In the field of law, the abuse of the right to appeal manifests when a party utilizes legal resources not to seek justice, but as a tactic to delay proceedings and evade responsibilities. This case is a clear example of such abuse, where a company attempted to circumvent compliance with a favorable ruling for our client through unfounded appeals and dilatory tactics.
The situation was so concerning that, during the process, a warning was issued to the judges who, by ignoring fundamental principles of law such as preclusion and res judicata, allowed the abuse to prolong for 14 years.
Case Context
In 2010, our client, a leading company in the engineering, architecture, and construction sectors, filed a lawsuit against "La Constructora" for the following reasons:
Moral Damage: The failure to pay negatively impacted our client’s reputation, affecting the stability and credibility of their business in the market.
Unjust Enrichment: "La Constructora" benefited from the services rendered without providing any compensation, unjustly profiting from the work performed.
This legal action arose because the defendant company utilized the services and results provided by our client without fulfilling the previously agreed payments, leading to considerable losses and damages for our representative.
Development and Results of Legal Defense
Below is a simplified summary of each key stage of the case:
Initial Ruling: In the initial trial, the judge ruled partially in favor of our client. The construction company was ordered to pay one million two hundred thousand two hundred dollars ($1,201,200) as compensation for damages.
Alleged Notification Issue and Request for Nullity of the Process: After the ruling was executed, the construction company claimed it had not been notified because its lawyer did not inform it. The company argued that this prevented it from appealing. Leveraging this argument, "La Constructora" requested that part of the process be annulled and that it be returned to the notification stage of the ruling, in order to have a new opportunity to appeal.
Nullity Accepted: Disregarding the principles of preclusion and res judicata, the judge declared the nullity of the case and reverted the process to the notification stage of the ruling, arguing that this would allow the parties to exercise their right to defense. Thus, she accepted the nullity without considering that the process should be definitive, which enabled the construction company to defend itself again, which is unprecedented.
Appeal Against the Nullity: Our litigation team appealed the order that declared the nullity. Thanks to this appeal, the superior court, the Provincial Court of Justice, reviewed the case and decided to overturn the nullity, restoring the validity of the original process. However, the defendant party, "La Constructora," continued to contest.
"La Constructora"'s Legal Resources and Lack of Security to Suspend Execution of the Ruling: "La Constructora" filed two types of legal resources. The cassation appeal is a request for a higher court to review that decision, while the extraordinary appeal addresses deeper issues, such as violations of fundamental rights or procedural errors in the trial. "La Constructora" did not request security to suspend the execution of the Provincial Court's ruling, meaning it did not seek a guarantee to halt compliance with the original ruling while the appeals were being reviewed. As a result, the case was elevated to the National Court of Justice, the highest court in the country. Simultaneously, certified copies were sent to the originating judicial unit to ensure that the execution of the ruling continued as if the appeals filed by the defendant had not been made.
Execution of the Ruling, New Opposition, New Delays: During the execution of the ruling, a new obstacle emerged. An enforcement order had been issued requiring "La Constructora" to pay the sum of money or deliver assets to favor our client. However, "La Constructora" requested the revocation of the decision that documented its noncompliance with the enforcement order and also sought to declare this order null, arguing that it was not related to the original ruling. According to the law, the judge decided to deny this request from the defendant, which led "La Constructora" to file an appeal. This appeal was also rejected, prompting "La Constructora" to file another extraordinary appeal. This means the case was elevated to the Provincial Court of Justice of Pichincha during the enforcement phase, seeking a review of the decisions made by the previous judge.
Delays Continue - Extraordinary Cassation Appeal and Extraordinary Appeal: "La Constructora" filed a new extraordinary cassation appeal, which was inadmissible. With the intention of avoiding compliance with the ruling and prolonging the process, the defendant submitted another extraordinary appeal, bringing the case to the National Court of Justice. This time, it also requested security to suspend the execution of the ruling. Thus, two cassation appeals were generated in parallel, further complicating the process due to the misuse of the right to appeal.
Final Decision of the National Court: The Civil and Commercial Chamber of the National Court of Justice decided to reject the extraordinary appeal related to the execution. Regarding the cassation appeal concerning the nullity declared by the trial judge, after extensive debate in a hearing, the judges rejected the appeal, emphasizing the importance of the principles of preclusion and res judicata. They also severely criticized the trial judge and those who allowed this abuse of right to extend for almost five years since the ruling was issued.
Conclusion of the Process: Ultimately, after 14 years of litigation, the process concluded with a ruling in favor of our client, reaffirming the value of the Constitution and laws in preventing undue delays.
Successfully Executed Procedural Strategy
Our team of lawyers defended the case at all stages, overcoming the presented obstacles and demonstrating that the defendant’s appeals were dilatory tactics and an abuse of the right to appeal.
The defense, led by our founding partner, Dr. José Meythaler Baquero, along with Dr. Vanesa Aguirre, Juan José Peña Medina, Ricardo Enríquez Carreraand Ricardo Enríquez Carrera, resulted in a significant victory for our client and reinforced essential legal principles.
The final outcome not only ensured compensation for our client but also strengthened the principles of preclusion and res judicata, demonstrating that the judicial system can counteract the abuse of rights.
Comments