By Ade S. Fajardo
In a previous article, we detailed how online lenders have targeted low income earning employees who are strapped for cash and are desperate for immediate relief.
Unscrupulous lenders access the borrower’s mobile phone list of contacts. They then look into the photo gallery and use private or protected images and send offensive or threatening messages in cases where borrowers are not updated with their payments.
Borrowers have reported getting blackmailed with personal photos. Sensitive photos are tools in high-pressure collection tactics to recover loans with very high interest rates.
***
One such victim formally lodged a complaint with the National Privacy Commission (NPC) sometime in 2019.
Grace charged Fast Cash for violating several provisions of Republic Act No. 10173 or the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
She claimed that Fast Cash accessed her phone’s contact list without her authority and informed everyone on the list regarding the status of her loan.
Grace narrated the unauthorized access on her phone’s contact list.
Fast Cash informed everyone about her loan with the company.
She said that “the worst part is, the last message my co-worker[s] and friends got was they were my guarantors and if no payment was made, they are being forced to pay on my behalf. They even called my friends and co-workers though they have nothing to do about my transactions with them.”
***
Grace alleged that the violations of the Data Privacy Act ruined her reputation. She submitted screenshots of the text messages supposedly sent by Fast Cash to her friends.
Fast Cash chose not to answer her complaint although it had made a formal appearance before the NPC.
The NPC awarded damages to Grace and recommended the prosecution of Fast Cash for the crimes under Sections 28 and 31 of the Data Privacy Act.
***
The NPC explained that Fast Cash gathered personal information in excess of what was necessary. The information was then processed for purposes other than those stated in their own privacy policy. It is illegal to send out messages to the contacts of Grace.
The NPC also found that the processing of personal information was done maliciously.
The messages themselves show Fast Cash’s unquestionable intention to shame Grace and jeopardize her reputation until she is compelled to settle her loan. The NPC decided that Fast Cash violated her right to privacy.
***
The Supreme Court, writing through Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, affirmed the admissibility of the screenshots showing the text messages sent by Fast Cash to the Grace’s contact list.
Fast Cash effectively waived its right to raise objections when it failed to answer the complaint despite due notice and its initial participation in the proceedings.
***
With this decision, the Supreme Court supported Grace’s position that the online lender violated her privacy rights when it sent messages to the people in her phone contact list.
The Data Privacy Act of 2012 was enacted to address abuse in digital spaces and shield personal information from illegal access and circulation./WDJ