Exp. 01165-2018-00276 · Third-Party Intervention (Tercería Coadyuvante)
On April 26, 2024, the Fifteenth Civil Court of First Instance denied the amplification motion filed by Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A., leaving BDT Investments Inc.'s admission as third-party co-litigant supporting Lisa, S.A. fully confirmed.
Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. and Compañía Importadora La Perla, S.A., entities within the Avícola Villalobos Group, sued Lisa, S.A. in a commercial summary proceeding before the Fifteenth Civil Court of First Instance of Guatemala (Case No. 01165-2018-00276). BDT Investments Inc., as assignee of Lisa's rights, sought to intervene as a third-party co-litigant in support of Lisa's defense. The court admitted BDT as co-litigant and denied two successive motions by Administradora de Restaurantes challenging that admission, confirming BDT's participation in the proceeding.
By order of March 21, 2024, the Fifteenth Civil Court of First Instance admitted BDT Investments Inc. as a third-party co-litigant (tercero coadyuvante) supporting Lisa, S.A. in the summary proceeding filed by Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. and Compañía Importadora La Perla, S.A. Rossana Mishelle Ramírez Paredes accredited her capacity as BDT's special judicial representative, submitting documentation that the court verified in compliance with law. The admission was grounded in Articles 549 and 553 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure.
The intervention formalizes the direct participation of the assignee of Lisa's rights in the defense of the proceeding, strengthening Lisa's procedural position by incorporating an entity with a direct interest in the outcome of the litigation.
Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. filed a motion for revocation (revocatoria) against BDT's admission, raising four objections: an alleged notarial conflict of interest under Article 77 of the Notarial Code, the absence of exequátur for the Panamanian documentation, the extraterritorial invalidity of the Panamanian agreement under Article 211 of the Code of Private International Law, and a purported disguised substitution of Lisa as defendant.
The court rejected all arguments. It found that BDT's representation was properly accredited through Protocolization Testimony No. 17, authorized on June 15, 2023 by Notary Paola Arana Estrada. The alleged notarial conflict was inapplicable because the protocolization of a foreign document does not constitute an act in favor of the notary or her relatives. Regarding the Panamanian documentation, the court confirmed that the documents met the required legal conditions. As to the alleged substitution, the court held that BDT was admitted exclusively as a co-litigant, without replacing Lisa as defendant.
The denial of the revocatoria confirmed that Administradora's arguments lacked procedural support and that BDT's intervention was lawfully issued.
Administradora filed a motion for amplification against the April 2, 2024 order, arguing that the court failed to address the efficacy of the Panamanian documentation, the extraterritorial invalidity of the agreement, and the contradictory nature of BDT's intervention.
The court denied the amplification. Under Article 551 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the analysis of the documents submitted by BDT will be conducted when issuing the corresponding resolution, at which point the court will determine the admissibility or inadmissibility of the third-party intervention. The points raised are substantive matters, not omissions curable through amplification under Articles 596 and 597 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure.
The denial of this second challenge left BDT's admission firm and exhausted Administradora's immediate procedural avenues for blocking BDT's participation in the proceeding.
The underlying summary proceeding continues before the Fifteenth Civil Court of First Instance, with BDT Investments Inc. participating as third-party co-litigant supporting Lisa, S.A. The substantive issues raised by Administradora de Restaurantes regarding BDT's Panamanian documentation will be resolved in the corresponding judgment.