Debt Collection Harassment in the Philippines
A Comprehensive Legal Guide (2025 edition)

1 | Why this topic matters

In the Philippines, household debt has risen sharply on the back of credit cards, salary-deducted loans, buy-now-pay-later schemes, and app-based micro-lending. While legitimate collection is an essential part of the credit cycle, harassment erodes human dignity, violates fundamental rights, and exposes collectors to civil, administrative, and even criminal penalties. Filipino debtors are constitutionally protected from imprisonment for debt (Art. III § 20, 1987 Constitution) but not from abusive tactics—hence the growing lattice of statutes, circulars, and jurisprudence outlined below.

2 | Key sources of law & regulation

Source	Core provisions on debt collection harassment
Constitution (1987)	§ 20: No imprisonment for debt or non-payment of poll tax. § 2 & § 3: Right to privacy and security of communications.
Civil Code	Art. 19–21 (abuse of rights, acts contra bonos mores); Art. 26 (privacy and dignity); Art. 32 (civil action for violation of constitutional rights); Art. 2217–2220 (moral and exemplary damages).
Revised Penal Code	Art. 282 (grave threats), 287 (unjust vexation), 355/353 (libel), 359 (slander by deed), 290–292 (violation of correspondence). Cyber-libel under RA 10175.
RA 11765 (Financial Products & Services Consumer Protection Act, 2022)	Makes “harassing, abusive, misleading, or deceptive collection tactics” an unsafe or unfair practice. BSP may fine up to ₱2 million or thrice actual damage, plus cease-and-desist orders and officer disqualification.
BSP Circular 1160 (2023)	Implements RA 11765; limits calls to 7 a.m.–9 p.m., three call attempts per account per day; bars threats, public shaming, blanket disclosure to third parties; mandates robust oversight of third-party collectors.
Earlier BSP Credit-Card & Consumer-Loan Circulars (454 s.2004, 702 s.2011, 806 s.2013, 957 s.2017)	Require formal notice of default, itemized statements, and accreditation of collection agencies.
SEC Memorandum Circular 18 s.2019	Prohibits lending/financing companies and their agents from: use of threats, profanity, contacting non-co-makers, accessing phone contacts without consent, and false representations (e.g., “we will file criminal charges tomorrow”). Fines: ₱25 000–₱1 million plus ₱2 000/day; possible revocation of license.
SEC MC 26 s.2021	Additional safeguards for online lending platforms: one-time contact-list permission limited to three nominated “guarantors,” mandatory privacy notices, data-retention limits, and in-app complaint channels.
Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) & NPC Circulars	Processing contacts or disclosing debts without lawful basis constitutes unauthorized processing; penalties include ₱500 000–₱5 million and imprisonment of 1–3 years.
Special sectoral laws	BSP rules for pawnshops, cooperatives, and micro-finance NGOs; PSA-affiliated Telecommunication guidelines limiting automated SMS spam.

Pending legislation: A stand-alone Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (House Bill 6778/Senate Bill 1364) has been filed in Congress several times but is not yet law as of April 2025.

3 | What counts as harassment?

Philippine regulators synthesize the following prohibited acts (the list is illustrative, not exhaustive):

Threats of violence, arrest, or criminal prosecution when no estafa, fraud, or bouncing-check charge exists.
Use of profane, obscene, or degrading language in any medium.
Contacting the debtor’s family, employer, Facebook friends, or barangay to shame or compel payment—except to obtain location information and only once without revealing the debt.
Calling or personal visits at unreasonable hours (outside 7 a.m.–9 p.m.) or with “excessive frequency.”
Public shaming: posting names on social media, office bulletin boards, community group chats, or “blasting” SMS to contact lists.
False representations: claiming to be a “court sheriff,” “NBI agent,” or stating that a warrant or asset seizure is imminent without a final judgment.
Unauthorized use of the debtor’s personal data (contact list scraping, geo-location).
Collecting amounts not legally due (e.g., compound interest above legal caps, “processing fees” after default).
Harassing field visits involving intimidation, blocking driveways, or taking photos of the debtor’s home without consent.
Threatening to garnish wages or Social Security benefits without a court order.

4 | Obligations of creditors & collection agencies

Duty	Practical requirements
Proof of debt	Provide a Statement of Account (SOA) detailing principal, interest, penalties, and fees. No “ballpark figures.”
Notice of assignment	If the debt is sold or outsourced, the debtor must receive a written notice identifying the new owner/collector and the basis of liability.
Registration & accreditation	Third-party collectors must be registered with the SEC (if a lending/financing company) or accredited by the BSP (if collecting for a supervised financial institution).
Collection policies & training	Must adopt written policies that mirror Circular 1160/MC 18 standards; train staff and agents; maintain call recordings for at least 12 months.
Data-privacy compliance	Limit collection of contact data to what is necessary; encrypt storage; delete upon full payment or after prescribed retention period.
Complaint-handling unit (CHU)	Dedicated hot-line/e-mail with posted turn-around times (BSP: 7 banking days for acknowledgment; 15-20 days for resolution).
Oversight of vendors	Principal creditor remains liable for violations by hired collection agencies.

5 | Debtors’ rights & remedies

Remedy	Where & how to file	Typical outcome
Cease-and-desist / validation letter	Directly to collector; demand proof of debt and halt to harassment.	Often curbs abusive calls; creates paper trail.
Regulatory complaint	BSP Consumer Assistance and Management System (CAMS) for banks, credit-card issuers, e-wallets; SEC Financing & Lending Regulation Division for FinCos/LendCos; NPC Complaints-and-Investigation for data-privacy breaches.	Fines, restitution; BSP may order refund of illegal charges; SEC can suspend or revoke CA’s license.
Barangay conciliation (Punong Barangay)	Optional step for purely civil money claims ≤ ₱400 000, unless parties reside in different cities/municipalities.	Settlement agreement or issuance of Certificate to File Action.
Civil action for damages	RTC or MTC depending on amount; claim moral/exemplary damages under Arts 19–21 & 26 CC.	Monetary award; injunctive relief against further harassment.
Criminal actions	File with Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor; possible charges: grave threats, unjust vexation, libel, violation of RA 10173.	Imprisonment, fine, or both; criminal case may spur settlement.
Protection under RA 11765	BSP may impose administrative fines motu proprio or upon complaint.	Quasi-judicial orders; public naming-and-shaming; possible officer disqualification.
Digital-platform takedowns	Report abusive SMS to telco via 7726 (SPAM) or to the National Telecommunications Commission; report social-media posts for privacy violation.	Content removal; telco blocking of sender IDs.

Tip: Keep screenshots, call logs, voice recordings, and all written communication. Philippine courts and regulators accept smartphone screenshots provided they are authenticated via affidavit.

6 | Notable jurisprudence

Case	G.R. No. & Date	Take-away
Citibank, N.A. v. Spouses Cabamongan	G.R. 212896, 25 Jan 2022	A credit-card issuer cannot unilaterally impose “collection charges” absent clear contractual stipulation; collectors must prove the debt and its components.
People v. Yabut	G.R. 48532, 15 Jun 1984	Threatening to burn property to compel payment constitutes grave threats, punishable even if no property damage occurs.
PSBank v. Castillo	G.R. 195412, 23 Jul 2014	Bank held liable for moral damages after repossession agents used menacing tactics; Art. 21 CC provides remedy for acts “contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.”
NPC v. Finsta Lending Apps (Consolidated Cases)	NPC C-21-003-C-D (2023)	₱4 million in fines and permanent cease-and-desist order for harvesting contact lists and sending “shame texts”; first major privacy enforcement against online collectors.

(Jurisprudence on harassment is still sparse; most Supreme Court decisions involve either improper fees or tortious conduct, but the principles guide lower courts and regulators.)

7 | Sample “Cease & Desist / Debt Validation” letter

[Date]
[Collector’s Name / Company]
Re: Account No. ______ / Amount Claimed: ₱______

I dispute the above-referenced debt and request:
  • A copy of the original contract or promissory note;
  • An itemized computation of principal, interest, penalties, and other charges;
  • Proof of your authority to collect (e.g., deed of assignment, BSP accreditation).

Pursuant to BSP Circular 1160 § 13 and SEC MC 18 § 4, you are directed to cease all collection communications—including calls, SMS, e-mail, social-media messages, and visits—until validation is furnished.

Future violations will be documented and reported to the BSP, SEC, NPC, and appropriate law-enforcement agencies, and may give rise to civil and criminal liability.

[Signature]
[Name, address, and preferred contact channel]

8 | Best-practice checklist for creditors & collection agencies

Know your law – Integrate RA 11765, BSP 1160, and SEC MC 18 into operating manuals; refresh annually.
Call-frequency governance – Auto-dialer must cap attempts; daily management reports flag outliers.
Tone scripting – Replace militaristic phrases (“We will endorse you to CIDG”) with compliant language (e.g., “We may consider legal remedies such as filing a civil case”).
Third-party oversight – Insert audit and indemnity clauses in service-level agreements; require collectors to record calls and share logs.
Privacy impact assessment (PIA) – Map data flow; limit contact-list access; adopt consent banners; anonymize data where feasible.
Complaint-response discipline – Acknowledge within two business days; resolve within 15 days; root-cause every harassment allegation.
Exit strategy – For unrecoverable accounts, consider restructuring or sale to SEC-registered Special Purpose Vehicles, but ensure buyers respect original consent terms.

9 | Frequently asked questions

Q	Short answer
Can I be jailed for unpaid credit-card debt?	No. Art. III § 20 prohibits imprisonment for debt. You may be sued civilly, and judgment may lead to asset garnishment, but not jail (unless there is fraud, bouncing checks, etc.).
Are collectors allowed to talk to my HR department?	Only to confirm your employment or location once and without disclosing the debt amount.
Is it legal for them to call my spouse every day?	Repeated calls to third parties are banned (BSP 1160 § 13; SEC MC 18 § 4).
They threatened “blotter” at the barangay. Can they?	They may file barangay mediation for money claims, but threats of police arrest are misleading and constitute harassment.
How long can they keep my data?	Under NPC advisories, only as long as necessary to achieve declared purpose; typically until the debt is settled or prescribed (10 years for written contracts), whichever comes first.

10 | Conclusion

Debt collection harassment in the Philippines is no longer a regulatory gray area. A multi-layered framework—constitutional guarantees, Civil Code torts, criminal sanctions, the 2022 Financial Consumer Protection Act, BSP circulars, SEC memoranda, and data-privacy rules—spells out what collectors may (and may not) do and grants debtors a toolbox of remedies.

For consumers, document everything, assert your rights early, and escalate through proper channels. For creditors and collection agencies, robust compliance programs and a culture of dignity are the surest way to recover debts without incurring bigger liabilities than the loan itself.

This article is for general information only and is not a substitute for individualized legal advice. When in doubt, consult a Philippine lawyer experienced in consumer-protection and collections law.