G.R. No.

188767 (July 24, 2013)

SPOUSES ARGOVAN AND FLORIDA GADITANO

vs.
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION

FACTS
Petitioners were engaged in the business of buying and selling beer and soft drink products, purchased products from
herein respondent, San Miguel Corporation(SMC). The petitioners paid through a check which later when presented for
payment by SMC, dishonored. Despite three (3) written demands from the respondent, the petitioners failed to fund or
make good of the check which led to the case at bar. In addition to this, petitioners contended that their account was
funded by an automatic transfer arrangement under Asia Trust Bank. They also added that sometime in 1999, one Fatima
Padua borrowed money from them to which the former subsequently paid through a check which was later cleared to their
account. Sometime after Fatima borrowed money from petitioners however, the bank manager of Asia Trust Bank advised
the petitioner that the check drawn by Fatima was not really cleared due to a material alteration in the name of the payee.
The said check drawn by Fatima was allegedly drawn payable to LG Collins Electronics and not to her, to which led the said
bank to garnish the balance in question from the joint savings account of petitioners without any court order. From
everything that has transpired, the check, as aforementioned was dishonored when presented for payment by herein
respondent.

ISSUE/S
1) WON petitioner is liable under B.P 22

HELD
1) BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22/NOTICE OF DISHONOR. YES, under B.P 22, the elements of the crime are (1) the
making, drawing, and issuance of any check to apply on 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 payment. On the case at bar it can clearly be seen that the first and third requisites
are present. Looking at element number two, it involves a state of mind which is difficult to establish. Sec. 2 of B.P.
22 however states a presumption of knowledge with regards to insufficiency of funds. The said section states that
when a notice of dishonor is given and nothing has been done to make good of the insufficient balance, the
presumption arises. In this case, 3 notices were given to the petitioners but to no avail which then brought out the
presumption; completing the second requisites. Hence, the first, second, and third requisites are present in the case
respectively.