Below is a one-stop, Philippine-specific guide on the liability of a supplementary credit-card holder. I arranged it so you can trace the rule-making hierarchy—from statute, to Bangko Sentral regulations, to the standard contract, and finally to the practical scenarios that lawyers, bankers and card-users most often confront.
1. What a “supplementary (extension) card” legally is
The term is defined in the Philippine Credit Card Industry Regulation Law (Republic Act 10870) as “a credit card issued to another person whose credit limit is consolidated with the primary cardholder.”
BSP Circular No. 1003 (which transplanted RA 10870 into the Manual of Regulations for Banks/Non-Banks) adopts the same wording verbatim.
Key takeaway: the supplementary card is not a separate credit line; it merely “dips” into the limit of the principal account.
2. Where liability can (and cannot) come from
2.1 Civil-Code default: no solidarity unless the contract or a law says so
Article 1207 of the Civil Code is crystal-clear: solidarity is never presumed; it must be express, or mandated by law, or required by the very nature of the obligation. (Lawphil)
Because neither RA 10870 nor any other statute makes supplementary users automatically liable, the only legal source that can bind them is the credit-card agreement itself.
2.2 Typical contractual clause
Virtually every Philippine issuer inserts a sentence like:
“The supplementary cardholder hereby agrees to be jointly and solidarily liable with the principal for all obligations and liabilities incurred with the use of the card.” (BDO supplementary application form, 2018). (Scribd)
Once the applicant (or the principal on the applicant’s behalf) signs that form, Article 1207 kicks in and converts the two users into solidary co-debtors—each can be sued for 100 % of the balance; whoever pays may later seek reimbursement from the other under Article 1217.
3. Regulators’ consumer-protection overlay
- BSP Circular 1160 / RA 11765 (Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection Act) make card-issuers solidarily liable for the acts of third-party collectors and require humane, non-abusive collection practices. They do not dilute the borrower’s payment obligation; they police the lender’s behaviour. (Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas)
- BSP rules on disclosure, interest-cap computation, and billing disputes (Secs. X320.6 & X320.11, MORB) apply equally to principal and supplementary users because the latter is still a “financial consumer.”
4. Special situations
| Situation | How liability plays out | Statutes / authority |
|---|---|---|
| Spouses & conjugal property | A supplementary card issued to a spouse and used for family or household expenses can be collected from the couple’s community property under Arts. 94–95, Family Code—even if the spouse never signed the solidary clause. | Family Code; Civil Code Art. 1311 (relativity of contracts) |
| Minors (often age 13-17) | Banks let minors hold “kid” supplements, but a minor’s contract is voidable. The issuer relies on the principal’s solidary promise; the minor cannot be jailed or sued without first validating the obligation after turning 18 (RA 6809). | RA 6809 (Lawphil) |
| Death of the principal | The estate is primarily liable; the supplementary holder remains solidarily liable only if the contract says so. If the contract is silent, the debt is claimable only in probate. | Art. 774 et seq., Civil Code; contractual clause control |
| Unauthorised use / fraud | If the supplementary user denies a transaction, the issuer must follow the RA 11765/BSP dispute timeline. Liability is frozen while the investigation is pending; proven fraud shifts the loss to the party that failed in its duty of care (issuer, merchant or cardholder). | RA 11765; BSP Circular 1160 |
| Credit-bureau reporting | Solidary liability means both names may appear in negative files (CIC database), affecting each one’s future credit score. | Credit Information System Act (RA 9510) |
5. Litigation landscape
As of May 2025 there is no Supreme Court decision squarely settling supplementary-card liability, but lower-court pleadings routinely cite:
- Article 1207 to argue that the solidary clause controls.
- Family Code Art. 94 when the supplementary user is a spouse and the card was used for “necessaries.”
- Doctrine of extraordinary diligence (banking jurisprudence) when disputing fraudulent swipes by a rogue supplementary user.
Because the issue is contract-driven, most cases end in negotiated settlement or collection-court judgments, rather than reach the Supreme Court.
6. Practical tips (for both principal and supplementary users)
- Read and keep a copy of the card T&Cs; that is the only place where your liability can spring from.
- Set a sub-limit (most banks allow this) to cap exposure; absence of a sub-limit means the supplementary can exhaust the entire line. (Scribd)
- Use separate e-mail/SMS alerts so each user sees every swipe in real time.
- If the relationship changes (separation, employee resignation, etc.) cancel the supplementary immediately; until the bank confirms cancellation in writing, charges keep accruing.
- Keep statements for at least five years; under BSP rules a charge-back window can last up to 180 days, but tax or estate issues sometimes surface later.
- Negotiate hardship plans jointly—a bank will insist that both solidary debtors sign any restructuring or condonation agreement.
7. Bottom line
There is nothing “secondary” about a Philippine supplementary cardholder’s liability. Unless the contract is silent (rare) or the transaction falls into a statutory carve-out, the supplementary user stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the principal: one debt, one credit limit, and—if things go south—one lawsuit. Knowing where that liability comes from (the contract) and where consumer-protection limits kick in (BSP rules, RA 11765) lets both parties extend credit privileges safely and responsibly.