Compromise Agreement Bp 22

When Romy was sued in the Municipal Court of Trial (MTCC) for violating the Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22), with bad checks issued for a total of 330,000 P3000, Romy entered into a compromise agreement with the complainant, promising to pay this sum in monthly instalments of P50,000. Under this agreement, the criminal proceedings were provisionally dismissed and the MTCC delivered its verdict. Petpet purchased jewelry from Solid Gold International Traders, Inc., a jewelry company. Because of the non-payment of the purchase price, Solid Gold filed a civil suit against it [2] for practical benefit in the Pasig Regional Court. On September 17, 1990, the petitioner and Solid Gold, through their General Manager Joaquin Novales III, reached a compromise agreement for the settlement of these civil proceedings. [3] The compromise agreement, as approved by the Tribunal, It provided that the petitioner would issue a total of 99 cheques of 19 million P50,000.00 each, each dating from the 15 and 30 of the month as of October 1, 1990, and the balance of more than 1 million P. on November 16, 1994, which is also the deadline of the 99 and last exams. to be paid in a lump sum. The Petentin issued ten cheques to the P50,000.00 for a total of P500,000.00, which were drawn against his account at the Equitable Banking Corporation (EBC), Grace Park, Caloocan City Branch. Novales then deposited each of the ten cheques to the Far East Bank and Trust Company (FEBTC) on their respective due date. However, these cheques were disgraced by EBC for the reason „closed account.“ For every cheque given to Novales, dishonor briefs were issued. [4] The petitioner`s assertion that „closed accounts“ are not included in the scope of B.P. Blg.

22 is of no value given the clear intention of the law to prevent the issuance of worthless controls because of their adverse effects on the public. In Lozano vs. Lozano. Martinez, the Court expressly held that the language of B.P. Blg. 22 was broad enough to cover all types of controls, whether dated or deferred, or issued in payment of existing bonds or in mutual or simultaneous exchange of value. [36] Moreover, as the Tribunal itself understood in the above part of its decision, Director General Novales was aware of the unavailability of sufficient resources when the applicant submitted the examinations to him. The Tribunal found that there was no violation of B.P. 22 if the drawer indicated to the complainant that he did not have sufficient resources in the bank. [54] chanrobles virtual law library x x x the accused knew at the time of emission of the checks that she did not have sufficient funds in or credit with her drawee bank for the payment of the schecks in full upon their presentment [as] admitted by her in the Counter-Affida shevit executed during the preliminary investigation of these criminals (Italics) to say Q: You still think that even if she doesn`t have enough money, she still wrote you checks? On October 5, 1992, Novales submitted ten separate pieces of information that were moored as Criminal Cases Nos.