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

Abstract

Abstract: This paper analyzes judicial reasoning as a constitutional guarantee of due process, based on the study of a labor law ruling issued by the National Court of Justice. The central objective was to evaluate whether the decision examined meets the standards of sufficient and correct reasoning, considering the appropriate articulation between the proven facts and the applicable legal norms. The research was developed using an analytical-legal approach, employing the EL SER method to break down the ruling into its essential argumentative elements, identify the legal problem, the normative and factual issues, the ratio decidendi, and the obiter dicta. The analysis revealed that incorrect reasoning can lead to decisions contrary to the law, affect the exercise of the right to defense, and compromise legal certainty, while adequate reasoning contributes to the coherence of the judicial system and the legitimacy of the rulings. The study contributes to institutional legal training by offering a systematic analysis of judicial motivation applied to a specific case, strengthening the practical understanding of the constitutional standards that justice operators must observe in issuing judgments.