Whenever a suspected collector attempts to contact me posing as a card defaulter, I normally try these
tests:
a. give them a masked email add;
b. urge them to call me at a certain number
c. insert a " buy me a yumburgers" clause
Voila! attempts averted.
Try to be creative with collectors. They too undergo training, thus, our usual pretext of "nag-resign na"
or " no longer residing here" will no longer hold water.
When trying to contact you, a creative way could be "e-mail forwarding" or call diverts to a number,
say, 1326.
or just tell them " Let's talk in court.masama ba yun?"
Salamat @retiredbanker
ReplyDeleteHi po,
ReplyDelete@retiredbanker. Nag email po ako sa inyo. Salamat po
confirmed π
DeleteThe #SupremeCourtPH (SC) has clarified that the salaries of public officials can be garnished—or legally collected—by the courts to pay off their debts. These salaries are not exempt from garnishment under current laws and rules.
ReplyDeleteIn a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division ruled that the salary of Atty. Fred L. Bagbagen, a Baguio City councilor, can be garnished to pay his debt to respondent Anna May F. Perez.
Bagbagen was cleared of criminal charges for estafa, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) still found him civilly liable and ordered him to pay Perez PHP 308,000. The RTC allowed the garnishment of his salary, which was then withheld by the Philippine Veterans Bank.
Bagbagen attempted to stop the garnishment, arguing that his salaries should not be collected due to public policy reasons, and that these funds were still considered government property until spent.
The SC affirmed the ruling of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that once a public official’s salary is deposited in their personal bank account, it is no longer considered government money.
It emphasized that there is no law exempting public officials’ salaries from garnishment. Under Rule 39 of the ππΆππ¦π΄ π°π§ ππ°πΆπ³π΅, salaries – whether in the public or private sector – can be garnished to settle debts.
An exception exists for manual laborers, whose wages are protected to ensure they can still support their families. The SC explained that manual laborers “usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for immediate or present support, and such persons are more in need of the exemption than any other.”
However, only up to four months’ worth of wages are exempt. Any amount beyond that can still be collected to pay debts.
Read the full text of the Press Release at https://tinyurl.com/44u5fp2s.
Read the full text of the Decision at https://tinyurl.com/4pzbvsv9.
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution-policy/.
Thanks for this update.
DeleteUnder Rule 39, there is no all-encompassing exemption except if it does not fall within the "four months preceding the levy are necessary for the support of his family"
- Atty. Cesar Roniega
https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2025/07/07/2456062/sc-officials-salaries-can-be-withheld-pay-debt
ReplyDeleteMANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court (SC) has declared that salaries of public officials, including local government executives, are not exempt from garnishment under current laws and rules to pay off their debts.
ReplyDeleteIn a ruling penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division affirmed the garnishment of the salary of lawyer Fred Bagbagen, a Baguio City councilor, to pay his P308,000 debt to Anna May Perez.
Bagbagen was cleared of criminal charges for estafa, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) still found him civilly liable and ordered him to pay Perez, allowing the garnishment of his salary, which was then withheld by the Philippine Veterans Bank.
Salary garnishment is a legal process of withholding a portion of a person’s wages to pay off a debt.
Bagbagen attempted to stop the garnishment, arguing that his salaries should not be collected due to public policy reasons, and that these funds were still considered government property until spent.
Both the RTC and the Court of Appeals disagreed with his arguments, holding that once a public official’s salary is deposited in their personal bank account, it is no longer considered government money.
The SC affirmed this ruling, saying there is no existing law that exempts the salaries of public officials from garnishment.
Citing Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the high tribunal said salaries – whether in the public or private sector – can be garnished to settle debts.
A public servant’s income, once deposited, is no longer considered government property and is subject to the same legal processes as private sector wages.
An exception under the rule protects the wages of manual laborers, with up to four months’ worth of their earnings being exempt from garnishment.
The SC explained that these workers “usually look to the reward of a day’s labor for immediate or present support, and such persons are more in need of the exemption than any other.”
The high court further noted that public officials are held to a higher standard regarding their financial obligations due to “their constitutional role as custodians of public trust.”
WB Ramon Delgado! π€
DeleteThanks for this update ( G.R. 274980 2/17/2025 )
This ruling reiterate/elucidate further what G.R.21189 dated Nov. 28,1964 made. π
thank you po banker, sana huwag matakot yun mga nasa government sector especially yun mga nasa DEPED about this. di naman agad magkaka decision yan and always meron exemptions yan
ReplyDeleteTrue. G.R. 21189 already spelled it out. they can always call me if gusto i-clarify. π
Delete
ReplyDeleteThis Is from CIDG Camp Crame Anti Fraud And Crime Division. This is to inform you that your court summon and subpeona will be served within 24hours under ARTICLE 315 revice penal code ESTAFA and ARTICLE 318 DECEIT CASE filed which ia due for cowarrant to be assisted by CITY POLICE
PMSG. RYAN BALTAZAR
CIDG CAMP CRAME
FOR MORE DETAILS CONTACT US
09650710166
ano daw? too many inconsistencies - informing in advance in arresting a person? doesn't make sense to me. π€
ReplyDeleteReceived an email from metc1pas155@judiciary.gov.ph
ReplyDeleteWhat to do? Na stress po ako bigla
concern duly addressed and straightened out ( I hope)
Deleteπ
Ask lang po. Pumunta po ng bahay namin si RGS dito sa province. Nagbigay ng demand letter at pinakausap sakin via phone yung manager nung agent na pumunta. Yung demand letter po ba dapat po ba manggaling kay MB or pwede sa CA? Letterhead po kasi ni CA yun. After ng demand letter ni CA, pwede na ba magfile ng case nun si MB? May nareceive din kasi ako demand letter from BDO pero letterhead ng bank and pinadala via courier. Closed na BDO ko kasi fully paid na sya. Thanks po.
ReplyDeleteregardless sa nakalagay sa demand letter, if walang pambayad eh di wala... if ma demanda, always decision is pay when able..
Deleteask lang po kapag may writ of execution na, at subject for garnishment ang salary nagpapadala poba ng notice ang sherif sa employer? para po kasing sinasabi dun sa nabasa ko na kailangang mag complied ang employer kung hindi ay may legal penalties. kabado lang po ako madami po kase akong balance sa cc ko, kung sabay sabay silang nagkaso, wala napo matitira sa sweldo ko.
ReplyDeletemuch better withdraw muna lahat ng pera ng payroll atm mo para iwas kuha nila
DeleteMagkano po inabot kasama interest? May i know po what bank and collection agency please? How long po delinquent bago sila mag proceed ng case and ilan months po ma execute? I also have this problem but cant pay due to non-employment since nanganak ako.
Deletehello po ask lang po, ang sss pension po ba exempted sa garnishment? salamat po sana masagot.
ReplyDeleteRA 11199
DeleteSection 16. Exemption from Tax, Legal Process and Lien. -
x x x x shall not be liable to attachments, garnishments, levy or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatsoever, x x x except to pay any debt of the member to the SSS.
Salamat po banker, tama po pagkaintindi ko na exempted sa garnishment ang sss pension na pumapasok sa bank.
ReplyDeleteπ
DeleteIf may bad cc relationship history kayo ng bank (more or less some good 10+ years ago), would it be a good idea to start over again by opening a savings account with them? (this is for RCBC and Eastwest) Ilang years ba ang validity (if that's the correct term) ng record na nakaflag yung profile mo?
ReplyDeleteOr possible pa rin na mangyari yung naging issue before (or until now ata) when UB took over Citibank and nag-autodeduct sila sa amount na nasa savings nung client?
I’m seriously considering to reestablish my financial relationship with the first bank na binigyan ako ng cc then. We’re in a far better situation now (especially in finances) and now with two cards with “pwede na” as credit limit. Is it a wise decision to reestablish the relationship (sounds like a bad breakup) or just cultivate the finances with the bank I’m currently dealing with?
Would love to hear your thoughts.
HELLO @everyone, SORRY SORRY FOR UNABLE TO BE ACTIVE HERE.
ReplyDeleteNASIRA LAPTOP KO huhuhuhuhuu BUT YOU CAN CONTACT ME OR WANT TO ASK QUESTION in this email
mrkabado033@gmail.com
just got an email from our office contact center, they received an email from care.two@consultplus.com.ph regarding important legal matters involving their current employees, (me).. sure naman ako na collector yan, kaso dumaan na sila sa opis ko, matagal na silang tumatawag but i always ignore their call.. justwhat to know ano po need kong gawin?
ReplyDeletethank you
sabihan mo na scam ka. the office has nothing to do with your CC default.
ReplyDeleteDear.....
ReplyDeleteThis is Jayson Reyes from SP Madrid Law Firm. I am reaching out regarding your account with UnionBank.
Please be informed that our law firm has waited long enough for your response to our messages and calls. We urge you to take immediate action to avoid possible legal action on your account.
Call us now at 0919 059 9881 | spmadrid_ recovery@ spmadridlaw. com to settle your obligation with Union Bank.
@Bankee, na sstress na ako, madalas na silang mag call sa akin, tsaka c metro at EW, naka block nga lang unknown calller ko. C sp po ba notorious na nagdedemanda?
C GCCS makulit din.
e3u73f5qu@mozmail.com
Delete- reTIRED Banker
π
Thank you @reTIRED Banker , super worthy talking to you. Na-lift, nag left/nawala ang kaba at anxiety ko.
ReplyDeleteNakareceive po ako ulit ng demand letter from another collections agency. Bale may unpaid cc po ako sa RCBC, Unionbank, at Metro pati sa Security bank pero ito nababayaran ko paunti unti kasi payroll ko. Tumitigil din ba yung pagsend nila ng demand letters? Gaano katagal sila bago magkaso? I’m currently pregnant at naiistress po ako sa mga calls emails and demand letters. Wala naman pa akong pambayad ngayon kasi saktuhan lang ang sweldo ko. :(
ReplyDeleteAnother message from scammer collector
ReplyDeleteDear Mr./Mrs. Delgado,
This is a follow-up to all notices and demands made by OUR “client” RCBC BANKARD. this is relative to your “MasterCard”. It appears you have ignored and still refuses to settle your moral/financial obligation as the given grace period expired and you not showing any efforts to resolve.
Considering that our client “RCBC BANKARD” had been very lenient, in giving you more than ample time to update your payments. Dissimilar for now, we are only given a limited time frame to work out any arrangements, and unless we received your reported payment and/or proposal for settlement within 4 days to 5 days from receipt hereof, you will give us with no other recourse but to recommend or escalate and process your account for special handling and may impose additional penalty charges and interest applicable. for assistance you can call us at 09171737020.
Hello po, may default cc po ako kay UBP 3 yrs na po at nasa 24kaccounts na collecting agency na po sha. 116k po defaulted amount ko. Concerned lang po ako about garnishment, yung name ko po kasi sa CC before is married name kona, may payroll account ako sa Bpi pero yung name kopa sa pagka dalaga gamit dun. Wala po ako sa corporate ngayun pero nag dedeposit ako pera dun sa bpi account. Possible po ba ma garnish yun since nakapangalan bpi account ko nung di pa ako kasal? Also, ma gagarnish din po kaya ni UBP ang account ng husband ko po since siya yung naka comaker nung nag apply ako ng CC sa ubp. Sana masagot po, medjo worried ako kasi after 3 years first time ko maka receive nang letter (pero yung letter hindi ko tinanggap kasi tita ko yung mag rereceive sana pero ininform ko sha wag tanggapin kc di na ako dun nakatira)
ReplyDeleteThank u in advance po sa sagot at advise
Hello, everyone. It's been years since I posted and visited this blog. Anyone having problems with Unionbank right now? I have defaulted my Citibank CC way back 2015 siguro, worth 3k plus annual fees maybe. Last Thursday they offset my balances sa UB savings account for 6k plus. Here's the thing. Citibank never sent me any SOA, demand letter, or anything at all. I actually forgot how much was my outstanding balance with them. Ano po ba pwedeng i-site na violation for disclosure from BSP since I don't have any idea kung magkano babayaran sa kanila. Salamat po!
ReplyDeleteActually may ryt sila na ioffset account mo since under na sila ni UB
Delete