G.R. No. 138869 ; August 21, 2001
DAVID SO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner David So was the accused in two criminal cases for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati. The cases were based on two checks he issued to Faustino Puzon in January 1983, which were dishonored for reason “Account Closed.” At the time of issuance, Ministry of Justice (MOJ) Circular No. 4 (dated December 15, 1981) was in effect, stating that a check issued to guarantee or secure payment of an obligation was not a violation of BP 22. This circular was later reversed by MOJ Circular No. 12 (dated August 8, 1984), which prospectively removed the guarantee defense for checks issued after that date. The RTC convicted So in 1987. His conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in 1990 and the Supreme Court denied his petition (G.R. No. 108209) in a minute resolution dated February 10, 1993, with entry of judgment on June 21, 1993. After the judgment became final, the RTC issued a warrant for his arrest. In 1998, So filed an “Urgent Motion for Declaration of Nullity of Judgment” with the RTC, invoking the doctrine in Co vs. Court of Appeals, which held that the ruling in Que vs. People (that BP 22 applies even to guarantee checks) should not be applied retroactively to prejudice those who relied on MOJ Circular No. 4. The RTC denied his motion, finding the checks were issued in exchange for cash, not as a guarantee. The CA dismissed his subsequent petition for certiorari, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

Whether the ruling in Co vs. Court of Appeals, which bars the retroactive application of the Que vs. People doctrine on guarantee checks, applies to petitioner David So’s case.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The Court held that the Co vs. Court of Appeals ruling does not apply because the trial court found, and the appellate courts affirmed, that the checks in question were issued in exchange for cash, not as a guarantee for an obligation. Since MOJ Circular Nos. 4 and 12, and the doctrines in Co and Que, specifically pertain to guarantee checks, they are inapplicable to the facts of So’s case. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the issues raised by So regarding the nature of the checks and the applicability of the MOJ circulars had already been conclusively passed upon and resolved with finality in G.R. No. 108209. The minute resolution denying that petition constituted a disposition on the merits and resulted in res judicata, barring re-litigation. The Court emphasized the doctrine of finality of judgment. Additionally, the RTC correctly denied the Motion for Nullity of Judgment for lack of jurisdiction, as original actions for annulment of RTC judgments fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, and the grounds of extrinsic fraud or lack of jurisdiction were not present.