Delays inherent to the platform’s operation cannot undermine the parties’ right to a defense.
It has been 10 years since the implementation of the Electronic Filing Act. This legislation introduced countless changes to the way civil cases were traditionally handled in the civil courts of first instance.
But there is one change in particular that we want to address in this Alert: the replacement of the physical filing of pleadings (at the courthouse itself, via the now-defunct “mailbox”) with the uploading of pleadings to a web portal.
This “new development” also introduced uncertainty, because it transformed the act of filing a pleading into a complex or multi-step process. We’re not just talking about sending the document electronically, but also about the virtual receipt of the pleading, which is relevant to the party filing it.
Filing pleadings on the last day of a deadline—which is the norm—does not pose major problems if done well in advance of the deadline, but what happens if the pleading is filed close to midnight, a time when systems often experience operational delays?
The law partially anticipated this problem and provided for the creation of “system availability certificates” that allow for the filing of briefs beyond the legal deadline, provided the respective certificate is submitted, when the system was unavailable.
This is logical and fair, by the way. However, there are instances of system latency that do not quite amount to “unavailability.” In other words, the system is functioning, but it is running “slower,” causing delays in every action.
The problem arises when a filing is initiated within the deadline, but its receipt—which is verified by the submission receipt generated by the system—is not finalized until after midnight on the respective deadline.
Can the attorney be held responsible for this “system failure or delay”?
According to the Supreme Court, definitely not.
In fact, through two recent rulings, our highest court has decided to prioritize the initiation of the document upload process as the milestone that marks “filing,” over the receipt of the document by the destination court via the Judiciary’s portal.
While this may seem like a subtle difference, a matter of seconds determines whether a filing is within or outside the deadline when briefs are submitted close to midnight.
Thus, on May 25, 2026 (Case No. 28.004-2026), the Second Chamber of the Supreme Court analyzed the admissibility of an appeal filed on April 24 at 12:00:21 a.m.
The ruling specified that the document was uploaded while the deadline was still in effect—that is, on the day prior to the date and time recorded on the transmission certificate. Furthermore, Recital 3 determined that this minimal technical delay takes a back seat to the party’s right to appeal.
Separately, in an ex officio proceeding by the Court’s First Chamber on June 2 (Case No. 27,797-2026), the Court reviewed the status of an appeal that was filed at 11:59 p.m. on the deadline date and was actually transmitted at 12:00 a.m. The Court ruled that the appeal had been filed within the deadline and ordered the trial court to declare it admissible.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court sends us a clear message: since the filing of legal briefs is a “composite” act—in which human responsibility applies only to the transmission of the brief and not to its receipt—a litigant cannot be held liable for the late filing of a brief that was transmitted within the statutory deadline.
The electronic filing system is not instantaneous, as there are platform-specific delays that must be taken into account and applied in favor of those who exercise their rights within the deadline, even if the effect of that exercise—the filing of the brief or appeal with the relevant court—is received later.
Consequently, these delays inherent to the platform’s operation cannot prejudice the parties’ right to a defense.
This approach provides legal certainty to litigants in safeguarding their procedural actions against potential disruptions in digital platforms—an approach that the Supreme Court has sought to standardize in an era where technology, with its benefits and drawbacks, dominates discussions among those of us who use the various platforms provided by the Judiciary.
This content was prepared by our Civil Litigation and Arbitration Group at az:
Francisco Fuentes | Partner | ffuentes@az.cl
Gabriel Pedraza | Associate | gpedraza@az.cl
Alexis Salvo | Associate | asalvo@az.cl
Be part of our multimedia platform and you can receive the latest legal news, events, podcazt and webinars.
