Supreme Court denies Forrajera's amparo, upholds dismissal of damages claim against Lisa
Aug 2 2018
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Justice, Amparo and Preliminary Proceedings Chamber, in a ruling dated August 2, 2018, denied as groundless the amparo filed by Industria Forrajera de Mazatenango, S.A. against the order of June 6, 2017, issued by the First Chamber of the Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals. The challenged ruling had partially reversed the first-instance order and sustained the preliminary exception of defective complaint in the ordinary damages proceeding that Forrajera brought against Lisa, S.A. With this denial, the dismissal of the damages claim became final across all instances, definitively closing the proceeding.
Industria Forrajera de Mazatenango, S.A. filed an ordinary damages action against Lisa, S.A. before the First Civil Court of First Instance of the Department of Guatemala (Case No. 01045-2012-00242). Forrajera alleged that Lisa caused harm by filing lawsuits in multiple countries and conducting a media discrediting campaign. Lisa raised preliminary exceptions of lack of jurisdiction, failure to fulfill a condition precedent, defective complaint, lack of standing in the defendant, prescription, and caducidad.
In the order of September 27, 2016, the first-instance judge denied the exceptions of defective complaint and caducidad, but sustained those of failure to fulfill a condition precedent, lack of standing, and prescription. Both parties appealed.
The First Chamber of the Court of Appeals, in its order of June 6, 2017, declared both appeals partially founded, reversed the challenged order, and, among other rulings, sustained the preliminary exception of defective complaint. The Chamber found that the complaint failed to meet the requirements of Articles 50, 61, 63, 79, 106, and 107 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, and that the proper procedural vehicle was the summary proceeding under Article 1039 of the Commercial Code, not the ordinary proceeding.
Forrajera filed the constitutional amparo (Amparo 2341-2017) on September 22, 2017, alleging violations of due process, access to justice, the principle of legality in judicial administration, and legal certainty. Its central argument was that the first-instance resolution denying the exception of defective complaint was not appealable under the law and Constitutional Court doctrine, and therefore the appellate chamber should never have heard or ruled on Lisa's appeal. Forrajera invoked Article 96 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure to argue that the ordinary proceeding was the correct vehicle. It requested that the challenged ruling be set aside insofar as it sustained the exception of defective complaint.
Lisa, S.A., as an interested third party, maintained that the challenged ruling was issued in accordance with the law. Lisa argued that Forrajera failed to comply with the formalities of Articles 61 and 106 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure by not clearly and precisely stating the facts supporting its claim. Lisa contended that the petitioner sought to create an additional reviewing instance over what the courts had already decided, which the law does not permit. Lisa requested denial of the amparo.
The Office of Constitutional Affairs, Amparos and Personal Exhibition found that the challenged authority violated Forrajera's constitutional rights by failing to confine its analysis to whether the complaint met the requirements of Articles 61 and 106 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, thereby transgressing due process. It recommended that the amparo be granted.
The Supreme Court addressed two issues: whether the appeal against resolutions on preliminary exceptions was procedurally proper, and whether the appellate chamber's ruling sustaining the defective complaint exception was lawful.
On the first issue, the Court found Forrajera's argument lacked legal basis. It invoked the jurisprudential shift by the Constitutional Court establishing that orders sustaining or denying preliminary exceptions are appealable, citing rulings in Cases 4280-2015 (January 13, 2016), 677-2016 (April 4, 2016), and 3702-2016 (May 24, 2017). The Court reasoned that denying the right of appeal when an exception is rejected would create procedural inequality against the party exercising its right of defense.
On the second issue, the Court held that the appellate chamber acted within the law in reversing the first-instance order and sustaining the defective complaint exception. Forrajera failed to meet the requirements of Articles 50, 61, 63, 79, 106, and 107 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure: it did not clearly and precisely state the facts of its claim, did not attach the supporting documents for its action, and used the ordinary proceeding when the summary proceeding was required under Article 1039 of the Commercial Code. No constitutional violation was established.