SEC En Banc Case No. 04-25-573In the Matter of Surity Cash Lending Investors Corporation Doing Business Under the Name of SURITY CASH

Republic of the the Philippines Department of Finance Securities and Exchange Commission COMMISSION EN BANC IN THE MАTTER OF: SURITY CASH LENDING INVESTORS CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF SURITY CASH, Appellant, SEC En Banc Case No. 04-25-573 -versus- (Finlend Case No. 2025-02) Promulgated: 16 September 2025 FINANCING AND LENDING COMPANIES DIVISION, Appellee. X-- DECISION Before this Commission is the Appeal Memorandum dated 11 April 2025 (the "Appeal") filed by Surity Cash Lending Investors Corporation, praying for the reversal and the setting aside of the Order dated 14 January 2025 (the "Assailed Order") issued by the Financing and Lending Companies Department, the dispositive portion of which, in part, reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Certificate of Incorporation Registration (SEC REG No. CS 201910185) AND the Certificate of Authority to Operate as a Lending Company (CA No. 3013) including the Authority to Operate its Online Lending Platform, Surity Cash, of Respondent Surity Cash Lending Investors Corporation are hereby REVOKED. This Order shall be immediately executory. THE PARTIES Appellant, Surity Cash Lending Investors Corporation (the "Corporation") is a domestic corporation duly organized and existing under Philippine laws, having been issued a Certificate of Incorporation bearing registration number SEC No. CS201910185. Its principal office is at the 11th Floor Coherco Financial Tower, Trade Avenue, Alabang, Muntinlupa City. The Corporation is a grantee of a Certificate of Authority to Operate as a Lending Company ("CA") with CA No. 3013, which allows

In the Matter of Surity Cash Lending Investors Corporation SEC En Banc Case No. 04-25-573 DECISION x-- it to engage in lending business. It owns and operates the online lending application/platform (OLP) Surity Cash. Appellee, the Financing and Lending Companies Department (FLCD) is a department of this Commission tasked to monitor and enforce compliance by financing companies (FCs) and lending companies (LCs) with the Financing Company Act, the Lending Company Regulation Act, the Financial Products and Services Consumer Protection Act, and their respective implementing rules and regulations, among others. The FLCD is sufficiently vested with authority to suspend or revoke the Certificates of Registration and CA of LCs or FCs. RELEVANT FACTS The FLCD (then Financing and Lending Companies Division under the Corporate Governance and Finance Department) received complaints between September 2022 to March 2023 from the purported borrowers of the Corporation on its alleged violation of Memorandum Circular No. 18, series of 2019, (MC No. 18) otherwise known as the Prohibition on Unfair Debt Collection Practices of Financing Companies and Lending Companies. The complainants and their respective allegations borne in their respective complaints (the "Complaints") are summarized as follows: (1) Gary Videña (Gary) alleged that the Corporation sent messages that were disrespectful in tenor in effecting collection of his loan amount;1 (2) Cristi Mary Veronica Ectobañez (Cristi) alleged that the Corporation sent text messages containing hurtful words, and threats directed at her sibling, in effecting collection of the amount which she borrowed;2 (3) Jenifer M. Belda (Jenifer) alleged that she experienced depression and harassment consequent to the Corporation's manner of collecting loan, particularly its disclosure of her loan details to one of her named references;3 (4) Gellie Rodriguez (Gellie) alleged that even without any delay in payment, the Corporation's agent had been harassing and threatening her that a case would be filed against her, and 1 Order dated 14 January 2025. See pages 1 to 2. 2 Ibid., pages 2 to 3. 3 Ibid., page 3.

In the Matter of Surity Cash Lending Investors Corporation SEC En Banc Case No. 04-25-573 DECISION x- her loan details would be disclosed to the persons in her workplace and the barangay;4 and (5) Sherwin Caraan (Sherwin) alleged that he received text messages with varying degrees of rude threats and harassment from the Corporation despite his proposal to pay his loan on certain dates.5 Acting on the Complaints, Show Cause Letters were issued to the Corporation on different dates,6 directing it to explain why it should not be penalized for violating MC No. 18.7 In response,8 the Corporation claimed that the mobile numbers in the screenshots provided by complainants do not belong to its employees/agents; and neither were these mobile numbers issued by it. The Corporation equally assured the FLCD that its collection agent, Upright Recovery and Collections Management Services, Inc. (the "Collection Agent"), agreed in writing to abide by all applicable rules and regulations issued by the Commission, and to terminate any employee who will be found to violate the same.9 The records also show that the Corporation responded to the complainants with the letters that were sent to them individually,10 informing the latter of the Corporation's zero tolerance policy on violations of MC No. 18; and denying ownership of the mobile numbers that were used to allegedly threaten or harass them. On 12 April 2023, the FLCD conducted a conference which was attended by the Corporation's President, Ms. Mary Leabelle Ibarreta, its counsel, Atty. Katrin Jessica Distor-Guinigundo of Calleja Law Office, and its employees Ms. Precious Danel De Asis and Ms. Dana, who presented and explained the defenses of the Corporation. The FLCD then directed the Corporation to submit its Position Paper. On 14 May 2023, the Corporation filed its Position Paper with the FLCD, therein reiterating its defenses and prayer for the dismissal of the Complaints. In particular, the Corporation stressed that it has implemented its existing policies against any act that violates MC No. 4 Ibid., pages 3 to 4. 5 Ibid. pages 4 to 5. 6 19 October 2021, 22 March 2022, 20 and 21 July 2022, and 3 March 2023. 7 Id. page 1. 8 Comment/Opposition. Annexes "A", "B", "C","D",and "E". 9 Id. page 2. 10 Comment/Opposition dated 5 June 2025. See Annexes "A" to "E".

In the Matter of Surity Cash Lending Investors Corporation SEC En Banc Case No. 04-25-573 DECISION x- 18;11 denied ownership of the numbers mentioned in the Complaints;12 and maintained that the complainants failed to establish that the mobile numbers used in carrying out unfair collection practices belong to the Corporation.13 January 2025, the FLCD, through its OIC-Director Atty. On 14 Kenneth Joy A. Quimio (OIC Quimio), issued an Order (the "Assailed Order") revoking the Corporation's Certificate of Incorporation and Certificate of Authority (hereafter referred to collectively as the "Certificates") on the basis of a finding that it committed multiple violations of MC No. 18. OIC Quimio ruled that the Corporation's violation of Section 1 of MC No. 18 (5 counts), was based on: (a) its failure to specifically deny the allegations in the complaints which resulted in the same being deemed admitted;14 and (b) the substantial evidence presented by the complainants showing that the Corporation and/or its Collection Agent employed threats in effecting the collection of the loan amounts.15 OIC Quimio further ruled that the Corporation's belated submission of the sworn certification prescribed under Section 4 of MC No. 18 also constituted a violation of the said circular.16 In the instant Appeal, the Corporation claims that it has been denied of due process,17 and assails the findings of the FLCD for want of legal and factual bases. In particular, the Corporation bewails the FLCD's conclusion that the mobile numbers in the screenshots submitted by the complainants belong to it, alleging that the FLCD did not even conduct/make an independent verification,18 and no evidence was shown establishing its ownership of the said numbers other than the bare allegations of the complainants.19 The Corporation also argued that even on the assumption that the text messages came from its Collection Agent, such messages did not constitute harassment, misleading representations or unauthorized disclosure of borrower information.20 The Corporation maintained that MC No. 18 does not prohibit contacting references that were voluntarily provided by the borrowers; informing borrowers of their overdue accounts and the remedies available under the law; and requesting from borrowers for update on their payments, 11 Position Paper, pars. 31 to 39. 12 Ibid., pars. 48 to 51. 13 Ibid., par. 60. 14 OIC Quimio applied Rule 8, Section 11 of the 2019 Rules of Court. See Order, page 6. 15 Order. pages 9 to 10. 16 Ibid. page 12. 17 Appeal. pars. 39, 40, 41 and 43. 18 lbid. par. 14. 19 Ibid. par. 15. 20 Ibid. pars. 22, 25, 27, 28, 30, and 31.