proceedings, in
which event the judgment shall be rendered within thirty (30) days from the date of
the hearing, unless position papers are required to be submitted prior thereto;
(iii) A clear specification of material facts which remain controverted; and
(iv) Such other matters intended to expedite the disposition of the case.
SEC. 16. Submission Position Papers and Affidavits. — Within a non-

extendible period of fifteen (15) days from the termination of the hearing, the court
may require the parties to submit their respective position papers together with
affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the
hearing, setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them.
SEC. 17. Rendition of Decision. — Within thirty (30) days after receipt of
the position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing of the same, the court
shall render the decision. The decision shall immediately be entered by the clerk of
court in the court docket for civil cases and a copy thereof forthwith served on the
parties. The decision shall be final, executory and unappealable.
SEC. 18. Execution.– When the decision is rendered, execution shall issue
upon motion of the winning party.
SEC 19. Period of Proceedings. The period required in these Rules shall
not exceed ninety (90) days from the filling of the verified complaint up to the
rendition of the decision.
SEC. 20. Effect of Non-compliance. – Non-compliance with the herein

Rules is a ground for disciplinary action.
SEC. 21. Applicability of the Rules of Civil Procedure.– The Rules of Civil
Procedure shall apply suppletorily insofar as they are not inconsistent with these
Rules.
SEC. 22. Non-applicability of Mediation or Judicial Dispute Resolution

Proceedings.– The rules on mediation or judicial dispute resolution proceedings
shall not apply, inasmuch as the parties may agree to compromise at any stage of
the proceedings.
SEC. 23. Effectivity.– These Rules shall take effect on _____________

following their publication in two newspapers of general circulation. They shall
govern all cases filed after their effectivity and also all pending proceedings, except
to the extent that in the opinion of the court, their application would not be feasible
or would work injustice, in which case the procedure under which the cases were
filed shall govern.
The procedure involves recovery of sums of money arising from a worthless
check. The first level Courts such as the MeTC, MTC, MCTC, and MTCC’s are
solely given the jurisdiction to hear and try cases under this procedure. It is
proposed to be civil in nature and designed to summarily deal with dishonored
checks within at least 75 days to a maximum of 90 days from filing of a verified
complaint by the claimant. This action covers all dishonored checks regardless of
the amount including the value of the counterclaim that may be claimed by the
defendant. Despite the objective of securing payment of the obligation in favor of
the complainant, these rules is championing an alternative dispute resolution and
welcomes any compromise at any stage in the proceedings. Another key feature is
the prohibition of filing certain motions or pleadings that would normally be
considered dilatory, ensuring that only relevant processes are resorted to in order to
attain speedy dispatch of the action.
With this procedure, a claim based on a dishonored check will prosper by
mere preponderance of proof, and the usual difficulty being encountered to establish
a right of action for B.P. 22 cases, the actual receipt of the notice of dishonor beyond
reasonable doubt, has been done away with and the due presentation of a certified
mail would suffice the requirement of notice. Under these rules, the claimant can
avail of remedies under the Rules of Court to exact the effects of a favorable
judgment, due to the suppletory effect thereof in support of these rules. Execution of
civil liability may be had by resorting to Rule 39 of the Rules of Court after motion
by the winning party; provisional remedies can also be applied under these rules, if
warranted by the circumstances of the case. Decisions rendered under these rules are
non-appealable and immediately executory, but a petition for Certiorari under Rule
65 of the Rules of Court may be taken as a remedy there being no other available,
legal, speedy and adequate redress in the event of an unfavorable judgment.
To conclude, all the identified issues that cause delay in prosecuting massive
amounts of cases for B.P. 22 are established by this study by constructing an
alternative procedure, in addition to existing remedies to exact collection whether by
criminal, civil or summary means. In doing so, a practical instrument in relieving the
undue clogging of cases in the first level court dockets has been devised. The
applicability and relevance of these rules, together with the expertise of first level
courts in handling bouncing checks cases is deemed by the researcher, also a judge
of the MeTC, to be responsive in drastically reducing the dockets by expeditious
resolution of bouncing checks cases through a more practical civil and summary
procedure.
REFERENCES
BOOKS
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Philippine Law Journal Volume 53 04 Second Quarter, 1978
Philippine Judicial Academy Judicial Journal, Volume 3, Issue 10 October –

December 2001
JOURNALS
Dakolias, Maria (1999) "Court Performance Around the World: A Comparative

Perspective,"Yale Human Rights and Development Journal: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article
2.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yhrdlj/vol2/iss1/2
Last accessed November 20, 2017
Dalla Pellegrina, Lucia. (2007). Courts Delays and Crime Deterrence (An
Application to Crimes Against Property in Italy). Universitas degli Studi di
Milano-Bicocca, Dipartimento di Statistica, Working Papers. 26..
10.2139/ssrn.921049.
Available at:
http://www.statistica.unimib.it/utenti/WorkingPapers/WorkingPapers/20070403
.pdf
Last accessed October 29, 2017
Becker, Gary S., "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," Journal of

Political Economy 76, no. 2 (Mar. - Apr., 1968): 169-217.
Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/259394
Djankov, S., La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F. and Shleifer, A., Courts: the Lex
Mundi Project NBER Working Paper No. 8890 April 2002
Available at: http://faculty.tuck.dartmouth.edu/images/uploads/faculty/rafael-
laporta/Courts.pdf
Shavell, Steven, The Optimal Structure of Law Enforcement Journal of Law and
Economics, vol. 36 April 1993 Available at :
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/shavell/pdf/36_J_law_Econ_255.pdf
Kadish, Sanford H., The Crisis of Overcriminalization, 7 Am. Crim. L. Q. 17

(1968)
Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2550&context=
facpubs
Larkin, Paul Jr. J.The Extent of America’s Overcriminalization Problem, The

Heritage Foundation LEGAL MEMORANDUM No. 121, May 9, 2014
Available at: https://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2014/pdf/LM121.pdf
Soberano, R., Nature and Causes of Judicial Delay 1-2 (1984) (unpublished paper).
Private Sector Assessment Philippines, Asian Development Bank, May 2005, pp 24

Available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/institutional-
document/32479/files/psa-philippines-2011.pdf
Staal, Robert J., Worthless Check Statute -- Penalty Provision, 14U. Miami L. Rev.
486 (1960) page 487
Available at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol14/iss3/12
Laspa, Christina. (2013). Do the economic factors affect criminality? Evidence

from Greece, 1991–2010. European Journal of Law and Economics. 39..
10.1007/s10657-013-9403-2.
Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257557954_Do_the_economic_factors_af
fect_criminality_Evidence_from_Greece_1991-2010
Lat accessed November 11, 2017
Babaoglu, Basak & Wulf, Alexander. (2015). Decriminalizing the issuance of bad
checks in Turkey: an analysis of the effects of changes in penalties. European
Journal of Law and Economics. 42.. 10.1007/s10657-015-9502-3.
Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2608374
Chamlin, Mitchell B. and Kennedy, Mary Baldwin, The Impact of the Wilson
Administration on Economic Crime Rates, Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
Vol. 7, No. 4, 1991
Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226841367_The_impact_of_the_wilson_
administration_on_economic_crime_rates?ev=publicSearchHeader&_sg=IrsIkx6cx
T1GbuJAnubYzF6zEFNqdgF3fU-jfa7m4o1tqwKhkp_niv-
Gyv43xMFu4C397AwV5lgCLL8
DELIVERED LECTURES
Alfredo F. Tadiar, UNCLOGGING THE COURT DOCKET, p.3, Paper presented in

the Symposium on Economic Policy Agenda for the Estrada Administration, June
1, 1999
Alfredo L. Benipayo, Dissertation delivered at the Annual Convention of the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines’ 14th House of Delegates, held at the Crown Peak
Garden Hotel, Subic, Olongapo City, on May 7, 2000.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE
Atty. Lorna Patajo-Kapunan, Revisiting Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 or the bouncing

checks law, Business Mirror, November 16, 2015
https://businessmirror.com.ph/revisiting-batas-pambansa-blg-22-or-the-
bouncing-checks-law/
Meruenas, Mark, GMA News, March 27, 2015.
SUPREME COURT DECIDED CASES
Lozano v. Martinez, G.R. No. L-63419, 18 December 1986)
Eduardo R. Vaca And Fernando Nieto Vs. Court Of Appeals And The People
Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 131714. November 16, 1998
Ricaforte vs. Jurado G.R. NO. 154438, September 5, 2007
People of the Philippines vs. Sabio,, G.R. No. L-45490 November 20, 1978
Nierras v. Dacuycuy, GR Nos. 59568-76, Jan 11, 1990
Recudero vs. People and the Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 133036. January 22,
2003]
Saguiguit vs. People [G.R. No. 144054, June 30, 2006]
Sumbilla vs Matrix Finance Corporation, G.R. 197582, June 29, 2015
People Of The Philippines Vs.Hon. Regino Veridiano II, G.R. No. L-62243
October 12, 1984
Josef vs. People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 146424, November 18, 2005]
Young vs Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines [G.R. No. 140425.
March 10, 2005]
FOREIGN LAWS
18 Pa.C. S.A. § 4105 of 1973
Law No. 6762 on Turkish Commercial Code OG 9353 dated September 7, 1956.
Turkish Penal Code (Law No. 765) dated September 1, 1926
Law No. 3167 of Turkey, 1985 : “Arrangement of Payments by Cheque and

Protection of Cheque Bearers”
Law No. 3863 of Turkey
FOREIGN JURISPRUDENCE
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Marvin MUTNIK, 486 Pa. 428 (1979)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
LEGISLATIVE BILLS AND RECORDS
Senate SB 135, July 5, 2010
House Bill No. 2515, August 3, 2016
SB 1202, July 1, 2004

SB 807, June 30, 2004
Pages. 932-933, Senate Congressional Record, Volume II No. 37 (1967)
Pages. 1037-1038, Record of the Batasan, Plenary Session No. 70, Dec. 4, 1978
LAWS
1987 Constitution
Rules of Court
Revised Penal Code
Republic Act 4885
Presidential Decree 818
Republic Act 7691
A. M. No. 00-11-01-SC (April 15, 2003)
A. M.No. 13-2001 (February 14, 2001)
A. C.No. 57-97 (November 1, 1997)

A.M. 12-2000 (November 21, 2000)
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC (February 1, 2016)
Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas Circular 454 Series of 2004
STATISTICS
Docket Management Access, Inventory Reports, and Monthly Reports of Cases

of Selected Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Court for year
2013-2017
Appendix I
TIMETABLE FOR RESEARCH
Research Objectives 2017 2018

Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Ap May
r
1 Writing of Proposal
2. Data Gathering
3. Analysis
4. Colloquium/Defense
5. Manuscript
6. Defense
7. Final Manuscript
Appendix II
BUDGETARY REQUIREMENTS
Sources of Expenses Amount (PhP)
Items
Visits to various first level courts Php 5,000.00
Advising and Defense Fees Php 20,951.00
Documentation Php 5,000.00
Miscellaneous Php 2,000.00
Contingency Fund Php 10,000.00
TOTAL: Php 42,951.00

CURRICULUM VITAE
HON. LEILANI MARIE DACANAY-GRIMARES

Presiding Judge, Branch 87, Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC),
Parañaque City
Executive Judge, MeTC, Parañaque City
President, Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines
(METCJAP)
Judge Grimares is a first level court judge in Parañaque City,

having been appointed in the Judiciary in 2012. She is one of the
youngest members of the bench. In her young judicial career, she can
be described as a hardworking, innovative and learned magistrate and a
“phenomenal” achiever and leader.
She is a proud alumnae of the University of Sto. Tomas (UST)

Faculty of Civil Law, or the “Faculdad de Derecho”, and is currently
finishing her Masters of Law in the same university.
As a judge, she has attended numerous local trainings and

seminars organized or offered by the Philippine Judicial Academy, or
PHILJA, the exclusive training arm of the Judicial Branch. In addition,
she is well-travelled and attended various international conventions as a
delegate representing the Philippine Judiciary, such as the LAWASIA
International Convention in Sydney, Australia in 2015, the International
Women Judges Association in Washington, D.C. in 2016, and this
year’s Modernizing Justice Conference in London, England. In the
LAWASIA International Convention, worth mentioning is her
selection, from among the hundreds of participants therein coming from
different international bar associations, foreign judges, and members of
the academe, to judge its premiere Moot Court Competition that was
participated in by various universities around the world. She had
qualified and was chosen, one of only 30 judges from the entire
country, as a delegate to the 8th International Organization for Judicial
Training Conference held at the Shangri-la Hotel, BGC, Taguig City in
November 2017.
Despite being busy in her judicial work, Judge Grimares has been
teaching Civil Law as a faculty member of the University of Perpetual
Help System DALTA College of Law Biñan campus since 2012.
Likewise, for the past three years already, Judge Grimares is the
administrative head or Executive Judge in her court station and was
given the responsibility by the Supreme Court to lead and represent her
colleagues, including the court personnel, in Parañaque City.
Further, she actively involved herself as a member and officer of

the Metropolitan and City Judges Association of the Philippines, or
METCJAP, the most prestigious organization of first level court judges
in the county. In less than a year with METCJAP, she became its
Secretary General and then rose to become its Executive Vice
President. Presently, Judge Grimares has the distinct honor and
privilege of leading the more than 360-strong metropolitan and city
judges nationwide as President of METCJAP until 2019. Her
assumption to METCJAP’s presidency is unprecedented in the annals
of the said organization’s history.

LDG Final Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LDG Final Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS GRADUATE SCHOOL PAGE i

REVISITING THE BOUNCING CHECKS LAW

Research Study Presented to the Graduate School

LEILANI MARIE DACANAY-GRIMARES

5.2 Findings and Conclusion………………………………………………..96

Court dockets are heavily and unjustifiably congested as a result of the

or dishonoredchecks. With most courts no longer imposing the penalty of

imprisonment due to recent jurisprudence and Supreme Court pronouncements,

Accordingly, there is a need to revisit this law and establish in addition to

criminal prosecution, a specific civil procedure that will facilitate collection of

level courts is unduly hampered by the bulk of worthless or bouncing checks

imposing the proper punishment, the deterring effect of B.P. 22 as a criminal

sanction must be reconsidered and the urgency of redefining treatment accorded

eminent focus of this study.

This research will be establishing a new summary civil procedure that

willhasten or speed up the resolution of worthless checks cases. The procedure is

models or jurisdictions that experienced the same predicament involving

“Nothing is so fatiguing as the eternal hanging on of an uncompleted task.”

1.1 The Problem and Its Background

It cannot be denied that delay in the administration of justice is one of the

redress of a grievance is most likely to go directly to court when it probably is

more practical to have availed of other modes of dispute resolution. The

unjustifiably congested as a result of the indiscriminate filing and delayed

processing of cases in the courts. Hundreds of thousands of cases remain pending

judicial system keep piling up at an alarming rate.

especially in cities where most of the population is concentrated. Many courts in

higher instead of dwindling down.

are 30 to 50 cases scheduled for hearing in a day. The situation is believed to

justice, it is no wonder the Philippine Judicial System is considered as one of the

slowest judicial system in the world.

meantime, worsens the already deplorable work schedule of our courts.

growing economy, trade and commerce activities dictate heavy reliance on

commercial papers, especially on checks, for day-to-day transactions and

convenience. Where it stands now, it cannot be avoided that the misuse of

reasons ranging from lack of foresight to unscrupulous intentions perpetrated by

The intendment of the law is to afford the citizenry with an effective

administration of the law.

To prevent the proliferation of worthless checks in the mainstream of

occasioned by the indiscriminate issuance and circulation of such checks, Batas

to prevent, by criminalizing mala prohibita, the mere introduction or issuance of

the detriment of public welfare, dilution of reputable commercial practices and

B.P. 22 are those against public order.

In any of these cases, the issuer of the check commits a violation of

payment of debt. However, in upholding the constitutionality of B.P. 22, the

presentation for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the

making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Because of its

bouncing check by those who issued it will be enhanced.

law. Whether or not B.P. 22 is successful in its declared objective remains an

convenient to file criminal cases in court as a means of collecting from drawers of

Furthermore, due to the criminal nature of the charges against drawers of

imposed. Such a pronouncement effectively declawed B.P. 22 as a deterrent for

issuance of bouncing checks, regardless of the clarifications made by the

Supreme Court in its subsequent issuances6.

1.2 Scope and Limitations of the Study

dockets, thereby affecting the speed of the Judiciary’s frontline efforts in

appellate remedies in said other cases upwards the hierarchy of courts.

case disposition and ultimately, for the formulation of an alternative civil

summary procedure which will effectively cater to the ever-growing number of

cases for bouncing checks in our jurisdiction.

This study will establish that the importance of REASSESSING THE

EFFICACY OF B.P. 22 as criminal prosecution in our jurisdiction entails more

imposition of civil sanctions is theorized to be instrumental in decreasing the

a lower quantum of proof and the simple conduct of collection proceedings.