Nov 2 2023
13th Civil Court
Clarification motion. Avícola Villalobos argued that the <doc id="gua-01163-2012-00178-2023-07-04-a" /> of July 4, 2023 used the word "mayoría" (majority) when referring to evidence that was not given probative value, which it considered ambiguous. Villalobos contended that the term implied the existence of evidence unrelated to the exclusion of Lisa, S.A. that the court failed to evaluate. It requested that the court specify which evidence was discarded for relating to the exclusion issue and which pertained to the damages proceeding.
Expansion motion. Avícola Villalobos argued that the judgment, while denying the lack-of-standing exception regarding the plaintiff, failed to rule on its request to certify the matter to criminal courts. It sought expansion of the judgment to order a criminal referral against Manuel Alberto Suc Tilom, Lisa, S.A.'s representative, for investigation of alleged criminal liability.
Lisa, S.A. opposed both motions. On clarification, it noted that the judgment listed twenty-seven documentary evidence items and that the judge clearly identified only items a and b as having probative value. The remainder constituted the "majority" referenced, with no ambiguity. Lisa, S.A. added that if Avícola Villalobos disagreed with the evidentiary assessment, it should have filed the appropriate remedy. On expansion, Lisa, S.A. argued that the information Avícola Villalobos invoked to support its lack-of-standing exception was publicly available, that it did not constitute a crime, and that determining criminal liability was not within the civil court's purview.
On clarification. The judge determined the motion was without merit. The judgment enumerated evidence from item a through item ff and clearly established that only items a and b received probative value. The remaining items constituted the "majority" referenced, as they pertained to matters outside the scope of the proceeding. The judge concluded that the terms of the judgment were not obscure, ambiguous, or contradictory and that the motion did not meet the requirements of Article 596 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code.
On expansion. The judge noted that the expansion remedy addresses omissions in ruling on issues submitted for decision. Because the arguments supporting the lack-of-standing exception had been rejected, there were insufficient grounds to certify the matter to criminal courts, which is why the judgment made no pronouncement on that point. The expansion was denied as without merit.
Avícola Villalobos, S.A. filed an appeal, which the First Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals resolved on July 16, 2024 in its <doc id="gua-01163-2012-00178-2024-07-16-a" />, affirming the first-instance judgment. Avícola Villalobos subsequently filed a <doc id="gua-01163-2012-00178-2024-11-20-a" /> on November 20, 2024, to which Lisa, S.A. filed its opposition (<doc id="gua-01163-2012-00178-2025-08-11-a" />) on August 11, 2025. The cassation appeal remains pending before the Supreme Court of Justice.