The Third Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled, on July 5, 2022, that the Consumer Protection and Competition Authority (ACODECO) acted in accordance with the law when it imposed a fine of two thousand balboas (B/.2,000.00) on a business entity in the automotive sector, within the same administrative proceeding initiated by a consumer complaint, without the need to open a separate investigation file. The ruling, written by Justice Carlos Alberto Vásquez Reyes and joined unanimously by Justices Cecilio Cedalise Riquelme and María Cristina Chen Stanziola, sets a precedent on the scope of ACODECO's sanctioning authority in consumer protection matters.

The case originated with an administrative complaint filed by a consumer before ACODECO's National Directorate of Consumer Protection, in which she sought reimbursement of the amounts paid for an automobile that had factory defects. Upon completing its investigation, the National Directorate issued Resolution No. 45-20DV of March 3, 2020, ordering restitution of the vehicle's value to the consumer and, simultaneously, sanctioning the business entity with a fine of B/.2,000.00 for violation of the consumer protection provisions of Law 45 of October 31, 2007. The act was confirmed on appeal through Resolution No. A-DPC-0694-21 of July 27, 2021. The business entity brought an action before the Third Chamber seeking annulment of the sanctioning paragraph, alleging a violation of due process on the grounds that it had not been notified of the opening of an independent investigation proceeding and that there was insufficient reasoning for the calculation of the fine.

The Chamber rejected those arguments. In its reasoning, it anchored ACODECO's sanctioning authority in Article 49 of the Political Constitution — which instructs the State to guarantee quality goods and services and to establish mechanisms for compensation and sanction — and in Articles 84, 86, and 100 of Law 45 of 2007, which grant the entity functional autonomy and the express authority to investigate and sanction acts that contravene the statute. The Chamber specified that the National Director of Consumer Protection is authorized by law to initiate, on its own motion or at the request of a party, administrative investigations into possible acts that violate consumer rights and to apply the corresponding sanctions, without that requiring the opening of a separate investigative file apart from the complaint already being processed. The court noted that the business entity had been notified from the start of the proceedings, had the opportunity to submit evidence and exercise the legal remedies available, and therefore there was no due-process violation. With respect to the reasoning for the fine, the Chamber verified that the resolution was grounded in the proven infraction and in the powers recognized for ACODECO under Article 104 of Law 45 of 2007, which sets ceilings of B/.25,000.00 for consumer-harming practices and requires consideration of the seriousness of the violation, the size of the company, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The Administration Solicitor's Office concurred with that assessment and requested dismissal of the action.

The ruling, which became final on July 26, 2022, establishes a standard of dual relevance for the Panamanian market. First, it holds that a consumer complaint, once admitted by ACODECO, activates the entity's sanctioning authority by operation of law within the same proceeding: no parallel investigative process or additional notice of the opening of an investigation is required. Second, it reiterates that administrative sanctioning authority is governed by the principles of legality, specificity, proportionality, and non bis in idem, subjecting ACODECO's sanctions to a constitutional standard analogous to that of criminal law. For business entities operating in Panama, the decision underscores that the consumer protection regime of Law 45 of 2007 — with fines that can reach one million balboas in cases of absolute monopolistic practices — is applied through single, integrated proceedings, and that the simultaneity of the investigation and the resolution of the complaint does not in itself constitute a procedural irregularity.