A complaint was filed by the petitioner against a digital lending platform. The latter’s operator accessed the petitioner’s contact list on her phone and proceeded to inform her contacts that as the petitioner’s supposed guarantors, they will be forced to settle the petitioner’s unpaid loan obligations. The NPC decided in favor of the petitioner but the decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals (CA) on the ground that the evidence – screenshots of text messages – were unauthenticated and therefore inadmissible. This was raised by the operator only at the CA level.
The Supreme Court reinstated the NPC ruling, noting that the failure to timely object to the evidence was a waiver of the objection, and the rule that a question of inadmissibility may not be raised on the first time on appeal, is true whether the decision elevated for review originated from a regular court, administrative agency, or a quasi-judicial body such as the NPC.
The tribunal also briefly explained the rules of procedure for initiating a complaint with the NPC. In the course of the proceedings before the NPC, the assigned investigating officer must issue an order for all parties to confer as to whether discovery of information and of electronically-stored information is likely to be sought. A copy of the complaint and its supporting evidence will be included in the order to confer for discovery. Parties have the right to examine the evidence submitted.
The mention of the NPC’s ruling on unauthorized processing may also be noted. In ruling for the complainant (the petitioner in the Supreme Court case), the NPC explained that the lending platform, in sending out messages to the contacts of the complainant, gathered personal information in excess of what was necessary and processed them for purposes other than those stated in their own privacy policy. The tenor of the messages, and the intention to shame the complainant and jeopardize her reputation until the latter settled her obligations constituted unauthorized processing of personal information with malice.
For further information, please contact:
Ricardo Ma.P.G.Ongkiko FCIArb, Partner, SyCipLaw
rmpgongkiko@syciplaw.com
