Theses and Case Law/ Litigation / by Daniel Majewski del Castillo and José Alejandro Krause Marún.
In this #ThesisFriday | June 20, 2025, the Judicial Weekly published 59 new rulings: 34 case law decisions and 25 isolated rulings.
We have selected the most relevant ones for you, which were issued by the Chambers of the SCJN, Collegiate Courts, and Regional Plenary Sessions:
Abstracts
Digital registration: 2030600 / Thesis: 1st / J. 96/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
The statute of limitations for claims arising from an insurance contract begins to run only after the person becomes aware of the occurrence of the loss and, furthermore, of the right established in their favor.
The statute of limitations for insurance claims, in the case of third parties who did not participate in the conclusion of the contract, begins to run once they become aware of the occurrence of the loss and, furthermore, of the right established in their favor to collect the insured amount. This measure is reasonable, based on a proportionality test.
Digital registration: 2030601 / Thesis: 1st / J. 95/2025 (11th)
Case Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
In civil matters, due process is not violated by deeming a party to be in compliance simply because they did not submit their expert opinion at the same time as their opponent.
Article 347, Section VI, of the Code of Civil Procedure for the Federal District, applicable in Mexico City, provides that if an expert witness for one of the parties fails to submit their expert opinion within the statutory time limit, the expert evidence shall be considered solely on the basis of the opinion submitted by the opposing party, and both parties shall be deemed to have accepted its content. This provision is justified by the principle of party autonomy, according to which the rights in dispute belong to the parties and the burden of advancing the proceedings rests primarily with them. Therefore, in lawsuits between private parties, the law imposes on the parties the burden of properly presenting and supporting the evidence they have offered. If they fail to do so—as occurs when the report is not submitted on time—the consequence is that only the report submitted by the opposing party will be considered.
Digital registration number: 2030566 / Thesis: 1st of the 25th / 2025 (11th)
SCJN Isolated Opinion
Section 338 of the Commercial Insolvency Act violates the principle of legal certainty because it does not specify a time limit within which the administrative authority must issue a decision in disciplinary proceedings against commercial insolvency specialists.
This situation creates a state of legal uncertainty, as professionals who have engaged in allegedly improper conduct are subject to disciplinary proceedings brought against them for an indefinite period. In other words, the Board of Directors could conclude the disciplinary proceedings at any time, regardless of the time that has elapsed between the alleged misconduct, the initiation of the proceedings, and the issuance of the final decision. This state of affairs conflicts with the right of individuals to have certainty regarding the legal consequences of their actions and the point at which the authority must exhaust its disciplinary powers.
Digital registration: 2030603 / Thesis: 1st, Vol. XXIV/2025 (11th)
SCJN Isolated Opinion
Shareholders of corporations may bring a liability action against the company’s directors when they suffer damage to their personal assets.
This is because an individual claim for damages caused directly and exclusively to the partners, without affecting the company, is based on the general rule of liability for tortious acts set forth in Article 1910 of the Federal Civil Code, and not on Articles 161 and 163 of the General Law on Commercial Companies. This action may be brought by individual partners when they suffer direct damage to their assets, provided that the source is non-contractual; therefore, the company has no basis for liability toward the partner claiming the damage, as this involves a relationship between the managers and the shareholders.
Digital registration number: 2030580 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CN. J/7 C (11a.)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
The res judicata defense is not updated in commercial oral proceedings even if certain findings coincide with aspects resolved in the judgment recognizing, classifying, and ranking claims issued in judicial liquidation proceedings.
Based on an analysis of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation’s case law regarding res judicata, it can be established that, in the case at hand, the elements required for its application are not met; therefore, the objection raised in the commercial trial must be dismissed, and the action brought is admissible. However, the doctrinal framework surrounding this issue leads one to consider that if the judgment recognizing, ranking, and prioritizing claims produces effects that give rise to consequences creating interconnections in legal relationships and a prejudicial link that has a conditioning effect on a subsequent proceeding, then, when ruling on the matters at issue in the commercial oral proceedings, the decision in that judgment must be taken into account, where the right of the plaintiff—in that case, the creditor—to be paid the claim in the amount recognized in their favor has already been adjudicated, and the ranking and priority to be observed for that purpose have been established.
Digital registration number: 2030568 / Thesis: I.15o.C.19 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
In the case of obligations subject to annual terms for which no specific end date is specified, the terms must be calculated in full units rather than on a day-by-day basis.
The provision that, as a general rule, time limits for annual obligations must be calculated in fixed periods of time, rather than on a moment-by-moment basis, is the standard that must be followed, as established in Articles 1956 and 1176 of the Civil Code for the Federal District, which applies to Mexico City. Thus, the terms for annual obligations begin on the day the obligation arises and end when the calendar year ends, not on the same day of subsequent years; therefore, the appropriate method is to calculate the term in annual units that begin on the day the obligation was incurred and end on the last day of the annual period, which is typically one day prior to the date the contract was executed.
Digital registration number: 2030574 / Thesis: XVIII.2o.P.A.13 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The petition for amparo, submitted as a simple photocopy bearing the petitioner’s signature, should not be dismissed outright, as it serves as evidence that an original bearing a handwritten signature does exist.
This is because it can be concluded that there is a petition for indirect amparo duly signed by the petitioner, which amounts to an ambiguity that can be remedied through preventive measures. A photocopy is a direct reproduction of the original document on paper using a printing method provided by technology; thus, based on the principle of good faith that prevails in amparo proceedings, it is reasonable to presume that, when filing the petition, an error was made in submitting a photocopy—a certified copy or acknowledgment of receipt—and taking the original document with one.
Digital registration number: 2030585 / Thesis: I.2o.A.8 A (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The National Copyright Institute’s (Indautor) authority to request reports and data is linked to its power to investigate alleged administrative violations, which may only be exercised within the context of the procedures provided for in the relevant law.
The authority to request reports and data cannot be exercised in isolation or independently, but rather forms part of the set of powers involved in the investigation of alleged administrative violations. This is in accordance with a literal interpretation of Article 210, Section I, of the aforementioned law, from which it follows that the Investigator has the authority to: 1) investigate administrative violations; 2) conduct inspection visits; and 3) request reports and data, all of which are interrelated and cannot be exercised independently.
Digital registration number: 2030586 / Thesis: III.3o.C.7 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
An indirect appeal may be filed against the interlocutory ruling that approves the partition plan and allocates the assets in a proceeding for the termination and liquidation of joint ownership (division of the common property).
The interlocutory order approving the division plan and allocating the assets constitutes a preliminary step to prepare for the enforcement of the judgment and cannot be considered an act of enforcement of the judgment as referred to in the aforementioned Section IV of Article 107. In the case of a judgment that does not provide the basis for dividing a jointly owned asset, a draft partition plan for the assets is required in order to proceed, if applicable, with the allocation. Therefore, the interlocutory order resolving such a partition of assets must be considered an act executed after the conclusion of the trial.
Digital registration number: 2030590 / Thesis: II.2o.P.69 P (11th ed.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The differences between the required analysis of the case under that method and the findings of that study that justify a differentiated assessment when the case is evaluated from a gender perspective.
There is no question that a gender-sensitive analysis must be conducted whenever a member of a vulnerable group is involved (whether as a victim or a defendant), which constitutes only the first phase of the methodology; however, the application of the interpretive tool or differentiated assessment based on gender equity is contingent upon the fulfillment of either of the following two conditions: the existence of a specific rule whose undifferentiated interpretation could lead to unequal and harmful treatment based on gender, or the presence of cases where the actions of the authority reveal the use of gender stereotypes or biases, making it necessary to correct such a situation (once established) by rejecting or eliminating expressions or interpretations tainted by such flawed reasoning.
Digital registration number: 2030596 / Thesis: I.15o.T.1 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Personal service of process by electronic means in an amparo proceeding may be carried out by the court that has been declared competent if the petitioner or interested third party requested authorization from the court that declined jurisdiction and such authorization was granted.
This is because the parties whose request to receive electronic notifications was granted by the court that declined jurisdiction—and which were validated by the competent court—empower the latter to proceed in this manner with subsequent notifications, as the authorization granted by the petitioners for that purpose remains in effect since it pertains to the same case file. In other words, the request made before a constitutional review court is valid for the courts of the country that heard that constitutional review case, provided that it is not revoked and the complainants do not request that service be effected in another manner, to which it must be added that such notification takes effect within the case file of the District Court that validated the judicial proceedings by assuming the legal jurisdiction that was declined by the original body.
Digital registration number: 2030561 / Thesis: III.3o.A.1 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The initial motion to initiate proceedings in an amparo action is the appropriate procedural step for determining whether the claim is manifestly and obviously time-barred when a regulation is alleged to be stigmatizing.
This is because, in the petition for constitutional protection, the petitioner challenges the cited provisions, arguing that they subject him to stigmatization due to economic discrimination by regulating the service life of public transportation vehicles; thus, it is clear that the parameters established in Ruling 1a. CCLXXXIV/2014 (10a.) are not met, because a simple reading of them reveals that they do not differentiate or distinguish between people based on their poverty or social status, but rather establish a distinction or differentiation between objects (public transportation vehicles) based on their utility or proper functioning over time.
Digital registration number: 2030558 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CN. J/75 A (11th)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
The extension of a concession for the exploitation, use, and management of national water resources takes effect on the day following the expiration of the previously granted term.
The concession regime established under the National Water Act provides for a procedure that requires the concessionaire to express its interest in extending the supply well in advance and allows the authority to plan allocations so that the extension of a concession ensures the continuity of its use.
Digital registration number: 2030558 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CN. J/75 A (11th)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
Judgments of nullity issued by the Federal Administrative Court become final upon the issuance of the writs of execution for the extraordinary remedies filed against them [Application of Case Law 2a./J. 81/2017 (10a.)].
Judgments of nullity issued by the Federal Court of Administrative Justice become final once the final judgments regarding the extraordinary remedies available against them (direct amparo and/or judicial review) are issued, since res judicata depends on what the law provides and not on the conduct of the Chamber or the parties. Since those provisions remained unaffected by the aforementioned reform, the High Court’s considerations—which are binding in nature because they constitute the core of its analysis—remain in force and lead to the conclusion that the aforementioned criterion remains applicable.
Digital registration: 2030606 / Thesis: PR.A.C.CN. J/85 A (11th)
Case Law of Regional Circuit Courts
The deadline for complying with the Federal Administrative Court’s rulings declaring nullity shall be calculated from the date on which the notification of the decision—by which the Chamber notifies the defendant authority of the enforceability of the extraordinary remedies—takes effect.
This is because it was concluded that, at that point, the relevant authority is aware of what it is required to comply with. The provisions regarding the time limit were amended by a decree published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on June 13, 2016, but the legislature did not change the method for calculating that time limit. The changes were intended to clear up confusion that the previous wording caused regarding its duration and the effects of the certification of finality issued by the Secretary of Agreements. Therefore, the reasoning behind the aforementioned judicial precedent must continue to be applied, and consequently, the criteria it contains remain in force.
This publication was prepared by Daniel Majewski del Castillo and José Alejandro Krause Marún.
