It often happens that the courts reject claims on the grounds that they lack sufficient clarity or motivation. Much less frequent, however, is that the judgment itself lacks the necessary clarity and coherence. This is the case that concerns us and hence the title of this Newsletter: in a blacksmith’s house, wooden knife.
The situation arose as a result of a labor claim. Specifically, it was an employee who had complained to the employer about certain differences in labor items that are irrelevant. However, it so happened that in fact, the acting Labour Court, far from ruling on the points in dispute, devoted practically the entire judgment to wage differences that had not even been claimed in the lawsuit. Moreover, the judgment resolved an objection to the statute of limitations that had also not been filed, while failing to rule on an objection that had been raised by the employer.
Wisely, the Labour Court of Appeals opted to declare the nullity of the first-degree judgment and, by virtue of it, to return the file to the Labour Court of first shift, so that it could effectively rule on the points that were under discussion.
In support of it, the Court relied, first of all, on the procedural rules according to which every judgment must give a clear and succinct account of the points at issue, and must also expressly rule on the matters at issue. After establishing that the judgment in question had never entered into the merits and therefore had not ruled on them, the Court concluded that the judgment did not contain a valid pronouncement explaining what was actually at issue in the litigation.
In short, a valuable and informed ruling that consolidates the jurisprudence on the matter.
