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

Abstract

Abstract: This research analyzes the reasoning within a judgment issued by a labor court judge of first instance, aiming to evaluate whether the decision meets the standards of sufficient and correct reasoning established by the Ecuadorian Constitution and jurisprudence. Using an analytical approach applied to a specific case, the study breaks down the judgment's argumentative structure, identifying its normative and factual elements as well as the coherence of the judicial reasoning. The results show that the ruling meets the minimum standard for reasoning by allowing the grounds for the decision to be understood and guaranteeing the right to a defense; however, it exhibits limitations regarding the depth of its normative basis, preventing it from being classified as fully correct reasoning. The study concludes that, while the judgment is constitutionally valid, it is necessary to strengthen the quality of argumentation in judicial decisions to achieve higher levels of coherence and legal soundness.