Background and Procedural Conflict
In a Consumer Protection case, the Ninth Circuit Civil Court, in Judgment No. 12-15 of March 14, 2025, jointly and severally ordered the developer, the trust company, and the bank to pay a sum of money, interest, and costs.
Subsequently, the Third Superior Court modified the judgment solely to exclude the trust company from the liability, leaving the liability against the developer and MERCANTIL BANCO, S.A. unchanged.
EVANS GROUP, acting on behalf of MERCANTIL BANCO, S.A., filed a Constitutional Protection Action, arguing that the judicial decisions had violated due process by extending joint and several liability to the Bank, without sufficient legal or evidentiary basis, attributing to it the status of supplier within a consumer relationship in which it did not participate; being only as creditor and beneficiary of the trust established to guarantee the financing of the real estate project.
In a ruling dated June 16, 2026, the First Superior Court granted the injunction, overturned the challenged decisions regarding the Bank, and acquitted it of all charges.
This decision sets a significant precedent for consumer law, banking law, and the constitutional review of judicial decisions.
Constitutional criterion
The Protection of Constitutional Guarantees does not constitute a third instance intended to review any disagreement with the assessment of evidence; however, it is appropriate when a judicial decision incurs in insufficient reasoning, erroneous legal interpretation or arbitrary assessment capable of violating fundamental rights.
The First Superior Court, after analyzing the evidence, concluded that the appealed judgment had unduly extended the Bank’s liability through an incorrect interpretation of the credit and trust agreements; highlighting:
- The Bank’s participation was limited to providing financing for the development of the real estate project.
- The contractual powers of supervision, disbursement control, verification of construction progress, and potential rights in the event of default by the developer constitute standard credit protection mechanisms inherent to any banking transaction; and do not automatically transform the Bank into a developer, seller, builder, or supplier within the consumer relationship.
- There was no evidence that the Bank had assumed management of the project, participated in the marketing of the properties, or incurred any direct obligations to the buyers.
- The mere existence of a financial or fiduciary relationship with the developer is insufficient to impose joint and several liability towards consumers.
Importance for constitutional and banking practice
It was determined that the challenged ruling improperly applied Law 45 of 2007 and the civil law provisions on joint and several liability, violating the right to due process recognized in Article 32 of the Constitution.
The duty to provide reasons for judicial decisions is crucial, as decisions that seek to extend liability to third parties must be based on objective evidence and a correct interpretation of the applicable laws, avoiding argumentative constructions that distort the legal role of each participant in a financial transaction.
The status of supplier cannot be presumed simply because a bank finances a real estate project or employs contractual mechanisms designed to protect the loan granted.
The powers of financial supervision, construction inspection, or disbursement control pertain exclusively to credit risk management and do not constitute acts inherent to the marketing of the real estate project.
CONCLUSION
Financing a real estate project does not transform the Bank into a supplier within a consumer relationship. This principle strengthens legal certainty in real estate financing transactions.
Due process requires that judicial decisions be based on a proper assessment of the evidence, a correct interpretation of the contractual relationships, and sufficient justification.
At EVANS GROUP, we remain committed to the strategic defense of our clients’ rights and interests, promoting innovative legal solutions and effective protection before the courts.