Dear PAO,

Last year, my father obtained a personal loan amounting to Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) from a known loan shark. Because he was unexpectedly laid off from work, he was unable to pay the loan when it fell due. Yesterday, two (2) individuals who introduced themselves as law enforcement officers went to our residence and demanded that my father accompany them to the police station. Naturally, he refused, and shortly thereafter, he began receiving a series of text messages containing threats, including a claim that a warrant for his arrest had just been issued and will soon be enforced on account of his failure to settle his debt. Terrified at the thought of being suddenly arrested, my father now refuses to leave the house, let alone go to the police station to report the threats. I just want to know if he can really be arrested and imprisoned for his failure to pay his debt. Thank you.

Sam

Dear Sam,

Article III, Section 20 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly provides that “[n]o person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax.” The guarantee of immunity from imprisonment to a person who shall fail to pay his/her debt was “brought about by the force of public opinion which looked with abhorrence on statutory provision which permitted the cruel imprisonment of debtors. The people sought to prevent the use of the power of the State to coerce the payment of debts. The control of the creditor over the person of his debtor was abolished by human statutory and constitutional provisions.” (George H. Ganaway vs. J. W. Quillen, GR 18619, Feb. 20, 1922, Ponente: Associate Justice George Malcolm).

In the Quillen case, the Supreme Court shed light on the scope of the constitutional guarantee, essentially limiting its application to civil actions, the object and sole purpose of which is collection of debts. This means that the State is not precluded from prosecuting cases of debt incurred through fraudulent means, i.e., estafa, which remain punishable by imprisonment in our jurisdiction.

In your father’s case, the constitutional guarantee against imprisonment for debt renders it highly unlikely, if not impossible, for him to be arrested and imprisoned on account of his mere failure to settle his debt. At most, the only recourse available to the creditor would be the filing of a civil case for collection of sum of money, specifically a small claims case, against your father, following the Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (a.m. 08-8-7-SC dated 1 March 2022), which provides:

“RULE I

“APPLICABILITY

“Section 1. Coverage. – These Rules shall govern the expedited procedures in the Metropolitan Trial Courts (MeTCs), the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities (MTCCs), the Municipal Trial Courts (MTCs) and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts (MCTCs), for the following cases falling within their jurisdiction: A. CIVIL CASES (1) Summary Procedure Cases, as follows: xxx (2) Small Claims Cases, as defined hereunder, where the claim does not exceed One Million Pesos (P1,000,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.

“A ‘small claim’ is an action that is purely civil in nature where the claim or relief raised by the plaintiff is solely for the payment or reimbursement of a sum of money. It excludes actions seeking other claims or reliefs aside from payment or reimbursement of a sum of money and those coupled with provisional remedies.”

Consequently, the claim that a warrant for your father’s arrest had been issued is, for all intents and purposes, a sham that should not be given any regard.

We hope that we are able to answer your queries. This advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

We appreciate your trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected].