Lisa's Counterclaim for Damages Admitted Against Administradora de Restaurantes

I. Preliminary Exceptions and Admission of the Counterclaim

Order

This case corresponds to the counterclaim for damages filed by Lisa, S.A. within a commercial summary proceeding linked to Expediente 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. In response, Lisa counterclaimed seeking damages arising from the Avícola Villalobos Group's conduct against it.

La Perla filed seven preliminary exceptions seeking to prevent Lisa's counterclaim from being heard on the merits: 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.

Incompetence. La Perla argued that certain damages arose from lawsuits filed abroad. The court determined that, under Article 12 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the competent court 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 to support its assertions.

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

Lis pendens. La Perla alleged identity of parties and claims with a summary damages proceeding pending before the Fifth Civil Court of First Instance, Expediente 01046-2012-00201. The court found that La Perla offered no evidence to demonstrate the existence of a pending proceeding with the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action, and that a final accumulation order had been entered with respect to that proceeding.

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

Lack of standing of the plaintiff. The standing of the counterclaimant was challenged. The court found that the counterclaimant was legitimated to appear in the proceeding and that the party raising the exception failed to prove its assertions under Article 126 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure.

Prescription. La Perla invoked Article 1673 of the Civil Code, arguing that the one-year limitations period for damages claims had long expired. The court determined that the party raising the exception offered no evidence to demonstrate that the prescriptive period had run.

Lack of legal representation of the counterclaimant. It was argued that, at the time the counterclaim was admitted for processing (December 18, 2015), the mandate of Licenciado Francisco José Palomo Tejeda was no longer in effect, given his assassination on June 3, 2015. The court determined that the party raising the exception 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. The ruling clears the procedural path for Lisa's damages counterclaim to advance to the merits stage after more than a decade of procedural delays.