The defendant’s denial of the employment relationship distorted the nature of the summary proceedings.
In case No. 10-2025, the Court of Appeals of La Serena heard the appeal for annulment filed against the decision in summary proceedings RIT M-13-2022, heard before the Court of First Instance of Vicuña.
In that proceeding, the worker filed a lawsuit requesting the annulment of the dismissal, the collection of employment and social security benefits, and the declaration of sole employer, arguing that both the legal representative of the company, as a natural person, and the company Jaime Andrés Valencia Osorio Servicios de Cafetería y Eventos E.I.R.L., should be jointly liable for the employment obligations.
The judge upheld the claim. In her ruling, she declared that both defendants constituted a single employer for labor and social security purposes, in accordance with Article 3 of the Labor Code; she established the existence of an employment relationship between the parties during the period in question; she declared the dismissal null and void; and she ordered the defendants to pay the claimed employment and social security benefits.
The defendant appealed against this decision before the Court of Appeals of La Serena, arguing, in the second ground for annulment invoked, that the judge, when handing down the judgment, had granted more than what the plaintiff had requested, since the latter had never requested a declaration of the existence of an employment relationship. It argued that, by making such a declaration, the defendant was ordered to pay compensation for years of service and social security contributions and, as a result, the penalty of nullity of the dismissal became applicable.
It also pointed out that the dispute raised should not be heard in a summary proceeding, but rather in an ordinary or generally applicable proceeding. It indicated that, if this argument were accepted, the proceeding should be rolled back to the resolution that had the claim filed, so that it could be processed in accordance with the rules of ordinary procedure, thus avoiding the violation of due process guarantees.
In view of the above, the Court elaborated on the nature and purpose of summary proceedings, specifying the reasons why a legal dispute such as that relating to the existence of an employment relationship cannot be heard in this way:
Seventh: That, in accordance with the foregoing, it appears that the labor monitoring procedure is designed for the rapid collection of clear and well-founded monetary debts, up to a certain amount, in which actions requiring extensive debate are not permitted. Hence, it appears that this route cannot be used to pursue claims relating to complex disputes such as the declaration of the existence of an employment relationship, compensation for moral damages, or the nullity of dismissal, as well as the protection of fundamental rights, workplace accidents, or claims for an indeterminate amount or in excess of fifteen times the minimum monthly wage.
The Court then linked this inadmissibility to the constitutional guarantee of due process:
Ninth: That, in this way, by declaring the existence of the employment relationship in a summary proceeding based exclusively on the amount in dispute, without taking into consideration the nature of the action under discussion, it appears that due process was not respected in terms of the right to effective judicial protection, which, when considered together with the protective nature of labor law, leads to the conclusion that the defendant was deprived of the right to due process, enshrined in Article 19 No. 3 of the Political Constitution of the Republic of Chile, which guarantees that any judgment handed down by a court must be based on a legally processed prior proceeding, which did not occur in this case.
Ultimately, the Court of Appeals of La Serena overturned the ruling handed down by the Court of First Instance of Vicuña and invalidated all proceedings since the response to the complaint in the single hearing, finding that the defendant’s denial of the employment relationship distorted the nature of the summary proceedings. Consequently, it ordered the case to be processed in accordance with the general procedure.
For more information on these issues, please contact our Labor Group:
Jorge Arredondo | Partner | jarredondo@az.cl
Jocelyn Aros | Director Labor Group | jaros@az.cl
Felipe Neira | Senior Associate | fneira@az.cl
Palmira Valdivia | Associate | pvaldivia@az.cl
Manuel Sepúlveda | Associate | msepulveda@az.cl
Catalina Díaz | Associate | cdiazp@az.cl
Be part of our multimedia platform and you can receive the latest legal news, events, podcazt and webinars.
