I. Introduction

Demand letters are a normal part of law practice in the Philippines. They can:

Formally notify someone of a claim
Give a chance to settle before litigation
Show good faith and compliance with requirements of some laws or contracts

But when a lawyer uses demand letters to bully, intimidate, shame, or harass, those letters can become grounds for ethical sanctions – including reprimand, suspension, or even disbarment.

This article explains, in the Philippine setting:

What a lawful, ethical demand letter should look like
When a demand letter crosses the line into harassment
The ethical rules and principles involved
How a person can seek sanctions against an abusive lawyer
How lawyers and clients can protect themselves while still asserting their rights

II. Legal and Ethical Framework

A. Supreme Court’s power over lawyers

Under the Constitution and the Rules of Court, the Supreme Court has exclusive authority to regulate the practice of law, including:

Admission to the Bar
Discipline (reprimand, suspension, disbarment)
Issuance of codes of ethics and procedural rules

So when we talk about “ethical sanctions,” we’re essentially talking about administrative proceedings before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and ultimately, the Supreme Court.

B. Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability (CPRA)

The CPRA (which updated the old Code of Professional Responsibility) is now the main ethical code for Philippine lawyers.

Among its core themes:

Integrity and honesty
Respectful and dignified conduct toward courts, colleagues, clients, and the public
Prohibition of harassment, abusive, offensive or menacing language
Fairness to the opposing party
Prohibition against using legal process to vex or intimidate

While demand letters are not specifically singled out by name, they are clearly covered because:

A lawyer’s ethical duties apply to any communication in connection with the practice of law – including letters, emails, text messages, and even social media messages sent in a professional capacity.

C. Other relevant laws

Although bar discipline is separate from criminal or civil cases, other laws may also be triggered by abusive demand letters, such as:

The Revised Penal Code (e.g., grave threats, unjust vexation, libel)
Civil Code provisions on abuse of rights, damages, and defamation
Special laws (e.g., workplace harassment rules, data privacy if letters are circulated improperly)

A lawyer may therefore face:

Ethical sanctions (bar discipline)
Criminal liability
Civil liability for damages

all at the same time, based on the same misconduct.

III. Demand Letters: Legitimate Purpose vs Harassment

A. Proper role of a demand letter

A legitimate demand letter from a lawyer usually:

Identifies the client and the alleged obligation or wrong
States the factual and legal basis of the claim in a calm and professional manner
Gives a reasonable period to comply, pay, or explain
Warns, in neutral terms, of possible legal action if the matter is not resolved
Is addressed only to the proper party (or counsel), not to irrelevant third persons

Nothing is wrong with a firm and clear demand letter. Lawyers are expected to protect their clients’ interests and can:

State that criminal or civil actions may be filed
Indicate that the letter is the final demand
Assert the client’s position strongly

as long as they do so within the bounds of law and ethics.

B. When a demand letter becomes harassment

A demand letter may cross the line into harassment if, for example, it:

Uses insulting, degrading, or threatening language, such as calling the recipient a criminal, thief, swindler, or using slurs, without a conviction or proper basis.
Threatens clearly unfounded or fabricated cases meant only to instill fear and not based on legitimate claims.
Is sent repeatedly with unreasonable frequency, especially after the recipient has answered or denied the obligation.
Is sent to third parties (e.g., employer, neighbors, social media) for the purpose of shaming or embarrassing the recipient, when not legally necessary.
Threatens extralegal harm (e.g., “We will ruin your career,” “We will have you arrested immediately even without charges,” “We will cause you to lose your job if you don’t pay”).
Is used to extort money beyond what is legally owed, by exaggerating penalties or inventing liabilities.
Is sent directly to a person who is already represented by counsel, bypassing the other lawyer to pressure the party.

Any of these behaviors can be seen as abuse of the lawyer’s professional status and may trigger ethical sanctions.

IV. Core Ethical Principles Involved

A. Duty to avoid harassment and abusive conduct

Under the CPRA, a lawyer must not:

Engage in harassing conduct toward any person involved in a legal matter
Use abusive, offensive, or menacing language in professional communications
Use his/her status as a lawyer to bully or intimidate

So even in a private letter, the lawyer must maintain:

Decorum
Moderation in language
Respect for the dignity of the recipient

B. Duty of fairness to the opposing party

Ethical rules also require fairness to the opposing party. This means that a lawyer must not:

Misrepresent the law (e.g., exaggerate penalties, invent non-existent crimes)
Misrepresent facts (e.g., claim there is already a warrant or case filed when there is none)
Threaten charges that have no legal basis

A demand letter that misleads or deceives the recipient to force a payment or concession is not just unethical, it may be criminal (e.g., estafa, extortion, grave threats).

C. No abuse of legal process

Lawyers must not:

File or threaten frivolous or clearly baseless suits
Use the threat of criminal prosecution solely as leverage in a purely civil matter
Use legal proceedings as a form of unjust harassment

It is legitimate to:

Tell someone, “If you do not pay, we will file a civil case or estafa complaint based on these facts.”

It is not legitimate to:

Invent a charge, exaggerate the law, or threaten arrest or imprisonment as if it were automatic and immediate upon non-payment, when it is not.

D. Respect for rights of persons and third parties

Ethics rules require respect for privacy and reputation. A lawyer should avoid:

Sending demand letters to the person’s employer when not necessary
Copying the person’s relatives or neighbors for the purpose of embarrassment
Publishing the demand on social media or public places

Doing so can transform a simple demand into harassment, defamation, or cyberbullying, and expose the lawyer and client to multiple liabilities.

V. Typical Ethical Violations in Harassing Demand Letters

Harassing demand letters often involve combinations of the following ethical violations:

Use of abusive or insulting language
- Calling the person “swindler,” “criminal,” “shameless,” “stupid,” or using vulgar words
Threats of legally impossible or exaggerated consequences
- Saying “You will surely go to jail for 20 years next week if you don’t pay,” when no case has even been filed
- Threatening immediate arrest by “connections,” implying misuse of influence
Threatening clearly unfounded suits
- Threatening to file a “case” that does not exist under Philippine law
- Threatening to file multiple criminal cases with no factual basis, solely to terrorize
Misrepresentation of the status of a case
- Claiming a case is already filed or a warrant already issued when they are not
- Claiming that an agency has already decided when it has not
Intimidation through exposure and humiliation
- Threatening to inform employer, school, or community to damage reputation
- Actually sending copies to those people without legal necessity or privilege
Bypassing the person’s lawyer
- Writing directly to a represented party, with threatening content, to pressure them against their counsel’s advice

Each of these may be cited in a bar complaint as a specific breach of the CPRA.

VI. Sanctions: What the Supreme Court May Impose

Where the Supreme Court finds that a lawyer used demand letters to harass or abuse, sanctions may include:

Admonition or Warning
- Usually for first or minor offenses where the language was improper but not extreme.
Reprimand
- For improper language and intimidating threats that fall short of serious abuse.
Fine
- Monetary penalty, sometimes combined with reprimand.
Suspension from the practice of law
- For serious or repeated misconduct, especially where:
  - The lawyer clearly abused his/her professional status
  - There was intent to terrorize, shame, or extort
  - The conduct involved deceit or dishonesty
Disbarment
- For gross, repeated acts showing unfitness to remain a lawyer, particularly if:
  - The harassment forms part of a broader pattern of fraud, extortion, or abuse
  - The lawyer shows no remorse and persists despite admonitions

The Supreme Court looks at:

Totality of conduct
Pattern of behavior, not just a single incident
Degree of malice, deceit, or bad faith
Consequences to the victim (e.g., loss of job, severe mental anguish)

VII. Distinguishing Firm Advocacy from Harassment

Not every strongly worded demand letter is unethical. The Supreme Court usually allows a wide margin for vigorous advocacy, provided it remains:

Professional
Based on law and facts
Focused on the legal issues, not on personal insults

For example, a letter that:

Clearly states the amount owed,
Narrates the key facts,
Gives a deadline, and
States that the client will file civil and/or criminal cases if there is no payment or explanation

is ordinarily acceptable.

Harassment begins where the tone and content shift to:

Personal attacks and humiliation
Baseless or wildly exaggerated legal threats
Repeated bombardment and exposure to third parties

The line is crossed when the real aim is no longer to enforce a right, but to frighten, embarrass, or punish the recipient beyond what the law allows.

VIII. Remedies of a Person Harassed by a Lawyer’s Demand Letter

If you receive a clearly harassing or abusive demand letter from a lawyer, you generally have several options.

A. Respond (or have your own lawyer respond)

You may ignore the tone and respond only to the legal issues, preferably via your own counsel.
A professional reply can:
- Deny liability
- Ask for proof
- Propose settlement
- Put on record that you consider the prior letter harassing or unethical, without using similar abusive language.

B. File an administrative complaint (bar complaint)

You may file a complaint against the lawyer with the:

Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), which processes complaints for transmission to the Supreme Court

Your complaint should typically:

State your personal circumstances and the lawyer’s identity (name, roll number if known, office address).
Attach copies of:
- The demand letter(s)
- Envelopes or emails (to show dates, recipients)
- Any other proof of harassment (text messages, social media posts, letters sent to your employer, etc.).
Narrate clearly:
- Why you believe the letter is harassing or unethical
- The context (e.g., dispute amount, previous interactions)
- The effect on you (e.g., stress, embarrassment, threats to employment).

The IBP will usually require the lawyer to answer, may hold an investigation, and will issue a report and recommendation to the Supreme Court, which decides the penalty.

C. Criminal and civil actions

Depending on the content of the letters, you may also consider:

Criminal complaints for:
- Grave threats
- Unjust vexation
- Libel (if the letters contain defamatory statements and were communicated to third persons)
Civil actions for damages based on:
- Abuse of rights
- Defamation
- Intentional infliction of emotional distress (under general Civil Code principles)

These are separate from, and may proceed alongside, the ethical (administrative) complaint.

IX. Special Settings: Collection Lawyers, In-House Counsel, and Social Media

A. Collection law firms

Lawyers engaged in debt collection are especially at risk of ethical violations if they:

Call or text repeatedly at unreasonable hours
Use threats of arrest or imprisonment without basis
Contact employers, relatives, or coworkers to shame the debtor

Even if acting for a bank or financing company, they remain bound by the CPRA and may be disciplined personally.

B. In-house counsel

In-house lawyers sending demand letters on company letterhead are still engaged in law practice, and the same ethical standards apply. They are not shielded simply because they are employees of a corporation.

C. Social media “demand letters”

Some lawyers now send “open letters” or posts tagging the opposing party or threatening legal action on social media. These can be even more problematic because:

They are public and potentially defamatory
They may be seen as trial by publicity
They may entail unnecessary disclosure of confidential information

The same ethical rules on harassment, abusive language, and respect for the rights of others apply. In some cases, misconduct online leads to discipline faster because the evidence is clear and preserved.

X. Practical Guidelines

A. For lawyers

Write as if the Supreme Court will read your letter
- Because it very well might.
Be firm, not abusive
- State your claim and intended legal action clearly, without insults or threats outside what the law provides.
Avoid exaggeration
- Do not inflate penalties or invent cases.
Direct communications properly
- Write to the party’s lawyer, not directly to a represented person.
Keep it confidential
- Do not unnecessarily copy employers or unrelated third parties.
Document your good faith
- Maintain a tone that shows your purpose is to settle or clarify, not to bully.

B. For clients asking lawyers to “be aggressive”

Clients sometimes tell their lawyer:

“Gawan niyo po ng sulat na matatakot siya.”

Lawyers must resist instructions to:

Insult or humiliate the other side
Threaten illegal or unfounded actions
“Expose” the person publicly

Explain that:

The lawyer’s first duty is to the law and ethics, not to the client’s anger
Using harassment may backfire, lead to bar sanctions, and harm the client’s case

XI. Conclusion

In the Philippine legal system, a demand letter is supposed to be a formal, professional tool for asserting rights and exploring settlement – not a weapon of harassment.

The Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability and longstanding jurisprudence make it clear that lawyers:

Must avoid abusive, threatening, or humiliating language
Must not use demand letters to extort, deceive, or terrorize
Remain accountable before the IBP and Supreme Court for their letters and communications

For lawyers, the safest rule is simple:

Be clear, be firm, but be respectful.

For recipients of abusive demand letters, there are remedies – from calmly responding through counsel, to filing a bar complaint, to pursuing civil or criminal actions where warranted.

Ethical discipline in this area helps ensure that the power to send demand letters remains a legitimate instrument of justice, not a tool for bullying.