5/2/2017 G.R. No.

152895

TodayisTuesday,May02,2017

Custom Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila

ENBANC

G.R.No.152895June15,2004

OFELIAV.ARCETA,petitioner,
vs.
TheHonorableMA.CELESTINAC.MANGROBANG,PresidingJudge,Branch54,MetropolitanTrialCourtof
Navotas,MetroManila,respondent.

xx

G.R.No.153151June15,2004

GLORIAS.DY,Petitioner,
vs.
TheHonorableEDWINB.RAMIZO,PresidingJudge,Branch53,MetropolitanTrialCourtofCaloocanCity,
respondent.

RESOLUTION

QUISUMBING,J.:

For resolution are two consolidated1 petitions under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, for certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus,withprayersforatemporaryrestrainingorder.BothassailtheconstitutionalityoftheBouncingChecks
Law,alsoknownasBatasPambansaBilang22.

InG.R.No.152895,petitionerOfeliaV.ArcetapraysthatweordertheMetropolitanTrialCourt(MeTC)ofNavotas,
MetroManila,Branch54,toceaseanddesistfromhearingCriminalCaseNo.1599CRforviolationofB.P.Blg.22,
andthendismissthecaseagainsther.InG.R.No.153151,petitionerGloriaS.DyalsopraysthatthisCourtorder
theMeTCofCaloocanCitytoceaseanddesistfromproceedingwithCriminalCaseNo.212183,andsubsequently
dismissthecaseagainsther.Infine,however,wefindthatwhatbothpetitionersseekisthattheCourtshouldrevisit
andabandonthedoctrinelaiddowninLozanov.Martinez,2whichupheldthevalidityoftheBouncingChecksLaw.

Thefactsofthesecasesarenotindispute.

1.G.R.No.152895

TheCityProsecutorofNavotas,MetroManilachargedOfeliaV.ArcetawithviolatingB.P.Blg.22inanInformation,
whichwasdocketedasCriminalCaseNo.1599CR.TheaccusatoryportionofsaidInformationreads:

Thatonoraboutthe16thdayofSeptember1998,inNavotas,MetroManila,andwithinthejurisdictionofthis
HonorableCourt,theabovenamedaccused,didthenandtherewilfully,unlawfullyandfeloniouslymakeor
drawandissuetoOSCARR.CASTRO,toapplyonaccountorforvaluethecheckdescribedbelow:

CheckNo.: 00082270
DrawnAgainst: TheRegionBank
IntheAmountof: P740,000.00
Date: December21,1998

Payableto: Cash

saidaccusedwellknowingthatatthetimeofissueOfeliaV.Arcetadidnothavesufficientfundsorcreditwith
thedraweebankforthepayment,whichcheckwhenpresentedforpaymentwithinninety(90)daysfromthe
date thereof was subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for reason "DRAWN AGAINST
INSUFFICIENTFUNDS,"anddespitereceiptofnoticeofsuchdishonor,theaccusedfailedtopaysaidpayee
withthefaceamountofsaidcheckortomakearrangementforfullpaymentthereofwithinfive(5)banking
daysafterreceivingnotice.

CONTRARYTOLAW.3
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jun2004/gr_152895_2004.html 1/4
5/2/2017 G.R. No. 152895
ArcetadidnotmovetohavethechargeagainstherdismissedortheInformationquashedonthegroundthatB.P.
Blg.22wasunconstitutional.ShereasonedoutthatwiththeLozanodoctrinestillinplace,suchamovewouldbean
exerciseinfutilityforitwashighlyunlikelythatthetrialcourtwouldgranthermotionandthusgoagainstprevailing
jurisprudence.

OnOctober21,2002,4Arcetawasarraignedandpleaded"notguilty"tothecharge.However,shemanifestedthat
her arraignment should be without prejudice to the present petition or to any other actions she would take to
suspendproceedingsinthetrialcourt.

Arcetathenfiledtheinstantpetition.

2.G.R.No.153151

TheOfficeoftheCityProsecutorofCaloocanfiledachargesheetagainstGloriaS.DyforviolationoftheBouncing
Checks Law, docketed by the MeTC of Caloocan City as Criminal Case No. 212183. Dy allegedly committed the
offenseinthiswise:

That on or about the month of January 2000 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously make and issue Check No. 0000329230 drawn against PRUDENTIAL BANK in the amount of
P2,500,000.00datedJanuary19,2000toapplyforvalueinfavorofANITACHUAwellknowingatthetimeof
issuethatshehasnosufficientfundsinorcreditwiththedraweebankforthepaymentofsuchcheckinfull
uponitspresentmentwhichcheckwassubsequentlydishonoredforthereason"ACCOUNTCLOSED"and
with intent to defraud failed and still fails to pay the said complainant the amount of P2,500,000.00despite
receiptofnoticefromthedraweebankthatsaidcheckhasbeendishonoredandhadnotbeenpaid.

ContrarytoLaw.5

Like Arceta, Dy made no move to dismiss the charges against her on the ground that B.P. Blg. 22 was
unconstitutional.Dylikewisebelievedthatanymoveonherparttoquashtheindictmentortodismissthecharges
onsaidgroundwouldfailinviewoftheLozanoruling.Instead,shefiledapetitionwiththisCourtinvokingitspower
ofjudicialreviewtohavethesaidlawvoidedforConstitutionalinfirmity.

BothArcetaandDyraisethefollowingidenticalissuesforourresolution:

[a]Doessection1reallypenalizetheactofissuingachecksubsequentlydishonoredbythebankforlackof
funds?

[b]Whatistheeffectifthedishonoredcheckisnotpaidpursuanttosection2ofBP22?

[c]Whatistheeffectifitissopaid?

[d]Doessection2makeBP22adebtcollectinglawunderthreatofimprisonment?

[e]DoesBP22violatetheconstitutionalproscriptionagainstimprisonmentfornonpaymentofdebt?

[f]IsBP22avalidexerciseofthepolicepowerofthestate?6

After minute scrutiny of petitioners submissions, we find that the basic issue being raised in these special civil
actions for certiorari, prohibition, and mandamus concern the unconstitutionality or invalidity of B.P. Blg. 22.
Otherwise put, the petitions constitute an oblique attack on the constitutionality of the Bouncing Checks Law, a
matteralreadypasseduponbytheCourtthroughJustice(laterChiefJustice)PedroYapalmosttwodecadesago.
Petitionersadd,however,amongthepertinentissuesonebasedontheobservablebutworrisometransformationof
certainmetropolitantrialcourtsintoseemingcollectionagenciesofcreditorswhosecomplaintsnowclogthecourt
dockets.

Butlet us return to basics.Whentheissueofunconstitutionalityofalegislativeact is raised, it is the established

doctrinethattheCourtmayexerciseitspowerofjudicialreviewonlyifthefollowingrequisitesarepresent:(1)an
actualandappropriatecaseandcontroversyexists(2)apersonalandsubstantialinterestofthepartyraisingthe
constitutional question (3) the exercise of judicial review is pleaded at the earliest opportunity and (4) the
constitutional question raised is the very lismota of the case.7Only when these requisites are satisfied may the
CourtassumejurisdictionoveraquestionofunconstitutionalityorinvalidityofanactofCongress.Withdueregard
to counsels spirited advocacy in both cases, we are unable to agree that the abovecited requisites have been
adequatelymet.

PerusalofthesepetitionsrevealsthattheyareprimarilyanchoredonRule65,Section18ofthe1997RulesofCivil
Procedure.Inaspecialcivilactionofcertioraritheonlyquestionthatmayberaisediswhetherornottherespondent
hasactedwithoutorinexcessofjurisdictionorwithgraveabuseofdiscretion.9Yetnowhereinthesepetitionsis
thereanyallegationthattherespondentjudgesactedwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamountingtolackorexcessof
jurisdiction.Aspecialcivilactionforcertiorariwillprosperonlyifagraveabuseofdiscretionismanifested.10

Noteworthy,theinstantpetitionsareconspicuouslydevoidofanyattachmentsorannexesintheformofacopyof
an order, decision, or resolution issued by the respondent judges so as to place them understandably within the

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jun2004/gr_152895_2004.html 2/4
5/2/2017 G.R. No. 152895
ambitofRule65.WhatareappendedtothepetitionsareonlycopiesoftheInformationsintherespectivecases,
nothingelse.Evidently,thesepetitionsforawritofcertiorari,prohibitionandmandamusdonotqualifyastheactual
and appropriate cases contemplated by the rules as the first requisite for the exercise of this Courts power of
judicialreview.Forasthepetitionsclearlyshowontheirfacespetitionershavenotcometouswithsufficientcause
ofaction.

Instead,itappearstousthathereinpetitionershaveplacedthecartbeforethehorse,figurativelyspeaking.Simply
put,theyhaveignoredthehierarchyofcourtsoutlinedinRule65,Section411ofthe1997RulesofCivilProcedure.
Seeking judicial review at the earliest opportunity does not mean immediately elevating the matter to this Court.
Earliest opportunity means that the question of unconstitutionality of the act in question should have been
immediately raised in the proceedings in the court below. Thus, the petitioners should have moved to quash the
separate indictments or moved to dismiss the cases in the proceedings in the trial courts on the ground of
unconstitutionality of B.P. Blg. 22. But the records show that petitioners failed to initiate such moves in the
proceedings below. Needless to emphasize, this Court could not entertain questions on the invalidity of a statute
wherethatissuewasnotspecificallyraised,insistedupon,andadequatelyargued.12Takingintoaccounttheearly
stageofthetrialproceedingsbelow,theinstantpetitionsarepatentlypremature.

Nordowefindtheconstitutionalquestionhereinraisedtobetheverylismotapresentedinthecontroversybelow.
Everylawhasinitsfavorthepresumptionofconstitutionality,andtojustifyitsnullification,theremustbeaclearand
unequivocal breach of the Constitution, and not one that is doubtful, speculative or argumentative.13 We have
examinedthecontentionsofthepetitionerscarefullybuttheystillhavetopersuadeusthatB.P.Blg.22byitselfor
initsimplementationtransgressedaprovisionoftheConstitution.EventhethesisofpetitionerDythatthepresent
economicandfinancialcrisisshouldbeabasistodeclaretheBouncingChecksLawconstitutionallyinfirmdeserves
but scant consideration. As we stressed in Lozano, it is precisely during trying times that there exists a most
compelling reason to strengthen faith and confidence in the financial system and any practice tending to destroy
confidence in checks as currency substitutes should be deterred, to prevent havoc in the trading and financial
communities. Further, while indeed the metropolitan trial courts may be burdened immensely by bouncing checks
casesnow,thatfactisimmaterialtotheallegedinvalidityofthelawbeingassailed.Thesolutiontothecloggingof
docketsinlowercourtslieselsewhere.

WHEREFORE,theinstantpetitionsareDISMISSEDforutterlackofmerit.

SOORDERED.

Davide,Jr.,Puno,Vitug,Panganiban,YnaresSantiago,SandovalGutierrez,Carpio,AustriaMartinez,Corona,
CarpioMorales,Callejo,Sr.,Azcuna,andTinga,JJ.,concur.

Footnotes

1PerResolutionoftheCourtEnBancdated15October2002.

2No.L63419,18December1986,146SCRA323.

3Rollo,G.R.No.152895,p.61.

4Id.at76.

5Rollo,G.R.No.153151,p.58.

6Rollo,G.R.No.152895,pp.89Rollo,G.R.No.153151,p.8.

7PhilippineConstitutionAssociationv.Enriquez,G.R.No.113105,19August1994,235SCRA506,518519
citingLuzFarmsv.SecretaryoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReform,G.R.No.86889,4December1990,192
SCRA51,58Dumlaov.COMELEC,No.L52245,22January1980,95SCRA392,400Peoplev.Vera,No.
45685,16November1937,65Phil.56,8689.
8SECTION1.Petitionforcertiorari.Whenanytribunal,boardorofficerexercisingjudicialorquasijudicial
functionshasactedwithoutorinexcessofitsorhisjurisdiction,orwithgraveabuseofdiscretionamounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
ordinarycourseoflaw,apersonaggrievedtherebymayfileaverifiedpetitioninthepropercourt,allegingthe
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the proceedings of such
tribunal,boardorofficer,andgrantingsuchincidentalreliefsaslawandjusticemayrequire.

Thepetitionshallbeaccompaniedbyacertifiedtruecopyofthejudgment,orderorresolutionsubject
thereof,copiesofallpleadingsanddocumentsrelevantandpertinentthereto,andasworncertification
ofnonforumshoppingasprovidedinthethirdparagraphofSection3,Rule46.
9IIFeriaandNoche,CivilProcedureAnnotated456(2001Ed.).

10Jalandoniv.Drilon,G.R.Nos.11523940,2March2000,327SCRA107,121.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jun2004/gr_152895_2004.html 3/4
5/2/2017 G.R. No. 152895
11 SEC. 4. When and where petition filed. The petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from
notice of the judgment, order or resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration or new trial is timely filed,
whethersuchmotionisrequiredornot,thesixty(60)dayperiodshallbecountedfromnoticeofthedenialof
saidmotion.

ThepetitionshallbefiledintheSupremeCourtor,ifitrelatestotheactsoromissionsofalowercourt
orofacorporation,board,officerorperson,intheRegionalTrialCourtexercisingjurisdictionoverthe
territorialareaasdefinedbytheSupremeCourt.ItmayalsobefiledintheCourtofAppealswhetheror
notthesameisinaidofitsappellatejurisdiction,orintheSandiganbayanifitisinaidofitsappellate
jurisdiction.Ifitinvolvestheactsoromissionsofaquasijudicialagency,unlessotherwiseprovidedby
lawortheserules,thepetitionshallbefiledinandcognizableonlybytheCourtofAppeals.

Noextensionoftimetofilethepetitionshallbegrantedexceptforcompellingreasonandinnocase
exceeding15days.
12Reyesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.118233,10December1999,378Phil.232,240citingCityofBaguio,
ReforestationAdministrationv.Hon.Marcos,G.R.No.L26100,28February1969,136Phil.569,579.
13Lacsonv.TheExecutiveSecretary,G.R.No.128096,20January1999,361Phil.251,263.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/jun2004/gr_152895_2004.html 4/4