Motivación en las sentencias emitidas por los jueces de primer nivel en Ecuador

Abstract

Abstract: This thesis addresses the problem of the violation of the right to substantive defense in administrative sanctioning procedures, using Judgment No. 17240-2024-00084 as a case study. This analysis focuses on the instance where the protection action filed by the plaintiff is rejected as inadmissible because the lawyer failed to appear at the administrative summary hearings three times, forcing the Disciplinary Commission to issue its resolution without the lawyer's presence, recording the reasons for the hearings' absence. This research aims to clarify the limits between the constitutional guarantee of due process and the requirement of professional diligence on the part of the plaintiff's lawyer. Therefore, the ratio decidendi of the ruling was based on the failure to hold the hearings due to causes attributable to the plaintiff, which leads the Disciplinary Administration Commission to apply legal certainty as a prior rule established in article 302 COESCOP and article 151 of the General Regulations of the Penitentiary Security and Surveillance Corps.