18/09/2026
๐บ๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐
๐จ๐๐๐๐๐:
(a) ๐ก๐ผ, Dina's argument that the service was void because Rex never first tried to serve the notice personally is not tenable.
๐๐ก๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ฉ๐ซ๐๐ฆ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ๐ญ ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐ก๐๐ฅ๐ that service of the notice of dishonor by electronic means may be resorted to as a primary mode if the email of the issuer of the check had been made available to the payee in official communications. In that case, no prior attempt at personal service is required, and the narration of frustrated attempts and the 24-hour rule do not apply. What is required is that the email address be known, reasonably verified, and attributable to and actively used by the drawer, as shown by the drawer's use of the same address to send instructions or confirmations or by its appearance in contract documents, and that the person effecting service execute an affidavit under oath with supporting documentation. (Carlos v. People, G.R. No. 277047, April 15, 2026)
๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ, Dina supplied the email address in her Credit Application and actively used it to transmit purchase orders and payment confirmations on the same transaction. Rex's service therefore fell under the primary mode, and his affidavit with the transmittal email and delivery receipt completed the requirements. His failure to first attempt personal service is immaterial.
๐ง๐ต๐๐, Dina's argument is not tenable.
(b) ๐ก๐ผ, Dina's argument that a single attempt at personal service is insufficient to justify substituted service is not tenable.
๐๐ฎ๐ซ๐ข๐ฌ๐ฉ๐ซ๐ฎ๐๐๐ง๐๐ ๐ฉ๐ซ๐จ๐ฏ๐ข๐๐๐ฌ that electronic service as substituted service is allowed upon a clear showing that personal service is not practicable, including, but not limited to, instances where the drawer deliberately evades service, refuses receipt, unreasonably delays acknowledgment, or causes the notice to be received by an unauthorized person. No fixed number of attempts is prescribed. The message must attach the notice and briefly state the dates and details of the prior attempts and the resort to electronic service; the transmission must be made within 24 hours from the final attempt; and an affidavit under oath with supporting documentation must be executed. (Carlos v. People, G.R. No. 277047, April 15, 2026)
๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ, Dina's instruction to her helper to misrepresent her absence and her refusal to receive the notice are precisely the instances of impracticability contemplated by the guidelines, and a single documented refusal suffices. Rex's Viber message attached the notice, narrated the failed attempt, and declared the resort to electronic service; it was sent at 2:00 p.m. of April 10, 2026, within 24 hours from the attempt of April 9, 2026; and the affidavit with the exported chat history and read receipt was executed.
๐ง๐ต๐๐, Dina's argument is not tenable.
