Lending harassment — the use of threats, intimidation, public shaming, obscene language, repeated and abusive communication, disclosure of debt to third parties without consent, or any act intended to humiliate, annoy, or coerce a borrower into payment — is a serious offense in the Philippines. Over the past decade, the rapid growth of online lending applications and traditional loan sharks (“5-6” lenders) has made this one of the most common consumer complaints received by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), National Privacy Commission (NPC), and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
The Philippines now has a comprehensive legal framework that treats lending harassment as both a criminal offense and an administrative violation, with multiple overlapping laws that can be invoked simultaneously.
1. Republic Act No. 11765 (Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection Act of 2022)
The primary and most specific law against lending harassment.
Enacted on 6 May 2022 and effective 3 June 2022, RA 11765 is the single most powerful weapon against abusive debt collection in the country.
Section 23 – Fair Treatment in Debt Collection explicitly prohibits the following acts:
- Use or threat of violence or other criminal means to harm the borrower or his/her family
- Use of obscenities, insults, profane or abusive language
- Disclosure of the borrower’s debt to third parties (employer, relatives, friends, social media) without written consent or lawful order
- Repeated contacts that amount to harassment, intimidation, or annoyance (including calls/texts at unreasonable hours)
- Public shaming or posting of photos, “wanted” posters, or similar materials
- Use of deceptive representations (e.g., pretending to be police officers or lawyers with arrest warrants)
- Contacting the borrower at the workplace in a manner that embarrasses or harasses
- Any act that violates the borrower’s right to privacy or causes mental anguish
Penalties under RA 11765
- Administrative fines of ₱50,000 to ₱2,000,000 per violation (BSP/SEC-imposed)
- Cease-and-desist orders, suspension or revocation of license/registration
- Criminal liability: imprisonment of 6 months to 6 years and/or fine of ₱100,000 to ₱5,000,000 (Section 39)
The law applies to all financial service providers, including banks, financing companies, lending companies, money service businesses, and online lending platforms (whether SEC-registered or not).
2. Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) – Cyberlibel and Online Harassment
Most lending harassment today occurs online (text blasts, Viber/WhatsApp group shaming, Facebook posts). These acts are punishable as:
- Cyberlibel (Section 4(c)(4)) – penalty is prisión mayor (6 years 1 day to 12 years)
- Online harassment/alarm and scandal – when messages are sent repeatedly to cause annoyance or fear
The Supreme Court in Disini v. Secretary of Justice (2014) and subsequent cases has repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of cyberlibel provisions. Posting a borrower’s photo with captions like “WANTED: DEAD OR ALIVE” or “SCAMMER” has consistently resulted in conviction.
3. Revised Penal Code Provisions Commonly Used
| Article | Offense | Penalty (as increased by RA 10951) | Typical Application in Lending Harassment Cases |
|---|---|---|---|
| 282 | Grave Threats | Prisión mayor (6 yrs 1 day – 12 yrs) | Threatening to kill or harm the borrower/family |
| 283 | Light Threats | Arresto mayor (1 month 1 day – 6 months) | Threatening to post photos or expose debt |
| 287 | Light Coercion | Arresto mayor | Forcing payment through intimidation |
| 287 | Unjust Vexation | Arresto menor (1–30 days) or fine up to ₱40,000 | Repeated calls/texts at odd hours, non-threatening but harassing |
| 358 | Oral Defamation/Slander | Arresto mayor | Calling borrower “bugok,” “walang bayad,” etc. in messages |
| 359 | Slander by Deed | Arresto mayor | Posting edited humiliating photos |
Unjust vexation (Art. 287) is the most frequently filed complaint at police stations and prosecutors’ offices for lending harassment cases.
4. Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012)
Lending apps that access the borrower’s contacts and send messages such as “Your friend Juan dela Cruz failed to pay his loan” commit multiple violations:
- Unauthorized processing of personal information
- Malicious disclosure
- Unauthorized access (hacking contacts)
Penalties: Imprisonment of 1–6 years and fines of ₱500,000 to ₱4,000,000 (Sections 25–32).
The NPC has imposed multimillion-peso fines on several lending apps (e.g., ₱4 million on Cashalo in 2021, ₱3 million on JuanHand in 2023).
5. Republic Act No. 3765 (Truth in Lending Act) and RA 7394 (Consumer Act of the Philippines)
While not directly about harassment, these laws are often violated in tandem:
- Hidden charges that make repayment impossible → leading to harassment when borrower defaults
- Deceptive sales practices
Violations are punishable by fines and imprisonment, and can be used as evidence of bad faith.
6. BSP and SEC Regulations
BSP Circular No. 1133 (2021) – Guidelines on Fair Debt Collection Practices (applies to banks and their agents)
SEC Memorandum Circular No. 19, series of 2019 and subsequent advisories require all registered lending/financing companies to adopt a Code of Ethical Debt Collection Practices. Prohibited acts mirror RA 11765 Section 23.
Unregistered online lending apps are illegal per se under RA 9474 (Lending Company Regulation Act) and face criminal charges under Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code (estafa by means of deceit).
7. Remedies Available to Victims
File a criminal complaint (unjust vexation, grave threats, cyberlibel) at the nearest police station or directly with the prosecutor’s office. No lawyer needed for preliminary investigation in most cases.
File an administrative complaint with:
- BSP Consumer Protection Department (for banks)
- SEC Enforcement and Investor Protection Department (for lending/financing companies)
- NPC Complaints and Investigation Division (for data privacy violations)
File a civil case for damages (moral, exemplary, actual) under Articles 19, 20, 21, 26, 2219 of the Civil Code. Victims routinely recover ₱50,000–₱300,000 in moral damages.
Demand take-down of defamatory posts via Facebook/Google “Report” function (citing RA 10175 and RA 11765). Platforms comply quickly when Philippine law is cited.
File with the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) for rapid investigation and arrest in serious cases.
8. Landmark Cases and Enforcement Trends (2022–2025)
- People v. XXX (Quezon City RTC, 2023) – Collector convicted of unjust vexation and cyberlibel for sending “Patay ka sa akin” messages; sentenced to 4 months arresto mayor and ₱200,000 moral damages.
- SEC revoked the certificates of authority of over 300 online lending apps between 2021–2024 for harassment complaints.
- In 2024–2025, the PNP-ACG conducted nationwide operations resulting in the arrest of more than 150 collectors/agents of illegal lending apps.
- The Supreme Court in Vivares v. St. Paul’s College (2023 reiteration) and related privacy cases has consistently ruled that posting private debts online violates the borrower’s constitutional right to privacy.
Conclusion
Lending harassment is no longer a mere “collection tactic” in the Philippines — it is a heavily penalized criminal and administrative offense under multiple laws, with the strongest protection coming from RA 11765 (2022). Borrowers who experience threats, shaming, obscene messages, or disclosure of their debt to third parties should immediately preserve screenshots, record calls, and file complaints with the police, BSP, SEC, and NPC. The State has made it crystal clear: creditors may collect what is due, but they may never strip borrowers of their dignity.