The Social Chamber of the Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal made by a lawyer who presented a writ of appearance before the High Court by email.
The car, January 30, 2023emphasizes that the appellant has not proven no reason that would justify the alternative use of email or the existence of any failed attempt to send via Lexnet.
The case
The term for the presentation of the writ of representation in the appeal for the unification of doctrine ended on February 25, 2022.
On February 23, the worker’s lawyer sent a email to the Fourth Chamber of the TS to which the writ of representation was attached in the appeal for the unification of doctrine requesting its processing.
The High Court responded to the email by the same route on February 25 at 10:25 a.m., providing the data of the repeated appeal.
“The Chamber appreciated that the aforementioned writ of appearance was presented after the deadline.” (Photo: File)
Finally, the writ of appearance was presented before the TS, through the system Lexnethe March 17, 2022.
As a consequence of the foregoing, the Social Chamber ended up agreeing to have the lawyer as person, in the name and representation of her client, exclusively for the purpose of notifications, since it appreciated that the aforementioned writ of appearance filed after the deadline.
According to the applicant, the decision to close the possibility of personación in this appeal is disproportionate
Not satisfied with this, the lawyer filed a direct appeal review against the Decree that considered that the writ of representation was presented after the deadline in the General Registry. In its appeal, the party claimed that, at all times, it had shown a diligent performance. In his opinion, if at some point it had been defective, this conduct was induced by the content of the email he received from the Supreme Court, which led him to believe that he had successfully completed the process of appearance.
Supreme Court: “The writ of representation did not reach the judicial body on time via Lexnet”
The Social Chamber of the TS has dismissed the appeal for review filed by the lawyer and calls it “inadmissible” the intention of the jurist to assert for the purposes of the presentation of the writ of appearance, the email sent to this Court.
“The recurring has completely and utterly ignored the legal provisions on the form of presentation of procedural writings of obligatory compliance for legal professionals: the Lexnet system”, warns the new car.
According to the High Court, the appellant wants the Chamber to accept the mechanism that it has seen fit to use, email, “without proving any reason to justify it“, Add. “This is, unlike what happens in many other cases resolved by this Court, there is no failed attempt to send via Lexnet here to support the use of an alternative mediumbut an avoidance of that system in the term available to the party, and a proper presentation after the legal term has elapsed”, he explains.
In short, the norm requires the presentation within the term and in the manner indicated for it, and, in the present case, “the writ of appearance did not reach the judicial body on time via Lexnet”, reiterates the Fourth Chamber.
Furthermore, as is known, the deadlines are non-extendable and may only be interrupted by force majeure. However, this circumstance, in the opinion of the Social Chamber, “does not attend in the present case, in which only the party is attributable to the presentation wrong of the writ of appearance before this TS as an attachment to an email, and the subsequent submission after the deadline through Lexnet”.
