The Constitutional Court (TC) has rejected the protection appeal presented by a worker against the sentence of the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (TSJ) of July 3, 2026. The resolution of the ordinary jurisdiction had revoked a previous sentence of the Batllia which declared his dismissal improper and fixed a compensation of 9,284.58 euros to be paid by the Fundació Privada Tutelar. The CT has agreed to the inadmissibility on the understanding that the appeal lacks constitutional content and that the contested judicial decisions are framed in the reasonable interpretation of ordinary legislation.
The appellant alleged the violation of the right to jurisdiction, in terms of obtaining a resolution based on Law and effective access to jurisdiction. He argued that the various rulings on which party had to answer for the claim had left him in a situation of material defenselessness and no way to collect workers’ compensation.
However, the high court rules out any constitutional violation and recalls that the plaintiff herself decided not to appeal the Batllia of November 2024 that had rejected the claim against the heirs of his former employer due to lack of identification. Likewise, the CT points out that the worker has not been deprived of any means of reparation either, since the same TSJ pointed to the possibility of taking an eventual liability action against the foundation for the exercise of guardianship.
Origin of the labor conflict
The case goes back to July 2024, when the Batllia issued a writ of precautionary measures due to alleged fraudulent actions and abuse of trust in the management of the dependent person. The court subjected the person to a regime of representative guardianship in the economic, medical, legal and administrative fields, entrusting the task to the Tutelar Private Foundation and ordering the immediate termination of any existing contract with the caregiver.
The very day after the court ruling, the worker was notified of the end of her employment with the police present. Subsequently, the foundation sent him a disciplinary dismissal letter for very serious misconduct.
Judicial appeal to the ordinary jurisdiction
Faced with these actions, the carer filed a labor claim against the guardianship foundation and against the unknown heirs of the employer, who had transferred. The Batllia filed the claim regarding the heirs in November 2024 for not being properly identified, a decision that the worker did not challenge.
In February 2026, the Civil Section 3 of the Batllia declared the dismissal improper and established a compensation of 9,284.58 eurosdespite determining that the amount could not be claimed directly from the foundation because it had acted as curator subject to the rules of the mandate.
Both parties appealed the sentence and, on July 3, 2026, the The Civil Chamber of the TSJ appreciated the foundation’s appeal: he recognized his lack of passive legitimacy ad causamdismissed the labor claim in its entirety and ordered the worker to pay the costs of both instances.
The resolution of the Constitutional Court
In its resolution of September 2026, the Constitutional Court concludes that the dismissal formalized by the foundation was executed in the name and representation of the entrepreneur in compliance with the judicial mandate. The CT points out that the dismissal of the claim does not follow an unforeseeable or disproportionate procedural obstacle, but rather the logical result of the labor action specifically carried out and of the decision of the appellant herself not to have appealed at the time the exclusion of the heirs from the procedure.
Likewise, the high court reiterates that the protection appeal does not constitute a third instance to review the interpretation of the ordinary law made by the courts when this is reasonable and motivated.
