1 2 3
Art 29 infonavit 1

The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice upholds employer d

  • Blog /
  • The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice upholds employer defense against the Reform to Article 29 of the INFONAVIT Law

Published on Tuesday, November 11, 2025

The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice (SCJN) recently upheld the employer defense against the reform to Article 29 of the INFONAVIT Law, which relates to the obligation of employers to withhold and remit housing-credit amortizations even when employees are absent or on medical leave. 

At Kreston BSG, we have affirmed from the beginning that this reform imposed a disproportionate and unjust economic burden on employers by requiring them to continue making payments or deductions on mortgage loans even when the worker does not receive wages due to absence or a leave.

In the Contradiction of Criteria 120/2025, the SCJN established a court precedent recognizing the following:

Employers who challenge this obligation through an amparo may obtain a provisional suspension, provided they guarantee the corresponding amount.

Legal Grounds for the SCJN's Decision 

1. Prima Facie [Apariencia de buen derecho]

The Court determined that there is a reasonable likelihood that the reform is unconstitutional, because:

The reform imposes on employers an obligation to pay for a loan they neither requested nor received - the worker did. 

The employer act solely as a withholding agent, not as the debtor of the loan.

2. No Impact on  Public Interest 

Granting the suspension does not harm the housing system nor the public interest, since:

  • Mandatory employer contributions continue to be paid.
  • Only deductions are suspended when there is no salary to withhold from.
  • INFONAVIT continues receiving contributions from active workers.

3. Prevention of Irreparable Economic Harm

Forcing employers to cover these amortizations while the trial is ongoing would result in:

  • Direct harm to their assets with no guarantee of future recovery.
  • A financial imbalance without legal justification.

Conclusion

In simple terms, the SCJN confirmed that it is neither fair nor constitutional to require employers to pay or withhold housing-credit installments when the employee does not receive wages due to absence or a leave.

This ruling opens the door for employers to seek amparo against this obligation, as long as they guarantee the corresponding amount. The Court also made it clear that this does not affect the housing system or the public interest, since INFONAVIT continues receiving contributions from active workers. 

At Kreston BSG, we welcome this decision, which strengthens legal certainty for the business sector and validates the defense we have supported from the outset. We remain firmly committed to protecting those who generate employment and comply with the law. 

Sincerely,

Kreston BSG México

For more information, write to us at contacto@krestonbsg.com.mx or locate your nearest office: https://krestonbsg.com.mx/contacto

Author: Hans Vazquez, Legal Associate at Kreston BSG in La Paz and Cabo San Lucas

Our goal is to build a network of trust with our clients to be the support in achieving business objectives. We are a network of firms with a presence in more than 110 countries, experts in offering tax, auditing, legal and accounting consulting services at national and international level. Everything written in this space is for the benefit of the readers; however, for a correct application of specific topics it is necessary to refer to our specialists. For more information visit www.krestonbsg.com.mx