Demand letters—especially those that arrive without any supporting documents, evidence, or verifiable basis—have become one of the most common forms of legal intimidation in the Philippines. These letters typically demand payment of an alleged debt, damages, or compliance with an obligation, under threat of criminal or civil suit. When the letter contains no proof whatsoever (no contract, no promissory note, no official receipt, no notarized document, no barangay record, no police report), it is almost always legally worthless and, in many cases, constitutes harassment, unjust vexation, light threats, or even attempted extortion.

This article exhaustively discusses the legal nature of such letters, why they are invalid when unsupported, the criminal and civil liabilities of the sender (including lawyers who issue them), and the complete range of remedies available to the recipient under Philippine law as of December 2025.

I. Legal Nature and Requirements of a Valid Demand Letter

A demand letter is not a judicial process. It is a private letter that has no compulsory force unless the obligation it refers to is already judicially established.
Under Article 1169 of the Civil Code, demand is required to put the debtor in delay (mora solvendi) only when the obligation does not fix a period and the law or contract does not exempt it. In monetary obligations arising from loan contracts with fixed periods, judicial or extrajudicial demand is often unnecessary (Republic v. Bagtas, G.R. No. L-17474, 1962, reiterated in countless cases).
A demand letter does not interrupt prescription unless it is a formal extrajudicial demand that unequivocally identifies the obligation and is properly served (Civil Code, Art. 1155; Tanguilig v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117190, 2001).
Therefore, a demand letter without proof of the underlying obligation is legally meaningless. It does not create an obligation that does not exist, does not revive a prescribed obligation, and does not constitute evidence in court.

II. Common Types of Invalid/Unfounded Demand Letters in the Philippines

Unpaid loan demands without promissory note or any disbursement proof
“Moral damages” demands from former romantic partners without proof of scandal or public humiliation
Collection letters from alleged financing/lending companies for loans the recipient never applied for or received
Demands from condominium/homeowners associations for assessments that were never validly approved
Demands based on alleged bouncing checks where no check was ever issued
Demands from lawyers claiming to represent a client the recipient has never transacted with
“Estafa” or “BP 22” threat letters without any underlying contract or check

All of the above are invalid when no documentary proof is attached or even referenced with particularity.

III. Criminal Liabilities of the Sender (Including Lawyers)

Unjust Vexation (Art. 287, Revised Penal Code)
The most common and most successful charge against senders of baseless demand letters. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that sending demand letters without basis, especially repeatedly, constitutes unjust vexation (People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 135682, 2003; Mijares v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133814, 2000).
Light Threats (Art. 283, RPC)
When the letter contains phrases such as “we will file criminal cases that carry imprisonment of up to 12 years” or “you will rot in jail,” it constitutes light threats even if no specific act of evil is mentioned (People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 223357, 2013).
Grave Coercion (Art. 286, RPC) or Attempted Extortion
When the sender demands money to “settle” a fabricated criminal complaint.
Libel (Art. 355, RPC) or Cyberlibel (R.A. 10175)
When the letter is sent to the recipient’s employer, relatives, or posted online, accusing the recipient of estafa, theft, or immorality without basis.
Violation of the Lawyer’s Oath and Code of Professional Responsibility
Lawyers who issue baseless demand letters on a “no-collection-no-fee” basis or contingency arrangement for criminal complaints violate Canon 19 and Rule 1.02 of the CPR. The Supreme Court has suspended or disbarred lawyers for this practice (Plus Builders v. Revilla, A.C. No. 7056, 2009; Huerta v. Atty. Cabredo, A.C. No. 11576, 2018).

IV. Step-by-Step Guide: How to Properly Handle an Invalid Demand Letter Without Proof

Step 1: Do NOT ignore it completely
While the letter has no legal effect, ignoring it may embolden the sender to file a fabricated case or send more letters. A written response is strategically important.

Step 2: Document everything
Take photos of the envelope (with postmark), scan the letter, note the date received, and preserve any text messages or emails.

Step 3: Send a reply letter (within 7–10 days) containing the following elements:

Deny the existence of any obligation
State that no contract, promissory note, or any document was ever signed or received
Demand that the sender immediately cease and desist from further communication
Require the sender to present proof of the alleged obligation within five (5) days, failing which you will consider the matter closed and will pursue legal action for harassment
Reserve your right to file criminal and civil cases for unjust vexation, light threats, damages, and attorney’s fees
Send via registered mail with return card and simultaneously via email (if address is known)

A well-drafted reply letter almost always stops the harassment because the sender realizes the recipient will fight back.

Step 4: If the sender persists or files a case anyway

File counter-charges for unjust vexation and light threats at the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor
File a separate complaint for violation of the Data Privacy Act (R.A. 10173) if personal information was illegally obtained from a lending app or database
File an administrative complaint against the lawyer with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP)

Step 5: If a criminal information is filed despite lack of evidence

File a Motion to Quash or Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause
In BP 22 or estafa cases based on fabricated loans, the absence of the promissory note or proof of consideration is fatal (Tan v. People, G.R. No. 223090, 2013; Lina v. People, G.R. No. 227098, 2018)

V. Damages You Can Claim Against the Sender

Under Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, 32, and 33 of the Civil Code, recipients have successfully obtained the following awards:

Moral damages: PHP 50,000–300,000 (depending on the gravity of harassment)
Exemplary damages: PHP 50,000–200,000
Attorney’s fees: PHP 50,000–150,000
Actual damages (if you incurred expenses for notarization, mailing, transportation to prosecutor’s office)

See Llorente v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. No. 122166, 2004), Mijares v. Court of Appeals (supra), and numerous RTC decisions awarding damages against senders of baseless demand letters.

VI. Special Cases

Demand letters from lending companies/financing companies
These are regulated by R.A. 3765 (Truth in Lending Act) and R.A. 7394 (Consumer Act). Failure to disclose finance charges or provide a copy of the contract renders the entire obligation voidable.
Online lending apps
The SEC has repeatedly declared many of them as unregistered and their collection practices illegal (SEC Memorandum Circular No. 18, s. 2019, as updated). Demand letters from unregistered lending apps are null and void ab initio.
Demand letters from condominium associations
Must be based on duly approved board resolutions and properly assessed under R.A. 9904 (Magna Carta for Homeowners).

VII. Conclusion

A demand letter without any supporting document or proof of obligation is legally impotent. It creates no liability, interrupts no prescription, and constitutes nothing more than harassment when sent without basis. Recipients who respond firmly in writing and, when necessary, file the appropriate criminal, civil, and administrative complaints almost invariably prevail and often recover substantial damages.

The Supreme Court and lower courts have consistently protected citizens from this form of legal bullying. As long as the recipient acts promptly and documents everything, an invalid demand letter is transformed from a source of anxiety into a lucrative cause of action against the sender.