Adrian Santos VS. David Solomon.

The complainant Adrian Santos is businessman in Roxas

City, Capiz. The complainant and the respondent agreed to a
contract of sale for gravel and sand on February 2, 2019. The
complainant due to his trust and confidence with the
respondent delivered the gravel and sand on February 5, 2019.
For consideration and for security of payment of the said
delivery the respondent issued two (2) checks of Bank of The
Philippines (BPI) amounting each to Fifty Thousand Pesos
(Php.50,000.00). With the account number 00556-3-00064-5,
each check has a check number 0000005024 and 0000005025
respectively, both checks were issued by the respondent on the
same date of the delivery and both checks are dated February
11, 2019.
February 11, 2019 came and the checks became due. The
complainant went to bank in order to claim the value of the
checks on February 12, 2019. To the disappointment of the
complainant, the bank told him that the checks has no funds
and the accounts of the checks has already been closed by the
owner February 3, 2019.
Upon knowing of the fact that the checks issued by the
respondent has no value. The complainant on February 12,
2019 wrote a letter of notice to the residence of David Solomon
which was in Poblacion Panitan, Capiz. The said letter of notice
was sent through the post office with return card. On February
14, 2019, the letter of notice of the complainant returned with
the return card and note that the receiver, the respondent can
no longer be found in the said address. The complainant
determined to collect the payments of his goods which he has
delivered to the respondent, continued to send the letter of
notice and demand to the address of the respondent twice. The
second letter was sent on February 15, 2019 and the last one
was on February 19, 2019.
After the futile attempt of the complainant to notify the
respondent of the bounced checks he issued. The complainant
decided to avail himself of the Barangay procedures as remedy
to his demise. On February 20, 2019 the complainant went to
the Barangay Hall Poblacion Panitan. There he filed a formal
complaint to the Barangay Chairman. During the filing of
complaint, the Barangay Chairman asked evidences from the
complainant. And the complainant showed the issued checks
and the letter of notice to the Barangay Chairman. On February
22, 2019 the date when the Lupon taga pamayapa scheduled
the complainant and the respondent to face each other, the
respondent came and presented himself in the lupon. During
the meeting the respondent alleged that he was not hiding and
he is willing to settle the accounts due to the complainant.
There the complainant asked him to sign the notice of dishonor
in the presence of the Barangay Officials, which the respondent
willingly signed. After the meeting, the respondent and the
complainant agreed to settle the amount the next week
February 26, 2019.
February 26, 2019 came and the complainant waited in the
Barangay Hall of Poblacion Panitan, Capiz. Evening came slow
that day for the complainant for the respondent did show up
and the Barangay Officials can no longer locate the respondent
in his house. Complainant believing in the rule of law, waited
for another two days in the same Barangay Hall with hopes that
further legal actions are no longer needed for him to collect his
hard earned money. The patience of the complainant and the
need to provide for his family came. And the complainant asked
the Barangay Chairman to issue a Certificate to File action,
which the good Chairman issued the same in view of the
situation.
March 1, 2019 the complainant came in our law office to
ask advice to his legal predicament. Where Atty. Roberto
Cordenilo advised him to file a case under BP. 22 or the anti-
bouncing check law. That the case of the complainant has a
cause of action.
(1) the making, drawing, and issuance of any check to
apply for account or for value;
(2) the knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that
at the time of issue he does not have sufficient funds in
or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of the
check in full upon its presentment;
(3) the subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficient funds or credit or dishonor
for the same reason had not the drawer, without any
valid cause ordered the bank to stop payment.
Due to the reasons above mentioned. Atty. Cordenillo
sent a letter to Head Provincial Prosecutor on March
14, 2019 asking leave to privately prosecute the case.
The leave was granted on March 20, 2019 by the good
prosecutor.

The case was filed in the Hall of justice of Roxas City,

Capiz and docketed as criminal case no.
244466666888888899999999 in Branch 18 Judicial
District One of Capiz. Summon was served on March
25, 2019. And the Pre-Trial is scheduled on June 10,
2019

.
Notes:

1. Alternative Dispute Resolution is a failure due to

the fact that the respondent is not present in the
venue.
2. Judicial dispute resolution is a failure, because the
respondent did not agree to settle the accounts.