Jun 3 2024
Lisa, S.A.
Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. filed a summary proceeding against Lisa, S.A. alleging abuse of rights under Article 18 of the Judiciary Act. Avícola alleged that Lisa abused its shareholder rights by filing criminal complaints, constitutional amparo actions, and a lawsuit in Florida, all of which purportedly caused damages. The Eighth Multi-Judge Civil Court, in its <doc id="gua-01044-2022-00409-2024-02-07-a" /> of February 7, 2024, upheld Lisa's peremptory exceptions and dismissed the claim in its entirety, exempting both parties from costs. Avícola appealed, and Lisa, through its representative Paola Arana Estrada, filed this brief for the appellate hearing set for June 3, 2024, in appeal 148-2024 Of.2° before the Fifth Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals, seeking full confirmation of the ruling with the sole modification of imposing costs on the appellant.
Lisa structured its defense around the six requirements that constitute abuse of rights under Guatemalan law, demonstrating that none are met in this case.
On standing. Lisa established that it does not appear as an accused, defendant, or respondent in any of the proceedings that Avícola characterizes as abusive. The criminal complaints were dismissed at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office without any action taken against Avícola. The amparo petitions were granted without opposition from Avícola. Lisa argued that if the challenged acts did not directly affect the plaintiff, there is no conflict with a protected patrimonial interest.
On causation and damages. Lisa argued that Avícola failed to specify the nature of the alleged commercial harm or prove the defense costs it claimed, given that Avícola was never a party to the proceedings characterized as abusive. Lisa invoked Article 49 of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code: outside the cases expressly provided by law, no person may assert another's right in their own name.
On evidentiary assessment. Lisa highlighted that the first-instance court conducted an exhaustive analysis of each evidentiary item offered by Avícola and concluded that, although the evidence was abundant, it was insufficient to establish the existence of damages, a causal link, or a direct relationship between Lisa's actions and a concrete patrimonial harm.
On costs. Lisa requested reversal of paragraph IV of the appealed ruling, which exempted both parties from costs, arguing that Avícola Las Margaritas should bear costs as the losing party and for the procedural burden caused by pursuing a claim to which it had no right.
The Fifth Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals confirmed the first-instance ruling, reiterating that Avícola lacked standing and failed to prove damages. Avícola Las Margaritas subsequently filed a cassation appeal, which the Supreme Court of Justice rejected in its <doc id="gua-01044-2022-00409-2025-07-18-a" /> of July 18, 2025 for defective legal argumentation, rendering the dismissal of the lawsuit final.