Supreme Court Upholds Verdict Against Developer
The First Civil Chamber of Panama's Supreme Court of Justice denied the cassation appeal filed by Promotora Comercial del Istmo, S.A., upholding the damages and compensation ruling in the class-action lawsuit brought by the National Union of Consumers and Users of Panama (Uncurepa).
The conflict originated with the construction of the PH Albrook Point, built, according to the lawsuit, on a sewage easement, a situation that directly affected buyers who purchased apartments under promises that were not fulfilled and without knowledge of the structural risk.
According to the case file, several institutions were aware of the easement when granting permits. Affected individuals, grouped in Uncurepa, initiated the class-action lawsuit over six years ago, resulting in compensation exceeding B/.600,000.
The Court: 'No Jurisdictional Error'
The developer attempted to annul the entire ruling, claiming one of the co-owners did not qualify as an end consumer. The First Chamber determined that this argument distorted the nature of the class action, as the legitimate representative is Uncurepa.
The court confirmed that both the Ninth Circuit Court and the Third Superior Court had jurisdiction to hear the case.
Company Loses… and Pays
In addition to denying the appeal, the Court condemned the developer to pay B/.200 in costs, thus closing the extraordinary avenue it sought to reverse the ruling.
Fletcher: 'An Aberration Suffered by a Group of Consumers'
Attorney Giovanni Fletcher described this event as the first substantive analysis the First Chamber has conducted in a class-action consumer protection lawsuit. He explained that the developer committed 'a kind of indescribable aberrations' against buyers who had trusted in the project's legality.
He recalled that the development company was even dissolved after being condemned in the first instance, a move he described as an attempt to evade responsibilities.
A Precedent That Shakes the Real Estate Sector
The ruling makes it clear that class actions cannot be distorted by questioning the private life or residence of a co-owner. For the Court, this legal figure exists to protect a broad group of consumers, not to fragment claims or weaken collective representation.
