PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS IN DISPUTES CONCERNING LAWYERS' FEES AND THE RIGHT TO APPEAL
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.29076/issn.2528-7737vol17iss44.2024pp172-184pKeywords:
Lawyers, professional fees, legal certainty, due process, double compliance, right to appealAbstract
The present investigation is derived from Art. 333 of the COGEP, which prohibits appeals and appeals in fact in processes related to the collection of fees between lawyers and clients. This prohibition implies that these processes are of a single instance, therefore, the sentences issued in these cases are final and definitive, without the possibility of being challenged, they acquire the character of res judicata, both material and formal. On the other hand, Article 153 of the COGEP regulates the preliminary objections in a legal proceeding. Some of these exceptions may be definitive and put an end to the process, such as the statute of limitations, lapse of time or res judicata. The judge's decision on preliminary objections may be appealed during the same hearing. If a preliminary objection that cannot be cured is accepted, the appeal is granted with suspensive effect. If the preliminary objection is rejected, the appeal is granted with deferred effect. It would be unacceptable not to allow an appeal of the judgment in a professional fee suit, but to allow an appeal of the order rejecting a prior objection. The objective is to determine to what extent prohibiting appeal violates the right to appeal. The methodology applied to the research is qualitative and theoretical-descriptive. It was concluded that there is a significant legal vacuum that violates due process.
Key words: Lawyers, professional fees, legal certainty, due process, double compliance, right to appeal.
Downloads
References
Asamblea Nacional. (2008). Constitución de la República del Ecuador. Registro Oficial 449. Obtenido de Obtenida de: https://www.oas.org/juridico/pdfs/mesicic4_ecu_const.pdf
Asamblea Nacional del Ecuador. (2015). Código Orgánico General de Procesos (COGEP). Registro Oficial Suplemento 506. Obtenido de Obtenido de: https://www.telecomunicaciones.gob.ec/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Codigo-Org%C3%A1nico-General-de-Procesos.pdf
Botero Bernal, A. (2019). La metodología docuemntal en la investigación jurídica: alcances y perspectivas. Colombia: Opinión Jurídica.
Caso Liakat Ali Alibux Vs. Surinam., Serie C No. 276 (Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos 30 de enero de 2014).
Cornejo, J. (2018). El principio del doble cnforme desde la experiencia regional. Revista Jurídica el Peruano, 14-17.
Corporación MYL. (2020). Manual práctico legal ecuatoriano. Quito: EDLE S.A.
Couture, E. (2015). Fundamentos del Derecho Procesal Civil. Buenos Aires: De Palma Editor.
Echandía, D. (1997). Teoría General del Proceso. Buenos Aires: Universidad de Buenos Aires.
Hernández Sampieri, R. (2017). Metodología de la investigación. Mexico: Mc Graw Hill.
Juicio No. 18149-1128, Recurso de casación (Corte Suprema de Justicia. Sala especializada de los Fiscal 2 de julio de 2003).
López, J. (2015). ESTUDIO PRÁCTICO DEL IRR, IVA E IMPAC EN LOS. México: Ediciones fiscales ISEF.
Oyarte, R. (2017). Debido Proceso (Segunda ed.). Quito: CEP.
Oyarte, S. (2020). Práctica Procesal Constitucional (. Quito: CEP.
Resolución No. 12-2017 (Corte Nacional de Justicia del Ecuador 3 de mayo de 2017).
Rojas, M. E. (2018). Teoría del proceso. Bogotá: Universidad Externado de Colombia.
Sautú, R. (2005). Manual de Metodología. Argentina: Clacso.
Sentencia No. 2611-19-EP/22, CASO No. 2611-19-EP (Corte Constitucional del Ecuador 19 de diciembre de 2022).
Sentencia No. 987-15-EP/20, Acción extraordianria de protección (Corte Constitucional del Ecuador 18 de noviembre de 2020).
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors can keep the copyright, granting the journal right of first publication. Alternatively, authors can transfer copyright to the journal, which allow authors non-commercial use of the work, including the right to place it in a file open access.
