Order

The Fifteenth Civil Court of First Instance denied the motion for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed by Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. against the order of March 21, 2024 that admitted BDT Investments Inc. as a co-party (tercero coadyuvante) supporting Lisa, S.A. in the Summary Proceeding Case No. 01165-2018-00276. The court rejected each of Administradora's objections, confirming that BDT's representation was properly accredited and that its intervention was limited to the role of co-party.

Plaintiff's Arguments

Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A., through its General Judicial and Administrative Agent, Elmar Baldemar Ambrocio Mazariegos, raised four objections to BDT's admission:

• Notarial conflict of interest. Administradora argued that Public Deed No. 3, dated January 22, 2024, containing the protocolization of the transaction agreement from Panama, was authorized by Rossana Mishelle Ramírez Paredes, who also serves as BDT's representative, in alleged violation of Article 77(1) of the Notarial Code.
• Lack of exequátur. Administradora contended that the transaction approved by a Panamanian court (Case No. 31638-12) required judicial recognition under Articles 344 through 346 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure before being used in Guatemala, per Article 12 of the Constitution.
• Extraterritorial invalidity. Administradora invoked Article 211 of the Code of Private International Law (Bustamante Code) to argue that the Panamanian agreement cannot be enforced outside the territory where it was issued.
• Disguised substitution. Administradora alleged that BDT's true intent was to replace Lisa, S.A. as defendant rather than serve as a co-party.

Court's Analysis

The court rejected all arguments and confirmed that the challenged order was issued in accordance with the law.

On representation. The court found that Rossana Mishelle Ramírez Paredes properly accredited her capacity as BDT's Special Judicial Agent through Protocolization Testimony No. 17, authorized on June 15, 2023 by Notary Paola Arana Estrada, duly registered with the Electronic Registry of Powers of Attorney of the General Archive of Protocols, in compliance with Articles 188 through 190 of the Judiciary Act and Article 45 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure.

On the alleged notarial conflict. The court noted that Article 77 of the Notarial Code prohibits notaries from authorizing acts or contracts in their own favor or that of their relatives. The protocolization of a foreign document does not constitute an act in favor of the notary or her relatives. The provision cited by the movant was inapplicable.

On the Panamanian documentation. The court determined that the certified copy of the First Testimony of Protocolization Act No. 3, containing Order No. 898 from Panama Case No. 31638-12, supported BDT's representative's statements, in compliance with Article 548 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure. BDT was admitted to the proceeding solely as a co-party supporting the defendant.

Ruling

• The motion for revocation filed by Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. was denied
• The order of March 21, 2024 remained in full force

Legal Basis

• Articles 598 and 599 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — govern motions for revocation of procedural decrees
• Articles 188 through 190 of the Judiciary Act — requirements for accrediting legal representation through judicial mandate
• Article 45 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — appearance through a duly accredited representative
• Article 548 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — documents supporting third-party intervention
• Article 77(1) of the Notarial Code — prohibition on notaries authorizing acts in their own or relatives' favor (held inapplicable)
• Articles 12, 28, 29, 203, 204 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala

Subsequent Proceedings

• Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. filed a motion for amplification against this order, which was denied by the same court in the order of April 26, 2024