Rules for big cash withdrawals tweaked

The Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) said banks should apply enhanced due diligence (EDD) to cash withdrawals exceeding P500,000 on a per-customer—rather than per-transaction—basis, with reviews anchored on a depositor’s normal business activity.

In a memorandum signed on Feb. 6 by Governor Eli Remolona Jr., the central bank said the clarification was meant to ensure that due diligence checks do not unnecessarily delay legitimate transactions. Banks were also instructed to streamline procedures for customers and provide targeted training for branch staff to ensure consistent and effective implementation.

The guidance follows last year’s order requiring closer scrutiny of over-the-counter cash withdrawals above P500,000 to curb money-laundering risks tied to large-value transactions. Under the rules, customers seeking to withdraw more than that amount in cash need only present documents showing a legitimate purpose, such as a deed of sale or hospital bill, while withdrawals made through traceable, non-cash channels do not require additional documentation.

According to the BSP, EDD process must consider the customer’s risk profile, nature of business or operations, and transaction patterns. A streamlined process may be applied to bank-to-bank transactions, such as interbranch or interbank cash requirements or loan disbursements.

For cash payouts or withdrawals during declared calamities or emergencies, the BSP said certification from the head of agency may be obtained.

Meanwhile, more rigorous due diligence checks will be applied when transactions deviate from a customer’s expected behavior or present heightened risks.

Former Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima earlier called on local policymakers to adopt tougher curbs on cash transactions. He warned that the country’s reliance on envelopes and bags of banknotes has made it easier for corruption to thrive.

This, amid a widening probe into anomalous flood control projects, which implicated lawmakers, members of the Cabinet, government engineers and private contractors.

Since the start of its crackdown last year, the Anti-Money Laundering Council has obtained court approvals to freeze assets totaling P24.7 billion, believed to be connected to the massive corruption scandal.

Remolona had warned that the graft fallout could risk dragging the Philippines back onto the Financial Action Task Force’s “gray list”—a watch list the country had just exited in early 2025 after over three years of efforts to remedy gaps in its antimoney laundering and counterterrorism financing campaigns.

Source: Inquirer

Suretyship vs. Guaranty under Philippine Law: What’s the Difference?

In Philippine obligations and contracts, suretyship and guaranty are often confused because both involve a third person answering for the obligation of another. However, under the Civil Code of the Philippines, they are legally distinct contracts with significantly different consequences—especially for the person who gives the assurance.

Understanding this distinction is crucial for borrowers, lenders, business owners, and anyone asked to “sign as guarantor or surety.”

1. Legal Basis under the Civil Code

The governing provision is Article 2047 of the Civil Code, which expressly distinguishes guaranty from suretyship:

“By guaranty a person, called the guarantor, binds himself to the creditor to fulfill the obligation of the principal debtor in case the latter should fail to do so. If a person binds himself solidarily with the principal debtor, the provisions of Section 4, Chapter 3, Title I of this Book shall be observed. In such case the contract is called a suretyship.”

This single article sets the foundation for all practical differences between the two.

2. Nature of the Obligation

Guaranty

• The guarantor’s obligation is subsidiary.

• The guarantor answers only if the principal debtor fails to pay.

• The guarantor is not primarily liable.

Suretyship

• The surety’s obligation is direct, primary, and solidary with the debtor.

• The surety is considered equally liable as the principal debtor.

• The creditor may proceed directly against the surety, even without first going after the debtor.

Key difference:A guarantor is a backup. A surety is on equal footing with the debtor.

3. Right to Require Exhaustion of Debtor’s Assets

Guarantor

Under Article 2058, a guarantor may invoke the benefit of excussion, meaning:

• The creditor must first exhaust all the assets of the principal debtor before going after the guarantor.

This right is a major legal protection.

Surety

• A surety has no right to excussion.

• The creditor may sue the surety immediately and directly, without first suing the debtor.

In practice, this is why banks strongly prefer suretyship over guaranty.

4. Extent of Liability

Guarantor

• Liability is generally limited to what is stated in the contract.

• Under Article 2054, guaranty cannot exceed the principal obligation and may be subject to conditions.

Surety

• Liability is typically co-extensive with that of the principal debtor.

• The surety may be held liable for the entire debt, including penalties and interest, unless expressly limited.

5. Practical Consequences in Litigation

Aspect	Guaranty	Suretyship
Nature of liability	Subsidiary	Solidary
Creditor can sue immediately?	❌ No	✅ Yes
Benefit of excussion	✅ Available	❌ Not available
Common in bank loans	Rare	Very common
Risk level	Lower	Very high

Philippine jurisprudence consistently holds that a surety is in effect an insurer of the debt, while a guarantor is merely a fallback obligor.

6. Common Real-World Scenario

Many people sign loan documents believing they are “just guarantors,” when the contract actually states they are “solidarily liable” or uses the term “surety.”

Courts look at:

• The wording of the contract, not the label used in conversation

• Whether the obligation is stated as solidary

If the contract says “jointly and severally liable”, it is suretyship, not guaranty—regardless of what the parties thought they were signing.

7. Conclusion

While both guaranty and suretyship involve answering for another’s debt, the legal exposure is vastly different:

• Guaranty offers protection and secondary liability.

• Suretyship imposes immediate, solidary, and often severe liability.

Before signing any contract involving either, it is essential to read the liability clause carefully and understand whether you are assuming a subsidiary or solidary obligation under Philippine law.

When in doubt, seek legal advice—because in suretyship, one signature can make you as liable as the borrower himself.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

PH ranks 2nd in digital patience in Asia-Pacific

Filipinos are the second most digitally patient consumers in the Asia-Pacific region, according to a new study by customer engagement platform Twilio, which measured how long consumers are willing to wait for online customer service issues to be resolved.

The Philippines trails only Indonesia, with 76 percent of Filipino consumers saying they remain patient when dealing with automated customer service, well above the regional average of 68 percent.

This translates to an expected resolution window of 27.3 minutes among Filipinos, longer than the regional average of 24.4 minutes. In practice, the Philippines waits longer than any other market surveyed, with actual waiting times averaging 31.9 minutes.

“Filipino consumers are patient because they start with a deep sense of trust, but this trust is a foundation that brands must either build upon or risk breaking,” said Nicholas Kontopoulos, vice president of marketing for Asia Pacific and Japan at Twilio.

Despite these delays, speed is not the dominant concern for many Filipino consumers, the study found.

Half of the respondents said clear and easily understandable instructions were their top priority when dealing with digital customer service channels.

Data security and fast issue resolution were also important factors, with 41 percent of Filipinos saying the protection of personal information and quick service were essential to their trust in a brand.

Another key expectation is warmth in digital interactions, with more than a third of respondents saying automated systems should reflect the friendliness and empathy of human agents.

The study “Decoding Digital Patience” was conducted between August and September 2025 and covered 7,331 respondents across seven Asia-Pacific markets. These include 1,007 respondents in the Philippines.

Varying patience

Twilio’s study showed patience varies significantly depending on the issue being addressed.

Filipino consumers were more understanding of delays involving complex or high-stakes concerns, particularly in healthcare, where longer resolution times were deemed necessary.

Patience declined sharply, however, in routine and everyday interactions that fell short of expectations.

High levels of frustration were reported during telecom service outages (69 percent), cases involving incorrect or damaged items (68 percent), billing disputes (68 percent) and delayed or missed retail deliveries (66 percent).

Filipinos belong to one of the markets most exposed to artificial intelligence (AI) in customer service, with 81 percent reporting they have interacted with an AI-powered tool before.

Despite this high exposure, satisfaction among Filipino consumers remains mixed, with 42 percent reporting frustrations stemming from scripted responses, generic answers and unresolved issues.

As a result, 43 percent of Filipinos said they prefer to begin customer support interactions with a human agent, even if it means waiting longer.

Source: Inquirer