The Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling STC9708-2026, has clarified a key point for the real estate and construction sectors: the ability to bring a third party into a consumer protection lawsuit is not limited to the tourism industry.
The dispute began with a consumer protection action filed with the Superintendence of Industry and Commerce, SIC. The action demanded legal guarantees for a series of buildings. The defendants involved a third party in the case. The SIC rejected this action, stating its authority is limited to consumer relationships and does not cover disputes between producers, suppliers, or third parties.
The Civil Chamber of the Bogotá Superior Court upheld the SIC’s decision. It argued that Law 2444 of 2025, by explicitly allowing the third-party action only in the tourism sector, showed that the practice remained restricted in other sectors, including real estate and construction.
Court Decision Allows Third-Party Action
The plaintiffs argued the court made a mistake by interpreting Law 2444 as limiting the third-party action to tourism. The Supreme Court agreed and granted the protection.
The Court first noted that paragraph 3 of Article 24 of the General Code of Procedure requires administrative authorities to handle cases with the same procedures as judges. It stated that if a regular judge can process a third-party action, the SIC can too, based on functional symmetry and the principle of equality.
Second, the Court reaffirmed Law 1480 of 2011 establishes joint liability for producers and suppliers. Defining the guarantee and reimbursement relationships in the same process prevents a fragmented resolution of the dispute.
Law 2444 Does Not Restrict Other Sectors
Finally, the Court clarified that the explicit provision in Law 2444 for disputes between travel agencies and airlines does not act as a prohibition for other sectors. The purpose of that law was to define the scope of the guarantee relationship in tourism, not to restrict the general scope of Article 64 of the General Code of Procedure.
The Court warned that if a third-party action required explicit legal permission for a specific sector, the general rule in Article 64 would be meaningless.
Leave a Reply