Aton Law

29/08/2026

The (SC) has clarified the rules on serving notices of dishonor in cases involving Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22) or the 𝘈𝘯𝘵𝘪-𝘉𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘊𝘩𝘦𝘤𝘬 𝘓𝘢𝘸. The SC formally recognized electronic service as a valid mode of serving notice of dishonor, while requiring safeguards to ensure that service can be reliably proven in court.

In a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 affirmed the conviction of spouses Arnel and Marivic Carlos for six counts of violating BP 22.

The spouses issued six checks to respondent Tire Star, Inc. as payment for car tires. All six checks were dishonored by the bank as the account they were drawn from had been closed.

The prosecution presented evidence that Tire Star’s messenger personally attempted to serve the notice of dishonor at the spouses’ office, and that the spouses refused to receive it, instructed an employee instead to sign for it.

The spouses then claimed before the SC that they should be acquitted because they were not properly served with a notice of dishonor.

The SC rejected the spouses’ argument, emphasizing that an accused cannot defeat a BP 22 prosecution simply by denying receipt of the notice or refusing to accept it. Otherwise, issuers could easily evade liability by avoiding service.

To promote uniformity and reduce disputes, the SC clarified the acceptable modes of serving notices of dishonor.

𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲 remains the preferred mode. The notice may be delivered directly to the issuer or, in the case of a business, to an authorized representative. If the issuer cannot be served at the office, the notice may be left at the issuer’s residence with an adult resident between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M.

The person serving the notice must execute an affidavit stating when, where, and how service was made. When practicable, service should be documented through photographs or video recordings, subject to proper authentication in court.

If personal service is not practicable, the notice of dishonor may be sent by 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹, or where registry service is unavailable, by 𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗹. The person serving the notice must likewise execute an affidavit explaining why personal service could not be made and attach the supporting postal documents.

The SC also recognized 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗰 𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲, ruling that a notice of dishonor may now be served through email as a primary mode of service when the issuer previously provided their email address. Electronic service may likewise be used through platforms such as 𝘝𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳, 𝘍𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘣𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘔𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳, or similar applications, provided it can be verified that the electronic account belongs to the issuer.

Electronic service may also be used when the issuer refuses to receive the notice, avoids service, or when personal service is otherwise impracticable. In such cases, the electronic notice must be sent within 24 hours after the final unsuccessful attempt at personal service and must state the dates and details of those failed attempts.

The sender must also execute an affidavit and preserve supporting evidence, such as screenshots, messages, delivery or read receipts, or chat histories., stressing that a simple denial of receipt is not enough to invalidate electronic service.

In all instances, to successfully dispute service, the issuer must show that it was physically impossible to have received the notice at the time and place it was served.

The spouses were fined a total of PHP 609,972.58 for the six BP 22 violations, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of nonpayment. They were also ordered to pay Tire Star the same amount, plus interest.

In his Concurring Opinion, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen agreed that electronic service should not merely be a substitute but a primary mode of service consistent with contemporary means of communication and the Judiciary’s ongoing digital reforms.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=172159.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171528.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171527.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.

24/08/2026

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a bank cannot require a depositor to return money they already withdrew on the ground of unjust enrichment when the loss was caused by the bank’s own gross negligence.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC’s Third Division denied the petition filed by BDO Unibank, Inc. (BDO), holding that the bank’s disregard of its own banking policy amounted to gross negligence.

The case stemmed from Cristina Barcellano’s (Barcellano) deposit of a regional check worth PHP 151,200 from an Albay branch of Landbank into her savings account at BDO’s Lucena City branch.

The BDO teller mistakenly validated the check as local instead of regional, allowing the amount to be credited after only three banking days instead of the required seven.

Believing the funds were available, Barcellano withdrew PHP 76,000. Shortly after, BDO received a stop payment order on the check and demanded that she return the money. Although Barcellano initially agreed, she never repaid the amount. BDO later refused to release the remaining balance and filed a criminal complaint for estafa.

Both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals acquitted Barcellano, finding no fraud, deceit, or abuse of confidence on her part and blamed BDO’s own negligence.

Before the SC, BDO asked for a review of the civil aspect of the case, arguing that despite Barcellano's acquittal, she should still be required to return the money. BDO argued that her refusal amounted to unjust enrichment and that since the funds were released due to its error in processing the check, Barcellano was required to return them based on the principle of 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘣𝘪𝘵𝘪, which requires the repayment of money received by mistake.

The SC disagreed, ruling that there was no unjust enrichment because BDO failed to prove that Barcellano knowingly received and retained a benefit to which she was not entitled.

SC declared that the bank did not explain why the stop payment order was issued or show that Barcellano knew the check would not be honored. Instead, the evidence showed that she withdrew the money in good faith after BDO itself made the funds available in her account.

The SC also ruled that BDO’s own gross negligence caused its loss. It found that the bank credited the check before it had properly cleared it, incorrectly treated a regional check as a local check, and failed to detect the error until after receiving the stop payment order. These lapses showed a failure to observe basic safeguards meant to protect the bank from the risks of invalid checks.

The SC also rejected BDO’s reliance on solutio indebiti. Although the doctrine generally requires the return of money received by mistake, it does not apply when the mistake resulted from the payor’s own gross negligence. Here, BDO’s error stemmed from its failure to exercise the extraordinary diligence and reasonable prudence required of banks.

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=171657

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/261264-bdo-unibank-inc-vs-cristina-barcellano-y-riego/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution

22/08/2026

𝐈𝐁𝐏 𝐂𝐑𝐄𝐃𝐈𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐎𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐕𝐄 | 𝐁𝐔𝐈𝐋𝐓 𝐁𝐘 𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐘𝐄𝐑𝐒, 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐘𝐄𝐑𝐒

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) officially launches the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Credit Cooperative, a member-centered initiative established to support the financial well-being, professional goals, and long-term welfare of members of the legal profession.

Introduced during the 2026 IBP Southern Luzon Regional Convention on August 20, 2026, the IBP Credit Cooperative forms part of the continuing initiatives of the 27th IBP Board of Governors, under the leadership of IBP National President and Chairman of the 27th Board of Governors Atty. Allan G. Panolong, to strengthen programs that directly benefit members of the Bar.

The cooperative was introduced by Atty. Josemar Albano, IBP National Officer, who presented its vision as a financial community owned and governed by lawyers and designed around the needs of lawyers.

Through the cooperative, members may look forward to financial solutions and opportunities founded on the principles of integrity, transparency, accountability, mutual support, and sustainable growth.

Registered with the Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) in accordance with Republic Act No. 9520, or the Philippine Cooperative Code of 2008, the IBP Credit Cooperative represents another step toward building a stronger and more responsive professional community.

Members of the Bar who wish to become part of the IBP Credit Cooperative may access the Membership Form through the QR code provided or through the link below:

https://forms.gle/jiQKQr8RndVgBmvw9

Our Cooperative. Our Community. Our Growth. Our Future.
Join. Save. Grow. Thrive.

20/08/2026

𝙃𝙊𝙇𝙄𝘿𝘼𝙔 𝘼𝘿𝙑𝙄𝙎𝙊𝙍𝙔 📢📢📢

In celebration of Ninoy Aquino Day and National Heroes Day, our law office will remain open and ready to assist you with any legal concerns.

Our office is located at Basak, Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu near Mactan Doctors Hospital (in front of 7/11 and Biano's Pizza)

Regular office hours:
Monday-Saturday: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Sunday: By appointment

Feel free to drop by or contact us at 09761275412 or [email protected].

See less

07/08/2026

Thank you so much our dear clients.❤️

02/07/2026

The (SC) has ruled that a husband and wife’s mutual desire to end their marriage, by itself, is not enough to prove collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. A lack of objection is not the same as collusion.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the SC’s Third Division ruled that there was no collusion between the spouses in a petition to declare their marriage void. “Collusion” means that the spouses secretly agreed to fake or misrepresent facts in order to nullify their marriage.

The SC voided the marriage due to the husband’s psychological incapacity.

The wife filed the petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) alleging that her husband was unable to fulfill his marital duties because of continued physical, psychological, and economic abuse, which she said began even before their marriage.

When the husband did not file his answer to the petition, the RTC directed the Provincial Prosecutor to investigate possible collusion between the spouses. The Associate Provincial Prosecutor reported that there was no collusion.

During trial, the wife presented several witnesses while the husband presented none. He also did not oppose the petition.

Despite this, the RTC dismissed the case, ruling that the evidence did not sufficiently prove psychological incapacity.

The RTC pointed out that the husband’s father admitted discussing his testimony with his son, and that the husband was willing to have the marriage dissolved.

Explaining that collusion is a secret agreement to defraud or obtain something illegal, the SC noted that although the RTC observed suspicious circumstances, these did not clearly prove that the spouses conspired to fake grounds to nullify their marriage.

The SC emphasized that a mutual desire to end the marriage does not automatically mean collusion. A spouse’s agreement or lack of objection is not the same as a secret scheme to mislead the court.

Without proof that the spouses faked evidence or suppressed valid defenses, collusion cannot be established.

It added that the husband’s failure to file an answer or present evidence does not, by itself, prove collusion.

Read the full text of the Press Release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=168319.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=165664.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attributionon-policy.

02/07/2026

02/07/2026

𝗔𝗻𝗼 𝗮𝗻𝗴 𝗹𝗮𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗖𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻? 🤔

Kung kumuha ka o nagbabalak kumuha ng Voter’s Certification, ito ang anim (6) na mahahalagang impormasyong opisyal na nakatala sa iyong record:

📄 Precinct Number (o Polling Place kung saan ka boboto).

📄 Buong Pangalan – para sa opisyal mong pagkakakilanlan bilang botante.

📄 Kasalukuyang Tirahan – ang address na rehistrado sa COMELEC.

📄 Petsa ng Kapanganakan – patunay ng iyong edad at legal na kwalipikasyon.

📄 Katayuan – ang kumpirmasyon kung ikaw ay isang "Active Voter."

💡 Paalala: Ang dokumentong ito ay maaari ding gamitin bilang valid ID sa iba't ibang transaksyon!

24/06/2026

𝗣𝗮𝗮𝗹𝗮𝗹𝗮 𝘀𝗮 𝗺𝗴𝗮 𝗸𝘂𝗸𝘂𝗵𝗮 𝗻𝗴 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗿’𝘀 𝗖𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻!

“Pwede ba akong kumuha sa pinakamalapit na COMELEC office kahit sa ibang bayan o lungsod ako rehistrado?”

Ang sagot ay HINDI PO. ❌

Ang LOCAL Voter’s Certification ay maaari lamang makuha sa mismong Office of the Election Officer (OEO) ng lugar kung saan ka rehistradong botante.

💡 Tip: Bago bumiyahe at pumila, siguraduhing tama ang COMELEC office na pupuntahan mo para hindi masayang ang oras!

20/06/2026