File simultaneously with the SEC Financing and Lending Companies Department (FLCD) — through the SEC I-Message Mo portal (imessage.sec.gov.ph) — for SEC MC 18 violations and with the National Privacy Commission (privacy.gov.ph) for unauthorized contact-list access under RA 10173. Both agencies can suspend the lender's Certificate of Authority and order data deletion; the SEC has revoked the licenses of multiple OLPs since 2019.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →BSP Circular 1133 (2021), as extended by Circular 1165 (2023), caps the nominal interest at 6% per month and the all-in effective interest (including penalties) at 15% per month for short-term, low-value loans (unsecured, up to ₱10,000, tenor ≤4 months). The Usury Law's ceilings were suspended by Central Bank Circular 905 (1982), but courts may still strike unconscionable rates under Article 1306 of the Civil Code (Medel v. CA, G.R. 131622, 1998).
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →No — an online lending app may not harvest and use your entire phone contact list. SEC Memorandum Circular 18 (2019) makes it an unfair debt-collection practice to contact anyone in a borrower's phone other than a person named as a co-maker or guarantor, and RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act) requires that any data an app collects be limited to what is necessary for a declared, legitimate purpose — a whole-contact-list upload for a solo loan fails that proportionality test. The National Privacy Commission has ordered lending apps to stop scraping contacts and to delete the data. LabanPH helps you file the SEC and NPC complaints that trigger those orders.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Check the SEC's published lists. Under RA 9474 §4, no lending company may operate without a Certificate of Authority from the Securities and Exchange Commission, and SEC Memorandum Circular 19 (2019) requires every online lending platform to be reported and recorded with the SEC. A legitimate app appears — by both its company name AND its specific app/brand name — on the SEC's list of registered financing/lending companies and recorded OLPs at sec.gov.ph; names flagged on the SEC's Advisories page are operating illegally. LabanPH cross-references these lists on each company profile it tracks.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Report it to the SEC — operating a lending company without a Certificate of Authority is a criminal offense under RA 9474 §12, punishable by a fine of ₱10,000 to ₱50,000 or imprisonment of 6 months to 10 years, or both. The SEC can issue a cease-and-desist order, and it has revoked or shut down dozens of unregistered online lending platforms since 2019. If the app also scraped your data or contacts, file in parallel with the National Privacy Commission under RA 10173. LabanPH generates both complaints and tells you exactly where to send them.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →"5-6" lending is not illegal merely because of its rate — the Usury Law's interest ceilings were suspended by Central Bank Circular 905 (1982), so there is no automatic cap. What makes most "5-6" operators illegal is that anyone in the business of lending must register with the SEC and hold a Certificate of Authority under RA 9474 §4; an unregistered lender is operating in violation of that law (penalty: fine ₱10,000–₱50,000 or 6 months–10 years imprisonment, RA 9474 §12). Courts can still void the 20% flat charge as unconscionable under Civil Code Art. 1306 (Medel v. CA, 1998). LabanPH can help you report an unregistered informal lender.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Only if you agreed to it in writing. Civil Code Art. 1956 says no interest is due unless expressly stipulated in writing, and Art. 1959 says interest that is due and unpaid does not itself earn further interest unless the parties stipulated to capitalize it — or unless it is judicially demanded (Art. 2212). Where interest is charged with no valid written rate, the applicable rate is the legal interest of 6% per annum (Nacar v. Gallery Frames, 2013; BSP Circular 799). A court will strike compounding that is unconscionable under Art. 1306 (Medel v. CA). LabanPH can help you demand a recomputed Statement of Account.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Yes. RA 3765 (Truth in Lending Act) §4 requires a lender, before you become obligated, to disclose to you in writing the amount financed, the finance charge, and the effective interest rate — and RA 11765 (Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection Act, 2022) gives every financial consumer a continuing right to clear information about their account. A lender that refuses to itemize what you owe, or that hid the finance charge at the outset, violates RA 3765 (penalty: fine ₱1,000–₱5,000 or 6 months–1 year imprisonment). LabanPH generates the written demand that puts your lender on the clock.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →There is no Philippine statute that forces an ordinary lender to restructure a loan on demand, so restructuring is generally negotiated, not compelled. But RA 11765 (Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection Act, 2022) requires every financial service provider to treat you fairly and to operate a consumer-assistance mechanism that must receive and act on your proposal — and BSP has, in relief programs, directed supervised lenders to offer restructuring. Put a written restructuring proposal on record; a documented, ignored request strengthens any later complaint. LabanPH helps you draft that proposal and escalate if it is stonewalled.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →An online lending app that operates without an SEC Certificate of Authority is criminally liable under RA 9474 §12: a fine of ₱10,000 to ₱50,000 or imprisonment of 6 months to 10 years, or both. Separately, unfair debt collection under SEC Memorandum Circular 18 (2019) draws administrative fines up to ₱1,000,000 per violation plus suspension or revocation of the Certificate of Authority, and misuse of your personal data violates RA 10173 (imprisonment and fines up to ₱5,000,000 under NPC rules). LabanPH shows you which of these to invoke and files the complaint.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →A short-term online loan's charges are legal only within the BSP caps for covered loans: BSP Circular 1133 (2021), extended by Circular 1165 (2023), limits a general-purpose unsecured loan of up to ₱10,000 with a tenor of 4 months or less to 6% nominal interest per month, a 15% all-in effective cost per month, and a 5%-per-month cap on penalties for late payment. A "processing fee" or "service fee" that pushes the true cost above those ceilings — or that was never disclosed as a finance charge under RA 3765 — is challengeable and refundable. LabanPH's APR calculator exposes the real all-in rate behind the fees.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Online lending platforms are lending companies (RA 9474) or financing companies (RA 8556) that must be registered with, and are supervised by, the SEC — not the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. The National Privacy Commission (RA 10173) separately regulates how an app handles your personal data and contacts, and unfair collection is governed by SEC Memorandum Circular 18 (2019). The BSP regulates only bank- or e-money-issuer-affiliated digital lenders. LabanPH's "Which regulator?" tool routes your specific complaint to the right agency.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Yes — but only if the company behind the app is registered with the SEC as a lending or financing company AND holds a Certificate of Authority to operate, and the specific app is recorded on the SEC's list of Online Lending Platforms. Lending to the public without SEC registration and a Certificate of Authority is prohibited under RA 9474 (Lending Company Regulation Act of 2007) and RA 8556 (Financing Company Act of 1998); the SEC also imposed a moratorium on brand-new OLPs under Memorandum Circular 10, s. 2021. An app run by an unregistered operator is operating illegally, and its collection tactics are usually illegal too.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →For a covered small consumer loan — an unsecured, general-purpose loan of ₱10,000 or less with a term of up to 4 months from a lending or financing company or its online lending platform — SEC Memorandum Circular No. 3, Series of 2022 (which implements BSP Circular No. 1133, s. 2021) caps the charges at: a nominal interest rate of 6% per month (about 0.2% per day); an effective interest rate (EIR) of 15% per month (about 0.5% per day), which folds in all fees and charges but excludes late-payment penalties; a late-payment/non-payment penalty of 5% per month on the outstanding scheduled amount due; and a total cost cap of 100% of the total amount borrowed, covering all interest, fees, charges, AND penalties no matter how long the loan stays unpaid. Loans above ₱10,000 or longer than 4 months fall outside this specific ceiling and are governed instead by disclosure rules and the courts' power to void unconscionable rates.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →For a covered small loan (unsecured, ₱10,000 or less, term up to 4 months), the total of all interest, fees, charges, and penalties can never legally exceed 100% of the amount you borrowed — the total-cost cap under SEC MC 3, s. 2022 and BSP Circular 1133. So a covered ₱5,000 loan can never legally cost you more than ₱5,000 on top of repaying the ₱5,000 principal, no matter how long it stays unpaid. If a lending or financing company or its app has already collected more than double the principal on a covered loan, that is a documentable violation you can report to the SEC and demand back.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →A processing or service fee is not automatically illegal, but on a covered small loan it counts toward the 15% per month effective interest rate (EIR) ceiling — it cannot be used as a hidden extra to push your all-in cost above that cap under SEC MC 3, s. 2022 and BSP Circular 1133. It must also be disclosed in writing before you agree, under RA 3765 (Truth in Lending Act), and the disclosed loan amount should reflect what you actually receive. If an app advertises a ₱10,000 loan but releases only ₱7,000 after silent 'fees' while still charging interest on the full ₱10,000, that is an undisclosed finance charge you can dispute.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →A lender can charge a late-payment penalty in addition to interest, but on a covered small loan (unsecured, ₱10,000 or less, term up to 4 months) the penalty is capped at 5% per month on the outstanding scheduled amount due under SEC MC 3, s. 2022 and BSP Circular 1133 — and once your interest, fees, and penalties together reach 100% of what you borrowed, nothing more can be charged. Penalties are separate from the 15% per month effective-interest ceiling (which covers interest and fees, not penalties), so a lender cannot dodge the interest cap by relabelling interest as a 'penalty'. Charges beyond these ceilings on a covered loan are a documentable violation.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →An unpaid online loan is a civil debt, not a crime: you cannot be arrested or jailed for simply failing to pay it (1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 20). What a legitimate lender can lawfully do is charge capped interest and penalties, report the default to a credit bureau, send lawful demands, and — as a last resort — sue you in a civil (usually small-claims) court to recover the money. What it cannot do is harass you, contact your phone contacts or employer, shame you publicly, or threaten arrest — those are prohibited by SEC MC 18, s. 2019 and, for contact scraping, RA 10173 (Data Privacy Act).
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Legally, a valid loan does not vanish just because the app is removed from the store or the company goes quiet — the debt survives and could still be collected or assigned to another party. But if the operator was never SEC-registered or lost its Certificate of Authority, it was collecting illegally, and you should stop paying through unofficial channels and report it rather than send money to an entity you cannot verify. Keep every record (disbursement, receipts, Statement of Account); if a stranger later demands payment on a 'sold' account, make them prove the debt and their authority to collect before you pay anything.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Being unregistered does not automatically erase the money you actually received — Philippine law generally still expects a borrower to return the principal, and courts can even set a fair legal interest where a contract's rate is void. What an illegal lender loses is the right to enforce abusive, uncapped charges and to use unlawful collection: an operator with no SEC registration or Certificate of Authority is committing an offense under RA 9474, and any contact scraping or harassment breaks SEC MC 18, s. 2019 and RA 10173. So the realistic posture is: you may owe the principal, you almost certainly do not owe the illegal add-ons, and you should report the operator rather than submit to threats.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Report the app on two fronts: (1) to the SEC — the regulator that can actually shut the lender down — through the iMessage portal (imessage.sec.gov.ph) or hotline 1-4SEC (1-4732); and (2) to the app store, using the 'Flag as inappropriate' / report option on the Google Play or Apple App Store listing, citing that it is an unregistered lender that scrapes contacts or harasses borrowers. Google Play's Personal Loans policy already bans apps that access contacts or photos and requires a valid license, so a policy report plus your SEC complaint gives regulators and the platform parallel grounds to remove it.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →A rollover (or 'refinance') is when, instead of letting you clear a short-term loan, the app rolls the unpaid balance into a brand-new loan with fresh interest and fees — so you keep paying but the principal barely moves. It becomes a trap because each new short-term cycle stacks another round of charges, which is exactly why SEC MC 3, s. 2022 and BSP Circular 1133 cap the covered small-loan ceilings and, critically, count a restructured or renewed loan under the same 100%-of-principal total-cost cap. You are entitled to a written Statement of Account and full disclosure of each new loan's terms (RA 3765), and you can insist on a genuine restructuring toward payoff instead of an endless rollover.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Yes — a lender can legally agree to accept a reduced lump sum or to condone (waive) part of the balance, especially penalties and excess charges that already breach the interest ceilings. Nothing forces a lender to settle, but on a covered small loan you have leverage: any interest, fees, and penalties above the 15% per month EIR and 5% per month penalty ceilings, or beyond the 100% total-cost cap, were never validly owed under SEC MC 3, s. 2022. Always get the settlement in writing — the amount, that it is 'full and final settlement', and a receipt/quitclaim — before you pay, so the balance cannot be revived later.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Both are non-bank credit providers regulated by the SEC, but they are chartered under different laws: a lending company operates under RA 9474 (Lending Company Regulation Act of 2007) and typically extends smaller direct consumer loans, while a financing company operates under RA 8556 (Financing Company Act of 1998) and can also do leasing, receivables discounting, and installment financing on a larger scale. For a borrower the practical point is the same: whichever type it is, it must be SEC-registered AND hold a Certificate of Authority to lend, its online lending platform must be recorded with the SEC, and it is bound by the same interest ceilings (SEC MC 3, s. 2022) and anti-harassment rules (SEC MC 18, s. 2019).
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →A lender generally cannot unilaterally increase your interest rate or spring new charges that were not disclosed and agreed to when you took the loan — the finance charges must be disclosed in writing before you are bound, under RA 3765 (Truth in Lending Act), and one party cannot change a contract at will (Civil Code, Art. 1308, the principle of mutuality of contracts). On a covered small loan the total is also boxed in by the SEC MC 3, s. 2022 ceilings, so even 'new' fees cannot push your all-in cost past the 15% per month EIR or the 100% total-cost cap. Any interest hike or fee you never agreed to in writing is disputable and reportable to the SEC.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Yes — a loan you accepted by tapping 'I agree' in an app is generally a valid, enforceable contract. RA 8792 (Electronic Commerce Act of 2000) gives electronic documents and electronic signatures the same legal effect as paper, so clicking to accept can bind you just like a signature. What that does NOT do is waive your protections: the lender still had to disclose the true interest and charges in writing before you agreed (RA 3765), a covered small loan is still bound by the SEC MC 3, s. 2022 ceilings, and the operator still needs SEC registration and a Certificate of Authority to lend at all.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →An app can only pull money from your GCash, card, or bank account if you gave a valid, specific authorization for auto-debit or a linked-account mandate — a lender cannot lawfully take funds without your consent, and consent buried in a blanket permission is contestable. You can revoke a recurring auto-debit or e-wallet auto-charge mandate through your bank or e-wallet provider, and any deduction beyond what you actually authorized (or above the SEC MC 3, s. 2022 caps on a covered loan) is a disputable transaction you can raise with the provider and the SEC. Under RA 11765 the financial provider must act on your written dispute within a set period.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →A lender cannot lawfully manufacture a default by disabling your only way to pay and then piling on penalties — under RA 11765 a financial provider owes you fair dealing and a working way to settle your account. Keep dated proof of every blocked payment attempt (screenshots, error messages, chat logs), and pay through a traceable channel to the company's own account, demanding a receipt. If the creditor unjustly refuses valid payment, the Civil Code lets you discharge the debt by tender and consignation (Arts. 1256–1258) — you deposit the amount with the court and are released. Whatever they later add, the SEC MC 3, s. 2022 caps still bind the balance, and you can report the tactic to the SEC.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Having many app loans does not change your core protections: each loan is a separate civil obligation, so no lender can jail you for non-payment (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 20), and every one of them is still bound by the SEC MC 3, s. 2022 interest and penalty caps and the SEC MC 18 (2019) limits on harassment. Practically, list every loan with its true balance, request a Statement of Account and a restructuring from each lender in writing, and prioritize legitimate SEC-registered debts. Do not take a new app loan to pay an old one — that deepens the spiral. Harassment from any of them is reportable no matter how many apps are chasing you.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →It depends entirely on what that person actually signed. A co-maker or surety binds himself solidarily with you, so under Civil Code Art. 2047 the lender may demand the full amount directly from him without first going after you. A true guarantor is only subsidiarily liable and enjoys the benefit of excussion (Civil Code Arts. 2058–2060) — the creditor must first exhaust your assets before turning to him. Crucially, an 'emergency contact' or a name the app scraped from your phone who never signed a guaranty is NOT liable at all — collecting from or harassing them is an unfair practice under SEC MC 18 (2019) and unauthorized processing under RA 10173.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →When the SEC revokes a lender's Certificate of Authority or cancels its registration, that company can no longer legally operate, lend, or collect as a licensed financing/lending entity under RA 9474 and SEC MC 19 (2019). A loan you actually received generally remains a civil obligation, but the revoked operator loses its authority to run after you, and any collection must still be lawful — interest above the SEC MC 3, s. 2022 caps and any harassment remain void and prohibited. This is different from an app that merely shut down (you may still owe a lawful balance) and from one that was never registered at all. Check the SEC's advisories and revocation orders for the entity, keep your payment records, and route any complaint to the SEC.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →The SEC records and evaluates your complaint against the lender, and it may direct the company to answer, investigate the conduct, and — where warranted — issue a Cease and Desist Order, revoke the Certificate of Authority, impose fines, coordinate the app's takedown with Google Play or the NPC, or refer the matter for criminal prosecution under RA 9474. There is no fixed public timeline, and a single complaint may not immediately end the harassment, so keep your complaint reference number and any acknowledgment. Because the SEC acts on patterns, multiple complaints about the same app strengthen the case — so file, keep your evidence, and follow up. This is the administrative track; you keep separate civil and criminal remedies for harassment.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Yes. Nothing stops many borrowers who suffered the same abusive app from filing together or submitting separate affidavit-complaints about the same entity, and a volume of consistent complaints is a documented trigger for SEC advisories, Cease and Desist Orders, and revocations under RA 9474, SEC MC 18 (2019), and SEC MC 19 (2019). This is an administrative process, not a court class action, so each complainant should still set out their own facts, amounts, and evidence — but coordinating means the regulator sees the pattern, not just one voice. Group filings can also be echoed to the NPC for the shared contact-scraping and to Google Play for the app itself.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →As a rule, no — borrowing from a second app to pay the first usually adds fresh processing fees, interest, and penalties on top of an already-capped balance, and it accelerates the debt spiral rather than ending it. Your protections do not depend on staying current: each loan is a separate civil obligation, you cannot be jailed for non-payment (1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 20), and both apps are still bound by the SEC MC 3, s. 2022 caps and the SEC MC 18 (2019) limits on harassment. The stronger move is to request a Statement of Account and a restructuring from the original lender, verify each app is SEC-registered, and stop taking new app loans. If an app is unregistered or abusive, report it rather than feed it.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →Yes — that is a serious red flag. A legitimate SEC-registered lender collects repayments into a company account and issues an official receipt or acknowledgment; being told to send money to a personal GCash or bank number risks paying a scammer while your recorded balance stays untouched, and it can signal an unregistered or fraudulent operation. Before paying anything, verify the entity on the SEC's list of registered lending/financing companies and its online-lending platforms; if you can't confirm it, treat the 'loan' with caution and do not send funds to a personal account. Insist on the company's official payment channel and a receipt, and report a demand-to-personal-account to the SEC (and, if it's an outright scam, to the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group).
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →You have a right to accurate account information and records under RA 11765, so once you've settled, ask the lender in writing for a Certificate of Full Payment (or a Statement of Account showing a zero balance) and keep every payment receipt or reference number. In the same request, tell them to update any credit-bureau record to reflect the payment, and — because they no longer need your data to collect — to stop processing and, where appropriate, erase personal information under RA 10173. If the lender refuses to confirm a paid-off loan or keeps demanding money on a settled account, that is a disputable practice you can escalate to the SEC. Save the certificate; it is your protection if a resold 'balance' resurfaces later.
Read the full answer, sources & FAQ →