The Second Courtroom of The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, in session August 4 2006, determined that in order to consider the plaintiff in abandonment in an amparo trial and dismissal can be ordered as established in article 74, fraction I, of the Amparo Law (Protection Law), the plaintiff must ratify his abandonment before a judicial authority or notary public since abandonment is cause to consider the amparo trial inexistent and therefore return things to how they were before the trial initiated. The dismissal can transcend to consenting to the facts that were affecting the initiator of the trial and for this reason, the judge must make certain that the plaintiff on his own will decides to end the process and must turn up for an appointment. In the contrary the trial must go on.
The judges established this legal criterion when solving the 14/2006-PL Contradiction Thesis provoked between the then Second Professional Court (currently in Civil Matter) of the Sixth Circuit and the Fourth Professional Court of the Eight Circuit.
The then Second Professional Court (currently in Civil Matter) of the Sixth Circuit determined that if in an amparo trial the plaintiff presents a written abandonment and does not ratify it even when requested by the authority, the abandonment is considered as not formulated and the trial continues. Ratification is necessary for the plaintiff’s abandonment to take place and for that circumstance is dismissed in the constitutional judgment according to article 74, fraction I, of the Amparo Law. If ratification is not presented, abandonment must be considered as not formulated and proceed with the trial process.
The Fourth Professional Court of the Eight Circuit resolved that even when the plaintiff does not ratify his written abandonment, it must be considered reiterated tacitly generating the cause of dismissal stated in article 74, fraction I, of the Amparo Law.
