Is Threatening Eviction Considered Verbal Abuse Under Philippine Law?

Introduction

In the Philippines, landlord-tenant relationships are governed by a framework of civil and criminal laws designed to protect the rights of both parties while ensuring fair dealings. One common issue that arises in such relationships is the use of threats, particularly threats of eviction, by landlords or property owners. This raises the question: Can threatening eviction be classified as verbal abuse under Philippine law? To address this, it is essential to examine the legal definitions of verbal abuse, the regulations surrounding eviction procedures, and how threats fit into broader categories of abuse, harassment, or criminal conduct.

While "verbal abuse" is not explicitly defined as a standalone offense in the Philippine legal system, it often overlaps with concepts like psychological violence, threats, coercion, and unjust vexation. This article explores the topic comprehensively within the Philippine context, drawing on relevant statutes such as the Civil Code, the Revised Penal Code (RPC), Republic Act (RA) No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act), RA No. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act), and housing-related laws like RA No. 9653 (Rent Control Act of 2009). It analyzes whether eviction threats qualify as verbal abuse, the conditions under which they might be actionable, potential remedies, and preventive measures.

Understanding Verbal Abuse in Philippine Law

Verbal abuse, in a general sense, refers to the use of words to harm, intimidate, or degrade another person. However, Philippine jurisprudence does not recognize "verbal abuse" as a distinct criminal or civil wrong. Instead, it is subsumed under broader legal categories:

Psychological or Emotional Abuse

Under RA No. 9262 (Anti-VAWC Act of 2004), psychological violence is defined as acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering to the victim. This includes threats, public ridicule, repeated verbal abuse, and stalking. The law primarily protects women and children in intimate or familial relationships, such as spouses, partners, or parents and children.
- In the context of eviction threats, if the landlord and tenant share a familial or intimate bond (e.g., a landlord threatening to evict a family member), such threats could constitute psychological violence if they cause emotional distress. For instance, in cases like People v. Genosa (G.R. No. 135981, 2004), the Supreme Court recognized repeated verbal threats as part of a pattern of abuse under this law.
- Penalties include imprisonment ranging from 1 month to 6 years and fines, depending on the severity, along with mandatory psychological counseling for the offender.

Threats Under the Revised Penal Code

The RPC addresses threats in Articles 282 (Grave Threats), 283 (Light Threats), and 285 (Other Light Threats).
- Grave Threats involve threatening another with a crime that could lead to death, serious injury, or substantial property damage, done with intent to intimidate. If a landlord threatens eviction coupled with violence (e.g., "I'll throw you out and harm you if you don't pay"), it could qualify if the threat is conditional and demands compliance.
- Light Threats cover less severe intimidations, such as threatening to expose secrets or inflict minor harm. A mere threat of eviction, without additional elements, might fall here if it causes alarm.
- Penalties for grave threats include arresto mayor (1-6 months imprisonment) to prision correccional (6 months to 6 years), while light threats carry lighter penalties like fines or short-term detention.
- Jurisprudence, such as People v. Villanueva (G.R. No. 187320, 2011), emphasizes that the threat must be serious and unconditional to be grave, but verbal delivery can suffice as evidence.

Unjust Vexation and Alarms and Scandals

Article 287 of the RPC penalizes unjust vexation, which includes any act that annoys or irritates without constituting a more serious offense. Repeated verbal threats of eviction, especially if baseless and harassing, could be prosecuted under this provision.
- For example, if a landlord repeatedly shouts eviction threats in public, it might also fall under Article 155 (Alarms and Scandals) if it disturbs public peace.
- These are minor offenses with penalties like fines up to P200 or arresto menor (1-30 days).

Harassment Under Special Laws

RA No. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act of 2019) addresses gender-based online and public harassment, including verbal catcalling or unwanted remarks. While primarily focused on sexual harassment, it extends to acts causing emotional harm in public spaces. If an eviction threat is laced with gender-based insults, it could apply.
In workplace or educational settings, RA No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995) might intersect if the landlord-tenant dynamic involves employment.

Eviction Procedures and Tenant Rights in the Philippines

Eviction, or ejectment, is a legal process strictly regulated to prevent abuse. Threatening eviction without following due process can itself be unlawful.

Legal Framework for Eviction

The Civil Code of the Philippines (RA No. 386) governs lease contracts under Articles 1654-1688. Leases are consensual contracts, and termination requires grounds such as non-payment of rent, violation of terms, or expiration of the lease.
RA No. 9653 (Rent Control Act of 2009), extended by subsequent laws, protects tenants in low-cost housing by capping rent increases and prohibiting arbitrary evictions. Grounds for eviction include:
- Non-payment of rent for three months.
- Subleasing without consent.
- Need for repairs or personal use by the owner.
- Eviction requires a court order; self-help evictions (e.g., locking out tenants) are illegal and can lead to criminal charges for coercion (RPC Article 286).
Presidential Decree No. 20 and related housing laws emphasize humane relocation for informal settlers, prohibiting forced evictions without alternatives.

When Threatening Eviction Becomes Problematic

A legitimate threat of eviction (e.g., "Pay rent or face legal eviction") is not abuse if grounded in contract terms and delivered civilly. However, if the threat is:
- Baseless or Malicious: Made without legal grounds, it could constitute harassment.
- Repeated or Aggressive: Yelling, using profane language, or combining with physical intimidation escalates it to potential verbal abuse.
- In Violation of Due Process: Bypassing barangay conciliation or court proceedings, as required by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (PD No. 1508) for disputes under P5,000.

In Sy v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 124518, 2000), the Supreme Court ruled that verbal threats to evict without due process can support claims for moral damages in civil suits for unlawful detainer.

Is Threatening Eviction Verbal Abuse? A Legal Analysis

Affirmative Cases

Yes, in Specific Contexts: If the threat causes emotional distress and fits under RA 9262 (e.g., in domestic settings), it is explicitly psychological abuse. For non-familial relationships, it may qualify as threats or unjust vexation under the RPC if the intent is to intimidate or harass.
- Example: A landlord repeatedly threatening a single mother with eviction over minor issues could be seen as gender-based psychological violence.
Civil Liability: Even if not criminal, victims can sue for damages under Civil Code Article 26 (abuse of rights) or Article 32 (violation of rights). Moral damages for mental anguish from verbal threats are recoverable, as in Globe Mackay v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 81262, 1989).

Negative Cases

No, If Legitimate: If the threat is a mere notice of intent to pursue legal eviction (e.g., a demand letter), it is protected speech and part of enforcing contractual rights. Philippine courts uphold freedom of expression unless it infringes on others' rights.
Burden of Proof: The victim must prove intent to abuse and resulting harm. Mere words, without action, may not suffice for conviction.

Jurisprudential Insights

Supreme Court decisions like People v. Dimaano (G.R. No. 168168, 2005) highlight that verbal threats must be evaluated in context—tone, repetition, and relationship matter.
In eviction disputes, cases under the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) often address abusive landlord conduct, potentially leading to administrative sanctions.

Remedies and Legal Recourse for Victims

Criminal Remedies

File a complaint with the barangay for conciliation, escalating to the prosecutor's office if unresolved.
For RA 9262 violations, seek a Barangay Protection Order (BPO) or Temporary Protection Order (TPO) from courts, which can prohibit further threats.

Civil Remedies

Sue for unlawful detainer or forcible entry in Municipal Trial Courts to contest eviction.
Claim damages for emotional distress in civil suits.
Under the Consumer Protection Code (RA No. 7394), tenants can report abusive practices to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI).

Administrative Remedies

Report to the Department of Human Settlements and Urban Development (DHSUD) for violations of housing laws.
For low-income tenants, seek assistance from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO) or legal aid NGOs.

Prevention and Best Practices

For Tenants: Document all communications, pay rent promptly, and know your rights under rent control laws.
For Landlords: Use written notices instead of verbal threats, follow due process, and engage in amicable settlements.
Policy Recommendations: Advocacy for stronger anti-harassment provisions in housing laws could clarify verbal abuse in landlord-tenant dynamics.
Education through barangay seminars on tenant rights can reduce incidents.

Conclusion

Threatening eviction can indeed constitute verbal abuse under Philippine law, particularly when it aligns with psychological violence, threats, or unjust vexation, depending on the context, intent, and impact. While not every eviction warning qualifies, abusive or baseless threats violate fundamental rights to dignity and security. Victims have multiple avenues for redress, emphasizing the Philippine legal system's commitment to balancing property rights with human protections. Stakeholders should prioritize dialogue and legal compliance to avoid escalation. For specific cases, consulting a lawyer is advisable to navigate nuances.