On the admissibility of the subsidiary appeal filed against the resolution enforcing the warning provided in article 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure Commentary on the ruling of the Illustrious Court of Appeals of Talca rol 17-2020

Commentary on the ruling of the Illustrious Court of Appeals of Talca rol 17-2020

Abstract

A ruling from the Court of Appeals of Talca is discussed, which, hearing of a motion of reconsideration [recurso de hecho] filed against the resolution that declared inadmissible the subsidiary appeal filed on the resolutions that considers the appearing party confessed, states that the latter has the nature of an interlocutory sentence, so that it is susceptible to appeal. The interpretation of the Illustrious Court is, at least, debatable both in its foundations and in its conclusion. Specifically, the Court’s reasoning allows us to venture into the discussion regarding: the legal nature of the contested resolution; the implication and scope of the provisions of article 326 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, finally, the inappropriateness of the judiciary assisting one of the parties in the sloppiness in the filing of appeals.