Wong v.
CA
J. Quisumbing
FACTS:
- Petitioner Wong was an agent of Limtong Press. Inc. (LPI). LPI would print sample calendars,
then give them to agents to present to customers. The agents would get the purchase orders of
customers and forward them to LPI.
- After printing the calendars, LPI would ship the calendars directly to the customers. Thereafter,
the agents would come around to collect the payments.
- Wong, however, had a history of unremitted collections, which he duly acknowledged in a
confirmation receipt he co-signed with his wife.
- Hence, Wong’s customers were required to issue post-dated checks before LPI would accept
their purchase orders.
- Wong issued six (6) post-dated checks initially intended to guarantee the calendar orders of
customers who failed to issue post-dated checks.
- However, following company policy, LPI refused to accept the checks as guarantees. Instead, the
parties agreed to apply the checks to the payment of petitioner’s unremitted.
- Before the maturity of the checks, Wong prevailed upon LPI not to deposit the checks and
promised to replace them within 30 days.
- However, Wong reneged on his promise. LPI deposited the checks with Rizal Commercial
Banking Corporation (RCBC) which were returned because the account was closed.
- Despite receipt of the notice of dishonor, Wong failed to make arrangements for payment
within five (5) banking days so he was charged with violation of BP 22.
ISSUES:
(1) WON a LPI may successfully prosecute a case under BP Blg. 22, even when before he deposits
the checks, he has ceased to be holder for value because the purchase orders guaranteed by the
checks were already paid. (YES)
(2) WON prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the offense
penalized under BP Blg. 22.
(3) What constitutes REASONABLE TIME for checks?
RULING:
(1) YES, LPI may successfully prosecute a case under BP Blg. 22, even when before he deposits the
checks, he has ceased to be holder for value because the purchase orders guaranteed by the
checks were already paid since the mere act of issuing a worthless check is malum prohibitum.
o Wong’s arguments:
Checks were issued as guarantees for the POs of his customers
LPI is not a holder for value considering that the checks were deposited by LIP
after the customers already paid their orders.
LPI, instead of depositing the check, should have returned the checks to him.
Although initially intended to be used as guarantee for the purchase orders of customers, both TC and
CA found the checks were eventually used to settle the remaining obligations of petitioner with LPI.
In Llamado v. Court of Appeals, we held that "[t]o determine the reason for which checks are issued, or
the terms and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public reposes in the stability
and commercial value of checks as currency substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking
communities. So what the law punishes is the issuance of a bouncing check and not the purpose for
which it was issued nor the terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing a
worthless check is malum prohibitum."
(2) YES, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the
offense penalized under BP Blg. 22.
There are two (2) ways of violating B.P. Blg. 22:
(1) by making or drawing and issuing a check to apply on account or for value knowing at the time
of issue that the check is not sufficiently funded; and
(2) by having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank at the time of issue but failing to
keep sufficient funds therein or credit with said bank to cover the full amount of the check when
presented to the drawee bank within a period of ninety (90) days.
Under the first situation, which is the one applicable in this case, the ff are the elements:
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 such 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.
Under the second element, the presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency arises if: (1) the check is
presented within 90 days from the date of issue of the check and (2) the dishonor of the check and
failure of the maker to make arrangements for payment in full within 5 banking days after notice
thereof.
In this case, the presumption (1) is lost by failure of LPI to present it within 90 days. But this does not
mean that the second element was not attendant with respect to Wong. The presumption is lost but
lack of knowledge can still be proven considering that LPI did not deposit the checks because of the
reassurance of Wong that he would issue new checks. Upon his failure to do so, LPI was constrained to
deposit the said checks. After the checks were dishonored, Wong was duly notified of such fact but
failed to make arrangements for full payment within five (5) banking days thereof. There is, on record,
sufficient evidence that Wong had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit with the
drawee bank at the time of issuance of the checks.
(3) Reasonable time = 6 months/ 180 days
Contrary to petitioner’s assertions, the law does not require a maker to maintain funds in his bank
account for only 90 days.
Under Section 186 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, "a check must be presented for payment within a
reasonable time after its issue or the drawer will be discharged from liability thereon to the extent of
the loss caused by the delay." By current banking practice, a check becomes stale after more than six (6)
months, or 180 days. Private respondent herein deposited the checks 157 days after the date of the
check. Hence said checks cannot be considered stale.
