Amparo Chamber denies Reproductores' challenge, preserving Lisa's opposition-to-exclusion lawsuit
Jun 6 2023
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Justice, Amparo and Preliminary Hearing Chamber, in its ruling of June 6, 2023, denied as manifestly inadmissible the amparo filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. against the decision of the Second Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals that confirmed the rejection of first-instance expiration (caducidad). The ruling preserved Lisa, S.A.'s summary opposition-to-exclusion lawsuit against Reproductores Avícolas, preventing the latter from terminating the proceeding through a procedural mechanism that the Chamber found to be without merit.
Lisa, S.A. filed a summary opposition-to-exclusion lawsuit before the Ninth Civil Court of First Instance of Guatemala City against Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. (Case No. 01043-2011-00112). During the proceedings, the court issued its last substantive ruling on October 21, 2016 (rejecting scientific evidence proposed by Reproductores). With notifications still pending service, the case remained inactive.
On May 5, 2017, Reproductores filed for caducidad of the first instance, arguing that more than six months had elapsed since the last procedural act. On June 7, 2017, the court rejected the request, noting that notifications remained pending. Reproductores appealed to the Second Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals, which, on March 9, 2022, denied the appeal and confirmed the rejection, finding that the procedural delay was attributable to the court's failure to serve pending notifications. The Appeals Court ordered the matter certified to the Judicial Disciplinary Unit for the judicial officer's dereliction.
Reproductores sought amparo alleging violations of legal certainty, due process, and the right of defense. It argued that the Appeals Court failed to apply Articles 588 and 590 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure correctly, contending that the six-month caducidad period runs from the last procedural act, whether or not it involves a notification, and that no prior notification is required to begin the computation. It invoked the grounds of Article 10, paragraphs (a) and (h), of the Amparo Act.
The Chamber grounded its decision in the doctrine of caducidad, citing Montero Aroca and Chacón Corado (Manual de Derecho Procesal Civil Guatemalteco), to distinguish between inactivity attributable to the parties and inactivity attributable to the court. The cited doctrine establishes that caducidad results from party inactivity, not from inactivity of the judicial body, and that when the court has the duty to act ex officio or deadlines are peremptory, caducidad cannot occur.
"...para la procedencia de la caducidad de la instancia es necesario que el proceso se encuentre suspendido por inactividad de una de las partes o de ambas, lo cual refiere que deben existir actos del proceso en los cuales se requiera la participación de los sujetos procesales para continuar con el juicio y que, sin su intervención, el juzgador no pueda emitir un pronunciamiento." (Page 5)
The Chamber concluded that the inactivity in the summary proceeding was caused by the court's own failure to serve pending notifications, a circumstance not attributable to the parties. The Appeals Court therefore acted within its constitutional and legal authority in confirming the rejection of caducidad.
Lisa, S.A., as a third-party interested party, did not file briefs at the hearing. The Ministerio Público, through the Office of Constitutional Affairs, found that the Appeals Court acted within its authority and issued a duly reasoned decision.
Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. appealed the denial to the Constitutional Court, which, in its ruling of September 11, 2024, declared the appeal without merit and confirmed the first-instance decision, reiterating that the procedural inactivity was attributable to the court itself.