The Constitutional Court denied the amparo filed by Avícola Villalobos, S.A. on August 1, 2024 through <doc id="gua-2422-2024-2024-08-01-a" />, upholding the prescription of the damages action and imposing a fine on the sponsoring attorney. All prior rulings were constitutionally validated and the dismissal of the damages claim became final and unassailable.
Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. and Avícola Villalobos, S.A. filed an ordinary damages lawsuit against Lisa, S.A. for Q30,269,808.59, alleging that Lisa committed fraudulent acts that led to its exclusion as a shareholder of Reproductores Avícolas by resolution of the shareholders' assembly of April 4, 2011. Lisa raised preliminary exceptions of defective complaint and prescription, both sustained by the Thirteenth Civil Court of First Instance in its <doc id="gua-01044-2012-00279-2021-01-26-a" /> of January 26, 2021, which determined that the action was time-barred under Article 1673 of the Civil Code because more than one year had elapsed between knowledge of the harm and the filing of the complaint. The dismissal was affirmed by the First Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals in its <doc id="gua-01044-2012-00279-2021-08-17-a" />, by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in its <doc id="gua-01002-2022-00706-2023-12-15-a" />, and by the Constitutional Court in its <doc id="gua-2422-2024-2024-08-01-a" />, definitively closing all avenues of challenge. The case is fully resolved in Lisa's favor at every judicial level.
On January 26, 2021, the Thirteenth Civil Court of First Instance of Guatemala issued <doc id="gua-01044-2012-00279-2021-01-26-a" />, sustaining the preliminary exceptions of defective complaint and prescription filed by Lisa, S.A. and terminating the ordinary damages lawsuit brought by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. and Avícola Villalobos, S.A. for Q30,269,808.59. The complaint alleged that Lisa had committed fraudulent acts individualized at the shareholders' assembly of April 4, 2011, which led to its exclusion as a shareholder. Lisa filed six preliminary exceptions: defective complaint, unfulfilled condition precedent, lack of standing of the defendant, lack of standing of the plaintiff, prescription, and caducidad.
The court applied Article 1673 of the Civil Code, which sets a one-year statute of limitations for damages actions, and determined that the limitation period began on April 4, 2011, the date of the exclusion resolution, and expired on the eve of April 4, 2012. The complaint was admitted on April 17, 2012, and precautionary embargo measures were issued on April 20, 2012, both after expiration. Costs were imposed on the plaintiff. The damages lawsuit forms part of the Avícola Villalobos Group's pattern of litigation against Lisa: the same entities that adopted the resolution to exclude Lisa as a shareholder then sued Lisa for damages allegedly arising from that very exclusion, and the prescription of the action confirms that the claim was filed outside the statutory period.
On February 23, 2021, the same court issued <doc id="gua-01044-2012-00279-2021-02-23-a" />, granting Lisa's motion for amplification requesting that the order expressly direct the lifting of precautionary measures. Applying Article 596 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the court found that the omission of any ruling on precautionary measures constituted an unresolved point after prescription had been declared, and ordered all precautionary measures imposed against Lisa within the proceeding lifted. The plaintiff was granted audience but did not respond.
On August 17, 2021, the First Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals issued <doc id="gua-01044-2012-00279-2021-08-17-a" />, upholding the first-instance order in full. Reproductores Avícolas raised two grievances: that the ordinary track was correct rather than the summary track under Article 1039 of the Commercial Code, and that the limitation period should run from the accounting certification of February 23, 2012, not from the exclusion assembly. The court rejected both. It confirmed that the summary track was correct because the dispute originated in the corporate relationship between the parties under Article 1039 of the Commercial Code, and on prescription it determined that Reproductores Avícolas' own complaint acknowledged that the alleged fraudulent acts were individualized at the shareholders' assembly of April 4, 2011, so that filing on April 16, 2012 exceeded the one-year period. Costs at the appellate level were imposed on the appellant.
On December 15, 2023, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued <doc id="gua-01002-2022-00706-2023-12-15-a" />, dismissing the cassation appeal filed by Reproductores Avícolas. The appellant invoked one procedural ground (substantial procedural breach for an ultra petita ruling) and three substantive grounds (violation by contravention, improper application, and erroneous interpretation of Article 1673 of the Civil Code). The Chamber established that the ruling on the defective complaint exception was not a definitive order subject to cassation. It rejected the procedural ground for pleading deficiency, because the arguments corresponded to incongruity rather than ultra petita; declared the improper application ground without merit for failure to identify the statute that should have been applied instead; and rejected the erroneous interpretation ground, confirming that Article 1673 refers to knowledge of the harm itself, not its monetary quantification by an expert or court. Costs and a fine of Q500.00 were imposed.
On August 1, 2024, the Constitutional Court issued <doc id="gua-2422-2024-2024-08-01-a" />, denying as manifestly inadmissible the amparo filed by Avícola Villalobos, S.A. (successor by merger of Reproductores Avícolas) against the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The petitioner alleged violations of its rights to defense, to appeal, and to effective judicial protection, arguing that the Chamber applied excessive rigorism in analyzing the cassation sub-grounds. The Court distinguished between procedural and substantive exceptions, confirming that the Chamber acted in accordance with the law by limiting cassation analysis to the prescription exception, and upheld the rejection of sub-grounds for technical pleading deficiencies. On prescription, it confirmed that Article 1673 of the Civil Code does not condition the commencement of the limitation period on quantification of the harm, but only on its occurrence or the injured party's knowledge thereof. The Court imposed a fine of Q1,000.00 on the sponsoring attorney for the legal soundness of the pleading.
The denial of amparo definitively closed all avenues of challenge, leaving the dismissal of the damages claim and Lisa's freedom from liability final and unassailable.
The case is definitively resolved in favor of Lisa, S.A. No appeals or avenues of challenge remain pending.