The legal nature of the Exchange Judgment, Rafael Juan Juan Sanjosé
The legal nature of Judgment Exchange is a debated issue, although the author is inclined to understand it as a special assessment procedure, which will have significance in terms of the exceptions to be able to oppose the part of the obligor.
The following is the work of Juan Rafael Juan Sanjose, Deputy Judge of the Provincial Court of Castellon.
The legal nature of the Exchange Judgment
Rafael Juan Juan Sanjosé
Alternate Judge of the Provincial Court of Castellón
2.- Executive or declarative nature of the exchange trial.-
3.- Summary judgment or plenary.-
Traders, concerned about the guarantee of payment of their operations, They found in the exchange process, the proper channel for strengthening their claims and streamlining the collection compared to the slow and inefficient regular procedures.
As we have seen in the legislative chronology that has led to the current exchange trial, since the Pragmatic Sanction of Carlos III 1782 (Latest Compilation XI, II 7º), always it has given securities a privileged channel to enforce its collection in case of default by the debtor.
Nonetheless, the legal nature of the channel has been debated from the beginning and so, as manifested SANZ ACOSTA (1), there are three controversial issues about the nature of the exchange trial:
a) If the exchange process is a process of execution or a declaratory action.
b) If the exchange trial is a summary trial or plenary.
c) If the judgment is the exclusive exchange via established to exercise the exchange action or may, alternatively, opt for this process or by the ordinary process by corresponding amount.
Then we proceed to analyze the first two questions, systematically exposing the various doctrinal views regarding these, to give birth to an endemic problem of currency judgment and which directly affects the opposable exceptions in the same.
2.- Executive or declarative nature of the exchange trial.-
As outlined below, the doctrine is divided between those who understand that the exchange has executive nature trial, reminiscent of the previous legal regulation contained in the LEC 1881, maintaining that nothing has changed with the entry into force of the LEC 2000, and those given the new configuration as the Code of Civil Procedure has been established to exchange trial, create it as a new procedure for claiming securities, It has become the same in a declaratory judgment for all purposes.
We must start from the basis that the current regulation of the LEC, and more specifically as provided for in Article 517, exchange securities no longer be regarded as enforceable as such and as such were conceptualized by the LEC 1881, 1429.4º that article considered the proper execution titles.
However, They remain in the current legal regulation reminiscences of the previous legislation, that make the debate on the executive or declaratory judgment of the exchange has not been, much less, solved, y así los artículos 66 Article 821.2.2ª LCCH and LEC, still speak of the bill of exchange will "enforceable through the exchange judgment" or immediate embargo by the amount given in the "enforceable".
Autores como BONET NAVARRO (2) consideran que se trata de un proceso de declaración, since it begins with a succinct demand, in which, While it is true, inserted an embargo, this is a non-executive, but special preventive, may arise in certain cases and only ranting execution once it has given judgment in order to exchange good because there is no payment or opposition or that the latter is rejected.
Asimismo BONET NAVARRO (3) lo caracteriza como un procedimiento monitorio especial, and means can not be considered, despite their similarities, an executive judgment, since in the judgment currency, unlike what happens in the average executive process, a "technical monitoring practice" consisting notice that gives the judge the alleged debtor so that they can proceed to the payment or oppose the same, and only when you do not make any of those things it is when the implementation process will start, but judicial titles, namely, not on the basis of the security, but based on the court decision terminating the exchange trial.
The same view is lace MORENO (4), which means that exchange titles are not enforceable and therefore carry no enforceable, despite the provisions of Article 66 ESA, DF modified by the 10th of the LEC, since the implementation is not inherent to exchange title, but the court decision is the currency emanating procedure, what it determines who should be regarded as a declarative process towards the resolution that can run.
Regarding Article 66 LCCH BONET NAVARRO (5) entiende que hay que interpretarlo en el sentido de que la letra de cambio o en su caso el pagaré no es más que un título valor, and see what makes this article is that in certain circumstances, when a judicial decision that can open way of enforcement is obtained, that title value may form the executive title. And this will happen only when there was no payment or opposition, because in such a case the enforcement order will comprise the securities, demand and documentary evidence of the requirement of the debtor and the passivity of the same for non-payment or opposition. But on the assumption that if there is opposition, the securities will not even configure that enforceable, since it is the judgment of the exchange trial to resolve the defendant's opposition.
GADEA SOLER (6) lo considera, also, as a special declarative process credit protection underpinned by a commercial document exchange, replacing the executive judgment of the LEC 1881, y RODRIGUEZ MERINO (7) lo define como “un proceso declarativo especial, by reason of the nature of their object ... which tends to obtain the conviction of the debtor based on a preferential claim contained in a commercial documents they play an important role in legal, where you tend to agility in certain operations, guaranteed by the appearance of documented loans ".
That is why, This academic, understood to say that the exchange procedure is enforceable by the simple fact that the lien becomes executive, It would be like claiming that any payment, verbal or ordinary trial would be implementation processes.
Certain jurisprudential said current sector shares and thus established that there is no reason now to go to the usual and traditional references to the summary procedure and narrow legal remedy, permissible reasons in the previous executory, but not at the current exchange rate with regard to the extracambiarias exceptions linked to underlying and esgrimibles own business in terms of personal relationships drawer-rid, no area of disadvantage and to understand that this is a declarative process even though it is of special character (8).
En sentido contrario GARBERI LLOBREGAT (9) defiende que el juicio cambiario es un proceso de ejecución especial puesto que sigue casi idénticos trámites procesales que el proceso de ejecución de títulos no judiciales, what it has to join that starts by a diploma under Article 66 LCCH execution entails, opinión compartida por ADÁN DOMÉNECH (10) que define la naturaleza del juicio cambiario como proceso de ejecución, its equivalence to the former executive judgment, he considers consistent with regulation of the execution process, by referrals occasionally performs this process, the executive said character-value securities exchange, executive who understands the nature of the attachment levied and the exceptional nature of estimating incident from behind the embargo (11).
Last, hay algunos autores que entienden que el juicio cambiario tiene una naturaleza mixta entre el juicio ejecutivo y el declarativo y así MOXICA ROMÁN (12) lo conceptúa como un proceso “sui generis”, since if the court considers that the necessary budgets are given without further order requiring payment to the debtor and proceed to the immediate seizure of their property, what is proper execution of a process, which it is reinforced by the fact that if there is no opposition by the defendant is definitely running dispatch, and seizure, at first it was preventive, It will become executive and substantiated by the same procedures as the LEC provides for the execution of the sentence and judgments (13).
Dentro de esta naturaleza mixta OLIVER LÓPEZ (14) puntualiza que igual que en el proceso de ejecución forzosa, measures demanding payment and not yet adopted that existed prior declaration process, just before a formal examination of title, so that, although in the foreign exchange trial initially one can speak of a law enforcement, existe indubitadamente una actividad ejecutiva con base en un título cambiario ejecutivo sui generis, we can distinguish as special executive exchange; not in vain in the art. 66 the LCCH currently drafted it is stated that the bill of exchange shall entail implementation, and Article 821.2. 2ª exchange LEC appointing as enforceable title (15).
We are inclined to understand it as a special assessment procedure, inasmuch as, as mentioned authors who share this view defend, exchange titles, they are not enforceable, although, we believe erroneously, they are both in qualifying and the LCCH, and LEC.
Executive can not be labeled as a process for the sake of a preparatory exist yet, points out as well that the doctrine, It can be lifted, being but a system of protection provided by the legislature in exchange creditor, given the nature of the titles that open the certificated procedure. This overprotection is what makes it special and not from within the Book II of the LEC, but it can not serve as a basis to qualify as executive, since it is not so set in Book III of the LEC.
Also we share with the current exchange considered declaratory judgment, that which constitutes the enforcement order is not the title eigenvalue, but the aim to exchange trial is to obtain a court order to open the enforcement proceedings, which is opened by simply submitting a letter, a check or a promissory note, as it does with the actual titles executives under Article 517.2 LEC.
The conclusion regarding the executive or declarative nature of the exchange judgment is reached will have special significance in terms of the exceptions to be able to oppose the part of the obligor as if what means is that there remains an executive nature I had the previous exchange executory, la sumariedad y estrechez de su cauce procesal van a impedir que excepciones complejas como la non rite adimpleti contractus sean alegadas, since the risk that denature the procedure itself runs, having to be treated in a subsequent declaratory judgment, whereas if what is being defended is that its nature is declarative, the amplitude of cognition and ability to defend both sides will allow itself to deal with such issues in the exchange trial and therefore be admissible an opposition based on the complaint of partial compliance, defective or late.
3.- Summary judgment or plenary.-
Just as declarative regarding the nature of the exchange or executive judgment, doctrine, as we will see, It is divided about the summary nature or the same plenary, and that is why last we will analyze the controversy following the reform of securities legislation in order to observe the different doctrinal positions about whether the judgment in the foreign exchange passes judgment or the authority of res judicata, and thus determine whether this is a summary trial or plenary.
As it was around the discussion of its executive nature, This will directly impact the exceptions to raise the seat of the certificated procedure, since according to interpret the extent of res judicata, according to the arguments then we will detail, They must be claimed all issues and relations between the parties on, not only of the transaction that gave rise to the issuance of the cambial, but also of any other dispute between them, or conversely, the impact of the judgment in the foreign exchange shall affect judgment on certain types of opposition and not on others such as those based on partial or defective compliance.
In the previous regulation to the entry into force of the current LEC, Article 1.479 LEC 1881 It provided that "the judgments in summary proceedings will not produce jeopardy, without prejudice to their right to the parties to promote regular on the same issue ", so we were limited to a judgment of cognition which did not produce all the effects of res judicata, being operable in the corresponding declaratory judgment other issues concerning the causal link.
With the current regulation, Article 827.3 LEC states that "the final judgment in judgment currency effect of res judicata, on issues that might be alleged in it and discussed, It is able to raise the remaining issues in the corresponding trial ".
En virtud del precepto transcrito son varias las posturas que se posicionan acerca del carácter sumario o plenario del juicio cambiario y así SANZ ACOSTA (16) manifiesta que del tenor literal del precepto se concluye que no es posible afirmar que las sentencias dictadas en el juicio cambiario no pasan en autoridad de cosa juzgada, since it is not only the provision is limited to determining the impossibility of action in subsequent proceedings the matters alleged, but broadens the range to all those who might be, which it is reinforced by Article 400.2 (17) LEC (18).
In the same sense, CORD points MORENO (19), that the legislature does not distinguish, when regulating exceptions opposable, exchange between the path of judgment and the ordinary way, so if there is no limitation in this exception, given the fullness of knowledge of the judge, it will not in the first. So in view of the breadth of possibilities allegation provisions of LCCH, not clear what issues would be excluded from the res judicata and relegated to ordinary trial, though she says that the principle of res judicata will be limited to awards made in exchange trial opposition and not be extrapolated to the dictates dispatched cars running when no payment or opposition, can, in such cases the debtor raise the corresponding declarative (20).
Regarding the above, and whether the auto execution dispatching shares of res judicata, GUASCH FERNÁNDEZ (21) discrepa de lo mantenido por CORDÓN MORENO y manifiesta que como la causa del auto despachando ejecución está en el título presentado y en el allanamiento por silencio del demandado, it will also produce the effect of res judicata on the issues could have been discussed in opposition to exchange trial, position is that we fully share.
Notwithstanding these doctrinal trends, jurisprudence (22) ha entendido en determinadas ocasiones que el juicio cambiario no ha experimentado cambios significativos en relación con el anterior ejecutivo, which corroborates the actual grounds of the LEC 2000 when it states that "judicial protection system of credit exchange efficiency equivalent to strictly repealed legislation" it is set, a lo que cabe añadir en favor del mantenimiento del carácter sumario del nuevo proceso que en los casos de oposición se reconduzca siempre la tramitación al cauce del juicio verbal, regardless of the amount in dispute (art. 826 LEC) unlike what happens with the payment procedure (art. 818 LEC), where the reduction procedure it corresponds with the limited opposition media without prejudice to the subsequent corresponding declaratory judgment that article refers is inferred. 827.3 LEC.
So that is not shared by all courts, And there are other sector (23), which argues that the legislator is aware of the specialties of the exchange trial, but nowhere alludes to the summary nature of the, and if you ever equated the current system of judicial protection to legislation repealed, It is when it comes to cases in which there has been no estimate of the opposition or none has been carried out.
Also understand that the current regulation, it follows that the exchange is a special process trial, but declarative nature of its purpose incardinated to obtain the conviction of the debtor based on a lien documented, with a first phase and a second in view of the possible opposition of the debtor.
Mull that one could think of a character from the time-trial that Article 827.3 LEC last paragraph denies judgments therein the effect of res judicata, to warn that they may consider "the remaining issues in the corresponding trial". But this provision must be interpreted correctly, because before clearly and accurately he warns that "the final judgment in exchange trial produce res judicata effect, on issues that might be in it or discussed alleged ".
And thus they conclude that it appears that the exchange summary judgment does not have the character that appears, it can not be discussed in another trial not only because what has been argued and discussed but everything that could assess and discuss, an issue that must be put in relation to the regime of exceptions provided for in Article 67 ESA, it does not contain any statement, on what are the exceptions arising from existing relationships between fork and exchange debtor, and Article 824 LEC, to regulate exchange reference to the former opposition without any exception.
That is why this jurisprudential sector understands that we can speak of a documentary process, a special process, specifically designed to assert legitimate claims on behalf of holders of securities, but, if there is opposition, declarative character and no summary.
Regarding the matter studied, We share the view that says that this is a declaratory judgment, and this because as you point the proponents of this doctrinal current, Article 827.3 LEC is clear in stating that res judicata will extend both the matters alleged, as those that could be discussed in the same, which in conjunction with Article 67 LCCH makes the breadth of opposition that will be able to claim in the currency judgment creditor make a clear declarative nature.
Now, notwithstanding that, we understand that not all incidents that have been generated between the certificated / causal parties may be brought to the certificated procedure, but should be limited to those who have an intimate relationship with the underlying agreement that was the origin of the issuance of the cambial, within which come, undoubtedly, the possible denunciation of partial compliance, defective or late.
That is why extension of res judicata, as discussed until now, in our opinion, It should be limited to those issues directly related to the subject of the proceeding, ie the debt claimed by the securities, and not on those existing disputes between the parties arising from other issues and intended to be introduced into the trial by currency, for example, compensation claims, since they exceed the scope of understanding of the certificated procedure and that could be the former Article 827.3 LEC arise in the corresponding trial.
This content vaciaríamos not the last paragraph of Article 827.3 LEC, and yet we would still maintaining the declarative nature of the exchange and not summary judgment, admitiendo por tanto la exceptio non rite adimpleti contractus en sede del procedimiento cartular.
Juan Juan Rafael Sanjose
Alternate Judge of the Provincial Court of Castellón.
(1) SANZ ACOSTA, L., “La controvertida naturaleza jurídica del juicio cambiario”, Law Journal, 2010, núm.7506.
(2) Bonet J. NAVARRO, Currency judgment debtor and opposition. Doctrine, jurisprudence and forms, And. The Law, Madrid 2004, p. 14.
(3) Bonet J. NAVARRO, Trial and opposition exchange ..., on. cit., p. 30.
(4) CORDÓN MORENO, F., “El juicio cambiario en la nueva LEC”, Judicial Studies Law, General Council of the Judiciary, pp.. 157-181.
(5) Bonet J. NAVARRO, Trial and opposition exchange ..., on. cit., p. 26.
(6) GADEA SOLER, E., Los títulos-valores. Letra de cambio, cheque y pagaré, 2ª ed., And. Dykinson, Madrid 2007, p. 119.
(7) RODRÍGUEZ MERINO, A., “Del juicio cambiario”, en LORCA NAVARRETE, A.M., (You.), Comentarios a la nueva Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, Tomo IV, And. Lex Nova, Valladolid 2000, pp.. 4478-4539.
(8) At. entre otras SAP de Vizcaya de 20 March 2007 (ROJ: SAP BI 636/2007), SAP de Tarragona de 20-3-2012 (ROJ: SAP T 650/2012), SAP de Barcelona, sec. 17ª, of 12 May 2006 (ROJ: SAP B 8329/2006), SAP de Pontevedra, sec. 6ª, of 29 June 2006 (ROJ: SAP PO 1767/2006), SAP de Córdoba, sec. 3ª, of 10 March 2006 (ROJ: SAP CO 283/2006), SAP Barcelona 13 de noviembre del 2002 (ROJ: SAP B 11424/2002), SSAP de Salamanca de 27 de noviembre del 2002 and 6 November 2003 (ROJ: SAP SA 667/2003), y SAP de Ávila de 8 January 2003 (ROJ: SAP AV 10/2003).
(9) GARBERI LLOBREGAT, J., El juicio cambiario en la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, And. Bosch, Madrid 2012, p. 36.
(10) ADÁN DOMÉNECH, F., El nuevo proceso cambiario, And. J.M. Bosch Editor, Barcelona 2002, pp.. 15-152
(11) En el mismo sentido FERNÁNDEZ-BALLESTEROS LÓPEZ, M.A., La ejecución forzosa y las medidas cautelares en la nueva Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil, And. Iurgium Editores, SL, Madrid 2001, p. 591, considera que se trata de lo mismo que antes era, namely, una “forma especial y especialmente desafortunada de juicio ejecutivo”, aunque matiza que su sustanciación difiere del proceso de ejecución y diversa es la forma y contenido de la oposición “hasta el extremo de poder cuestionar su naturaleza de proceso de ejecución”. A su modo de ver, ultimately, “aun sin serlo…, a lo más que se parece el juicio cambiario es a un proceso de ejecución”.
Sin embargo FERNÁNDEZ BALLESTEROS frente a los autores que utilizan el argumento de la existencia del embargo preventivo para justificar la naturaleza jurídica del juicio cambiario como ejecutiva, puntualiza que intentado sin efecto el requerimiento de pago y alzado el embargo, nada queda de “ejecutivo” en la sustanciación de esa peculiar forma de juicio cambiario.
(12) ROMANIAN Moxico, J., Exchange and Cheque Act - Analysis of Doctrine and Jurisprudence, 6ª ed., And. Aranzadi, S.A., Low cizur (Navarre) 2002, p. 668
(13) But also, ROMANIAN Moxico, J., Exchange and Cheques Act ..., on. cit., p. 668, continúa diciendo que el artículo 66 LCCH establece que el título tendrá aparejada ejecución. Nonetheless, su carácter mixto viene dado por el hecho de que en el supuesto de que exista oposición por parte del deudor el procedimiento continuará sustanciándose por el juicio verbal, procedimiento éste, declarativo.
(14) OLIVER LÓPEZ, C., El Proceso Civil, And. Pulling Lo Blanch, Valencia 2001, No.. epígrafe 1083, TOL72.547.
(15) Es de resaltar la postura que mantiene al respecto, LÓPEZ SÁNCHEZ, J., The procedure, And. The Law, Madrid 2000, p. 52, tildándolo de “naturaleza singularísima”, y considerándolo como un proceso declarativo cuando se formula oposición en el mismo y con función simplemente preparatoria de la ejecución en cuanto se dirige a la convalidación del título cambiario en título ejecutivo.
(16) SANZ ACOSTA, L., “La controvertida naturaleza…, on. cit., No.. 7506.
(17) Article 400.2 LEC “De conformidad con lo dispuestos en el apartado anterior, a efectos de litispendencia y de cosa juzgada, los hechos y los fundamentos jurídicos aducidos en un litigio se considerarán los mismos que los alegados en otro juicio anterior si hubiesen podido alegarse en éste.”
(18) En esta cuestión GADEA SOLER, E., Los títulos-valores…, on. cit., p. 128, entiende que la previsión del artículo 827.3 LEC debe ser matizada por lo expuesto en el artículo 67 ESA, el cual permite alegar todo hecho enervante de la pretensión del demandante acreedor, no quedando pues, in principle, ninguna cuestión que se pudiese plantear en un momento posterior, concluyendo el autor que por tanto la sentencia dictada en el juicio cambiario va a tener la misma amplitud e intensidad que la que se dicte en los juicios ordinarios.
(19) CORDÓN MORENO, F., “El juicio cambiario…, on. cit., p. 181.
(20) Dicha postura es compartida por BONET NAVARRO, J., Trial and opposition exchange ..., on. cit., p. 28, y así manifiesta que a partir del derecho positivo y sobre todo del artículo 67 ESA, ha de concluirse que es admisible todo hecho impeditivo, extintivo y excluyente de la pretensión cambiaria entre el deudor demandado y el acreedor demandante.
(21) GUASCH FERNÁNDEZ, S., El Juicio cambiario, And. Atelier Libros, S.A., Barcelona 2006, p. 360.
(22) Ver entre otras SAP de Vizcaya de 29 November 2007 (ROJ: SAP BI 2432/2007), SSAP de Zaragoza, Sec. 4ª, of 22 March 2002 and 17 October 2003 (ROJ: SAP Z 2387/2003); SAP de Ávila, of 8 January 2003 (ROJ: SAP AV 10/2003); SAP de Jaén, Sec. 1ª, of 21 March 2002 (ROJ: SAP J 517/2002); SAP de Almería, Sec. 3ª, of 27 February 2002 (ROJ: SAP AL 301/2002); SAP de La Rioja, of 19 February 2002 (ROJ: SAP LO 115/2002); SAP de Gerona, Sec. 2ª, of 28 January 2004 (ROJ: SAP GI 105/2004); SAP de Baleares, Sec.5ª, of 14 January 2002 (ROJ: SAP IB 61/2002),…
(23) Ver SAP de Asturias, Secc. 6ª, of 2 diciembre de 2003 y SAP de Castellón, Secc. 3ª, of 5 December 2008 (ROJ: SAP CS 1341/2008), inter.