A lending app operator was directed by the Supreme Court to pay damages to a client for accessing her contact list and sending messages about her loan.

The SC, in its ruling, reinstated the decision of the National Privacy Commission (NPC) ordering the payment of damages to the client of the app operator and recommending the prosecution of FCash Global Lending Inc. for violating the Data Privacy Act of 2012.

In its 13 August 2025 decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul Inting, the SC said FCash failed to timely object to the admissibility of the screenshots used as evidence in the complaint before the NPC.

The court said the Court of Appeals had no grounds to reverse the NPC decision on the basis of inadmissible evidence.

While there had been a ground to question admissibility, FCash failed to make a timely objection when the screenshots were presented and offered.

Grace Trimillos filed the complaint against FCash, alleging that the lending app accessed her phone’s contacts without her authority and sent messages about her loan to everyone on the list.

The complaint stated that her co-workers and friends were told they were guarantors and would be forced to pay on her behalf if she did not settle the loan.

Trimillos said her reputation was tarnished and filed a complaint with the NPC, submitting screenshots of the text messages allegedly sent by FCash.

When mediation failed, the NPC directed FCash to file a responsive comment, which it did not submit.

The P15,000 in nominal damages awarded to Trimillos by the NPC was forwarded to the Department of Justice, along with a recommendation to prosecute FCash for malicious disclosure and processing of sensitive personal information for unauthorized purposes.

FCash contested the matter before the Court of Appeals, which ruled in its favor, saying the screenshots were inadmissible because Trimillos did not have them authenticated by any witnesses.

The SC, however, said the CA erred in reviewing the evidence, noting that FCash only raised the objection for the first time on appeal. The court cited the settled rule that failure to timely object is considered a waiver.

Even if Trimillos failed to comply with the Rules on Electronic Evidence, FCash is considered to have waived its objection.

The high court also noted that Trimillos submitted the screenshots to the NPC before the discovery conference. Despite their availability for examination, FCash did not object and failed to file a responsive comment where it could have presented arguments against Trimillos, including objections to evidence admissibility, the SC said.