G.R. No. 203750 . June 06, 2016
JORGE B. NAVARRA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioner Jorge B. Navarra, as Chief Finance Officer of Reynolds Philippines Corporation, and a co-accused issued seven checks amounting to P45.2 Million to respondent Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) for the payment of corporate loan obligations. Upon presentment, the checks were dishonored for insufficiency of funds. HSBC sent notices of dishonor, but the amounts remained unpaid. Consequently, Informations for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 (BP 22) were filed against Navarra. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati found him guilty on seven counts, imposing fines and ordering him to pay civil indemnity. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed this decision in toto.
Navarra then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the CA dismissed the petition outright due to Navarra’s failure to attach the required certification against forum shopping. His motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting this petition before the Supreme Court. Navarra argues that the CA erred in dismissing his appeal on a technicality and contests his conviction on the merits, claiming he should not be held personally liable for corporate obligations.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) Whether the CA committed reversible error in dismissing the petition based on a procedural technicality; and (2) Whether Navarra is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating BP 22.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming Navarra’s conviction with modification on the interest rate. On the procedural issue, the Court acknowledged that while rules on certification against forum shopping are mandatory, their strict application may be relaxed to serve substantial justice. However, in this instance, the Court found no compelling reason to excuse Navarra’s non-compliance, as the defect was not merely formal but a clear disregard of procedural rules designed to prevent forum shopping. The dismissal by the CA was therefore not a reversible error.
On the substantive issue, the Court upheld the conviction. The elements of BP 22 are: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of a check; (2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in the bank; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds. All elements were proven. The issuance of the checks by Navarra in his corporate capacity is not a defense. BP 22 imposes criminal liability on the person who actually signed the check. The law is a malum prohibitum offense; good faith or lack of criminal intent is immaterial. The mere act of issuing a dishonored check constitutes the offense. The Court emphasized that the legislative intent is to punish the issuance of bouncing checks as a public nuisance, regardless of the purpose for which it was issued. While sympathetic to Navarra’s position as a corporate officer, the Court stated it must apply the law as written. His recourse is to seek indemnification from the corporation, Reynolds Philippines Corporation, for the damages he incurred. The imposed interest on the civil liability was modified to six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of the decision until full satisfaction.