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
June 30, 2026
Jurisprudential Criteria on the Express Submission Clause and Precautionary Measures

On June 26th, 2026, two Jurisprudential Criteria were published in the Federal Judicial Gazette (Semanario...

June 30, 2026
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...

June 29, 2026
Amendment to the Federal Law of Administrative Litigation Procedure

On June 9th, 2026, the Decree amending, supplementing, and repealing various provisions of the Federal...

June 29, 2026
Ascencio Rosario et al. v. Mexico: Official Case Summary Published in Mexico’s Official Gazette

On June 24th, 2026, the Federal Government published in the Official Gazette of the Federation...

Written by:

Partner

Jaime is a Partner at Ibarra del Paso Gallego, where he leads the Labor and…

Associate

Juan Pablo is an Associate at Ibarra del Paso Gallego, specializing in Labor & Employment…

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