In the Philippines, borrowing money is lawful, lending money is lawful, and collecting a valid debt is lawful. What is not lawful is using intimidation, humiliation, deception, privacy abuse, public shaming, unlawful threats, fake legal process, or oppressive loan terms and collection methods to force payment. A borrower may still owe money, but a lender does not acquire the right to terrorize the borrower because of that debt.

This topic sits at the intersection of civil law, financial regulation, consumer protection, privacy law, labor concerns, administrative enforcement, and criminal law. It arises most sharply in disputes involving lending companies, financing companies, online lending apps, informal collectors acting for licensed lenders, and even unauthorized or abusive operators posing as legitimate lenders. The problem is not just collection after default. It also includes how the loan was offered, what terms were imposed, what data was gathered, what charges were hidden, and what tactics were used before and after nonpayment.

This article explains the Philippine legal framework in full: what illegal debt collection harassment is, what unfair lending practices look like, what conduct is allowed, what conduct crosses the line, what rights borrowers have, what liabilities lenders face, what agencies may be involved, what evidence matters, and how a borrower may respond effectively without ignoring a lawful debt.

This is general legal information, not legal advice for a specific case.

1. The starting point: a debt does not authorize abuse

A lender may collect a lawful debt. That is the baseline. But the lender’s rights are not unlimited.

A lender may generally:

demand payment,
send statements of account,
issue reminder notices,
negotiate payment plans,
endorse an account for lawful collection,
and file the proper civil case when payment is not made.

A lender may not generally:

threaten arrest for ordinary unpaid debt,
contact unrelated third parties to shame the borrower,
use obscene or degrading language,
pretend to be from a court, police unit, or government agency,
send fake subpoenas, fake warrants, or fake summons,
expose the borrower publicly on social media,
misuse the borrower’s personal data or contact list,
collect charges not validly disclosed or imposed,
or use fear and humiliation as a substitute for lawful process.

That distinction defines the entire subject.

2. Debt collection is legal; harassment is not

Debt collection becomes unlawful when the means used are unfair, oppressive, deceptive, malicious, or invasive of legally protected rights.

Harassment in the debt-collection setting often includes:

repeated calls or texts intended to intimidate rather than simply notify,
cursing, insults, ridicule, or degrading remarks,
threats of jail over a purely civil debt,
threats to tell family, neighbors, co-workers, schoolmates, or the employer,
threats to visit the workplace and cause embarrassment,
contact-list blasting through text, chat, or social media,
posting the borrower’s photo, ID, or debt online,
calling the borrower a thief, scammer, or criminal without legal basis,
fake legal threats designed to panic the borrower,
collection at unreasonable hours,
and misuse of app permissions or personal data to pressure payment.

The law distinguishes between firm collection and abusive collection. A lender may be persistent. It may not be lawless.

3. Illegal collection and unfair lending are related, but not identical

These two problems often overlap but are not the same.

Illegal debt collection harassment

This refers to unlawful conduct in the process of collecting a debt. The borrower may already be in default, but the collector uses improper methods.

Unfair lending practices

These refer to abusive or unlawful behavior in the design, offer, servicing, pricing, disclosure, or enforcement of the loan itself.

A lender may commit both at once. For example:

it hides fees or structures a misleading loan,
then uses threats and public shaming when the borrower questions the amount.

So a borrower’s complaint should not stop at “they are harassing me.” Sometimes the right complaint is broader: the loan itself was unfair, the computation was abusive, and the collection conduct was illegal.

4. The laws and legal principles that usually matter

Several legal regimes can apply at the same time.

A. Civil law on obligations and contracts

The debt itself is generally governed by the loan agreement and the Civil Code. This determines what principal, interest, penalties, and obligations exist, subject to law and fairness.

B. Laws and rules regulating lending and financing companies

Lending companies and financing companies in the Philippines are subject to regulatory supervision, especially through the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Those entities are not free to collect by any means they choose.

C. Financial consumer protection principles

Borrowers are not merely debtors; they may also be consumers of financial products. Unfair, deceptive, oppressive, or abusive treatment may trigger financial consumer protection concerns.

D. Data privacy law

Where the lender or app misuses personal data, contact lists, IDs, messages, photos, or personal information, the Data Privacy Act may be implicated.

E. Criminal law

Certain collection methods may be criminal depending on the facts: threats, coercion, defamation, impersonation, extortion-like behavior, privacy-related offenses, falsification, and similar acts.

F. Administrative enforcement

The appropriate regulator may impose sanctions even where no criminal conviction exists.

In practice, one abusive lending situation may create:

a civil debt issue,
an administrative complaint,
a privacy complaint,
and in some cases a criminal complaint.

5. The most important practical rule: nonpayment alone is not a crime

One of the most abused collection lines in the Philippines is: “Pay now or you will be arrested.”

In ordinary debt situations, that is often false or misleading.

As a general rule, mere nonpayment of debt is civil, not criminal. The usual remedy is a civil collection case. There is no automatic jail simply because a borrower failed to pay a private loan.

This matters because fear of arrest is one of the main tools of abusive collectors. They use legal-sounding language to turn a private debt dispute into panic.

This does not mean a criminal case is never possible. It means criminal exposure requires more than nonpayment alone. There must be an independent criminal basis, such as:

fraud from the beginning,
misappropriation,
bad checks under applicable law,
falsification,
or another distinct offense supported by facts.

Collectors frequently blur this line. The law does not.

6. Common illegal collection tactics in the Philippines

A. Threats of arrest or imprisonment

For ordinary consumer debt, this is often a pressure tactic rather than a lawful statement.

B. Public shaming

Posting a borrower’s name, photo, debt amount, or ID online, or threatening to do so.

C. Contacting unrelated third persons

Calling or messaging family, office mates, neighbors, or people in the borrower’s phone contacts to expose the debt.

D. Impersonation

Pretending to be a lawyer, court sheriff, police officer, prosecutor, barangay official, or government agent.

E. Fake legal documents

Sending “warrants,” “summons,” “subpoenas,” “final demand orders,” or “court notices” that are not genuine.

F. Verbal abuse

Use of obscene, insulting, demeaning, or humiliating language.

G. Excessive communications

Calling or texting repeatedly at unreasonable frequency or unreasonable hours.

H. Threats against employment

Threatening to report the borrower to HR, boss, clients, or workplace for the purpose of embarrassment or coercion.

I. Contact-list harvesting

Using mobile-app permissions to weaponize the borrower’s contacts.

J. Unauthorized charges

Adding “legal fees,” “visit fees,” “collection costs,” “processing fees,” or hidden charges without lawful basis.

Any of these may support a broader complaint.

7. Online lending apps and the digital harassment problem

A large portion of serious complaints in the Philippines involve online lending apps and digital-first lenders.

The common pattern is this:

the borrower downloads the app,
the app requests broad permissions,
the borrower receives a loan with heavy deductions or unclear charges,
payment difficulties arise,
the app operator or its collectors begin mass texting, public shaming, or threatening exposure.

This model creates legal risk at every stage:

questionable disclosure,
opaque computation,
invasive permission practices,
misuse of personal data,
and coercive collection tactics.

In digital lending, the abuse often lies not only in collection but in the very architecture of the transaction.

8. Why contact-list mining is such a serious issue

One of the worst collection abuses is the use of the borrower’s phone contacts as leverage.

The collector may message:

friends,
relatives,
classmates,
co-workers,
supervisors,
or random contacts,

to pressure the borrower through shame.

This is legally dangerous because it can involve:

unlawful disclosure of debt information,
privacy violations,
harassment,
defamation if false or insulting language is used,
and unfair debt collection practices.

A debt is ordinarily between lender and borrower. Turning the borrower’s contact list into a tool of humiliation is one of the clearest red flags of abusive lending.

9. “You gave consent in the app” is not a complete defense

Collectors and app operators often say the borrower consented to data access when installing the app.

That argument is limited.

Even if the borrower clicked “allow” on contacts, photos, or device access, that does not automatically legalize:

blasting all contacts with debt messages,
sending humiliating accusations,
exposing private financial status,
using data for coercive public pressure,
or processing personal data beyond lawful, fair, and proportionate purposes.

In other words, technical access is not the same as lawful use.

Consent is not a license for abuse.

10. Unfair lending often begins before default

Some lenders behave unlawfully or unfairly even before collection starts. Borrowers should look closely at the structure of the loan.

Red flags include:

unclear disclosure of interest,
heavy upfront deductions so the borrower receives far less than the nominal loan,
rollover traps,
misleading “service fees” and “processing fees,”
hidden penalties,
unclear maturity dates,
daily or weekly charges not properly explained,
impossible repayment schedules,
and confusing statements of account.

Sometimes the borrower is told, for example, that the loan is a certain amount, but what actually reaches the borrower after deductions is much lower, while repayment is based on the larger figure. This can make the real cost of borrowing far more severe than the borrower realized.

Unfair lending is not always about one illegal number. It is often about opacity, manipulation, and abuse of bargaining power.

11. Excessive interest and unconscionable charges

The Philippines no longer treats all interest rates under a single fixed ceiling in the simple way many people assume. But that does not mean lenders may impose whatever they want without limit or consequence.

Courts can still examine whether interest rates, penalties, charges, and fees are unconscionable, excessive, abusive, or contrary to law and public policy.

This is especially relevant where:

the borrower received much less than the stated principal,
penalties balloon rapidly,
hidden deductions distort the true cost of credit,
and the final amount demanded becomes grossly oppressive.

Thus, a borrower facing harassment should not only ask, “Can they speak to me this way?” but also, “Is this balance even legally defensible?”

12. Collection charges, attorney’s fees, and invented penalties

Another abusive practice is the sudden appearance of added charges when the borrower falls behind.

Common examples:

collection fees,
service fees,
home visit fees,
legal fees before any actual legal work,
“endorsement fees,”
“settlement processing charges,”
and arbitrary penalties not clearly tied to the contract.

Not every charge asserted by a collector is valid merely because it appears in a message. The borrower has the right to request a proper breakdown of:

principal,
interest,
penalties,
deductions,
prior payments,
and the contractual basis for every added amount.

A collector who cannot explain the computation is often relying on pressure rather than legality.

13. What a lender may lawfully do

To understand illegality clearly, it helps to state what lawful collection usually looks like.

A lender may generally:

send due-date reminders,
issue a statement of account,
make reasonable follow-up calls,
send a demand letter,
negotiate restructuring,
file a small claims or collection case where appropriate,
and pursue lawful judgment enforcement after court process.

These are normal tools of civil enforcement.

The lender does not need to:

threaten arrest,
expose the borrower online,
message every person in the borrower’s phone,
or send fake government notices.

The existence of lawful remedies is exactly why abusive shortcuts are so problematic.

14. What a lender may not lawfully do

A lender may not treat nonpayment as permission to suspend the borrower’s dignity or rights.

Commonly unlawful or highly questionable practices include:

threats of jail for ordinary debt,
false claims that a case has already been filed when none has,
false claims of imminent warrant or sheriff action,
public humiliation,
spreading debt details to unrelated persons,
repeated calls meant to terrorize,
use of offensive language,
fake legal forms,
abusive use of data gathered by an app,
collection through intimidation at the workplace,
and demands for unsupported charges.

The stronger the coercive element, the greater the legal risk.

15. Contacting employers, co-workers, and HR

This is one of the most damaging tactics because it threatens the borrower’s livelihood.

Collectors may say:

“We will inform your employer,”
“Your HR department will know,”
“We will visit your office,”
or “Your boss will be notified.”

This conduct is often highly problematic when its purpose is not legitimate location or verification in a narrow sense, but public pressure or embarrassment.

Disclosing a debt to an employer or co-workers may create:

privacy problems,
reputational harm,
labor-related fallout,
defamation risk if insulting or false labels are used,
and unfair debt collection liability.

A private debt does not ordinarily give a lender the right to endanger a borrower’s employment through shame tactics.

16. Defamation in debt collection

Collectors sometimes call borrowers:

thief,
scammer,
criminal,
estafador,
magnanakaw,
liar,
or fraudster.

This can be legally dangerous.

A borrower’s mere failure to pay a debt does not authorize others to publicly brand the borrower with criminal labels. If such accusations are published to third parties, especially through social media, mass texts, or workplace contact, the conduct may expose the collector to civil and possibly criminal consequences depending on the facts.

Defamation often overlaps with illegal debt collection harassment.

17. Fake legal notices and simulated court process

Many abusive collectors rely on documents that look official but are not.

Examples:

“Notice of Warrant”
“Final Court Summons”
“Office of Legal Action”
“Sheriff Notice”
“Barangay Complaint Order”
“Subpoena for Arrest”
and similar fabricated or misleading forms.

A real court notice comes through lawful process. A random chat attachment or pressure PDF sent by a collector is not automatically genuine.

Using fake legal language to scare borrowers is often one of the strongest signs of unlawful collection behavior.

18. Repeated calls and messaging pressure

Reasonable communication is one thing. Communication designed to exhaust or frighten is another.

Red flags include:

dozens of calls in a day,
many messages from multiple numbers,
messages at dawn or late night,
calls after clear requests to communicate in writing,
simultaneous threats from different agents,
and repeated warnings of public exposure.

Frequency, tone, timing, and purpose all matter. A lender’s right to follow up does not include the right to wage psychological siege.

19. Violence, intimidation, and physical collection pressure

Although much harassment is digital, some cases involve physical intimidation.

Examples:

threats of bodily harm,
repeated visits meant to frighten,
aggressive conduct at home or workplace,
intimidation of family members,
and coercive confrontation.

These move the issue well beyond ordinary collection. In such cases, immediate documentation and law-enforcement reporting may become necessary depending on the facts.

20. The borrower’s rights

A borrower in the Philippines generally has the right to:

be told the real amount claimed,
receive honest and non-deceptive collection communications,
ask for a statement of account,
object to abusive contact methods,
be free from humiliation and public shaming,
be free from threats of arrest for ordinary debt,
object to unauthorized third-party disclosure,
challenge unsupported charges and excessive demands,
preserve privacy rights,
file complaints with regulators,
and pursue legal remedies for harassment.

Borrowers should remember two things at once:

they may still need to address a valid debt,
and they do not lose their legal protection because they fell behind.

21. The lender’s rights

For balance, lenders do have lawful rights:

to expect repayment,
to enforce a valid contract,
to demand payment,
to charge lawful and properly disclosed amounts,
to negotiate or restructure,
to sue when necessary,
and to use lawful credit or collection systems.

The problem arises when the lender treats those rights as permission for private punishment.

A lender may enforce a debt. It may not run a campaign of humiliation.

22. Administrative liability of abusive lenders

Lending companies and financing companies do not answer only to courts. Regulators can impose administrative consequences.

Possible administrative consequences may include:

fines,
suspension of operations,
revocation or cancellation of authority,
cease-and-desist measures,
restrictions on collection methods,
or other compliance sanctions.

This is especially serious for app-based lenders whose business model depends on large-scale digital collection. Systemic abuse can threaten the business itself.

23. Civil liability for damages

Borrowers harmed by unlawful collection or unfair lending may also pursue civil remedies depending on the facts.

Potential claims may involve:

actual damages,
moral damages,
temperate damages where proper,
exemplary damages in aggravated cases,
attorney’s fees where justified,
and injunctive relief to stop ongoing harassment.

Civil damages become especially relevant when the borrower suffers:

humiliation,
emotional distress,
reputational injury,
workplace problems,
family disruption,
loss of opportunity,
or financial harm beyond the debt itself.

A person may owe money and still be entitled to damages for abusive collection methods.

24. Criminal exposure

Depending on the exact conduct, collectors or responsible persons may face criminal complaints. The actual charge depends on the facts, not on a generic label.

Possible areas of criminal exposure may include:

threats,
coercion-related acts,
defamation-related offenses,
impersonation,
falsification,
privacy-related offenses,
or other crimes supported by evidence.

The key point is that a debt dispute does not immunize criminal misconduct committed in the course of collection.

25. Privacy-related complaints

Where the abuse involves contact lists, debt disclosure, app permissions, data scraping, ID photos, or unauthorized messaging to third parties, privacy law may be central.

Privacy-related complaints can arise where the lender or operator:

disclosed personal financial information,
processed personal data beyond lawful purpose,
used data in a way that was excessive or unfair,
or weaponized stored information to shame the borrower.

These issues are especially common with digital lenders and online lending apps.

26. Borrowers should not assume the debt disappears

One of the biggest mistakes borrowers make is thinking that because the collection method is illegal, the debt automatically vanishes.

Usually, that is not the case.

The better legal view is that two separate questions may exist:

Does the borrower owe anything, and if so how much?
Did the lender or collector violate the law in collecting it?

The answer to the second may be yes even if the answer to the first is also yes.

So the borrower’s safest strategy is usually:

challenge the unlawful conduct,
challenge unsupported charges,
request a correct statement of account,
and address the valid debt rationally if one exists.

27. The borrower should ask for the computation

A strong borrower response is often simple and documented:

state willingness to address lawful collection,
demand that harassment stop,
request a written statement of account,
ask for the contractual basis of all charges,
and insist on written, professional communication.

Questions to ask include:

What is the original principal?
How much was actually disbursed?
How much has already been paid?
What is the interest computation?
What penalties are being imposed?
What contractual clause authorizes each charge?

A collector who refuses transparency often reveals the weakness of the claim.

28. Practical evidence borrowers should preserve

A borrower intending to complain should gather and preserve:

screenshots of texts, chats, and app notifications,
call logs,
recordings where lawfully obtained and usable,
copies of the loan agreement,
disclosure statements,
screenshots of app permissions,
payment receipts,
bank transfer records,
statements of account,
social media posts,
names and numbers used by collectors,
witness statements from relatives, co-workers, or friends contacted,
screenshots of group chats or contact-list messages,
and a written timeline of events.

Evidence should be preserved before it is deleted. Backups matter.

29. Borrowers should move communications to writing

When harassment starts, it is usually wise to communicate in writing as much as possible.

A written response can say, in substance:

I acknowledge your claim and request a full written statement of account.
I object to threats, third-party contact, and public disclosure.
Please limit communication to lawful written channels.
Stop contacting unrelated persons.
Stop using insulting or deceptive messages.

This helps in two ways:

it creates evidence,
and it separates lawful debt discussion from unlawful collection behavior.

30. What not to do as a borrower

Borrowers under pressure sometimes make the situation worse.

Avoid:

making false new promises,
deleting evidence,
replying with threats or abusive statements of your own,
paying random personal accounts without documentation,
admitting every charge without review,
fabricating screenshots,
or assuming the problem will disappear by silence.

The best response is calm, written, evidence-based, and strategic.

31. Unlicensed or questionable lenders

Some actors may not even be properly authorized lenders, or may operate through suspicious digital fronts. That creates additional problems.

Warning signs include:

lack of clear company identity,
refusal to provide official business details,
payment channels through personal accounts,
no meaningful disclosure documents,
inability to provide lawful statements of account,
aggressive contact-list abuse,
and legal threats without real process.

In such cases, the borrower may be dealing not only with unfair collection, but with a questionable or unauthorized operation altogether.

32. Role of the SEC, privacy authorities, and other bodies

A borrower’s remedy often depends on the nature of the lender and the misconduct.

Possible venues include:

regulatory complaint against a lending or financing company,
privacy complaint where personal data was abused,
consumer-protection or financial-regulatory complaint where applicable,
law-enforcement complaint where threats or other crimes are involved,
and civil action where damages or injunctive relief are pursued.

Different agencies may address different aspects of the same case. One forum may not be enough.

33. Civil collection case versus harassment complaint

A lender may still file a collection case while the borrower is complaining about harassment. These are not mutually exclusive.

The borrower should keep the issues separate:

In the collection case

Focus on:

whether the debt exists,
how much is truly owed,
whether charges are lawful,
and what payments have been made.

In the harassment complaint

Focus on:

threats,
public shaming,
privacy abuse,
fake legal notices,
excessive communications,
and third-party disclosures.

A lender’s right to sue does not erase earlier abusive conduct.

34. Small claims and lawful collection mechanisms

The Philippine legal system provides lawful ways for creditors to collect smaller money claims. This is important because it undercuts the excuse for harassment.

If a lender truly believes money is owed, the lawful route may include:

demand,
negotiation,
small claims where applicable,
or ordinary civil collection.

That lawful route exists precisely so that lenders do not need to invent private punishment systems through fear, public disgrace, or misuse of data.

35. Employment consequences and workplace harassment by collectors

For employed borrowers, one of the deepest harms is when collectors drag the debt into the workplace.

This can lead to:

embarrassment,
HR inquiry,
damaged reputation,
workplace gossip,
productivity issues,
or even employment loss.

When collectors contact employers or co-workers to expose debt, the case may develop beyond ordinary collection into:

privacy harm,
reputational injury,
defamation risk,
and possible labor-related consequences.

A debt collector is not entitled to use the borrower’s workplace as a stage for coercion.

36. Family pressure and social humiliation

Collectors also target family relationships.

Common tactics include:

messaging spouses, parents, or siblings,
accusing the borrower of being a scammer,
threatening to tell neighbors or church contacts,
sending humiliating edited images,
or forcing shame through community exposure.

These are not normal collection tools. They are coercive social pressure tactics.

The law does not authorize debt collection by orchestrated disgrace.

37. Settlement is possible, but it should be documented

Even where the lender’s conduct has been abusive, borrowers sometimes still choose to settle the debt to stop the situation.

If so, settlement should be documented carefully. A proper settlement record should clarify:

the total agreed amount,
the deadline or installment schedule,
the waiver or non-waiver terms,
the acknowledgment of prior payments,
and how future communication will be handled.

The borrower should not pay under panic without a clear written record of what the payment resolves.

38. Common myths

Myth 1: If you borrowed money, they can do anything to collect.

False. Collection rights are bounded by law.

Myth 2: Unpaid debt automatically means arrest.

False for ordinary debt. Civil liability is not automatic imprisonment.

Myth 3: App permission means they can text everyone in your contacts.

False. Access does not automatically legalize abusive downstream use.

Myth 4: Harassment cancels the debt automatically.

Usually false. The debt and the abuse are separate issues.

Myth 5: A collector can use fake subpoenas to scare you.

False. That itself may be unlawful.

Myth 6: Only the individual collector is liable, not the lending company.

Not necessarily. The company may also face responsibility.

39. A practical response plan for borrowers

A good borrower response often follows this sequence:

Step 1: Preserve everything

Save messages, screenshots, call logs, payment records, app screenshots, and witness accounts.

Step 2: Request a full statement of account

Do not rely on collector summaries alone.

Step 3: Object clearly to unlawful conduct

Say in writing that threats, third-party contact, public shaming, and deceptive notices must stop.

Step 4: Move communication to writing

This reduces confusion and creates evidence.

Step 5: Evaluate whether the loan terms themselves are questionable

Check hidden fees, deductions, and the real effective cost.

Step 6: Consider formal complaints

Use the appropriate regulatory, privacy, civil, or criminal route depending on the facts.

Step 7: Address lawful debt rationally

Negotiate or contest only what is legally supportable, but do not surrender rights.

40. When legal help becomes especially important

Professional legal help becomes especially useful when:

the lender is threatening arrest,
the borrower’s contacts have been mass-messaged,
the borrower’s employer has been contacted,
social media shaming has begun,
the amount demanded appears grossly inflated,
the lender refuses to explain the computation,
the lender used fake legal documents,
the borrower is facing multiple overlapping complaints or claims,
or the borrower wants to pursue damages or coordinated complaints.

These cases often involve more than one area of law at once.

41. For lenders: compliance is not optional

From the lender’s perspective, this topic is not only about avoiding scandal. It is about legal survival.

A compliant lender should have:

clear disclosures,
lawful and transparent computations,
privacy-compliant data practices,
controlled collection scripts,
vendor oversight,
complaint handling channels,
and training against abusive practices.

The higher the lender’s dependence on outsourced or app-based collections, the greater the compliance risk if controls are weak.

A lawful credit business collects through records and process, not fear and humiliation.

42. The bottom line

In the Philippines, a lender may legally collect a valid debt, but it may not do so through harassment, deception, public shaming, privacy abuse, unlawful threats, fake legal process, or unfair and oppressive lending structures.

The most important legal truth is this:

A debt does not strip a borrower of dignity, privacy, or legal protection.

At the same time, borrowers should remember the other half of the picture:

Illegal collection does not always erase a valid debt.

The proper legal approach is therefore two-track:

challenge the unlawful lending and collection conduct, and
determine what amount, if any, is actually lawful and payable.

In practical terms, the clearest red flags are:

threats of jail for ordinary debt,
contact-list blasting,
workplace exposure,
public shaming,
fake legal documents,
insulting messages,
opaque computations,
and unsupported charges.

When these appear, the problem is no longer just “a loan.” It becomes a matter of consumer protection, privacy, administrative regulation, civil liability, and possibly criminal law.

The safest legal rule for both sides is simple:

Collect lawfully, disclose honestly, respect privacy, avoid coercion, and use proper legal process when payment is disputed.