Issue 117–October 2013



October 11, 2013

Recent Jurisprudence – Burden of Proof in the Case of Objection to the Resignation Letter by the Employee

By Adrián Salgado

The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) recently approved legal opinion number 2.a/J. 142/2013 (10a.) titled, “Resignation. If an employee objects to the contents of the corresponding letter, signature or digital signature, such employee has the burden of proof as to such objection.” In this opinion, the Second Chamber ruled that an employee must prove, through proper evidence, his or her objections to the contents, signature or digital signature contained in the employment resignation letter offered as evidence. The foregoing is in accordance with Article 811 of the Federal Labor Law, in effect until November 30, 2012, which established that if the employee objects to the authenticity of a document regarding the above-mentioned issues, … read more


October 11, 2013

Mandatory Holidays

By Pablo Sáenz

In addition to the weekly rest day, Mexico’s Federal Labor Law establishes other days off, which are commonly referred to as mandatory days of rest or holidays. These days are declared as non-workdays based on patriotic, civic, political or religious events or occasions, in order to allow employees to attend public and religious festivities or ceremonies that are important to the community. Mexico’s Federal Labor Law contemplates the following mandatory holidays: (i) January 1st, so that employees do not have to work on the day following New Year’s Eve festivities; (ii) the first Monday of February, in commemoration of February 5th, which corresponds with the anniversary of the Mexican Constitution; (iii) the third Monday of March, in commemoration of March … read more


The Trend Toward Piercing the Corporate Veil in Mexico
By Armando Quintana Freg

  The most recent edition of the Mexico’s Weekly Federal Court Reporter (August 2013) notes that the Fifth Collegiate Court in Civil Matters for the First Circuit has issued multiple opinions on the subject of piercing the corporate veil of a Mexican entity. Such opinions show a new trend that establishes, in essence, that an entity’s corporate veil or shield of liability can be pierced when it can be shown that the use of such “business entity” is abusive, and that its sole purpose is to prejudice the rights of third parties. Business associations, whether their owners are other entities or individuals, have been a preferred vehicle to undertake speculative commercial activities. This is the case because of the advantages … read more