Denies Lisa's preliminary exceptions and imposes costs in abuse-of-rights lawsuit
Jul 26 2024
7th Civil Court
The Seventh Civil Court of First Instance rejected both preliminary exceptions filed by Lisa, S.A. in the ordinary lawsuit for abuse of rights brought by Avícola Villalobos, S.A. The court concluded that Lisa's arguments addressed the merits of the case rather than formal deficiencies in the complaint, allowing the lawsuit to proceed toward the evidentiary phase. This case is part of a broader litigation strategy by the Avícola Villalobos Group, which here reverses the roles by accusing Lisa of abuse of rights for filing a criminal complaint, when Lisa was excluded as a shareholder precisely by entities of the same group.
Avícola Villalobos, S.A. filed an ordinary lawsuit against Lisa, S.A. alleging abuse of rights through excess and bad faith in the exercise of its right of action. Avícola Villalobos's claim is based on Lisa having filed a criminal complaint in 2013 before the Fourth Criminal Court of First Instance, which was dismissed at the request of the Ministerio Público. Avícola Villalobos alleges that the complaint caused damages consisting of commercial harm to its reputation and defense costs, and requests that the amount be determined by expert opinion pursuant to Article 150 of the Judiciary Act (Ley del Organismo Judicial).
The complaint was admitted on February 9, 2024, and served on Lisa, S.A. on February 29, 2024. Within the statutory period, Lisa filed the preliminary exceptions that are the subject of this ruling.
Lisa, S.A., through its special judicial representative Paola Arana Estrada, filed two preliminary exceptions:
Defective complaint. Lisa argued that the complaint fails to meet the requirements of Article 106 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code because the plaintiff grounds its claim in Article 18 of the Judiciary Act (abuse of rights), but the facts as narrated describe alleged defamation that should have been grounded in Article 1656 of the Civil Code. Lisa maintained that Avícola Villalobos failed to specify the nature of the alleged damages, limiting itself to general assertions of commercial harm and defense costs without detailing or quantifying them, and that under Article 1434 of the Civil Code, damages must be an immediate and direct consequence of the act that caused them.
Failure to meet the condition to which the asserted right is subject. Lisa argued that abuse of rights requires clear proof of the existence of the injured right and its causal link to a legally relevant harm. Lisa maintained that the criminal complaint was a legitimate exercise of a subjective right, that there was no conflict with third-party rights, that the complaints were dismissed at the initial stage at the request of the Ministerio Público without any action being taken against Avícola Villalobos, and that no procedural act demonstrates that Lisa acted in bad faith or irregularly.
The court granted the plaintiff a hearing, during which Avícola Villalobos responded and offered evidence. The incident was opened for proof for the statutory period.
On the defective complaint exception. The judge established that under Articles 61, 106, and 109 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code, the defective complaint exception applies when the complaint fails to meet the formal requirements prescribed by law. The court determined that Lisa's arguments sought to have the court decide matters that belong to the merits and must be resolved at trial. The court verified that the complaint contains a precise and clear statement of facts, the documents on which the plaintiff founds its right, the legal grounds, and the procedural and substantive requests, thereby meeting the formal requirements of law.
On the failure-to-meet-condition exception. The court analyzed the four distinct scenarios under Article 116(7) of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code and identified that the exception originates in substantive civil law governing conditional legal transactions and transactions subject to a term. The judge concluded that the prerequisites for this exception are not present, since Avícola Villalobos's claim seeks damages for abuse of rights in the exercise of the right of action, which is not subject to any condition or term within the meaning of the exception.
Lisa, S.A. appealed the ruling. The Second Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals, in its ruling of March 17, 2025, denied the appeal and confirmed the first-instance order, again imposing costs on Lisa, S.A.