A mistake can be irreversible: the Court redefines how to challenge precautionary measures

Executive Summary

Recently, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation resolved the contradiction of criteria 272/2025, determining that the resolutions that grant or deny precautionary measures in Oral Commercial Trials They are not subject to appeal.The previous criterion –effective from February 2025Previously, an appeal could be filed against these decisions; however, now the only available means of challenging them is the Indirect Amparo Trial.

This change completely redefines the strategy for challenging decisions in Commercial Oral Proceedings. In practice, an error in choosing the right legal recourse can mean the definitive loss of the opportunity to contest a precautionary measure, with all the implications this has for protecting your company's interests.

The previous criterion (2025): precautionary measures were indeed appealable

In February 2025, the Regional Plenary in Administrative and Civil Matters of the Central-South Region issued the jurisprudence with the heading “PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES. DECISIONS GRANTING OR DENYING THEM IN ORAL COMMERCIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE SUBJECT TO APPEAL” and with digital registration number 2029969.

The Regional Plenary's reasoning was technically sound and based on a clear procedural distinction: precautionary measures and oral commercial trials are processes of a different nature. While oral commercial trials are the procedure in which the substantive dispute is resolved, precautionary measures are mechanisms aimed at ensuring the practical effectiveness of a potential judgment.

Under this logic, the Regional Plenary concluded that the rule of non-appealability in Article 1390 Bis of the Commercial Code was only applicable to rulings issued within the Oral Commercial Trial itself, but could not be extended to precautionary measures processed concurrently with the trial. Since precautionary measures are governed by their own regulations in Chapter XI of Title One of Book Five of the Commercial Code, Articles 1183 and 1345, section IV, expressly provide for the admissibility of an Appeal against rulings issued regarding such measures.

In practice, this criterion meant that before resorting to the Amparo Trial, it was mandatory to exhaust the aforementioned means of appeal in order for the principle of finality to be considered exhausted.

The Court's new criterion

The Court's conclusion was emphatic: against the determinations issued in the precautionary measures derived from an Oral Commercial Trial, the Appeal referred to in articles 1183 and 1345, section IV, of the Commercial Code is not applicable, since the rule of non-appealability that governs in Oral Trials is applicable.

This means that, unlike the previous criterion, it is no longer necessary –nor appropriate– exhaust an ordinary means of defense prior to promoting the Amparo Trial.

Extension to preliminary rulings

A particularly relevant aspect is that the Court extended this criterion to precautionary measures issued during the pre-trial stage. It reasoned that, since these measures are related to or intended to initiate the oral commercial trial, it would be inconsistent to exclude the application of the rule of non-appealability at that stage, when it forms part of the same regulatory system.

Why does it matter? Practical consequences and risks

This is undoubtedly the most important part of this analysis. The change in criteria is not merely theoretical; it has direct and immediate implications for any company that is part of it –or may become part– of a Commercial Oral Trial in Mexico.

1. Under the previous criterion, filing an Amparo lawsuit without first exhausting the appeal process would have resulted in its dismissal for violating the principle of finality. Now, the exact opposite occurs: if you file an appeal, it will be dismissed as inadmissible, and the time elapsed during its processing could cause the deadline for filing an indirect amparo lawsuit (15 days) to have irrevocably expired.
2. The immediate appeal against precautionary measures was filed within six days. The Amparo proceeding must be initiated within 15 days according to the Amparo Law. Although the timeframe is numerically longer, preparing an Amparo petition is considerably more complex.compared to a statement of grievances– It requires greater preparation and specialization, which in practice compresses the margin of reaction.
3. Article 1390 Ter 2 of the Commercial Code establishes an identical rule of non-appealability for oral commercial executive trials: “…cNo ordinary appeal will be allowed against the rulings issued in this trial.…Although the conflict of criteria expressly referred to oral commercial proceedings, the identical rule of non-appealability in both procedures makes it reasonable to anticipate that the criterion will be applied in the same way in Oral Commercial Executive Proceedings. This is especially relevant for companies that use this type of proceeding as a mechanism for recovering commercial debts.
4. As mentioned, the Court extended the rule of non-appealability to precautionary measures requested before the filing of the lawsuit. This means that even at the pre-trial stage –when a company seeks to secure assets or resources of its debtor prior to the start of legal proceedings– the only way to challenge the resolution that grants or denies said measures will be the Indirect Amparo Trial.

There is a legitimate tension between the principle of procedural expediency and the right of access to justice and adequate defense. In fact, the Court itself recognized that imposing the obligation to exhaust appeals would constitute an obstacle to the right of access to justice, by incorporating a means of defense not provided for in the legislation applicable to oral proceedings. However, it can also be argued that eliminating the right to a second instance for precautionary measures –which can have severe and immediate financial consequences, such as the freezing of bank accounts– significantly reduces the procedural guarantees of the parties.

Conclusion

The criterion adopted by the Supreme Court not only redefines the means of appeal, but also requires a rethinking of the procedural strategy from the beginning of the litigation.

In this new scenario, decisions related to precautionary measures must be made with greater precision and speed: in the event of a resolution that grants or denies them, the appropriate route is the Indirect Amparo Trial, without going through the appeal process.

At the same time, the elimination of the double instance reinforces the importance of building solidly supported applications for precautionary measures from the outset, as opportunities for subsequent correction are significantly reduced.

Consequently, the correct identification of the means of defense and the technical quality in the preparation of these measures cease to be desirable aspects and become determining factors for the effective protection of the interests at stake.