Carlos Felipe B.Managing partner and founder
A decision on the limits of the cassation
The Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice clarified, in ruling SCJ-TS-25-4307 of December 18, 2025 , that its function of unifying jurisprudence does not include reconciling the doctrine of the lower courts with that of the Constitutional Court . This criterion appears in paragraph 21 and should be considered within the context of the review of the grounds for cassation in that case . To understand its scope, it is necessary to distinguish between the mission of the Court of Cassation and the constitutional review of jurisdictional decisions. The full ruling can be found in the official Judicial Bulletin of December 2025, beginning on page 10657.
What was discussed in the file?
The case involved a transportation company and the National Institute of Transit and Land Transportation (INTRANT). After a writ of mandamus for compliance and a decision imposing a penalty payment, the company requested its liquidation. The Second Chamber of the Superior Administrative Court rejected this request in judgment no. 0030-03-2025-SSEN-00252, dated June 5, 2025. The company appealed to the Supreme Court, alleging an erroneous interpretation of Article 149 of the Constitution and violations of binding precedents of the Constitutional Court and the Superior Administrative Court. These background details are set forth in sections 4 through 6 of the decision ; they demonstrate that the ruling arose from a specific dispute concerning the enforcement and liquidation of a penalty payment.
The unifying function of the Supreme Court
Articles 7, 8, and 9 of Law No. 2-23 on Cassation Appeals regulate the purpose, scope, and unifying function of this extraordinary remedy. The Court of Cassation reviews the conformity of the appealed judgment with the rules of law and maintains the uniformity of national jurisprudence, within its jurisdiction. In paragraph 21 of the analyzed ruling, the Third Chamber explains that this task includes integrating the decisions of the Supreme Court itself, addressing the divergences of the lower courts, and establishing legal precedent when it is deemed significant. According to its reasoning, the solutions thus developed may subsequently be submitted to the Constitutional Court for review through the legally established channels.
What does objective cassation interest require?
Article 10, paragraph 3, of Law No. 2-23 contemplates three grounds for cassation: that the judgment contradicts the established case law of the Court of Cassation; that it resolves issues on which there is conflicting case law between appellate courts or between chambers of the Court itself; or that it applies legal norms without established case law from that Court and the importance of creating such case law is justified. In this case, the Third Chamber held that the appellant had not clearly explained how her arguments fit into these categories. The practical lesson of paragraph 19 is that invoking a violation or listing precedents does not replace the argumentation required to justify access to cassation in the case under examination.
Constitutional precedents remain binding
This criterion must be interpreted in conjunction with Article 184 of the Dominican Constitution , which entrusts the Constitutional Court with guaranteeing constitutional supremacy, defending the constitutional order, and protecting fundamental rights, and establishes the binding nature of its decisions for public authorities and all state bodies. Therefore, the delimitation of functions set forth by the Supreme Court of Justice does not eliminate this constitutional obligation. It is necessary to distinguish between complying with an applicable constitutional precedent and attempting to have the unification mechanism inherent in cassation assume the review function that belongs to the Constitutional Court. A joint reading of the legal provision and the ruling avoids presenting the decision as a blanket authorization to disregard the Constitutional Court.
What recourse is available when a precedent of the Constitutional Court is violated?
Article 53 of Law No. 137-11, the Organic Law of the Constitutional Court and Constitutional Procedures , allows for the review of certain judicial decisions that have acquired the force of res judicata after January 26, 2010. Among the grounds for review is the violation of a precedent of the Constitutional Court. It also includes the declaration of inapplicability of a law due to unconstitutionality and certain violations of fundamental rights, subject to the requirements established by law for each case. Constitutional review requires justifying the corresponding grounds and fulfilling the procedural requirements; it is not automatically triggered by a party's disagreement with the outcome of the litigation.
Why was the decision rejected?
Paragraphs 22 to 24 explain a relevant procedural distinction: in this case, the Court deemed the grounds for appeal inadmissible due to a lack of grounds for cassation, but indicated that this conclusion led to the dismissal of the appeal . It justified this by stating that the examination of the grounds for appeal to verify such grounds had exceeded the threshold for inadmissibility. The operative part of the judgment did indeed reject the appeal. When summarizing the ruling, it is important to retain this distinction and apply it to this particular decision, without making it an automatic rule for every appeal or every court. The reasoning and the operative part of the judgment can be found in the final pages.
What should a person check before appealing?
Anyone who believes a ruling disregards a constitutional precedent must obtain the full judgment, identify the applicable legal precedent, and explain its relevance to the facts and legal issue in their case. Their attorney should determine the appropriate appeal, the necessity of exhausting all available remedies, and the admissibility requirements, avoiding confusion between cassation and constitutional review. Article 54 of Law No. 137-11 governs the procedure for the latter and requires a reasoned brief filed with the clerk of the court that issued the appealed decision within the legal timeframe following notification. Timely review of the notification and the case file allows for selecting the correct legal avenue and precisely substantiating the claim.