Jaime Rodríguez
Juan Pablo Trinidad

Silence at the Preliminary Hearing: Forfeiture of Rights and Tacit Consent under Mexico’s Reformed Labor Procedure

Regulatory Context

On May 22nd, 2026, the Federal Judicial Weekly Gazette (Semanario Judicial de la Federación) published isolated ruling I.1o.T.6 L (12a.), issued by the First Collegiate Court in Labor Matters of the First Circuit. The ruling clarifies the scope of tacit consent and procedural forfeiture (preclusión) within the preliminary hearing stage of labor proceedings.

The criterion is consistent with the principles of concentration, orality, immediacy, and preclusion that govern labor procedure under the 2019 reform. The preliminary hearing is the stage where proceedings are streamlined, disputed facts are defined, and evidentiary rulings on admission or rejection of evidence are issued.

Practical Impact

The Court held that the procedural sanction set forth in Article 873-F, Section I, of the Federal Labor Law — originally designed for parties who fail to appear at the preliminary hearing — applies equally to parties who appear but remain silent when given the floor.

As a result, appearing without raising objections carries the same legal consequence as not appearing at all: the rulings issued during that stage are deemed tacitly consented to, and the corresponding procedural rights are forfeited. This includes the ability to challenge, in a direct amparo proceeding, the admission of evidence that was not objected to at the time.

Considerations

Employers and their legal teams should bear the following in mind:

  • Attendance at the preliminary hearing is not enough: active participation at each stage, when the floor is granted, is essential.
  • Failing to object to the admission of evidence during the hearing may consolidate its evidentiary weight and foreclose subsequent challenges.
  • Arguments aimed at contesting tacitly consented rulings risk being declared procedurally inadmissible in amparo.
  • Defense strategy must be built from the preliminary hearing onward — not from the judgment.

Note: This is an isolated ruling and does not constitute binding precedent (jurisprudencia); however, it represents a significant interpretation of preclusion and tacit consent under current labor procedure.

Post Tags :

Share :

Read More

Recent News
Valid Certificate for Employer
July 17, 2026
The e.firma Will Be the Only Valid Digital Certificate for Employer Filings before the IMSS: 90 Days to Migrate

Regulatory Context On July 16th, 2026, Resolution ACDO.AS2.HCT.290626/176.P.DIR of the Technical Council of the Mexican...

REPSE Procedures
July 16, 2026
STPS Streamlines REPSE Procedures: Fewer Requirements, Shorter Response Times, and a Single Unified Process

On June 9th, 2026, the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (“STPS“) published in the...

Amendments to Mexico's AML Framework for Credit Institutions
July 16, 2026
Amendments to Mexico’s AML Framework for Credit Institutions: New Level 2 Bis Deposit Account and Enhanced Identity Verification

Regulatory Context On July 10th, 2026, the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit published in...

New Rules for Self-Supply and Cogeneration Schemes
July 15, 2026
New Rules for Self-Supply and Cogeneration Schemes: Voluntary Migration and a New Energy Transmission Cost

Executive Summary On June 18th, 2026, two resolutions were published in the Federal Official Gazette...

Written by:

Partner

Jaime is a Partner at Ibarra Gallego, where he leads the Labor and Employment (L&E)…

Associate

Juan Pablo is an Associate at Ibarra Gallego, specializing in Labor & Employment Law. Profile…

We use our own and third-party cookies to optimize our website and services. Check our Privacy Notice for more information.