The Court of Appeals in Santiago sentenced Farmacias Ahumada to pay compensation for violating the Consumer Law in the so-called pharmacy collusion case.
The aforementioned conviction did not apply a fine to FASA due to the fact that it paid the amount of 1,350 Annual Tax Units after reaching a compromise agreement with the Office of the National Economic Prosecutor, an agreement that in later approved by the Court for the Defense of Free Competition. .
However, the ruling said, that the ruling on FASA created res judicata in relation to its participation in the conspiracy, as the ruling clearly stated, and because the condition of making an agreement did not eliminate in its quality. trial, and for this reason what was decided there is absolutely binding, with no violation noted regarding the relative effect of judicial resolutions established in article 3 of the Civil Code, so that the allegation of the lack of passive standing of this party is not able to -progress.
He added that, FASA does not know that, according to the law, the Director of the National Consumer Service, naturally has the powers to resolve a claim of the character of the one who caused this process, however, it warned that due to the fact that if he had previously handed them over to another officer, he would have lost them at best, and before the sub-lite action was executed, he would not have been able to recover them by a previous express revocation.
The judgment considers that any defect that may occur in the manner in which a public authority continues to exercise a legal power vested in it, in any case shall not cause the nullity of the said action due to infringement of the provisions of articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution of the Republic, since said delegation does not have the effect of reducing the powers given to it by law, and therefore, when it directly acts again, it is valid within his field of competence..
Likewise, the resolution added, it is obvious that an annulment such as the one sought cannot be determined or resolved by the same court that hears the trial, because if the claim becomes null, so will the judgment declaring of it, for it ought to have been brought in a separate trial, by an action, and not as an exception or defence.
The judgment concludes that, regarding the payment exception, it should not be accepted, because there is no debate or discussion about the individuality of each of the beneficiaries of the payment, and the payments made within the framework of Compensation Plan implemented between the months of April and September 2009, where some affected consumers who requested to be compensated, does not include the entire universe of injured parties, all of whom are impartial in what will be decided in the future. imputation.
Note that in the first ruling, Farmacias Salcobrand and Farmacias Cruz Verde were convicted for the same fact. However, they reached a compromise, so the Court of Santiago did not issue a ruling on them.
See the judgment of the Court of Santiago Rol Nº5,740-2021 and first instance Rol C-1940-2013.