Ordenar en el código del trabajo el desistimiento de la demanda por la inasistencia en la audiencia preliminar por parte del actor

The first part of Article 580 of the Labour Code states that if the defendant does not attend the preliminary hearing will be held as outright denial of the fundamentals of demand and proceed in absentia, a situation that will be considered for payment of costs court. Thus the absence of the defendant at this hearing produces three effects: outright refusal of the demand fundamentals, should continue the trial in absentia and also be condemned to pay the legal costs. Importantly, the absence of a party to a preliminary hearing will significantly subtract their possibilities for action, since during that especially the suit locks and taking evidence, facts of great significance is requested and can be instrumental in the litigation strategy that the parties must define in advance notwithstanding that, despite his absence, may request those tests run on the final hearing. The absence of the defendant at the preliminary hearing takes effect from outright refusal of the fundamentals of demand and the judge should sanction when establishing the legal costs, apart from declaring in default if the other party so accused. While the nonattendance of the actor should not be considered as withdrawal of the application, since the law does not provide expressly that purpose but I believe that should do well not to deter fraudulent claims or apparent misconduct arise. Thus the Labour Code sets no effect of absence of the plaintiff to a preliminary hearing, this gap accusing the Act should consider prescribing the parties must attend compulsorily to a preliminary hearing in person and accompanied by their lawyers: If the plaintiff fails to appear shall be deemed to have waived their claims and the process will be archived. This is a serious but very necessary in order to bring order to the judicial activity and prevent loss of time and employees judge accordingly. The withdrawal means the end of the process and the impossibility of being raised again, therefore, the right is lost. In this case it would be a unilateral conclusion of the process.

• Main Author: Villavicencio Villavicencio, Jimena Alexandra (author)
• Format: bachelorThesis
• Language: spa
• Published: 2014
• Online Access: http://dspace.unl.edu.ec/jspui/handle/123456789/15472