The Supreme Court declared inadmissible an appeal on merits filed against the judgment which rejected a claim for compensation for breach of contract filed by a student who was dropped from a dental course, autonomously Was studying in the university.
The ruling indicates that Article 772 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in line with the provisions of Articles 764 and 767 of the above statutory body, allows as support for invalidating the disputed conviction for violation of one or more statutory provisions. Criteria contained in the decision.
The resolution states that, while filing an appeal for this purpose, its promoter must necessarily comply with the rule under analysis, ie, state the error(s) of law contained in the decision under appeal. In this line of thought, both judicial jurisprudence and doctrine include the errors that may arise because judges have provided a different scope for a legal norm established by the legislator, either by expanding their mandate or by restricting the provision; to apply a law not in the matter provided for in it, and – finally – to apply a legal rule in a situation outside the scope of its application.
It states that apart from complying with the said requirement, the aforesaid section 772 is applied with the same rigor, whoever files an appeal on merits, is bound to indicate in the relevant document in a circumstantial manner, the manner in which The error(s) from the condemning authority has substantially affected the device of the sentence it seeks to invalidate.
For the Supreme Court, in the specific case, when faced with the above with an appeal on the merits under study, concludes that there is a lack of legal requirements for its filing, as verified by examination of the complaint that the appellant does not verify the manner in which the infringement is claimed, but is limited to mentioning earlier, unrelated regulations; second, making untenable allegations in relation to the decision that was taken; and third, to point out that an expert opinion analysis was omitted; In all cases, omitting any explanation of the alleged errors attributed in the application and interpretation of rules indicating that violations were made and the manner in which they would have affected the decision to deny the claim.
The resolution states that it is undisputed that the appeal under analysis, with respect to the rules supporting it, lacks cogent and precise reasoning aimed at demonstrating the errors of law that the judges may have committed, as well They can also have an effect on the device. Ruling, loopholes which prevent this court from ruling on the correct application of law.
Furthermore, it affirms that, moreover, none of the norms declared as infringing have the capacity to decide any important aspect of the trial, all of which are formal requirements that a sentence must comply with and They are part of the cause concerned in the cassation appeal. The form that has not been reduced (Article 768 No. 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure).
The Judgment concludes that, for the reasons already stated, the substantial appeal filed by the Plaintiff is infructuous and shall not be accepted for processing.
See Supreme Court Decisions No. 10531-2023, Temuco Court Decisions No. 1270-2022, and First Instance RIT C-2457-2021.
