The Compensation Fund must reimburse the discounts made to the remuneration of an affiliate debtor of a social credit whose collection action was declared time-barred.

2023-08-23 17:05:54

The Supreme Court revoked the ruling handed down by the San Miguel Court, which dismissed the protection appeal filed against the Los Héroes Compensation Fund, for deducting a debt for social credit from the remuneration of an affiliate, and instead, accepted the precautionary action.

The respondent deducted from the actor’s remuneration during the month of June 2022 the payment of an installment corresponding to the debt for the granting of a social loan to the appellant, which expired in June 2018. On March 9, 2022, the magistracy civil declared the action to collect said debt prescribed, a ruling that was final at the time of said discount.

In the constitutional action, the plaintiff argued that the discount made to his remuneration is arbitrary and illegal, since it violated his right to property and freedom of work. It affirms that the respondent filed the civil action for the collection of its credit belatedly, which is evident with the ruling that decreed the prescription, however, it intends to exercise self-protection to also deduct the amount owed, taking refuge in the social function that it fulfills a Compensation Box.

In its report, the appealed Compensation Fund recognizes the effectiveness of the collections for an unpaid and current credit, which, given the social nature of the loans granted by the Compensation Funds and the regulations it indicates, are not arbitrary or illegal and are not violate the constitutional guarantees of the appellant, paying special attention to the provisions of article 22 of Law No. 18,833.

The Court of San Miguel rejected the appeal for protection, considering that, “(…) the plaintiff does not dispute the fact that he had ceased to pay the installments, to which he voluntarily obliged, but only claims that the judicial declaration of prescription of the exchange action emanating from the promissory note has extinguished the debt, which cannot be elucidated through the attempted protection action, since it requires a pronouncement that exceeds the precautionary scope for which it was conceived.

The decision was revoked by the highest court, which accepted the guardianship action filed, after reasoning that, “(…) as a result of having opted for the respondent by judicial means to obtain collection, said creditor entity was not empowered to make the discounts made to the worker, but he should have abided by what was resolved therein in relation to the credit granted, or exercise the corresponding ordinary actions, with which his current decision to require payment through the special route becomes whimsical, without prejudice, as said, of his right to pursue the obligation by ordinary legal means.

In this sense, the ruling indicates that the discount made by the Compensation Fund, “(…) violates the property right of the appellant over their remuneration, depriving them of economic benefits, which are covered by the guarantee prescribed in article 19 No. 24 of the Constitution”.

Based on the foregoing, the Supreme Court revoked the ruling on appeal, accepted the appeal for protection and ordered the respondent to refrain from continuing with the discounts and return the amounts discounted since June 2022, without prejudice to the right to pursue collection. by the relevant ordinary judicial channel.

The decision was agreed with the vote against by Minister Jean Pierre Matus, who was of the opinion of confirming the rejection of the appeal for protection, estimating that, “(…) even after verifying the fact that the creditor had opted for the jurisdictional route to the collection of its credit, said exercise has been limited due to a judicial decision regarding the validity of the action for the collection of the guarantee, an outcome that is not directly attributable to the appealed body”.

See judgments Supreme Court No. 139.532-2022 and San Miguel Court No. 19.409-2022.