ONLINE LENDING-AGENT HARASSMENT: LEGAL MEASURES IN THE PHILIPPINES
(Comprehensive doctrinal and practical survey as of 26 April 2025 – non-exhaustive, for information only; seek counsel for specific cases.)

1. Context and Emerging Patterns

The explosive growth of mobile “salary-loan” apps and social-media micro-credit since 2016 gave millions of Filipinos near-instant cash—but also produced a wave of abusive collection tactics. Borrowers have reported threats of public “shaming” via mass texts to their contact lists, doctored photos posted online, and incessant calls outside lawful hours. Because most platforms are non-bank entities, they fall primarily under the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), but may also be supervised by the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) or Cooperative Development Authority (CDA) depending on corporate form. The key legal question has become: What remedies exist when a lending agent crosses the line from legitimate collection to harassment?

2. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

Instrument	Salient Provisions Relevant to Harassment
RA 11765 – Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection Act (FPSCPA, 2022)	• Declares harassing or abusive collection an unsafe or unsound practice • Empowers BSP, SEC, IC & CDA to issue binding rules, issue cease-and-desist orders (CDOs), impose fines up to ₱2 million per transaction plus daily fines, and revoke licenses
SEC Memorandum Circular (MC) No. 18-2019 (Registration of Online Lending Operators)	• Requires a Certificate of Authority (CA); unregistered “online lending investors” may face ₱10,000/day fines and criminal referral
SEC MC No. 10-2021 – Rules on Unfair Debt Collection Practices	• Prohibited acts: profanity, threats of violence, disclosing debt to third parties, contacting people in the borrower’s contact list, collection outside 6 AM–10 PM, false court or police threats, “doxxing,” and any conduct intending to humiliate the borrower
Data Privacy Act (RA 10173) & NPC Circular 16-01	• Requires freely given, informed consent for contact-list scraping; unauthorized processing or disclosure of personal data exposes the collector and company officers to up to ₱5 million fines and 6 years’ imprisonment
Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175)	• Online libel, cyber-harassment, and unauthorized access carry one degree higher penalties than offline counterparts
BSP Circular No. 1133 (2021) – BSP-Supervised Financial Institutions (BSFIs)	• Mirrors SEC’s unfair collection prohibitions; non-compliance may result in administrative sanctions and officer disqualification
Revised Penal Code Arts. 282–287, 355	• Grave threats, coercion, and libel are criminally punishable regardless of digital medium
RA 4200 (Anti-Wiretapping) & Safe-Harbor Doctrine	• Borrowers may record calls without lender consent only when one-party consent is arguably met (jurisprudence evolving); safest course is to notify collector on record

Note: SEC circulars cover both duly licensed lending companies and their agents / outsourced collection firms; principals are solidarily liable for violations.

3. Administrative Remedies

File a Verified Complaint with the SEC’s Financing and Lending Division
Requirements: narrative affidavit, screenshots (with metadata), call logs, proof of outstanding balance, government ID.
Outcome:
- Show-Cause Order / Subpoena within ±30 days.
- CDO (immediate, ex parte) if prima facie harassment exists.
- Revocation of CA and black-listing on the SEC website (over 60 operators have been closed since 2019).
Report to the National Privacy Commission (NPC) for data-privacy abuses.
- File an Initial Notification within 15 days of discovery, then a Full Report (Sections 20–22, NPC Rules).
- NPC may impose compliance orders, fines (₱50 k–₱5 m), and recommend criminal prosecution.
Complain to BSP’s Consumer Assistance Mechanism (if lender is a BSFI).
- BSP may levy up to ₱30 million in Tier 3 sanctions per violation and bar erring officers.
Barangay Protection Orders (BPOs) under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law for immediate cease-and-desist on harassment of household members.

4. Civil and Criminal Actions

Cause of Action	Venue	Prescriptive Period	Relief
Tort / Quasi-Delict for mental anguish (Art. 26, 32 & 33 Civil Code)	RTC or MTC depending on damages	4 years	Actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees
Injunction & Damages under FPSCPA	RTC sitting as a special civil court	2 years from discovery	Cease-harassment order + statutory damages
Criminal Libel / Grave Threats	Provincial / City Prosecutor → RTC	1 year (libel); 10 years (grave threats)	Fine and/or imprisonment
Privacy Offenses (RA 10173)	DOJ OSP → RTC cybercrime court	3 years	Fine up to ₱5 m + 6 years’ imprisonment

Strategic tip: Parallel filing (administrative + criminal) is allowed; a pending SEC CDO often strengthens probable-cause findings in a criminal charge.

5. Evidentiary Best Practices for Victims

Document Everything – Use native screenshots (include URL bar, system time), export chat threads (WhatsApp, Messenger) in JSON or PDF/A.
Simultaneous Sworn Certification of Authenticity (Rule 4, Sec. 2, 2020 Rules on Electronic Evidence).
Request a Certified Cybercrime Report from the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) for server traces.
Preserve Phones & SIM Cards – Changing numbers weakens the chain of custody.

6. Compliance Obligations for Legitimate Lenders

Clear Consent Flow – Separate toggles for “access contacts” and “marketing messages”; default = opt-out.
Collection Code of Conduct – Written policy addressing MC 10-2021; staff training; audit trails.
Third-Party Collector Accreditation – Require DPA compliance certificates, periodic random call audits.
Time-Bound Data Retention – Erase contact lists once account is current or written-off.
Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) – 7-day acknowledgment, 20-day resolution; escalate to Regulator only after IDR lapses (FPSCPA Sec. 5).

Non-compliance now triggers “name-and-shame” publication on the SEC/BSP portals and may bar future fintech license applications by the same directors.

7. Notable Enforcement Actions (Illustrative)

Year	Case	Key Finding	Sanction
2019	Peso Tree et al. (SEC CDO)	Mass-SMS shaming, abusive language	Revocation of licenses; ₱2 m fine
2021	Fynamics Lending	Unauthorized scraping of 7,000 contacts	₱9 m DPA fine + criminal referral
2023	FastCash Online Lending	Fake “subpoena” emails, calls past 10 PM	Permanent closure; directors disqualified
2024	LX Credit Corp. (BSP)	Outsourced collector threatened violence	₱15 m administrative fine; compliance monitor imposed

8. Comparative Glimpse and Future Directions

Interest-rate caps? Unlike India (digital-credit APR cap) or Indonesia (0.4 %/day), the Philippines still relies on market-based rates but RA 11765’s “fair and reasonable” standard plus disclosure mitigates usury concerns.
House Bill 6771 (pending) seeks a Digital Lending Regulation Act with mandatory accreditation and a victim compensation fund.
FinTech Alliance PH Code (2024) – Voluntary, but signatories cover ~80 % of market; requires in-app “Panic Button” to report harassment directly to SEC.

9. Practical Checklist for Borrowers Facing Harassment

Send a Written Cease-and-Desist citing MC 10-2021 and RA 11765.
Gather Multimedia Evidence (screenshots, recordings, witness affidavits).
File Simultaneous Complaints with SEC and NPC; copy furnish the BSP if the lender is a bank affiliate.
Seek a Barangay Mediation to create an on-record warning.
Consider Civil Suit if mental anguish is severe; courts have awarded ₱100 k–₱300 k moral damages even for small principal loans (<₱10 data-preserve-html-node="true" k).
Do NOT Delete the App until evidence is preserved; switch phone to airplane mode instead.
Negotiate Only in Writing; harassment itself does not erase the debt, but it does create an independent cause of action against the lender.

10. Conclusion

Modern digital credit should widen financial inclusion—not weaponize technology against dignity and privacy. Philippine law now offers a layered arsenal: administrative CDOs, hefty fines, criminal sanctions, data-privacy enforcement, and civil damages. While regulators have grown more assertive since 2019, the most potent deterrent remains evidence-backed complaints. Borrowers must document abuses; lenders must internalize the rule that speed of disbursement can never justify speed of intimidation.

Prepared by: [Your Name], Philippine legal researcher. This article is not legal advice; consult a licensed attorney for case-specific guidance.