Personal Liability for Corporate Checks: The Importance of Knowledge in B.P. 22 Cases

G.R. No. 119178, June 20, 1997

Imagine a scenario: you’re a junior officer at a company, and part of your job involves signing checks. You sign them in blank, trusting that others will fill in the details and ensure sufficient funds. Then, you find yourself facing criminal charges because those checks bounced. This is the unsettling reality explored in Lina Lim Lao v. Court of Appeals, a Philippine Supreme Court case that clarifies the boundaries of liability under Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law.

This case delves into the crucial question of whether an employee can be held criminally liable for issuing unfunded checks when they lack actual knowledge of the insufficiency of funds. It underscores the principle that, even in strict liability offenses, knowledge remains a key factor in determining culpability. Understanding this distinction is vital for anyone involved in corporate finance or check issuance.

The Legal Landscape of B.P. 22: Knowledge and Notice are Key

B.P. 22 aims to deter the issuance of worthless checks, fostering confidence in the Philippine financial system. However, it’s not a blanket law that punishes anyone remotely connected to a bounced check. The law specifically targets those who knowingly issue checks without sufficient funds.

The core provisions of B.P. 22 state:

“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…shall be punished…”

“SECTION 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. — The making, drawing and issuance of a check payment of which is refused by the drawee because of insufficient funds…shall be prima facie evidence of knowledge of such insufficiency of funds…”

Section 2 establishes a prima facie presumption of knowledge, meaning that the act of issuing a bounced check creates an initial assumption that the issuer knew about the lack of funds. However, this presumption is rebuttable. The accused can present evidence to prove they lacked such knowledge.

Previous cases, like People vs. Laggui, have outlined the elements of the offense, emphasizing the requirement of knowledge. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was aware of the insufficiency of funds at the time of issuance. If the accused can demonstrate a lack of such awareness, they cannot be held liable under B.P. 22.

The Case of Lina Lim Lao: A Story of Corporate Procedure and Unjust Accusation

Lina Lim Lao was a junior officer at Premiere Investment House, working in its Binondo branch. Her duties included co-signing checks, a seemingly innocuous task that would soon turn her life upside down. Due to her frequent absences from the office for fieldwork, it was standard practice for her to sign checks in blank, leaving the payee’s name, amount, and date to be filled in later by her superior, Teodulo Asprec.

These checks were issued to Father Artelijo Palijo, a provincial treasurer of the Society of the Divine Word, as payment for investments he made with Premiere. When the checks were presented for encashment, they were dishonored due to insufficient funds. Father Palijo filed a complaint against both Lao and Asprec for violation of B.P. 22.

The case followed this procedural path:

• A complaint was filed against Lao and Asprec.
• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Lao in two counts but acquitted her in one.
• Lao appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s decision.
• Lao then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

At trial, Lao argued she lacked knowledge of the insufficiency of funds and did not receive personal notice of the dishonor. The prosecution argued that as a signatory, she was presumed to know the state of the company’s account. The Court of Appeals sided with the prosecution, stating that lack of knowledge was not a valid defense.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court emphasized the importance of proving knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt, stating:

“Although the offense charged is a malum prohibitum, the prosecution is not thereby excused from its responsibility of proving beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense, one of which is knowledge of the insufficiency of funds.”

The Court also highlighted the lack of personal notice to Lao, noting that the notice of dishonor was sent to the corporation’s main office, not to her directly. “Because no notice of dishonor was actually sent to and received by the petitioner, the prima facie presumption that she knew about the insufficiency of funds cannot apply,” the Court stated.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and acquitted Lina Lim Lao.

Practical Implications: Protecting Yourself from Corporate Liability

This case provides crucial lessons for individuals in positions of corporate responsibility, particularly those involved in signing checks or other financial instruments. It underscores the importance of understanding the scope of one’s duties and the need for clear communication within an organization.

The ruling in Lina Lim Lao highlights the following:

• Knowledge is Key: Even in strict liability offenses like B.P. 22, the prosecution must prove the accused had knowledge of the illegal act.
• Rebuttable Presumption: The prima facie presumption of knowledge can be challenged with evidence.
• Personal Notice: For the presumption of knowledge to apply, the accused must receive personal notice of the check’s dishonor.

Key Lessons:

• Clearly define roles and responsibilities within your organization, especially regarding financial matters.
• Implement procedures to ensure signatories are informed about the availability of funds before issuing checks.
• Ensure that notices of dishonor are promptly and personally delivered to all relevant parties.
• If you are signing checks, know your company’s financial position.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is B.P. 22?

A: B.P. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, is a Philippine law that penalizes the issuance of checks without sufficient funds.

Q: What are the elements of a B.P. 22 violation?

A: The elements are: (1) making, drawing, and issuing a check; (2) knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issue; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check.

Q: What does “prima facie evidence” mean?

A: It means that certain facts, if proven, create an initial presumption that another fact is true. However, this presumption can be rebutted with evidence to the contrary.

Q: What if I sign a check as part of my job but don’t know if there are sufficient funds?

A: You may not be held liable under B.P. 22 if you can prove you lacked knowledge of the insufficiency of funds and that it was not part of your responsibility to monitor the account balance.

Q: What should I do if I receive a notice of dishonor for a check I signed?

A: Immediately contact the payee and the bank to understand the reason for the dishonor. Take steps to cover the amount due within five banking days to avoid criminal prosecution.

Q: Is it enough for the corporation to receive the notice of dishonor?

A: No. The person who signed the check must receive personal notice of dishonor for the presumption of knowledge to apply.

ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and corporate compliance. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.