ㅈ ✨

JD and Atty. by 2026. Making it happen with God’s grace. #AweSAMbar2026

[ㅈ ✨ @jkt_2026]

I guess it’s my turn to become a lawyer next year. ✨

#AweSAMbar2026

[ㅈ ✨ @jkt_2026]

Gusto ko na isalonpas buong katawan ko pls

[ㅈ ✨ @jkt_2026]

Her kit so prettyyyyyyy

[Inday @indaylustayy]

This Alex Eala shot is everything.

📸: @kostekcanu

[US Open Tennis @usopen]

Alexandra Eala and Iva Jovic brought the entertainment factor 🆙 on Thursday night!

[Owen @kostekcanu]

The Alex and Iva show ⭐️

[Philippine Supreme Court Public Information Office @SCPh_PIO]

The #SupremeCourtPH (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://t.co/KTSsCXlYGt.

Read the full text of the Decision at https://t.co/ieadvO69YM.

Read the Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Leonen at https://t.co/S62XHKoh2g.

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://t.co/F48RF1vtzZ.

[ㅈ ✨ @jkt_2026]

Yasss muchova 🥳

[US Open Tennis @usopen]

It's a championship for the 🇨🇿 duo! 🏆

[🦊🪩! @yoncegauff]

So gorgeous wow 🥹

[wta @WTA]

A night full of legendary tennis! ✨

#USOpen

[ㅈ ✨ @jkt_2026]

Ang daming forecast kung saan saan haahuhu. Bahala na kayo diyan 😩

[goddess @deucegoddess]

adias tore with this kit 🔥 #jessicapegula

[ㅈ ✨ @jkt_2026]

@snoopyyyCPA Canvaaa 😁

[ㅈ ✨ @jkt_2026]

mind maps to make tax not taxing lol

[Tennis Cutie| Alex👑 @ACavemanReturns]

Alex Eala and Felix Auger-Aliassime has just entered the Louis Armstrong Stadium

[marvièn @mvn_dn]

Hey sis lol

[ealamuse @pilipinasmuse]

On this day from a yr ago. Alex eala Became the first filipino ever to win a grandslam match !!! 🎥 via @usopen

[ㅈ ✨ @jkt_2026]

Sandali bakit ang oa ng notifs ko dito haha

[ㅈ ✨ @jkt_2026]

@AttorneyMomster @invennoveritas Yas. I used long bond paper :)

[ㅈ ✨ @jkt_2026]

Sana lumabas Robiegie jaja

[• @WordsCocoon]

pls september!