Oral commercial litigation has become the preferred method for resolving most commercial disputes in Mexico. Its premise is clear: more streamlined procedures, concentrated hearings, and a justice system more closely aligned with the specific case. For businesses, this translates into –at least in theory– in shorter litigation and lower costs. However, the procedural reality is nuanced: the absence of appeal, the possibility of direct amparo (constitutional protection) and the demands of oral proceedings can dilute that advantage if the strategy is not well planned.
What is a commercial oral trial and when is it appropriate?
Oral commercial litigation is a contentious procedure regulated by the Commercial Code (starting with Article 1390 Bis), designed to be conducted primarily in oral hearings before a judge. In practice, it is a mixed procedure: it begins with a written phase (complaint and answer) and, from then on, the arguments and presentation of evidence are concentrated in hearings.
Today, the general rule is that all commercial lawsuits are conducted orally, regardless of the amount in dispute. The regulatory evolution was gradual, but since the elimination of the maximum limit, any commercial dispute, regardless of the amount, is generally handled orally.
There are, however, some important exceptions. Matters with a special procedure are excluded from the oral proceedings.[1] provided for in the Commercial Code itself or other laws (for example, commercial insolvency proceedings or certain mortgage actions), as well as cases of indeterminate amount, where a clearly quantifiable sum of money is not claimed from the outset.
In these cases, the matter will continue to be processed in ordinary written proceedings or another special procedure.
For companies, the first filter when receiving a complaint or deciding to sue is precisely this: Is the dispute commercial, does it have a specific amount in controversy, and is it not subject to a special procedure? If the answer is yes, the conflict will most likely be resolved in court.
How does it differ from a standard written trial?
The most visible change is in the way the process is conducted. In ordinary trials, almost everything is done in writing: claims, responses, submissions of evidence, motions, pleadings, and appeals. This usually results in voluminous case files and long periods between one action and the next.
In commercial oral proceedings, however, most of the debate takes place in oral hearings. The complaint and the response remain in writing, but once the points in dispute are established, the matter proceeds to a preliminary hearing, where procedural issues are resolved, undisputed facts are identified, and evidence is admitted. Subsequently, the trial hearing is held, where witness testimony, expert opinions, and other evidence are presented, and finally, closing arguments are made orally.
Immediacy is another distinctive feature. The same judge who will issue the ruling is present at the hearings, listens to the parties, observes the witnesses and experts, and takes direct notes on how the evidence is presented. The judge does not decide solely on paper, but rather based on what they see and hear in the courtroom. This can improve the quality of the evidentiary assessment and reduce the gap between the facts of the case and its judicial interpretation.
Procedural efficiency is also part of the design. The law sets short deadlines for scheduling hearings and consolidating proceedings.
At the same time, oral proceedings introduce greater flexibility. Many issues that would require separate filings in written form are resolved on the spot, during the hearing, which helps streamline the process and discourages delaying tactics. And, with few exceptions, the hearings are public, adding a layer of transparency: company representatives can attend and directly follow how the litigation unfolds.
Apparent advantages of commercial orality
With this design, the advantages of oral commercial trials become clear.
On the one hand, there's the speed: shorter deadlines, less paperwork, more concentrated hearings, and a judgment that is usually handed down much faster than in a standard trial. This translates into savings in time and, often, in fees and indirect costs.
On the other hand, there is procedural economy: by concentrating actions at fewer key moments, the use of resources by the court and the parties is optimized. Oral proceedings also promote clarity: the essential points of the case are discussed before the judge, reducing the risk of important arguments being lost in lengthy or technically complex written submissions.
Finally, the structure of the procedure encourages early conciliation. The preliminary hearing is a natural forum for exploring agreements, with both parties present and aware that the matter will quickly move to judgment if not settled. For businesses, this can be especially valuable for resolving disputes before they become too time-consuming or damage business relationships.
The other side of the coin: direct protection and practical challenges
The main counterweight lies in what happens after the first instance ruling.
In oral commercial trials, the resolutions issued cannot be challenged by any ordinary appeal.[2]This means that in these trials, appeals against the final judgment issued by the trial court judge are also not permitted. The intention is clear: to avoid a second ordinary appeal that would prolong the matter.
However, the Constitution and the Amparo Law allow the losing party –and even the winning part– file a direct appeal before a Collegiate Court. In practice, almost any economically significant lawsuit lost in oral proceedings will end in a direct appeal, and in some cases, there may be up to two rounds of constitutional review, which prolongs the conclusion of the litigation and affects the aforementioned time advantages.
This protection, in reality, functions as a substantive constitutional review of the sentence.
Although formally focused on human rights violations and the legality of the ruling, it often involves reviewing the case in considerable detail. As a result, the supposed time benefit of oral proceedings can be diminished: processing each round of appeals adds months, and even more than a year, to the final outcome, with a consequent increase in costs and workload for the legal department.
In addition, there are some challenges inherent to the oral format. Litigating in hearings requires greater technical preparation: lawyers must master techniques of questioning, cross-examination, objections, and oral presentation, because many decisions are made in real time.
Furthermore, although there are fewer formalities, the procedural rules remain strict: if evidence is not properly presented and justified in writing, it can be rejected; if a key witness fails to appear on the appointed day, the consequences are immediate. There is minimal room for improvisation.
What should companies keep in mind?
Given this scenario, the oral commercial trial should not be seen merely as a "fast procedure", but as a tool that requires strategic planning.
First, it is advisable to carefully review whether the matter truly falls under the oral procedure or if it is subject to a special procedure or one of indeterminate value. The way in which the claim is structured –what is requested, how it is quantified, and what benefits accumulate– may influence the procedural course.
Second, it is crucial to analyze the evidentiary structure. In cases heavily reliant on documentation, oral arguments are often particularly effective. If the case depends on witnesses or complex expert reports, the company must ensure that its team and advisors are prepared to present the case in court, not just on paper.
Third, it is important to adjust time expectations: the initial ruling will likely be issued more quickly than through written proceedings, but the possibility of direct appeal means that the final resolution may take longer than the court's schedule suggests. This must be clearly explained to avoid false expectations regarding recovery timelines or the resolution of contingencies.
Conclusion
Oral commercial trials are undoubtedly an advance in Mexican commercial justice: they allow for more streamlined, transparent, and, in many cases, faster proceedings. However, their benefit to businesses extends beyond this promise of efficiency. The lack of ordinary appeals, the almost inevitable direct amparo (constitutional protection) route, and the technical requirements of the hearings necessitate a comprehensive view.
For commercial oral proceedings to be an ally and not a source of frustration, companies must understand their rules, anticipate their risks and deadlines, and realistically design their procedural strategy: considering not only the initial ruling but the entire process until the matter is truly resolved. This, in essence, is what companies need to know before filing a lawsuit through commercial oral proceedings.
[1] With regard to Mexico City, as of June 17, 2024, the distribution of cases by jurisdiction for the handling of Commercial Executive Lawsuits is carried out among the Civil Courts of Oral Proceedings in Mexico City, regardless of the amount claimed and, depending on the principal amount claimed, it will be processed in the “Commercial Executive” route, or in the “Oral Commercial Executive”.
[2] With the exception of resolutions concerning the granting or non-granting of precautionary measures or protective measures that have been requested in the trial, since these have a specific and separate treatment in the Commercial Code.
