Denies Villamorey's amparo challenging recognition of Lisa's legal representation in prescription case
Mar 7 2025
Court of Appeals
The First Chamber of the Court of Appeals for Civil and Commercial Matters, sitting as an Amparo Tribunal, denied the constitutional action filed by Villamorey, S.A. seeking to invalidate Lisa, S.A.'s appearance in the underlying extinctive prescription proceeding before the Eighth Civil Court (Case 01044-2017-00523). Villamorey argued that Lisa's judicial mandate was null because the authorizing notary, being Guatemalan, lacked competence to certify the sufficiency of legal representation for a company incorporated under Panamanian law. The court concluded that the mandate was properly registered with the Electronic Registry of Powers at the General Archive of Protocols, that the challenged ruling was issued within the lower court's legal authority, and that amparo cannot function as a reviewing instance of ordinary judicial decisions.
Villamorey, S.A. filed an ordinary action for extinctive prescription against Lisa, S.A., admitted for processing on May 12, 2017, before the Eighth Civil Court (Case 01044-2017-00523). On August 28, 2024, Lisa appeared in the proceeding through attorney Rossana Mishelle Ramírez Paredes, acting as special judicial representative, accrediting her authority with the testimony of public deed number fourteen, executed on April 16, 2024, before notary Paola Arana Estrada, registered in the Electronic Registry of Powers under number 1 of power 741870-E. The court recognized Lisa's representative by resolution of August 29, 2024.
Villamorey filed a motion for revocation on September 2, 2024, arguing that the mandate was null because the authorizing notary did not demonstrate knowledge of Panamanian law and therefore could not certify that the legal representation of Lisa's president was sufficient under the law to grant the mandate. The court denied the revocation on September 3, 2024, which constitutes the challenged act in this amparo proceeding.
The amparo was filed on October 17, 2024, and admitted on October 18, 2024. The court declined to grant provisional amparo. The evidentiary period was waived because certified copies of the relevant portions of the ordinary case file were already in the record. No public hearing was requested.
Villamorey, S.A., through its representative Elías José Arriaza Sáenz, argued that the lower court should have revoked the August 29, 2024, resolution and rejected the appearance of Lisa's judicial representative. The argument rested on Article 29(5) of the Notarial Code, which requires a notary to certify having reviewed the documents establishing the legal representation of a person appearing on behalf of another and to attest that such representation is sufficient under the law and in the notary's professional judgment. According to Villamorey, a Guatemalan notary lacked competence to assess the sufficiency of legal representation under Panamanian corporate law, rendering the instrument null. Villamorey alleged violations of due process, effective judicial protection, and legal certainty, contending that the lower court limited itself to noting the mandate's registration without analyzing the substantive arguments regarding its validity.
Lisa, S.A., as a third interested party, argued the amparo was without merit. Lisa maintained that the September 3, 2024, resolution was legally sound, that the mandate granted by Harald Johannssen Hals satisfied all legal requirements as evidenced by its registration with the General Archive of Protocols, and that if Villamorey believed the mandate caused it harm, the proper mechanism was a nullity action against the public instrument, not a challenge through revocation or amparo. Lisa characterized the filing as an attempt to use amparo as a third instance after having exhausted ordinary remedies.
The court examined the subsidiary and extraordinary nature of amparo under Article 265 of the Constitution, reiterating that it must not be used as a mechanism to review ordinary court decisions absent a constitutional violation.
The Tribunal identified that the dispute reduced to the validity of Lisa's judicial mandate. It analyzed the applicable legal framework: Article 1687 of the Civil Code (judicial mandates subject to procedural law), Articles 188, 189, and 191 of the Judiciary Act (requirements for judicial mandates and their registration), and Articles 29(5), 31(3), and 32 of the Notarial Code (essential formalities of public instruments, including the notary's obligation to certify the sufficiency of legal representation).
After confronting the legal provisions with the facts, the court concluded that the challenged resolution was issued within the lower court's legal authority, was properly reasoned and grounded, and that the judge correctly determined that the validity of a mandate formally executed and registered cannot be challenged through an appeal of the resolution admitting it, but rather through the proper legal remedies (a nullity action against the public instrument). The court held that granting Villamorey's request would amount to substituting the trial judge in his legally assigned functions and would denature the constitutional guarantee of amparo.
The Tribunal reinforced its analysis by citing Constitutional Court doctrine (Cases 685-2000, 1787-2004, and 456-2005) reaffirming that the power to adjudicate belongs exclusively to the ordinary courts of justice and that amparo proceedings cannot resolve substantive legal propositions.
This amparo arises within the broader litigation between Villamorey and Lisa. The underlying action is an extinctive prescription lawsuit filed by Villamorey against Lisa, through which Villamorey seeks to extinguish obligations that Lisa claims. The attempt to invalidate Lisa's legal representation in that proceeding, had it succeeded, would have left Lisa without counsel in the prescription action, preventing its defense against the extinguishment of its rights.