Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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.
Not with standing receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee shall
state in the notice that there were no sufficient funds in or credit with
such bank for the payment in full of such check, if such be the fact.
Law:
Sec. 14. Blanks; when may be filled. - Where the instrument is wanting
in any material particular, the person in possession thereof has a prima
facie authority to complete it by filling up the blanks therein. And a
signature on a blank paper delivered by the person making the
signature in order that the paper may be converted into a negotiable
instrument operates as a prima facie authority to fill it up as such for
any amount. In order, however, that any such instrument when
completed may be enforced against any person who became a party
thereto prior to its completion, it must be filled up strictly in
accordance with the authority given and within a reasonable time. But
if any such instrument, after completion, is negotiated to a holder in
due course, it is valid and effectual for all purposes in his hands, and
he may enforce it as if it had been filled up strictly in accordance with
the authority given and within a reasonable time.
Jurisprudence:
In Llamado vs. CA, G.R. No. 99032, March 26, 1997, the Supreme Court
ruled that, “True, it is common practice in commercial transactions to
require debtors to issue checks on which creditors must rely as guarantee
of payment, or as evidence of indebtedness, if not a mode of payment.
But to 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.”
At any rate, we have pronounced that the clear intention of the framers
of B.P. 22 is to make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum
prohibitum. The agreement surrounding the issuance of the checks need
not be first looked into since the law itself provides that regardless of the
intent of the parties, the mere issuance of any kind of check which is
subsequently dishonored makes the person who issued the check liable.
(Claro Narte vs. CA, GR No. 132552, July 14, 2004)