Practice question
The drawee bank texts the drawer that a check was dishonored. The payee argues that this bank alert automatically replaces the required service of notice of dishonor. Under Carlos, which is correct?
- Every bank alert conclusively replaces formal notice.
- The bank alert may corroborate service, with proper authentication, but does not dispense with the required proper service.
- No electronic material can ever be relevant.
- The bank alert erases the five-banking-day rule.
- The drawer's telephone model decides liability.
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.