Scribd
Upload
112 views1 page

Retroactive Application of B.P. Blg. 22

The petitioner delivered a postdated check to a salvaging firm in 1983 to guarantee an obligation. When the check bounced in 1984, he was criminally charged. He argued the delivery of a "rubber" check was not an offense at the time based on a Justice department circular. The Supreme Court held that while its decisions form part of the law, they generally do not apply retroactively under the Civil Code if it prejudices the accused based on prior reliance on the law. The Court's 1987 decision that a check guaranteeing performance of an obligation is covered by the bad check law would not be applied retroactively to the petitioner in this case.

Uploaded by

Royce Hernandez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
112 views1 page

Retroactive Application of B.P. Blg. 22

The petitioner delivered a postdated check to a salvaging firm in 1983 to guarantee an obligation. When the check bounced in 1984, he was criminally charged. He argued the delivery of a "rubber" check was not an offense at the time based on a Justice department circular. The Supreme Court held that while its decisions form part of the law, they generally do not apply retroactively under the Civil Code if it prejudices the accused based on prior reliance on the law. The Court's 1987 decision that a check guaranteeing performance of an obligation is covered by the bad check law would not be applied retroactively to the petitioner in this case.

Uploaded by

Royce Hernandez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

G.R. No.

100776, October 28, 1993


Chief Justice Narvasa

FACTS: Petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on September 1, 1983 a check drawn
against the Associated Citizens' Bank, postdated November 30, 1983 in the sum of P361,528.00.
1 The check was deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two days later, the tersely-
stated reason given by the bank being: "CLOSED ACCOUNT." A criminal complaint for violation
of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 2 was filed by the salvage company against Albino Co with the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. The case eventuated in Co's conviction of the crime charged.

He argued on appeal that at the time of the issuance of the check on September 1, 1983, some
four (4) years prior to the promulgation of the judgment in Que v. People on September 21, 1987,
the delivery of a "rubber" or "bouncing" check as guarantee for an obligation was not considered
a punishable offense, an official pronouncement made in a Circular of the Ministry of Justice.

ISSUE: whether the decision issued by the Court be applied retroactively to the prejudice of
the accused.

HELD: No. Pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code "judicial decisions applying or interpreting the
laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines."

But while our decisions form part of the law of the land, they are also subject to Article 4 of the
Civil Code which provides that "laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is
provided."

This is expressed in the familiar legal maxim lex prospicit, non respicit, the law looks forward not
backward. The rationale against retroactivity is easy to perceive. The retroactive application of
a law usually divests rights that have already become vested or impairs the obligations of
contract and hence, is unconstitutional

The weight of authority is decidedly in favor of the proposition that the Court's decision of
September 21, 1987 in Que v. People, 154 SCRA 160 (1987) 14 that a check issued merely to
guarantee the performance of an obligation is nevertheless covered by B.P. Blg. 22 — should not
be given retrospective effect to the prejudice of the petitioner and other persons situated, who
relied on the official opinion of the Minister of Justice that such a check did not fall within the
scope of B.P. Blg. 22.

You might also like