1) The short answer: it doesn’t “automatically become” one—but it always has a civil collection side

A B.P. Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) case is criminal in nature, but it almost always involves civil liability because the bounced check usually represents an unpaid obligation.

In Philippine practice, the “civil collection case” can appear in three main ways:

Civil liability impliedly included inside the B.P. 22 criminal case (most common)
A separate civil action to collect money (e.g., collection of sum of money / small claims), filed instead of or separately from B.P. 22
Collection by enforcing the civil award after judgment in the B.P. 22 case (execution/garnishment/levy)

So the better question is: When does the dispute shift from criminal prosecution toward pure collection? That shift happens when the creditor chooses, or when the B.P. 22 track becomes unavailable/undesirable, and the creditor pursues civil remedies as the main path.

2) Understanding the two liabilities created by a bouncing check

A. Criminal liability (B.P. 22)

B.P. 22 punishes the act of issuing a worthless check, primarily to protect public interest and the integrity of checks in commerce.

Core idea: the State prosecutes; the complainant is a witness/complaining party.

B. Civil liability (money owed)

The bounced check usually means the underlying debt is unpaid. This comes from:

the contract/transaction (loan, sale, services, lease, etc.), and/or
the check as a written instrument evidencing the obligation.

Core idea: the creditor wants payment; this can be pursued within the criminal case or in a separate civil case, depending on procedural choices.

3) The key procedural rule: civil action is usually “impliedly instituted” with the criminal case

Under Philippine criminal procedure (Rule 111), when a criminal action is filed, the civil action arising from the offense is generally deemed included unless the offended party:

waives the civil action, or
reserves the right to file it separately, or
has already filed a civil action before the criminal case.

Practical effect: A B.P. 22 case often already functions like a collection case because the court can order the accused to pay civil indemnity/actual damages (typically the amount of the check/obligation, plus possible interest and costs depending on proof).

4) “When does it become a civil collection case?” — the common scenarios

Scenario 1: The creditor files only a civil case from the start (pure collection)

A creditor may skip B.P. 22 entirely and file a civil case for collection of sum of money. This is most commonly done through:

Small Claims (if within the small claims threshold and otherwise eligible)
Ordinary civil action for collection if not eligible for small claims

When this happens:

The creditor wants speed and simplicity (especially small claims).
The creditor expects the debtor may pay once sued civilly.
The creditor wants to avoid criminal litigation burdens (hearings, prosecutor process, proof of notice of dishonor, etc.).

In this scenario, the matter is a civil collection case immediately.

Scenario 2: The creditor files B.P. 22, but actively pursues the civil award within the criminal case

Here, it “becomes” collection-like because the complainant focuses on:

proving the transaction and damages, and
securing a judgment that includes payment of the amount due

What this looks like in real life:

The accused seeks settlement to avoid conviction.
The case becomes negotiation-heavy (“pay and we’ll execute an affidavit of desistance”), even if legally the criminal case is not purely private.

Legally important note: Even if the complainant is paid and desists, the case is still a public offense; dismissal is not automatic as a matter of doctrine. In practice, however, payment and desistance can strongly influence how the complaint proceeds.

Scenario 3: The B.P. 22 complaint fails (or is dismissed), and the creditor shifts to civil collection

This is one of the clearest moments the dispute “becomes” a civil collection matter.

Common reasons B.P. 22 becomes difficult:

No valid notice of dishonor (or notice cannot be proven)
Technical issues on filing/venue/jurisdiction
The prosecutor finds no probable cause
Prescription issues for the criminal action
Evidence problems (who issued the check, delivery, authority, etc.)

If the criminal track collapses, the creditor can still sue based on:

the underlying contract, and/or
the dishonored check as evidence of debt

Bottom line: failure of B.P. 22 does not erase the debt.

Scenario 4: The criminal case proceeds, but what remains after judgment is purely “collection” (execution)

After conviction (or even after certain acquittals where civil liability remains), the court may order the accused to pay.

If the accused doesn’t pay voluntarily, the creditor’s next steps are standard civil enforcement tools, such as:

writ of execution
garnishment of bank accounts/salaries (subject to rules)
levy on property
sheriff enforcement

At this point, the case is no longer “about proving B.P. 22”; it is effectively about collecting on a judgment.

5) The hinge point in most B.P. 22 cases: notice of dishonor and the “5 banking days” window

A defining feature of B.P. 22 (and a frequent reason it fails) is the requirement of notice of dishonor.

Why it matters

B.P. 22 creates a legal presumption of knowledge of insufficient funds when:

the check is dishonored, and
the drawer fails to pay/arrange payment within five (5) banking days from receiving notice of dishonor.

Practical impact on “becoming civil”

If notice of dishonor is weak or unprovable, creditors often pivot to civil collection because civil cases:

don’t rely on the same B.P. 22 presumptions, and
are less vulnerable to technical defenses unique to B.P. 22.

6) Choosing between B.P. 22 and civil collection: what each route is “for”

B.P. 22 route tends to be used when:

the creditor wants strong leverage (risk of conviction)
the debtor is unresponsive to demand letters
the creditor has clean proof of dishonor + notice + nonpayment

Civil collection route tends to be used when:

the creditor wants speed (often small claims)
the creditor prefers a less technical evidentiary fight
notice of dishonor is doubtful
the creditor wants to focus on the debt, not criminal elements

7) Can you file both?

Yes, but the sequencing and reservations matter.

Typical patterns

Criminal first (B.P. 22) with civil impliedly included (most common)
Civil first, then later B.P. 22 (possible, but you must be careful about how the civil action affects implied institution/reservation)
Both pursued, if properly reserved/waived/handled under procedural rules

Practical caution: parallel proceedings can create procedural issues (including questions of implied institution, reservation, and potential suspensions depending on how the cases are framed).

8) What exactly is being “collected” in the civil aspect?

Civil liability in these disputes can include:

the principal amount (value of the check or proven unpaid obligation)
interest (if stipulated or legally due, subject to proof and rules)
costs of suit
sometimes damages (if specifically alleged and proven)

In small claims, recoverable items are more constrained and process-driven; the emphasis is on efficient recovery of a sum certain.

9) A timeline view: where the “civil collection” shift commonly happens

Check issued for an obligation
Check dishonored by the bank
Demand/notice of dishonor served
No payment within 5 banking days → B.P. 22 exposure strengthens
Creditor chooses:
- File B.P. 22 (civil impliedly included unless reserved/waived), or
- File civil collection (small claims/collection case), or
- Try settlement
During B.P. 22:
- payment/settlement negotiations often dominate
- if criminal weakens (notice issues, probable cause issues), creditor pivots to civil
After judgment:
- execution/enforcement becomes the collection phase

10) Common misconceptions

“If the debtor pays, the B.P. 22 case is automatically dismissed.”

Not automatically as a matter of doctrine because it’s a public offense. Payment is hugely relevant in practice, but it is not the same thing as automatic dismissal.

“If there is no B.P. 22 case, there is no way to collect.”

False. Civil collection stands on the underlying obligation and the evidence of debt.

“A bounced check is the same as payment.”

In Philippine law, a check is generally not legal tender and is not equivalent to payment until actually encashed/cleared (unless the parties clearly agree otherwise). A dishonored check typically means the obligation remains unpaid.

11) Practical takeaways (Philippine context)

A B.P. 22 case is criminal, but it almost always carries a civil collection component.
It “becomes” a civil collection matter when:
- the creditor chooses civil filing (often small claims), or
- the B.P. 22 track fails/gets dismissed, prompting a civil pivot, or
- the case reaches execution, where enforcement is purely collection.
The big technical pressure point in B.P. 22 is proof of notice of dishonor and the resulting 5 banking days nonpayment window. Weak notice often pushes parties toward civil collection.

12) Suggested next step if you’re dealing with a real case

If you describe (1) what the check was for (loan/sale/rent), (2) where it was issued/delivered, (3) how notice of dishonor was served (and proof), and (4) the current status (no case yet / prosecutor stage / already in court), I can map the most likely path: B.P. 22 leverage vs small claims vs ordinary collection, and the procedural “gotchas” to avoid.

This article is general legal information in the Philippine setting and is not a substitute for advice from a lawyer who can review documents and facts.