Circular No. 141-2026 of the Superior Council of the Judiciary, published in Judicial Bulletin No. 155 on August 18, 2026, expressly recognizes the possibility of agreeing upon an email address as a contractual domicile for receiving personal judicial notifications. In judicial debt collection, this possibility is of particular significance: an account designated at the time of contracting can become the medium for learning about a lawsuit and exercising one’s defense.
This change deserves attention due to its financial consequences. A valid notification allows the corresponding deadlines to begin running, even if the recipient has not opened the message. However, its scope requires precision: the announced possibility is not equivalent to a general authorization to notify any lawsuit to any email, nor should it be described as a new legal reform applied indiscriminately.
The Scope of the Change
Article 3 of the Judicial Notifications Law already allows designating a single email address to the Judiciary to receive service of process and other resolutions in any judicial matter. For its part, Article 34 regulates communications through means designated within the process, with the exceptions provided for resolutions that require personal notification. These are different scenarios, although both use email.
The circular communicates the agreement adopted in Session No. 62-2026 on July 23, 2026, Article XXXIX, at the request of the Judicial Communications Commission. Its basis consists of Articles 10, 12, 60, 63, 1007, and 1008 of the Civil Code and Article 22 of the Judicial Notifications Law. The Superior Council reports on a possibility supported by existing rules; therefore, this progress should be explained as an express recognition of its application, not as a newly enacted law.
Circular No. 141-2026 requires that the email necessarily belong to the contracting party and warns that the contractual domicile must not be confused with the permanent electronic domicile of Article 3. These clarifications define the scope of this modality: the agreement and ownership of the account must be proven, in addition to observing the guarantees of the act of communication. Including an email as a simple contact detail does not, by itself, guarantee the validity of the service of process.
The Contractual Clause Acquires Procedural Relevance
An email provided to receive account statements, advertising, or payment reminders should not, without more, be treated as acceptance of a domicile for judicial notifications. The purpose of the designation must be clearly expressed, and its scope must be capable of being proven.
- For creditors, this requires reviewing their credit documents.
- As a preventive measure, it is advisable to identify the account, explain that it may be used for judicial communications linked to the obligation, and establish a verifiable procedure to update it.
- Clarity protects the efficiency of collection and reduces disputes over what the debtor actually accepted.
For anyone assuming an obligation, choosing an email requires the same seriousness as any other stipulation with financial effects. A work account lost upon changing jobs, an abandoned address, or an inbox managed exclusively by a third party can become concrete obstacles to learning about a lawsuit in a timely manner. These circumstances must be evaluated before accepting the designation.
Mercantile Corporations Have Their Own Framework
This contractual modality must be distinguished from the reform introduced by Law 10597 of November 5, 2024. Article 20 of the Judicial Notifications Law allows mercantile corporations to be notified at the electronic address listed in the Mercantile Registry and requires keeping it registered and updated. That scenario has express statutory authorization and does not depend on the corporation having agreed on an email with a specific creditor.
Managing that account is part of the company’s legal management. Registering it is merely the first step: a person responsible for checking it, substitution rules during absences, and a mechanism to immediately forward communications to legal counsel are required. A corporation that holds assets or maintains obligations requires this organization, even if it has little commercial activity.
Registry Developments in 2026
Law 10962, published on June 3, 2026, simplified the addition and modification of corporate emails through an electronic sworn statement from the legal representative using a certified digital signature. Directive DPJ-002-2026, issued July 10 and published August 24, developed its registry application and specified that mercantile corporations without a registered email have until December 3, 2027, to incorporate it.
This detail deserves attention because references to earlier dates continue to circulate. The directive clarifies that December 31, 2026, is superseded by the broader deadline resulting from the integration of the transitional provisions. As of December 4, 2027, the Registry will not register documents related to corporations lacking a registered email and will record the corresponding defect. This registry consequence must be distinguished from the procedural consequences of a notification.
Circular DGL-003-2026, dated September 2 and published September 14, authorized the launch of the Electronic Email Self-Management System, known as ACE, starting September 20, 2026. Registered and active legal representatives can include, modify, or correct the email of the corporations they represent using a certified digital signature. The system generates an electronic sworn statement and allows downloading proof of the transaction.
Requests submitted through ACE are exempt from publishing an edict and free from tax charges until December 3, 2027. Public deeds and the notarization of shareholder or quota-holder agreements remain available. While this simplification facilitates compliance, it requires carefully verifying the address entered and organizing its review. The deadline to incorporate it does not mean that an already registered email can be ignored until its expiration.
Collection Speed Must Preserve Due Process and Defense
Electronic notification can reduce the difficulties of physically locating a sued individual. However, its usefulness requires preserving the possibility of knowing the claim and responding to it. Article 7 of the Judicial Notifications Law conditions new technological modalities on the security of the communication, due process, and the absence of defenselessness.
Not reading the message does not, by itself, constitute a reason to halt the proceedings. The practical recommendation is to check the account regularly, including the spam folder. Nor is it correct to conclude that every message sent produces a valid notification: the basis of the designation, the address used, the judicial action, and the relevant records must be verified.
The law itself contemplates the interruption of the sending system or the receiving server, and regulates nullity when a notification contrary to its provisions causes defenselessness. An error in the address or a proven technical failure requires specific evaluation. Nullity should not be assumed as an automatic remedy, nor unread messages as sufficient proof of invalidity.
Article 38 establishes, as a rule for the means contemplated therein, that a person is deemed notified on the business day following transmission. The computation of procedural deadlines must be reviewed according to the resolution, the parties, and the applicable rules; waiting to open the email to seek advice can compromise defense opportunities.
A Responsibility That Begins at Contracting
The significance of this evolution lies in the fact that a decision made at the time of contracting can determine how one enters a judicial process months or years later. For the creditor, it offers a potentially more efficient channel of communication. For the debtor, it requires understanding the scope of consent and maintaining control over the chosen account.
I believe this progress will be valuable to the extent that it combines clear contracts with verifiable judicial communications. Collection efficiency and the right of defense require the electronic domicile to function as a legally reliable point of contact. Its management must hold a concrete place in personal and corporate risk prevention.
Author: Diego Elizondo
If you would like to know more details about this topic, as well as other corporate matters, you may write to diego@glcabogados.com.
