Exp. 01161-2011-01079

I. Lisa's Damages Counterclaim and the Defeat of Seven Preliminary Exceptions

This case arises from the counterclaim for damages filed by Lisa, S.A. within a commercial summary proceeding linked to <law id="gua-01046-2012-00201" />, in which Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. (successor of Compañía Importadora La Perla, S.A. through merger by absorption) had sued Lisa for damages. Lisa counterclaimed, seeking damages arising from the conduct of the Avícola Villalobos Group against it.

To keep the counterclaim from reaching the merits, La Perla raised seven preliminary exceptions: incompetence, defective complaint, lis pendens, lack of standing of the defendant, lack of standing of the plaintiff, prescription, and lack of legal representation of the counterclaimant. On May 12, 2023, the Eleventh Civil Court of First Instance resolved each of them against La Perla in its <doc id="gua-01161-2011-01079-2023-05-12-a" />.

Incompetence. La Perla argued that certain damages arose from lawsuits filed abroad. The court held that, under Article 12 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the competent forum for personal actions is the First Instance court of the department where the defendant is domiciled, and that both parties are domiciled in the Department of Guatemala. La Perla offered no evidence in support of its assertions.

Defective complaint. La Perla contended that the counterclaim failed to attach the documents required by Articles 106, 107, and 109 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure. The court found that the counterclaim met the legal requirements and that the documents offered were properly identified.

Lis pendens. La Perla alleged identity of parties and claims with a summary damages proceeding before the Fifth Civil Court of First Instance, <law id="gua-01046-2012-00201" />. The court found no evidence of a pending proceeding with the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action, and noted that a final accumulation order had already been entered as to that proceeding.

Lack of standing of the defendant. La Perla challenged Lisa's standing, asserting that the damages were caused by third parties. The court determined that Lisa held sufficient standing to appear as a party and that La Perla offered no evidence to the contrary.

Lack of standing of the plaintiff. La Perla challenged the standing of the counterclaimant. The court found the counterclaimant legitimated to appear and that, under Article 126 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, La Perla failed to prove its assertions.

Prescription. Invoking Article 1673 of the Civil Code, La Perla argued that the one-year limitations period for damages claims had long expired. The court determined that La Perla offered no evidence that the prescriptive period had run.

Lack of legal representation of the counterclaimant. La Perla argued that, when the counterclaim was admitted on December 18, 2015, the mandate of Licenciado Francisco José Palomo Tejeda was no longer in effect following his assassination on June 3, 2015. The court determined that La Perla failed to prove its assertions within the incident.

The court denied all seven preliminary exceptions and ordered Compañía Importadora La Perla, S.A. to pay costs. After more than a decade of procedural delays, the ruling clears the path for Lisa's damages counterclaim to be heard on the merits, where the Avícola Villalobos Group's conduct against Lisa, rather than threshold defenses, becomes the subject of the proceeding.