The Santiago Court of Appeals upheld a complaint filed by Barros Silva Varela & Vigil, which argued that not only lease contracts whose signatures were authorized before a notary could be subject to this new procedure, but also those contracts signed with an advanced electronic signature or other formality.

This, supported by arguments based on the history of the law and legal interpretation, led to the judge of the 5th Civil Court of Santiago being ordered to allow and accept a claim in a lease payment procedure for a contract which, although it did not have its signatures authorized before a notary, had been signed with an advanced electronic signature, considering that the court's refusal to process the procedure constituted a serious fault and abuse.

This sentence constitutes a valuable and original input in a matter of great practical utility on which there is limited case law, since it clarifies that Law No. 21.461, which reformed the Lease Law by adding this new payment order procedure, did not intend to limit its application exclusively to contracts whose signatures are authorised by a notary, thus establishing the correct interpretation of Articles 18-A and 20 of Law No. 18.101.

Therefore, and clarifying that the legislator did not intend to establish an admissibility or procedural requirement for this procedure, it reaffirms the possibility of recurring to the payment procedure for the rent collection in cases where the formality of authorising the signatures of the parties by a Notary Public has not been complied with, whether or not they have been signed prior to the entry into force of this reform.