Chile: Constitutional Court Recognises the Validity of Abandonment in the Labour Enforcement Proceeding

Despite our Labour Code statutes that the abandonment of the proceeding, recognised for civil proceedings, does not proceed in the general labour proceeding, our Constitutional Court recently ruled case number 14.713-2023 on 14 August 2024, that the restriction of the labour code rule is unconstitutional since it prevents obtaining legal certainty in labour enforcement proceeding and since the executing party would keep the right to pursue with the proceeding, even when decades could pass without taking useful steps in the trial.

In that sense, the Constitutional Court stated:

“Eighth: That, as has been expressed, the legal precept in question prevents the defendant from the possibility of opposing a regular institute of procedural law in the abstract assumption that it corresponds to the court to give the corresponding impulses in order to avoid the paralysis of the process and its undue prolongation, an exceptional legislative decision that demonstrates in practice that it allows a paralysis that can be abusive and with unfair consequences for the defendant.

In this specific case, in view of what has been said regarding the development of the pending proceedings, it is evident that this exception introduced by the legislator in Article 429 regarding the institute of abandonment of the proceeding, by not preventing abusive delays by the parties and the trial within reasonable time periods in order to provide legal certainty and security, violates the constitutional principle of equality and non-arbitrary discrimination and the essence of the right to equal protection in the exercise of rights, consisting in establishing the guarantees of a fair and rational procedure, without establishing safeguards for the affected party, or powers for the Court, to prevent attempts at litigation that could be considered abusive.”

Although judgments in Chile only produce effects with respect to the lawsuit in which they are pronounced, this pronouncement renews a jurisprudential trend that is relevant for the defence of labour collection lawsuits that have remained inactive for a long time.