In a ruling concerning Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22), also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, the Supreme Court clarified the extent to which corporate officers can be held personally liable for issuing checks on behalf of a corporation. The Court affirmed the conviction of Socorro F. Ongkingco for violating B.P. 22, holding her personally liable for the face value of dishonored checks she issued as a corporate officer. However, it acquitted Marie Paz B. Ongkingco due to the prosecution’s failure to prove she received a notice of dishonor, highlighting the critical importance of this notice in establishing liability under B.P. 22. This decision underscores the circumstances under which the corporate veil can be pierced, leading to personal liability for corporate obligations.

When a Bouncing Check Leads to Personal Liability: Unpacking Corporate Obligations Under B.P. 22

This case arose from a contractual agreement between Kazuhiro Sugiyama and New Rhia Car Services, Inc., where Socorro F. Ongkingco served as President and Chairperson, and Marie Paz B. Ongkingco as a Board Director. Sugiyama invested P2,200,000.00 in New Rhia Car Services, Inc., expecting a monthly dividend of P90,675.00 for five years. To cover these dividends and a subsequent loan, the Ongkingcos issued several checks, some of which were dishonored due to insufficient funds. This led to Sugiyama filing charges against both Ongkingcos for four counts of violating B.P. 22. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) found both Socorro and Marie Paz guilty, a decision affirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and initially by the Court of Appeals (CA).”

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on whether the prosecution successfully proved all the elements of a B.P. 22 violation for each petitioner. Essential to this determination was the notice of dishonor, a critical component for establishing knowledge of insufficient funds. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove that the issuer of the check received a notice of dishonor and, within five banking days of receiving such notice, failed to cover the amount of the check. This requirement is crucial because it affords the issuer an opportunity to rectify the situation and avoid criminal prosecution.

In Socorro’s case, the Court found sufficient evidence that she received the notice of dishonor. The testimony of Marilou La Serna, a legal staff member, indicated that Socorro’s secretary received the demand letter on Socorro’s behalf and with her permission. The court noted that Socorro did not present her secretary to refute this testimony, nor did she adequately deny the receipt of the notice. This failure to rebut the evidence presented by the prosecution led the Court to conclude that Socorro had knowledge of the insufficient funds, fulfilling the second element of a B.P. 22 violation.

However, the situation differed for Marie Paz. The prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence that she personally received a notice of dishonor. Without this crucial piece of evidence, the Court could not presume her knowledge of the insufficient funds. As a result, the Supreme Court acquitted Marie Paz B. Ongkingco of all charges under B.P. 22, highlighting the importance of establishing each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court also addressed the argument that the Informations filed before the MeTC were defective because they lacked the explicit approval of the city prosecutor. The Court noted that this issue was raised for the first time on appeal, which constituted an undue delay. Moreover, the Court determined that the records of the preliminary investigation showed that the 1st Assistant City Prosecutor had, in fact, approved the filing of the charges, signing on behalf of the City Prosecutor.

Building on this, the Court addressed the question of personal liability for corporate officers issuing checks on behalf of a corporation. As a general rule, a corporate officer can be held personally liable if they violate a penal statute, such as B.P. 22. However, such liability is contingent upon a conviction for the offense. In this case, because Socorro was convicted, she was held civilly liable for the amounts covered by the dishonored checks. Marie Paz, having been acquitted, was discharged from any civil liability arising from the issuance of the checks.

In the context of corporate obligations, the Court considered whether Socorro could be held personally liable for the debts of New Rhia Car Services, Inc. Generally, the corporate veil protects shareholders and officers from being personally liable for corporate debts. However, this protection is not absolute. The Court emphasized that it is not impervious to the distinctiveness of the corporation however held the stockholders and officers are not generally personally liable for the obligations of the corporation except only when the veil of corporate fiction is being used as a cloak or cover for fraud or illegality, or to work injustice.

The Court found that Socorro had bound herself personally liable through various agreements with Sugiyama, including the Contract Agreement, the Addendum to Contract Agreement, and the Memorandum of Agreement. These agreements showed that Socorro personally guaranteed Sugiyama’s monthly director’s dividends and a loan, issuing the dishonored checks as part of these guarantees. Therefore, the Court concluded that it would be unjust to allow Socorro to hide behind the corporate veil to evade her personal obligations.

Additionally, the Court raised concerns about whether Socorro’s actions were within the powers granted to her as a corporate officer. The power to declare dividends lies with the board of directors and can only be exercised from the corporation’s unrestricted retained earnings. The Court suggested that Socorro may have committed an ultra vires act by fixing Sugiyama’s dividends five years in advance, as this could potentially exceed the corporation’s available retained earnings.

The Supreme Court modified the CA’s decision, affirming Socorro’s conviction and ordering her to pay Sugiyama the face value of the dishonored checks, along with legal interest. The interest rates were set at 12% per annum from the filing of the complaint until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision. From the finality of the decision until full payment, the legal interest rate remains at 6% per annum. The Court acquitted Marie Paz of the charges, finding a lack of evidence that she had received a notice of dishonor, which is critical for establishing liability under B.P. 22. The decision clarifies the circumstances under which corporate officers can be held personally liable for issuing checks that bounce, particularly when they have bound themselves personally to corporate obligations or acted outside their authorized powers.

FAQs

What is Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (B.P. 22)?	B.P. 22, also known as the Bouncing Checks Law, is a Philippine law that penalizes the making or issuance of a check without sufficient funds or credit with the drawee bank. It aims to discourage the issuance of worthless checks.
What are the key elements required to prove a violation of B.P. 22?	The essential elements are: (1) making, drawing, and issuing a check; (2) knowledge of insufficient funds at the time of issuance; and (3) subsequent dishonor of the check by the bank for insufficiency of funds.
What is the significance of the ‘notice of dishonor’ in a B.P. 22 case?	The notice of dishonor is critical because it establishes the issuer’s knowledge of the check’s dishonor due to insufficient funds. Without proof of receipt of this notice, the presumption of knowledge does not arise, making it difficult to secure a conviction.
Can a corporate officer be held personally liable for violating B.P. 22?	Yes, a corporate officer who signs a check on behalf of a corporation can be held personally liable for violating B.P. 22, but generally only upon conviction of the offense.
Under what circumstances can a corporate officer be held civilly liable for a B.P. 22 violation?	A corporate officer can be held civilly liable if convicted of violating B.P. 22 and if they have bound themselves personally to the corporate obligations or acted outside their authorized powers.
What does it mean to ‘pierce the corporate veil’?	Piercing the corporate veil is a legal concept where a court disregards the separate legal personality of a corporation to hold its officers or shareholders personally liable for its debts or actions. It is typically done when the corporate form is used to perpetrate fraud or injustice.
What is an ‘ultra vires’ act in corporate law?	An ‘ultra vires’ act refers to actions taken by a corporation or its officers that exceed the powers granted to them by the corporation’s charter or by law. Such acts are considered beyond the corporation’s legal capacity.
What interest rates apply to monetary awards in B.P. 22 cases?	As of this decision, the interest rates are 12% per annum from the filing of the complaint until June 30, 2013, and 6% per annum from July 1, 2013, until the finality of the decision. Post-judgment, the legal interest rate remains at 6% per annum until fully paid.

In conclusion, this case serves as a reminder of the potential personal liability faced by corporate officers under B.P. 22. It underscores the significance of adhering to the law, providing proper notice, and ensuring that corporate actions are within the scope of granted authority. The ruling further emphasizes the circumstances under which the corporate veil may be pierced, particularly when personal guarantees or unauthorized actions are involved.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SOCORRO F. ONGKINGCO AND MARIE PAZ B. ONGKINGCO, VS. KAZUHIRO SUGIYAMA AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 217787, September 18, 2019