In Philippine legal practice, the demand letter is an essential precursor to litigation. It serves to inform a party of their default or liability and provides a final opportunity for extrajudicial settlement. However, a common point of contention arises when these letters transition from formal requests to containing "threats" of legal action, criminal prosecution, or public exposure.

Understanding the boundary between legitimate legal pressure and unlawful coercion is critical for both the sender and the recipient.

1. The Purpose and Necessity of a Demand Letter

Under Article 1169 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "those obliged to deliver or to do something incur in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment of their obligation."

Without a formal demand, a debtor may not legally be considered in "delay" (mora), which is often a prerequisite for filing a breach of contract case or claiming damages.

2. Legitimate vs. Illegitimate Threats

The legality of a "threat" in a demand letter hinges on whether the action threatened is a legal right of the sender.

A. The "Threat" of Legal Action

It is perfectly legal and standard practice to state that "failure to comply will result in the filing of civil and/or criminal actions." The Supreme Court has consistently held that a threat to enforce a right through competent authority—such as a court of law—is not considered intimidation or a "threat" in the eyes of the law.

B. Threatening Criminal Action for Civil Debts

A nuance exists regarding the Revised Penal Code (RPC).

Article 282 (Grave Threats): This occurs if a person threatens another with the infliction of a wrong amounting to a crime. Threatening to file a legitimate case (like Estafa or a violation of B.P. 22) is not a "wrong."
Article 283 (Light Threats): This involves a threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, often conditioned on the victim doing or not doing something.

However, if a lawyer or creditor threatens to use their influence to ensure a debtor is "rotting in jail" regardless of the merits of the case, or uses the threat of criminal prosecution to extort an amount far exceeding what is actually owed, they may cross into Grave Coercion (Article 286, RPC).

3. The Role of the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA)

For lawyers drafting these letters, the stakes are higher. Under the CPRA (which recently overhauled the old Code of Professional Responsibility), lawyers are prohibited from using abusive, offensive, or improper language.

Rule 2.03: A lawyer shall not use or permit the use of any misleading, deceptive, undignified, or self-laudatory advertisement regarding their qualifications or legal services.
Conduct towards the Public: Threatening to use "connections" in the judiciary or the prosecution service to ensure a favorable outcome is a gross violation of ethics and can lead to disbarment.

4. When a Demand Letter Becomes "Libelous"

In the digital age, demand letters are sometimes posted on social media to "shame" the debtor.

Libel/Cyber-Libel: Under Article 353 of the RPC and the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, the public and malicious imputation of a crime or vice, even if true, can be grounds for libel.
A demand letter is generally a privileged communication between the parties. Once it is broadcast to the public to humiliate the recipient, the sender loses that privilege and becomes vulnerable to criminal charges.

5. Practical Implications and Validity

Does a "threat" invalidate the demand letter itself?

Civil Validity: Usually, the demand remains valid for the purpose of putting the debtor in delay, even if the tone is aggressive.
Admissibility: A letter containing illegal threats or extortionate demands can be used as evidence against the sender in a subsequent case for Coercion or Unjust Vexation.
Collection Agency Tactics: The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) and the SEC have strict regulations against unfair collection practices. "Threats" of violence, use of profane language, or contacting the debtor at unreasonable hours (e.g., 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM) are prohibited and can result in administrative fines for the institution.

Summary Table: Permissible vs. Prohibited Content

Feature	Permissible	Prohibited / Risky
Legal Action	Stating a lawsuit will be filed.	Threatening to "plant evidence" or use "inside" influence.
Tone	Firm, formal, and authoritative.	Profane, insulting, or physically threatening.
Publicity	Private delivery to the debtor.	Posting on Facebook or sending to the debtor's employer.
Debt Amount	The actual amount due plus legal interest.	Demanding "excessive penalties" not in the contract.