Debt collection harassment remains one of the most common consumer complaints in the Philippines. Debtors are frequently subjected to incessant calls, threats of violence, public shaming, disclosure of debt to employers or relatives, visits at odd hours, obscene language, and even fabricated criminal cases. Fortunately, Philippine law now provides strong, specific protections against abusive debt collection practices. This article comprehensively explains the legal framework, prohibited acts, debtor rights, practical steps to stop harassment, available remedies, and regulatory complaint procedures as of December 2025.

I. Primary Law: Republic Act No. 11765

Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection Act (2022)

RA 11765 is the single most important law protecting debtors from abusive collection practices. It applies to all financial service providers, including banks, financing companies, lending companies, buy-now-pay-later platforms, digital lenders, payment service providers, and their third-party collection agencies.

Section 15 expressly prohibits “unfair, abusive, or deceptive acts or practices” in the marketing, sale, and collection of financial products and services.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 11765 and joint BSP-SEC guidelines explicitly list the following as unfair debt collection practices:

Use of threats of violence, force, or criminal prosecution to humiliate, intimidate, or harass.
Use of obscenities, insults, profane, or abusive language.
Disclosure of the debt or alleged debt to third parties (family, employer, friends, social media followers) except when strictly necessary to locate the debtor and only limited to contact information.
Public shaming or “name-and-shame” tactics, including posting names/photos on social media, tarpaulins, or barangay bulletins.
Contacting the debtor at unreasonable hours (generally outside 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., unless the debtor expressly agrees otherwise in writing).
Making anonymous calls or using spoofed numbers.
Repeated or continuous calls, texts, or visits that amount to harassment (no fixed number, but courts and regulators consider frequency, timing, and content).
Visiting the debtor’s residence or workplace in a manner that causes embarrassment or disturbance.
Threatening to file estafa or BP 22 cases when the collector knows or should know the elements are not present (e.g., threatening estafa for pure loan obligations).
Representing themselves as police officers, NBI agents, or lawyers when they are not.
Demanding payment of collection fees, attorney’s fees, or penalties not stipulated in the original contract or allowed by law.

Violation of RA 11765 carries administrative fines of ₱50,000 to ₱2,000,000 per violation and possible revocation of license. Criminal penalties may also be imposed under related laws.

II. Other Applicable Laws

Revised Penal Code
- Art. 282 – Grave threats
- Art. 283 – Light threats
- Art. 287 – Light coercion
- Art. 358 – Slander by deed
- Art. 287 – Unjust vexation (most commonly used for incessant calls/texts)
Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act)
Online libel, cyber-harassment, and identity theft when collectors create fake accounts or post shaming content.
Republic Act No. 10173 (Data Privacy Act of 2012)
Unauthorized disclosure of debt information to third parties is a data privacy violation punishable by imprisonment of 1–6 years and fines up to ₱5,000,000.
BSP Circular No. 1133 (2021) and Circular No. 1098 (2020) – for banks and credit card companies
Explicitly prohibit the same abusive practices listed above.
SEC Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 2019 and subsequent advisories – for lending and financing companies
Same prohibitions; SEC has revoked licenses of several lending apps for harassment.
Civil Code Articles 19–21 (Abuse of Rights Principle) and Articles 2217–2219 (Moral Damages)
Debtors may recover moral damages (₱50,000–₱500,000 typical awards), exemplary damages, and attorney’s fees.

III. Practical Steps to Immediately Stop Harassment

Record everything
Screenshot all text messages, Viber/WhatsApp messages, call logs, and Facebook posts. Record phone calls if possible (Philippine law allows one-party consent recording).
Send a written cease-and-desist demand (via email and registered mail)
Sample wording:

“Pursuant to RA 11765, I demand that you and your agents immediately CEASE AND DESIST from contacting me by any means except through my lawyer, Atty. __________, at __________. Any further communication in violation of this demand will be used as evidence in administrative, civil, and criminal complaints.”
Inform the collector that all future communication must be in writing only and through your lawyer.
Block the numbers and report spam on Globe/Smart.
If they contact third parties, immediately inform those persons that the disclosure is illegal under the Data Privacy Act and RA 11765.
File complaints simultaneously (multiple complaints are allowed and encouraged):

A. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) – if creditor is a bank or under BSP supervision
Online: consumercomplaints.bsp.gov.ph
Hotline: 8708-7087
BSP can impose fines up to ₱1,000,000 per day of violation.

B. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) – if lending/financing company
Online: www.sec.gov.ph/complaints
Email: lendingcomplaints@sec.gov.ph
SEC has been very aggressive since 2023; many apps have been ordered to stop operations.

C. National Privacy Commission (NPC) – for unauthorized disclosure
Online: privacy.gov.ph/complaint
NPC awards damages directly and imposes multimillion-peso fines.

D. Philippine National Police – Anti-Cybercrime Group (PNP-ACG) – if threats or online shaming
File blotter first at local police station, then escalate to PNP-ACG.

E. Barangay Lupon – for mediation (required before filing unjust vexation in court in some cases).

F. Small Claims Court (if debt ≤ ₱1,000,000) or Regular Civil Case – for damages.

IV. Special Situations

Credit card debt
BSP Circular No. 1098 explicitly prohibits the practices listed above. BSP has fined banks and ordered them to pay moral damages directly to complainants.

Online lending apps (e.g., JuanHand, UnaCash, Cashalo, etc.)
Even if the lender is registered in another country, Philippine law applies if the borrower is Filipino and residing in the Philippines (territoriality principle). SEC and NPC have jurisdiction over access devices used in the Philippines.

5-6 Bombay or informal lenders
RA 11765 does not apply, but the Revised Penal Code (threats, coercion, unjust vexation) and Civil Code still do. Victims may also file usury if interest exceeds criminal thresholds.

Debt buyers / collection agencies
The agency is jointly liable with the original creditor for violations.

Prescription
Collection harassment does not revive a prescribed debt. If the debt is already prescribed (10 years for written contracts, 6 years for oral), inform the collector in writing that the obligation is unenforceable.

V. Remedies and Typical Awards (2023–2025 Court Decisions)

Moral damages: ₱50,000–₱300,000 common
Exemplary damages: ₱50,000–₱200,000
Attorney’s fees: ₱50,000–₱150,000
Actual damages (e.g., medical certificates for stress): variable

Notable cases (2023–2025):

Several Metro Manila RTCs awarded ₱200,000–₱500,000 total damages against collection agencies for public shaming.
NPC imposed ₱3–₱5 million fines on several lending apps for data privacy violations.
SEC permanently revoked certificates of authority of over 50 lending companies for persistent harassment complaints.

Conclusion

Debt collectors in the Philippines no longer operate with impunity. RA 11765, reinforced by strong BSP, SEC, and NPC enforcement, has dramatically reduced abusive practices since 2023. Debtors who assert their rights—through documentation, written demands, and simultaneous regulatory complaints—almost always succeed in stopping harassment and obtaining compensation.

If you are experiencing debt collection harassment, act immediately. The law is unequivocally on your side.