Theses and Case Law/ Litigation / by Daniel Majewski del Castillo and Zusel Soto Vilchis.
On #ThesisFriday | May 30, 2025, the Judicial Weekly published 19 new rulings: 1 case law decision and 18 isolated rulings.
We have selected the most relevant ones for you, which were issued by the Circuit Collegiate Courts:
Abstracts
Digital record: 2030444 / Thesis: I.11o.C.86 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
A ruling that overturns a final judgment and orders a retrial, when the petitioner is a person of very advanced age, does constitute an act that cannot be remedied for the purposes of an amparo action.
The complainant’s advanced age raises the risk that, if the proceedings are reopened at trial, they may not reach a conclusion. Forcing the complainant to defend their right once again, given their advanced age, constitutes a material infringement of their substantive right to judicial protection, as this would delay the judicial decision regarding the right they claim to have and, consequently, its enforcement. In this case, special weight must be given to the fact that the complainant is a person of very advanced age, as this factor fully justifies analyzing the matter based on this situation of vulnerability.
Digital record: 2030445 / Thesis: I.11o.C.88 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The decisions made by the competent authority upon receiving the petition for amparo—namely, taking the necessary steps to suspend the challenged act and referring the case to the Circuit Court—are not binding on the latter court.
The competent authority acts as an auxiliary to the federal authority, and that role ceases when the Circuit Collegiate Court accepts the amparo petition; therefore, it is the latter that must resolve all matters pertaining to its processing. Pursuant to Article 107, Sections III(a) and V, of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, and Article 34 of the Amparo Law, the Circuit Court of Appeals is the competent judicial body to hear and decide the direct amparo proceeding. Therefore, the decisions of the authority responsible for assisting the Federal Justice System upon receiving the amparo petition—to order the suspension of the challenged act and to refer it to the Collegiate Circuit Court, are issued based on the jurisdiction delegated to it under Article 107, Section VI, of the Federal Constitution, and Articles 176 through 178 of the Amparo Law.
Digital registration number: 2030449 / Thesis: I.8o.C.26 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Jurisdiction over an indirect amparo proceeding in which a third party claims that they were not properly served with process and challenges all proceedings in a civil case—including the appellate court’s judgment—lies with a Collegiate Court of Appeal other than the one designated as having jurisdiction.
If, in an action for constitutional protection, the petitioner—a third party not involved in the relevant proceedings—argues that he or she does not have the status of a defendant, but asserts that he or she should have been named as a defendant and summoned to the trial due to the establishment of necessary joinder of defendants, and that the appellate court should have recognized this situation and ordered the proceedings to be reopened, in such circumstances, since the illegality of the contested acts depends on the aforementioned condition—that is, on the existence of said legal concept, the omission of which is attributed to the Collegiate Court of Appeal identified as responsible—it is then the constitutionality of its actions, and not that of the trial judge, whose ruling was superseded by that of the appellate court, that constitutes the subject matter of the amparo; which implies that jurisdiction to hear the indirect amparo petition lies with another Collegiate Court of Appeal.
Digital registration number: 2030458 / Thesis: I.11o.C.38 C (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
An appeal may be decided as a single proceeding if it was filed against the decision ordering the formalization of the award of a property sold at auction (applicable law for Mexico City).
This is because this proceeding constitutes a case, which refers to the series of procedural acts beginning with the filing of a complaint and the response thereto, continuing until a final judgment or a decision bringing the case to a close is issued. This implies that the case begins with the filing of the complaint and may conclude with a decision other than a final judgment, such as: 1) one that dismisses the complaint or deems it not to have been filed; 2) one that declares the proceedings time-barred, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1076, second paragraph, of the Commercial Code; or 3) a different decision that, without ruling on the merits of the dispute, brings the proceedings to an end.
Digital registration number: 2030460 / Thesis: I.11o.C.89 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
For an appeal to be admissible, it is an essential requirement that the decision being appealed cause harm or adversely affect the rights of the appellant.
If the formalities governing the filing of an appeal include the requirement to state the grounds for the appeal, this indicates that, through these grounds, the appellant will seek to demonstrate the reasons why it believes the challenged decision causes it harm. If the purpose of filing an appeal is to modify or revoke the decision on the grounds that it causes harm, seeking to have a different determination made through a new analysis that benefits the appellant, this cannot be achieved through the filing of an appeal if the appealed decision does not infringe upon the appellant’s rights in any way.
Digital registration number: 2030460 / Thesis: I.11o.C.89 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
The provisional injunction against the ban on higher education institutions preparing, distributing, and selling unhealthy foods is granted.
Based on an analysis of the public interest and the absence of any violation of public policy provisions, both of these considerations give way to the individual decisions of students at institutions of higher education—such as choosing their own food or beverages—since they are of legal age and are protected by the right to the free development of personality. On the other hand, contracts to operate cafeterias within the facilities of such institutions to offer food and beverages entail having a suspensive interest recognized under the aforementioned Article 131, since it is evident from them, even if only prima facie, that the contested acts harm the higher education institutions.
Digital registration number: 2030460 / Thesis: I.11o.C.89 K (11a.)
Individual Opinion of the Circuit Courts
Employees of the Federal Consumer Protection Agency (PROFECO) are not entitled to the seniority bonus provided for in Article 162 of the Federal Labor Law.
If, pursuant to Article 29 of the Federal Consumer Protection Law, the employment relationship between Profeco and its employees is governed by the Federal Law on State Employees, and the actual situation is that they receive the five-year bonus (typical of civil service legislation), the uncertainty in the legal framework cannot lead to the conclusion that they are entitled to the benefits based on seniority established in both constitutional provisions, since collective bargaining does not have the effect of modifying legal relationships during the period in which the employment relationship existed.
Publication prepared by Daniel Majewski del Castillo and Zusel Soto Vilchis.
