Concern (Rewritten in English for clarity):

A person borrowed ₱10,000 and has repaid ₱2,000 in increments. They want to continue repaying the balance but are experiencing stress due to the lender's actions. The lender has accused them of taking the money without consent, inflated the remaining balance inconsistently (ranging from ₱8,000 to ₱27,000), and has summoned them to multiple barangays to resolve the issue. The borrower is unsure how to address these allegations, especially since the barangay logbook with the repayment records is now unavailable under a new barangay captain. They are seeking guidance on how to stop the lender from defaming them and ensure fair resolution of the debt.

∇ Legal Contemplator

Starting with the basics: The nature of the obligation

The obligation described is a debt arising from a personal loan. In Philippine law, obligations of this nature are governed by the Civil Code of the Philippines, particularly Articles 1156-1304. The primary obligation of the borrower is to repay the principal loan (₱10,000) plus any agreed-upon interest or charges, assuming these were specified in writing or verbally agreed upon.

First doubt: Was there a written agreement?

If no written agreement exists, the arrangement would fall under oral contracts. Under Philippine law, oral contracts are valid but harder to enforce due to evidentiary challenges. This leads me to wonder: how will the borrower prove the initial loan amount and the payments made? Without evidence such as receipts, promissory notes, or barangay records, the lender’s claims (however inflated or inconsistent) might gain more weight. I wonder if verbal agreements, texts, or witnesses could help establish the original terms?

Questioning the barangay mediation process:

Barangay mediation is often the first step in disputes like these, as mandated by the Katarungang Pambarangay Law under the Local Government Code. The borrower mentioned that the barangay captain has changed, and the new administration claims no knowledge of the logbook containing repayment records. This raises several concerns:

Continuity of records: Barangay records should be transferred and preserved regardless of leadership changes. Why was this logbook not retained, and is there a way to retrieve it through the barangay secretary or municipal archives?
Absence of receipts: If no official receipts were issued for payments, is the borrower at a disadvantage? Perhaps this is why the lender is emboldened to inflate the debt.
Jurisdictional confusion: The lender has summoned the borrower to multiple barangays. Could this be a form of harassment or "forum shopping" to pressure the borrower?

Exploring harassment and defamation:

The lender’s alleged actions—spreading false stories about the borrower taking the money without consent, demanding varying amounts, and issuing threats—appear to be acts of harassment. Harassment itself is not a specific crime in Philippine law, but related actions could fall under:

Unjust vexation (Article 287, Revised Penal Code): Causing distress or annoyance without justification.
Defamation (Articles 353-355, Revised Penal Code): Making malicious statements that harm a person's reputation.
Grave threats or coercion (Articles 282-286, Revised Penal Code): If the lender uses intimidation or force to compel immediate payment.

The borrower might consider filing a case against the lender if the defamation and harassment persist. However, I question whether the borrower has enough evidence to support these claims. Text messages, witnesses, or recordings could be crucial here.

Pondering resolution through repayment:

The borrower has expressed willingness to repay the remaining balance. This is important because it demonstrates good faith. But what is the exact balance? The barangay logbook (if retrievable) could be key evidence. Alternatively, were there any witnesses to the partial payments made? I also wonder if the borrower could request a detailed statement of account from the lender through barangay mediation.

Questioning the lender's demands:

The inflated debt claims—₱15,000 in one barangay, ₱27,000 in another—are troubling. Philippine law prohibits usury (excessive interest rates), though there is no fixed cap on interest after the abolition of the Usury Law. However, any interest or penalties must be reasonable and agreed upon beforehand. Could the borrower challenge these amounts as baseless or excessive?

The role of evidence and barangay proceedings:

The absence of a receipt system complicates the borrower’s position. Still, barangay mediation aims for amicable resolution. If the borrower continues to face harassment despite efforts to settle, they may escalate to the Small Claims Court for a definitive resolution.

Final doubts: Dead ends and alternative actions

Dead end 1: What if the barangay records are truly lost? The borrower might need to rely on circumstantial evidence or witnesses to prove prior payments.
Dead end 2: If barangay mediation fails, could the borrower afford the time and resources to escalate this matter legally?
Alternative: Would a written demand letter from a lawyer outlining the borrower’s intention to repay (and disputing inflated amounts) deter the lender from further harassment?

Final Answer:

The borrower has several options to address this situation:

Barangay mediation: Return to barangay mediation and request retrieval of the old logbook. If unavailable, gather witnesses or circumstantial evidence of payments.
Demand letter: Seek assistance from a lawyer to send a demand letter specifying the original loan, repayments, and willingness to settle the legitimate balance.
Small Claims Court: If barangay mediation fails, file a case to resolve the debt formally. The court can determine the exact amount owed and set a payment schedule.
Defamation and harassment: If the lender continues to defame or harass the borrower, consider filing a complaint for unjust vexation or defamation at the barangay or municipal level.

Good faith repayment and evidence collection will be critical in resolving this dispute.