Practice question
A drawer previously supplied an actively used email address in official communications concerning the transaction. The payee sends the notice of dishonor to that verified address, preserves transmission evidence, and executes the service affidavit required by Carlos. The drawer argues that electronic service is categorically invalid because no paper was personally signed. What is correct?
- Only a handwritten receipt can ever establish service.
- Carlos recognizes electronic primary service under the stated safeguards; absence of a paper signature does not categorically invalidate it.
- Any email to any guessed address is equally valid.
- Electronic service automatically proves every other BP 22 element.
- The payee may omit the notice itself if a bank text exists.
Legal references
- BP 22, Sections 1–3, elements, knowledge and notice: https://lawphil.net/statutes/bataspam/bp1979/bp_22_1979.html
- Administrative Circular No. 13-2001, February 14, 2001, clarifying AC 12-2000 fine preference: https://lawphil.net/courts/supreme/ac/ac_13_2001.html
- Carlos v People and Tire Star, G.R. No. 277047, April 15, 2026, en banc MAIN decision, notice of dishonor service guidelines: https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/70562
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.