ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | August 27, 2024
Dear Chief Acosta,
Dahil sa kagipitan at sunud-sunod na mga bayarin, napilitan akong mangutang ng Php20,000.00, na babayaran matapos ang dalawang buwan. Ngunit pagdating ng nakatakdang petsa, hindi ko ito nabayaran. Maaari ba akong makulong dahil hindi ko nabayaran ang aking utang? — Shiva
Dear Shiva,
Nakasaad sa ating Saligang Batas ang prinsipyong nagbabawal sa pagpapakulong dahil sa hindi pagbayad ng utang:
“ARTICLE III
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt x x x.”
Kaugnay nito, sa kasong Florentina A. Lozano vs. The Honorable Antonio M. Martinez, et. al., (G.R. No. L-63419, 18 Disyembre 1986, Honorable Associate Justice Pedro L. Yap), ipinaliwanag ng ating Korte Suprema ang katwiran para sa pagbabawal na ito:
“x x x Viewed in its historical context, the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt is a safeguard that evolved gradually during the early part of the nineteenth century in the various states of the American Union as a result of the people’s revulsion at the cruel and inhumane practice, sanctioned by common law, which permitted creditors to cause the incarceration of debtors who could not pay their debts. At common law, money judgments arising from actions for the recovery of a debt or for damages from breach of a contract could be enforced against the person or body of the debtor by writ of capias ad satisfaciendum. By means of this writ, a debtor could be seized and imprisoned at the instance of the creditor until he makes the satisfaction awarded. As a consequence of the popular ground swell against such a barbarous practice, provisions forbidding imprisonment for debt came to be generally enshrined in the constitutions of various states of the Union.
This humanitarian provision was transported to our shores by the Americans at the turn of the century and embodied in our organic laws. Later, our fundamental law outlawed not only imprisonment for debt, but also the infamous practice, native to our shore, of throwing people in jail for non-payment of the cedula or poll tax.”
Habang ang mga kasong sibil para sa pagkolekta ng kabuuan ng pera ay maaaring isampa upang maipatupad ang pagbabayad ng mga utang, ang taong nangutang ay hindi dapat pagkaitan ng kanyang kalayaan sa tanging dahilan na ang kanyang ari-arian ay hindi sapat upang mabayaran ang lahat ng kanyang mga utang.
Sa madaling salita, batay sa mga tinalakay sa itaas, hindi ka maaaring makulong sa tanging dahilan ng hindi pagbabayad ng utang.
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.
Comentarios