The question always comes in the same tone, somewhere between resignation and anger: is it time to sue? And it almost always comes too late, when the debt has been stalled for months and the file is incomplete.
Going to court isn't the automatic next step in collections. It's a decision with its own costs, timelines and requirements—sometimes the only way out, sometimes the worst option. What follows are the criteria for telling one from the other in Ecuador.
First: what document do you have in hand?
Before talking about timelines or strategy, there's one question that decides everything else. It determines which route you collect through and how long it takes.
Do you have an enforceable instrument? Article 347 of the COGEP (General Code of Procedure) lists them. The ones that come up in business collections are bills of exchange and promissory notes payable to order—physical, dematerialized or electronic—public deeds, private documents acknowledged before a notary or bearing a verified electronic signature, out-of-court settlements and loan agreements.
An invoice, on its own, is not an enforceable instrument.
Executory proceedings: when you do have an instrument
It's the fast track, and its real advantage isn't speed but something else. Article 348 requires the obligation to be “clear, unconditional, determined and currently due” and, if it's money, “liquidated or liquidable by arithmetic calculation.” It also recognizes acceleration clauses: if the contract has one, the accelerated obligation counts as past due.
The advantage lies in Article 351. If the creditor attaches certificates proving the debtor's ownership of assets, precautionary orders can be issued on those assets as soon as the claim is admitted, up to the amount claimed and without the other requirements normally imposed. In other words: the debtor's assets can be secured at the start of the proceedings, not at the end.
That's the real argument for going to court early when there's an instrument and the assets have been located. It isn't about winning the case sooner; it's about making sure there's still something to attach when you win.
Order-for-payment proceedings: when you invoiced properly but didn't get anything signed
Article 356 of the COGEP (General Code of Procedure) opens order-for-payment proceedings (procedimiento monitorio) for a debt “of a determined amount of money, liquidated, due and past due” that is not set out in an enforceable instrument and whose amount does not exceed fifty unified basic salaries.
What serves as evidence is precisely what a company does have:
- A document signed by the debtor or bearing the debtor's seal, stamp or mark.
- Invoices or documents with proof of delivery, certification, telefax or electronic documents showing the prior relationship between creditor and debtor.
- Certifications from condominium administrators, clubs or educational institutions.
There's a nuance worth knowing: if the document was created unilaterally by the creditor—an invoice you issued—the law also requires evidence that makes the prior relationship credible. Emails, purchase orders, delivery receipts. That's why the file matters so much.
The judge gives the debtor fifteen days to pay (Art. 358). If the debtor doesn't appear, or appears without objecting, the order becomes final, has res judicata effect, and the case moves straight to enforcement with attachment. If the debtor objects, a single hearing is called (Art. 359).
A fact almost nobody uses in time
The same Article 358 says something that's worth its weight in gold when the statute-of-limitations clock is running out: serving the claim and the payment order interrupts the statute of limitations.
It's worth reading alongside Article 2415 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), which gives five years for executory actions and ten for ordinary ones, and Article 2418, under which the limitation period is also interrupted naturally when the debtor acknowledges the obligation, expressly or tacitly. A partial payment is a tacit acknowledgment.
In plain terms: if a debt is close to time-barred, there are two ways to stop the clock. One is to obtain a partial payment or a written acknowledgment. The other is to sue and serve. The first is cheaper and faster, which is why well-executed pre-legal collections are often worth more than rushing to court.
When going to court makes sense
The legal route pays off when all of these conditions are met at once:
- There's an instrument or solid documentary evidence. No document, no case—however real the debt may be.
- The debtor has located assets. A judgment against someone with no assets is an expensive piece of paper.
- The amount justifies the cost. Fees, court costs and your team's time are real, and they aren't always recovered.
- The debtor has stopped responding. No disputing, no negotiating, no showing up. At that point, out-of-court pressure has run its course.
- The statute of limitations is close and there's no way to obtain an acknowledgment.
The order that works
In practice, the sequence that recovers the most is always the same: document, negotiate firmly, and only then go to court—through the route that matches the paper you have in hand.
Skipping the first step is what turns a collection that takes weeks into a lawsuit that takes years. And skipping the second is what fills the courts with cases that could have been resolved with one well-made phone call.
How we handle it at FEXCOB
When a case reaches our desk, the first thing we decide isn't whether to sue: it's what document exists and what assets there are. With that, the case classifies itself.
In legal collections we run the proceedings with deadline control and traceability, working alongside FEXLAW abogados. But every case goes through the pre-legal route first, because most cases close there—faster and without breaking the business relationship.
You may also like: asset tracing before filing suit · what to do when a customer doesn't pay
Legal sources cited: COGEP (General Code of Procedure, Código Orgánico General de Procesos), Articles 347, 348, 351, 356, 357, 358 and 359 (current text, last amended October 7, 2025); Civil Code (Código Civil), Articles 2415 and 2418 (current text, last amended November 26, 2025).
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.