Category Archives: Anti Bouncing Check

Did the pendency of the civil action in the MeTC in one court (as the civil aspect in BP 22) bar the filing of Civil Case in another court on the ground of litis pendentia?

Posted on February 18, 2012 by Erineus

Did the pendency of the civil action in the MeTC in Manila(as the civil aspect in Criminal Case No. 275381) bar the filing of Civil Case No. 915-00 in the MeTC in PasayCityon the ground of litis pendentia? For litis … Continue reading →

Posted in Anti Bouncing Check, Litis Pendentia | Tagged | Leave a comment

Applicable Law and Jurisprudence on the Propriety of filing a separate civil action based on BP 22

Posted on February 18, 2012 by Erineus

The Supreme Court has settled the issue of whether or not a violation of BP 22 can give rise to civil liability in Banal v. Judge Tadeo, Jr.,[17] holding: xxx          Article 20 of the New Civil Code provides:    … Continue reading →

Posted in Anti Bouncing Check | Tagged | Leave a comment

Definition, nature and prerequisited in the issuance of subpoena

Posted on February 15, 2012 by Erineus

As stated at the outset hereof, the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated 20 August 2002,[4] dismissed the petition and accordingly affirmed the impugned resolutions of the RTC. With his motion for reconsideration having been denied by the same … Continue reading →

Posted in Anti Bouncing Check, Subpoeana | Tagged | Leave a comment

Does the suspension of “all claims” as an incident to a corporate rehabilitation also contemplate the suspension of criminal charges filed against the corporate officers of the distressed corporation?

Posted on February 3, 2012 by Erineus

The issue to be resolved then is: does the suspension of “all claims” as an incident to a corporate rehabilitation also contemplate the suspension of criminal charges filed against the corporate officers of the distressed corporation? This Court rules in … Continue reading →

Posted in Action for Claims, Anti Bouncing Check, Corporate Rehabilitation, Insolvency Act, SSS | Tagged | Leave a comment

Without proof of notice of dishonor, knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot be presumed and no crime (whether estafa or violation of BP 22) can be deemed to exist

Posted on April 8, 2011 by Erineus

DECEIT AND DAMAGE AS ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA Under paragraph 2 (d) of Article 315 of the RPC, as amended by RA 4885,[20] the elements of estafa are: (1) a check is postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted … Continue reading →

Posted in Anti Bouncing Check, Criminal Law, Estafa | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments