Ibasco vs.

CA
GR 117488,
5 September 1996
Third Division, Davide Jr. (J)
Facts:
The Ibasco spouses requested credit accommodation fro the supply of ingredients in the manufacture of
animal feeds from the Trivinio spouses. Ibasco issued 3 checks for 3 deliveries of darak. The checks
bounced and the Ibasco spouses were notified of the dishonor. Ibasco instead offered a property in Daet.
The property, being across the sea, the Trivinio spouses did not inspect the property. For the failure of the
Ibasco spouses to settle their account, the Trivinio spouses filed criminal cases against the former for
violation of BP22.
Issue:
Whether the checks were for accommodation or guarantee to acquire the benefits of the interpretation of
Ministry Circular 4 of the Department of Justice in relation to BP 22.
Held:
Ministry Circular 4, issued 1 December 1981 by the Department of Justice, provides that where a check is
issued as part of an arrangement to guarantee or secure the payment of the obligation, pre-existing or
not, the drawer is not criminally liable for either estafa or violation of BP 22. Incidents however indicate
that the checks were issued as payment and for value, and not for accommodation (i.e. pertaining to an
arrangement made a favor to another, not upon a consideration received). as the checks failed to bear
any statement for accommodation and for guarantee to show Ibascos intent. ( It must be noted,
however, that BP22 does not distinguish and applies even in cases where dishonored checks were issued
as a guarantee or for deposit only. The erroneous interpretation of Ministry Circular 4 was rectified by the
repealing Ministry Circular 12, issued on 8 August 1984).

Negotiable Instruments Law

Case Digest
Glorio Ortega Dumandan, Jr.