Perhaps you’ve heard someone making threats to file criminal cases against debtors who fail to pay. On the other hand, perhaps you’ve heard about the rule that no one can be imprisoned simply because of a debt in the Philippines. The prohibition against imprisonment for a debt is a basic right enshrined in no less than the Philippine Constitution. Article III of the Constitution reads:
“No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.”
REASON FOR NON-IMPRISONMENT
The Supreme Court explained the rationale for this prohibition in the case of Lozano vs. Martinez:
. . . Viewed in its historical context, the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt is a safeguard that evolved gradually during the early part of the nineteenth century in the various states of the American Union as a result of the people’s revulsion at the cruel and inhumane practice, sanctioned by common law, which permitted creditors to cause the incarceration of debtors who could not pay their debts. At common law, money judgments arising from actions for the recovery of a debt or for damages from breach of a contract could be enforced against the person or body of the debtor by writ of capias ad satisfaciendum. By means of this writ, a debtor could be seized and imprisoned at the instance of the creditor until he makes the satisfaction awarded. As a consequence of the popular ground swell against such a barbarous practice, provisions forbidding imprisonment for debt came to be generally enshrined in the constitutions of various states of the Union.
This humanitarian provision was transported to our shores by the Americans at the turn of the century and embodied in our organic laws. Later, our fundamental law outlawed not only imprisonment for debt, but also the infamous practice, native to our shore, of throwing people in jail for non-payment of the cedula or poll tax.
In other words, no one can be compelled to pay a debt under pain of criminal sanctions (estafa is a different matter). No one can be imprisoned for non-payment of debt. The remedy of the creditor is civil in nature.
Let’s examine some laws that were questioned, albeit unsuccessfully, on the ground that these laws violate the constitutional prohibition against non-imprisonment for debt.
BOUNCING CHECKS
Bouncing Checks Law (BP 22) does not punish the non-payment of an obligation. The law is not designed to coerce a debtor to pay his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in circulation. Checks have become widely accepted as a medium of payment in trade and commerce, and if the confidence in checks is shaken, the usefulness of checks as currency substitutes would be greatly diminished. When the question was resolved in 1986, it had been reported that the approximate value of bouncing checks per day was close to 200 Million Pesos, thereafter averaging between P50 to P80 Million a day. (Lozano vs. Martinez)
TRUST RECEIPTS
The same argument was raised against the Trust Receipts Law (Presidential Decree No. 115). The passage of P.D. 115 is a declaration by the legislative authority that, as a matter of public policy, the failure of a person to turn over the proceeds of the sale of goods covered by a trust receipt (or to return said goods if not sold) is a public nuisance to be abated by the imposition of penal sanctions.
It punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the prejudice of another. The law does not seek to enforce payment of a loan. (Tiomico vs. CA)
CREDIT CARDS
Under the Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8484), anyone who obtains “money or anything of value through the use of an access device, with intent to defraud or with intent to gain and fleeing thereafter” is criminally liable.
R.A. 8484 provides for a presumption: a cardholder who abandons or surreptitiously leaves the place of employment, business or residence stated in his application or credit card, without informing the credit card company of the place where he could actually be found, if at the time of such abandonment or surreptitious leaving, the outstanding and unpaid balance is past due for at least 90 days and is more than P10,000, shall be prima facie presumed to have used his credit card with intent to defraud.” We are still waiting for the test case on this.
- Twin-Notice Rule and Procedural Requirements in Employment Termination Proceedings - June 3, 2020
- When Travel Pass is Needed for Interzonal Travel during Community Quarantine - June 1, 2020
- Can Companies Compel Employees to Work during the General Community Quarantine (GCQ) and Impose Disciplinary Sanctions - May 29, 2020
May utang po ksing Hindi nabayaran ng father nung nabubuhay pa xa. Ask ko Lang Kung my legal obligation ba yung mother ko Sa utang ng father ko na 5 years ng patay. Tpos yung inutangan ng father ko is patay nrin, bale yung naghahabol e yung manugang.
Hi po! Good day!
Seeking for an advice po sana. Situation ko po is yung mama ko po ay nangutang sa isang lending company at pang ilan renew nya na po and the last loan is on way back 2011 pa. And usually the collectors is the one who goes to our house and collects payments. And in year 2012 they suddenly stop collecting payments and their office is closed. Now after 6 years of no contacts they have sent a letter to my mama this june 2018 and they are telling my mama to settle her account. Is their any cased will be filed if my mama can’t pay or settle this account of her? Both my papa and mama is now a senior citizen and no capabilities to pay because they have no pension.
Hoping for your fast reply. Thank you
Tanong ko lang po. May utang kasi ako sa bangko and issued PDC. Balak ko sanang bayaran muna ang capital amount ng loan kaso ayaw tanggapin ng bangko. Gusto talaga nila mas higit pa doon sa amount na yun.
Ano po ba ibig sabihin nito?
Fantastic article about the bank debt! I will bookmark this page and I’ll be waiting for your next post. Thanks
ano po pwede gawin nila sakin if hi di po ako makabayad sa online loans? microloans.personal loans.
Hai po.. May friend po ako n pinagamit nay ung name nya s kawork nya pra makakuha ng firniture s isang financing company,, sabi nung kawork nya nabyadan n nya. Pero nung ung friend ko is magaapply pra makaloan ng gamit nya. Ang sabi is may d p nabyadan tz ngpenalty n up to 5000 tz cnabihan nya workmate nya nasettle n dw. Pero until now d p pla.. Umabot n s 8000.. Ano po pwede gawin pra ung kawork nya is mapilitan na bayadan yun.. Kc ung friend ko nakpangalan although pumayag xa n gamitin name nya eh. Alangan nman xa magbyad sanitem n d nman s knya. Thankz po
my problima po ako regarding utang…noong una ok pa yung bayad ko tapos na end ako sa first job ko thats why nag ask ako sa inuutangn ko na pde ba na principal nalng yung babayaran ko tapos hndi xa sumang ayon..yung bal ko noo ay 5000 then wala na akong trabho pagkatapos po noon my work nanamn ako tapos kc nga afraid ako binigy ko sa kanya ang aking atm as a garrantor..tapos pag totall na ang utang ko ay umabot na nang 49000 which is grabe na talaga…tatlong bisis ako nagbayad sa kanya 4000 somthing ang kukunin nya sa aking sweldo…nahinto nanaman ako sa aking trabaho at hndi nako nkabayad..at sabi nya ngayon ang ko na ay 89000 nah ano yan..pls can yuo gve me an advice if ano gagawin..dapt bakong ma afraid or hndi.
If you have a credit card and several debts from different telco companies but NO cases (as you know, were ever filed against you), can you take the Bar exams and take the oath, if you pass the bar?
ako po last 2013 po ako nagresign ssa work ko dahil po nagkasakit ako..hinuhulugan ko naman credit car pero hindi po sapat..hanggang ngayon 2018 wala po ako ability para magbayad..pinipilit po nila ako magbayad alam ko po hindi man umabot ng 20 thiousand ang utang ko pero ngayon 45 thousand na sya,pinapabayad po nila witin 5 days ang 25 thousand nlng daw po..sabi ko po talagang wala man ako trabaho ngayon mula ng ako ay magresign sa work..sabi po nila mag utang daw po ako sa iba..eh wala man ako mautangan kc alam nila wala man ako trabaho..pagkain nga po namin binibigyan lang kami ng nanay ko..may dalawa po akong anak asawa ko po nagseservice lang sa kapatid ko sahod nya 2 thousand a month lagi po nila ako tinetex na kakasuhan daw po nila ako sabi kaya hindi po ako nagrereply kasi wala naman potlaga akong pambayad pero kapag tumatawag sila sa akin sinasagot ko naman..advice po please
pano po ba ang dapat ko gawin meron kasi ako kilala nag papautang. dahil kilala at kapit bahay naman eh sinabi ko na pahihiramin ko saya kapalit ng 7% na tubo monthly. in short nag finance ako sa kanya. ok naman ilang buwan pero ngaun bwan hindi na sya maka bayad kaya sabi ko eh pull out ko na ang pera. hidni naya mo mabigyan or hindi masoli ang pera ko dahil hindi daw nag babayad mga pinautang nya. hindi ko po kilala mga pina utang nya ang sabi ko po sa kanya ay sya lang ang kausap ko. kaya labas na ko doon. dapat bayaran nya ako. nag gawa kame ng kasulatan na bayaran nya ok naman sa kanya pumirma sya. dapat po ba ipa notaryo ko ung ginawa namin kasulatan? ung video ng usapan namin ang pwede po ba maging ibidensya laban sa kanya dahil nangako sya na mag babayad sya lahat ng usapan namin ay naka record. ang sabi ko sa kanya pag di sya naka bayad sa araw ng pinag usapan ay mapapahiya sa sa mga kapit bahay. ang sagot nya ay hindi sya mag babayad pag napahiya sya dahil hindi daw mababyaran ng pera ang kahihiyan, nasa batas po ba ung ganon?