SEC En Banc Case No. 07-23-003In the matter of: UPESO.PH LENDING CORPORATION WITH ONLINE LENDING PLATFORMS OPERATING UNDER THE NAME OF UPESO, PERA4U, PERALENDING, AND LOANMOTO

Securities and Exchange Commission Republic of the Philippines Department of Finance

COMMISSION EN BANC

In the Matter of SEC En Banc Case No.07-23-003

U-PESO.PH LENDING ForViolation of SEC MC No.18,s FLCD CD0 Case No.28,s.2023

CORPORATION WITH ONLINE 2019, Financial Products and LENDING PLATFORMS Services Consumer Protection Act OPERATING UNDER THE NAME OF PERALENDING, UPESO, PERA4U, AND and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Promulgated:21 November 2023 LOANMOTO As

RESOLUTION

July 2023(theMotion to Lift"filed of even date by U-PESO.PH Lending Corporation (U-PESO Lending)1,praying that the Commission lifts the This resolves the Motion to Lift Cease and Desist Order dated 03

by the Commission's Financing and Lending Companies Division (FLCD), the dispositive portion of which reads: Cease and Desist Order dated 22 June 2023 (the"Assailed CD0") issued

lending platforms, together with its owners, operators, transaction." DESIST from engaging in, carrying out, any unfair debt collection practices in connection to any lending activity/ "WHEREFORE, U-PESO.PH Lending Corporation including its branches, extension, satellite offices, units, and online PERSONS CLAIMING AND ACTING FOR AND,IN THEIR BEHALF,are hereby ORDERED to immediately CEASE AND promoters, representatives, agents AND ANY AND ALL

maintains the online lending platforms (OLPs) (a) UPESO, (b) PERA4U, Philippine laws, having been issued a Certificate of Incorporation with Company Registration Number CS201814908 on 24 July 2019. It is authorized under its Articles of Incorporation to engage in and carry out a lending business under Certificate of Authority(CA) Number 2718,and c)PERALENDING,anddLOANMOTO.Its principal office address is at U-PESO.PH is a corporation duly organized and existing under

1 Received on 03 July 2023 via email by the Office of the General Counsel.

In the Matter of: U-Peso.Ph Lending Corporation with Online Lending Platforms Operating Under The Name Of Upeso,Pera4u,Peralending,And Loanmoto. SEC En Banc Case No. 07-23-003 RESOLUTION Page 2 of 9

the 11th Floor Trade Ave., Coherco Financial Tower Ayala Alabang Muntinlupa City.

PESO Lending to immediately cease and desist from engaging in, carrying out, any unfair debt collection practices in connection to any lending On 22 June 2023, the FLCD issued the Assailed CD0 directing U-

activity/transaction, on the basis of a finding that it violated R.A. No. 11765 otherwise known as the Financial Products and Service Consumer Protection Act (FCPA) and Memorandum Circular No.18,series of 2019 (MC No.18).Specifically, the FLCD found that during the period from September 2022 to March 2023,numerous complaints were filed against U-PESO Lending and its third-party service provider for abusive collection and debt recovery practices.

grounds: (a) it was denied due process since it did not receive any notice, that the Assailed CDO be reconsidered and lifted on the following On 03 July 2023, U-PES0 Lending filed the Motion to Lift, praying

subpoena, or other correspondence with respect to the criminal complaint purportedly filed with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Warrant to Search, Seize and Examine Computer Data (the "Warrant") which were used as the basis for its issuance;3(b) the Warrant was not implemented in its Pasig offices and no proof was adduced in the Assailed

there were only seven (7) complaints were lodged before the FLCD and their claims;5 and (d) the claims cannot be said to cause "grave and the concerned client-debtors were all afforded due process in ventilating CDO regarding the evidence obtained during its implementation;4 (c)

irreparable injury or prejudiceto financial consumers in their entirety

In its Comment/Opposition7,the FLCD prayed for the denial of the Motion to Lift on the ground that:(a) it was able to prove by substantial evidence that U-PESO Lending violated the FCPA and MC No.18b U- PESO Lending is solidarily liable with its third-party service providers i.e. FESL BPO and Realm Shifters which has been shown to have employed abusive collection and debt recovery practices; (c) the number of the pending complaints lodged with FLCD show that they are likely to cause grave and irreparable injury or prejudice to financial consumers,as the concept is defined by jurisprudence.10

2 No.2023-028-PSG issued by Hon. Elma M. Rafallo-Lingan of the Regional Trial Court Branch 159, Pasig City 5 Ibid.Par.12 3 Motion to Lift.Pars.4,6,7,8 and 14 4 Ibid,Par.9.

Comment/Opposition dated 20 July 2023. Pars. 4, 5, 7(c) (d)(e), and 8 9 Ibid. Pars. 2 and 5 10 Id. Par.7 6IbidPar.12and 13 7 Dated 20 July 2023

In the Matter of:U-Peso.Ph Lending Corporation with Online Lending Platforms Operating Under The Name Of UpesoPera4uPeralending And Loanmoto SEC En Banc Case No.07-23-003 RESOLUTION Page 3 of 9

In compliance with the Order issued on 02 August 2023, the parties filed their respective Position Papers which essentially reiterated their earlier allegations and arguments.

As for U-PESO Lending, it further maintained that its third-party

the services of Realm Shifters contrary to the allegation of FLCD.11 service providers are only GCCS and Upright; and it did not not engage

Moreover, the fact that there is no employer-employee relationship between U-PESO Lending and its third-party service providers negates any liability on the part of the former considering that it has no direct control and supervision over the latter's agents.12 It also averred that all its collection agents, as well as its third-party service providers13 undergo formal training consistent with its policies which are strictly implemented, and are made aware that any violation is meted with the appropriate sanction.14

After a meticulous consideration of the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, the Commission En Banc resolves to deny the Motion to Lift for want of merit and basis.

The Commission is mandated under Section 2 of R.A.No.9474 or the Lending Company Regulation Act, to exercise regulatory and

companies (LCs) with the objective, among others, of effectively supervisory authority over financing companies (FCs) and lending

preventing and addressing practices/transactions that are prejudicial to public interest pursuant, to wit:

"Sec.2.Declaration of Policy.-It is the policy of the State to

the interest of consumers of financial products and services ensure that appropriate mechanisms are in place to protect

under the conditions of transparency, fair and sound market conduct, and fair, reasonable, and effective handling of financial consumer disputes, which are aligned with global

in the financial market and foster the stability of the Philippine best practices. These mechanisms reinforce their confidence financial system."

was issued to effectively address and put a stop to the abusive,unethical In implementing the Lending Company Regulation Act, MC No. 18

and unfair collection practices of lending and/or financing companies which have become notoriously pervasive,including and especially those

14 Ibid. Pars. 13 to 17 11 Position Paper 22 June 2023. Pars. 10, 18 and 28 12 Ibid. Par. 22 13 (bid. Pars. 19, 20, 21 (see Annex "1")

In the Matter of: U-Peso.Ph Lending Corporation with Online Lending Platforms Operating Under The Name Of Upeso,Pera4u,Peralending,And Loanmoto. SEC En Banc Case No.07-23-003 RESOLUTION Page 4 of 9

who engage the services of third-party service providers who are known to be equally employing unfair collection practices to avoid liability for client harassment.15 The issuance and implementation of MC 18 was made pursuant to a valid exercise of the regulatory and supervisory power of the Commission over lending and financing companies, to carry out its mandate, among others, of placing their operations on a sound, competitive,stable and efficient basis,and in preventing acts or practices prejudicial to the public interest.16

There is nothing in MC 18 which prevents LCs or FCs from enforcing, even by implication, a contractual obligation against its borrowers for debts lawfully made. MC 18 recognizes and implements the rule established both in law and jurisprudencel7 that a loan obligation should be paid.This is consistent with the State's policy which recognizes the critical role of lending and financing companies in providing medium and long-term credit for investments, and as an additional source of

place to ensure that the collection of loans by lending and/or financing credit.18 This notwithstanding,it should be emphasized that MC 18 is in

companies is made within the bounds of law, and does not violate the privacy, dignity, and well-being of borrowers.

that U-PESO Lending (a) employed abusive collection and debt recovery The Assailed CDO was issued on the basis of the finding by the FLCD

practices in violation of Sec.1B and (H of MC 18 in relation to Sec.4.4. (B) and (HRule 8 of the SEC FCPA-IIR,and (b) engaged the services of Realm Shifters which equally employed abusive collection and debt recovery practices, thus resulting in its being solidarily liable for such violation under Sec. 13 of the FCPA.

In the instant case,U-PESO Lending essentially maintains that the Assailed CDO should be lifted (a) as the same was issued in violation of its right to due process,(b) the FLCD failed to prove that it violated the FCPA and MC No.18;and c) it cannot be held solidarily liable for the violations made by Realm Shifters as the same is not its third-party service provider.

2 of Republic Act No.9474,otherwise known as the Lending Company Regulation Act of 2007 obligation has been discharged by payment rests on the debtor." (Bognot vs RRI Lending Corporation. G.R. No. 180144,September 24,2014 15 See First and Second WHEREAS Clauses of the MC No.18 17 "Jurisprudence tells us that one who pleads payment has the burden of proving it; the burden rests on the defendant to prove payment,rather than on the plaintiff to prove non-payment. Indeed, once the existence of an indebtedness is duly established by evidence, the burden of showing with legal certainty that the 18 bid 16 See Section 2 of Republic Act No.8556,otherwise known as theFinancing Company Act of 1998"and Section

In the Matter of:U-Peso.Ph Lending Corporation with Online Lending Platforms Operating Under The Name Of Upeso,Pera4u Peralending, And Loanmoto SEC En Banc Case No. 07-23-003 RESOLUTION Page 5 of 9

We do not agree with U-PESO Lending as the evidence on record shows otherwise.

U-PESO Lending was not denied due process.

Procedural due process is that which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. It contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment is rendered affecting one's person or property.19 So sacred in the right to due process that a finding of violation thereof justifies the voiding or nullification of a decision or resolution for lack of jurisdiction.20

In administrative proceedings such as the instant case,procedural due process,however,simply means the opportunity to be heard, either through oral arguments or pleadings, or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. If the record shows that the relevant parties were accorded such opportunity, the allegation that there was a was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Magcamit v. Internal Affairs denial of procedural due process will cease to have a legal basis.This rule

Service-Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency21,thus

"Due process in administrative cases,in essence,is simply an opportunity to explain one's side or to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling.For as long as the parties were given fair and reasonable opportunity to be heard before judgment

met." was rendered,the demands of due process were sufficiently

In the case of Primanila Plans Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission,22 the Supreme Court applied the principle that a party litigant cannot claim to have been denied of due process if it is able to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling which is being assailed thus:

2o Time and again, the Court has held that where there is an apparent denial of the fundamental right to due 19 Macabingkil v.Yatco,G.R.No.L-23174,September 18,1967

Jroces a decision that is issued in disregard of that right is void for lack ofjurisdiction,in view of the cardina

violation raises a serious jurisdictional issue which cannot be glossed over or disregarded at will. Thus, it is well settled that a judgment or decision rendered without due process is void ab initio and may be attacked at any time precept that in cases of a violation of basic constitutional rights, courts are ousted from their jurisdiction. This

directly or collaterally by means of a separate action,or by resisting such decision in any action or proceeding

22 G.R. No. 193791, August 6, 2014, 732 SCRA 264. where it is invoked for such judgment or decision is regarded as a"lawless thing which can be treated as an outlav 21G.R.No.198140,[January 25,2016] and slain at sight,or ignored wherever it exhibits its head.Orlina vs Ventura.G.R.No.227033;December3,2018

In the Matter of:U-Peso.Ph Lending Corporation with Online Lending Platforms Operating Under The Name Of Upeso,Pera4uPeralending, And Loanmoto. SEC En Banc Case No.07-23-003 RESOLUTION Page 6 of 9

"The SEc was not mandated to allow Primanila to participate in the investigation conducted by the Commission prior to the cease and desist order's issuance. Given the circumstances, it was sufficient for the satisfaction of the demands of due process that the company was amply apprised of the results of the SEc investigation,and then given the reasonable opportunity to present its defense.Primanila was able to do this via its motion to reconsider and lift the cease and desist order. After the CED filed its comment on the motion Primanila was further given the chance to explain its side to the SEC through the filing of its reply.Trite to state,a formal trial or hearing is not necessary to comply with the requirements of due process. Its essence is simply the opportunity to explain one's position." (Emphasis supplied)

accorded every opportunity to be heard and explain its side. In fact,it In the instant case, the records show that U-PESO Lending was

filed the instant Motion to Lift, and its Position Paper which contain an exhaustive presentation of its defenses,as well as the evidence in support of the same. Granting, ex gratia argumenti, that U-PESO Lending was not furnished with the processes issued by the City Prosecutor of Pasig City the same will not result in its deprivation of the right to due process since the instant administrative case is distinct from the criminal complaint What is important for the purpose AI f the instant case is that U-PESO Lending was furnished with a copy of the Assailed CDO and was able to seek reconsideration therefrom. These factual circumstances negate the Appellants'claim that they were denied due process.

The FLCD was able to prove by substantial evidence that U-PESO Lending violated the FCPA and MC No. 18.

CDO was baseless since it does not employ abusive collection practices U-PESO Lending vigorously insists that the issuance of the Assailed

the complaints presented by the FLCD failed to establish the alleged violation, and did not engage the services of Realm Shifters.

We are not persuaded.

The screenshots which were submitted in evidence to support the numerous complaints received by the FLCD make specific mention, and show that collections were being carried out for and on behalf of U-PESO

In the Matter of: U-Peso.Ph Lending Corporation with Online Lending Platforms Operating Under The Name Of Upeso PerauPeralending, And Loanmoto SEC En Banc Case No.07-23-003 RESOLUTION Page 7 of 9

Lending and/or its OLPs. The sheer number of complaints i.e. 271 complaints during the period of September 2022 to March 2023 and another 307 complaints during the period of April to June 2023,disclose the extent,seriousness,and gravity of the violation.Unfortunately for U PEsO Lending, these messages show and affirm that it was employing abusive collection practices.23 In this regard, it is interesting to note that no less than U-PESO Lending itself admitted that its employees/agents who failed to comply with its policies, rules, and regulations were investigated which resulted in the resignation of some of them, thus:

"Collection Agents who were involved or mentioned were being tracked by the Company already. During the ongoing investigation, some of them already resigned. Such

practices."24 (Emphasis supplied) that U-Peso.PH does not support or tolerate unfair collection investigation conducted by U-Peso.PH serves as evidence

Another message that was captured and submitted in evidence shows an agent/representative of U-PESO Lending apologizing for the sad experience of its client,to wit

"First and foremost, on behalf of Upeso, I would like to

taking the necessary step to prevent it from happening in the personally apologize for what you've experience.We accept full responsibility for the mistake and I assure you we are future. xxx"(Emphasis supplied)

The afore-quoted statements are judicial admissions25 which are binding upon U-PESO Lending.Moreover,considering the fact that what U-PESO Lending has violated is a special law,it is sufficient that the act(s) proscribed were shown to have been committed to be punishable,being mala prohibita26.It is therefore inconsequential that U-PESO Lending has a policy against abusive collection practices which is embodied in its Service Agreements.

2s "A judicial admission is a formal statement,either by party or his or her attorney,in course of judicial proceeding intent of the offender is immaterial.Tan vs Ballena et. al., G.R.No.168111, July 4,2008 23 Comment/Opposition dated 20 July 2023. See Annex "A 24 Position Paper dated 14 August 2023. Par. 25 attorney during judicial proceedings.Aghayani vs Lupa Realty Holding Corporation., G.R. No.201193,June 10 wrong but for the fact that positive law forbids them,called acts mala prohibita. This distinction is important with reference to the intent with which a wrongful act is done. The rule on the subject is that in acts mala in se, the intent governs; but in acts mala prohibita, the only inquiry is, has the law been violated? When an act is illegal, the which removes an admitted fact from field of controversy. It is a voluntary concession of fact by a party or a party's 2019 26The law has long divided crimes into acts wrong in themselves called acts mala in seand acts which would not be

In the Matter of:U-Peso.Ph Lending Corporation with Online Lending Platforms Operating Under The Name Of UpesoPerauPeralending And Loanmoto. SEC En Banc Case No. 07-23-003 RESOLUTION Page 8 of 9

Moreover,We equally hold that the Collection Guidelines27,the Service Agreements28Acknowledgement Letters29, the conduct of investigation, as well as the imposition of the appropriate sanctions against its erring employees/agents, do not,and will not operate to negate the fact that U-PESO Lending employed abusive collection and debt recovery practices. If at all, these documents and circumstances constitute an implied admission of its violation of the FCPA and MC.No 18.In Metro Manila Transit Corporation v.Court of Appeals,3 the Supreme Court ruled that in the interest of protecting the general public, the fact that policies and guidelines on the conduct of business are in place does not automatically exempt employers from the wrongdoing of their employees, thus:

We emphatically reiterate our holding, as a warning to all

policies on safety without showing that they were being complied with is not sufficient to exempt petitioner from employers,that"(t)he mere formulation of various company

liability arising from negligence of its employees. It is

employing the erring driver the recruitment procedures and company policies on efficiency and safety were followed." Paving lip-service to these injunctions or merely incumbent upon petitioner to show that in recruiting and

going through the motions of compliance therewith will warrant stern sanctions from the Court." (Emphasis supplied)

On account thereof, this Commission finds no compelling reason to lift the Assailed CDO.On the contrary, after a thorough and scrupulous review of the evidence on record,this Commission is convinced that the Assailed CDO should be made permanent to ensure that the consuming public is protected in a manner that is envisioned under the FCPA and MC 18.

WHEREFORE,premises considered,the Motion to Lift the Cease and

merit. The CEASE AND DESIST ORDER dated 22 June 2023 issued Desist Order filed by Respondent U-PESO.PH is hereby DENIED for lack of

against U-PESO.PH is hereby made PERMANENT

Let a copy of this Resolution be posted on the Commission's website published in a national newspaper of general circulation,and furnished

27 Position Paper dated14 August 2023, Annex "3. 28 Ibid. Annex 29 1bid, Annex "4-Series 30G.R.No. 104408 (1993

In the Matter of:U-Peso.Ph Lending Corporation with Online Lending Platforms Operating Under The Name Of Upeso, Pera4u, Peralending, And Loanmoto. SEC En Banc Case No. 07-23-003 RESOLUTION Page 9 of 9

to all operating departments and offices of the Commission for their information and appropriate action.

SOORDERED.

Makati City, Philippines.

EMILIO B.AQUINO Chairperson

*JAVEY PAULD.FRANCISCO KEVIN LESTER K.LEE

Commissioner Commissioner

KARLO S.BELLO *MCJILL BRYANT T.FERNANDEZ

Commissioner Commissioner

*On Official Business