As a general rule, in judicial proceedings, the first notification to the defendant is made at their home and, when this is unknown or it is not possible to locate it, it is done through the publication of an decree in different newspapers.

Before notifying the defendant by means of an decree, the Judge asks different public and private institutions to inform him if any address is registered in his database with the name of the defendant, to ascertain if the defendant can be found in any of them. Some examples of these Institutions are: Federal Electricity Commission (CFE), Water and Drainage Service, National Electoral Institute (INE), among others.

In particular, in commercial matters, the law allows the parties to a contract to establish a conventional address where they must receive all kinds of notifications related to the contract, including judicial notifications. In addition, the same law sanctions the contracting party who, having indicated an address in the contract for the purposes indicated, changes it without notifying the counterparty, allowing the former that, in case of filing a lawsuit over a breach of contract, he will not have to exhaust a search for the address with the listed institutions. This, in order to expedite the procedure to the detriment of the negligent party who changed their address without giving notice of this.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Justice has determined that this legal provision is unconstitutional because it violates the right to a hearing of the party being sued. In addition, it has established that it is the obligation of the plaintiff and the judge to exhaust all possible means to locate the defendant.

Unfortunately, this procedural burden has a severe impact on the suing party, as it makes the procedure longer.