Does a signed and ratified settlement agreement really close the matter? The Concepción Court of Appeals (Third Chamber, nullity appeal docket No. Labor-Collection 1060-2025, May 20, 2026) qualified that certainty: it ruled that the reservation of rights the worker writes into the settlement agreement is valid even if generic, because the law does not require detailing which actions are reserved. The consequence for your company is direct: the releasing power of the settlement agreement may be narrower than you assume when closing a dismissal.
What changed
Until recently, a good part of the case law required that the reservation of rights written into the settlement agreement be specific: that it indicate which benefits or matters the worker was reserving. A generic reservation —of the kind "I reserve the right to sue"— was considered insufficient to override the releasing power of the settlement agreement.
The Concepción Court of Appeals departed from that criterion. In the case, the worker signed the settlement agreement with the phrase "I reserve the right to sue after signing the settlement agreement," and the first-instance court, in a monitory proceeding, had upheld the settlement-agreement defense by deeming that reservation generic and imprecise. The Court ruled that requiring specificity introduces a requirement the law does not contemplate, and that this constitutes an error of law.
The reasoning relies on Law 21,361 (published on July 27, 2021), which amended articles 162 and 177 of the Labor Code. After that reform, article 177 provides that the releasing power of the settlement agreement "shall be restricted only to that which the parties expressly agree and shall not extend to the aspects in which consent is not formed." For the Court, the requirement of precision falls on the agreement, not on the reservation: if the worker expresses their disagreement —even in general terms— consent is not formed regarding the disputed matters, and the settlement agreement does not produce a releasing effect over them.
On that basis, the Court partially upheld the nullity appeal, invalidated the part of the judgment that had upheld the settlement-agreement defense, and ordered a new hearing before a non-disqualified judge. It did not issue a replacement judgment: it reopened the substantive discussion.
What it may mean for your company
When you close a dismissal, the signed and ratified settlement agreement usually gives you the peace of mind that the chapter is settled. This ruling reminds you that this peace of mind has a limit: if the worker left a reservation of rights, it is enough for them to express their disagreement —even broadly and without detailing items— to enable a subsequent lawsuit over the content of the settlement agreement.
The point is no small matter. The releasing power of the settlement agreement may be more limited than you assume, and the mere generality of the reservation is not, by itself, a defense against a subsequent action. The discussion shifts: it is no longer about how detailed the reservation was, but about which matters there was express agreement on and which ones consent was not formed for.
There is a nuance worth keeping in mind. This is a Court of Appeals ruling issued in a monitory proceeding, without an appeal for the unification of case law. It sets a relevant and well-founded criterion, but it does not unify case law at the national level: another court could rule differently while the Supreme Court has not pronounced. The signal, however, points to reading the settlement agreement with a reservation as a door that remains open.
How many of the settlement agreements your company signed in the last two years have a reservation written into them? Sizing up that exposure before a lawsuit arrives allows you to decide with data and not with surprises. Schedule a diagnostic of your dismissals.
What you can do now
- Review your settlement-agreement templates and the procedure with which they are signed and ratified, identifying where and how a possible reservation of rights is recorded.
- Verify, in recent dismissals, which settlement agreements were signed with a reservation of rights —generic or specific— and identify the matters of greatest exposure: overtime, bonuses, the nature of the relationship, or termination benefits.
- Cross-reference that information with your Human Resources team and your labor counsel to diagnose the real level of contingency of your settlement-agreement portfolio.
If any of these points raises questions, a 30-minute diagnostic session is enough to size up the gaps in your settlement-agreement portfolio. Schedule here.
Let's talk
If you want to review how your settlement agreements are drafted and documented and size up the contingency this criterion opens for your company, let's discuss it: schedule a meeting with CUBILLOS LAMA.
This content is informational and does not constitute legal advice for a specific case.