Lisa, S.A. filed an appellate brief before the Fifth Court of Appeals requesting confirmation of the ruling that dismissed Avícola Las Margaritas' abuse-of-rights claim for lack of standing and causation.

Background

Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. filed a summary proceeding against Lisa, S.A. alleging abuse of rights under Article 18 of the Judiciary Act. Avícola alleged that Lisa abused its shareholder rights by filing criminal complaints, constitutional amparo actions, and a lawsuit in Florida, all of which purportedly caused damages. The Eighth Multi-Judge Civil Court, in its Order of February 7, 2024, upheld Lisa's peremptory exceptions and dismissed the claim in its entirety, exempting both parties from costs. Avícola appealed, and Lisa, through its representative Paola Arana Estrada, filed this brief for the appellate hearing set for June 3, 2024, in appeal 148-2024 Of.2° before the Fifth Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals, seeking full confirmation of the ruling with the sole modification of imposing costs on the appellant.

Factual Basis

Lisa structured its defense around the six requirements that constitute abuse of rights under Guatemalan law, demonstrating that none are met in this case.

On standing. Lisa established that it does not appear as an accused, defendant, or respondent in any of the proceedings that Avícola characterizes as abusive. The criminal complaints were dismissed at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office without any action taken against Avícola. The amparo petitions were granted without opposition from Avícola. Lisa argued that if the challenged acts did not directly affect the plaintiff, there is no conflict with a protected patrimonial interest.

On causation and damages. Lisa argued that Avícola failed to specify the nature of the alleged commercial harm or prove the defense costs it claimed, given that Avícola was never a party to the proceedings characterized as abusive. Lisa invoked Article 49 of the Civil and Commercial Procedure Code: outside the cases expressly provided by law, no person may assert another's right in their own name.

On evidentiary assessment. Lisa highlighted that the first-instance court conducted an exhaustive analysis of each evidentiary item offered by Avícola and concluded that, although the evidence was abundant, it was insufficient to establish the existence of damages, a causal link, or a direct relationship between Lisa's actions and a concrete patrimonial harm.

On costs. Lisa requested reversal of paragraph IV of the appealed ruling, which exempted both parties from costs, arguing that Avícola Las Margaritas should bear costs as the losing party and for the procedural burden caused by pursuing a claim to which it had no right.

Legal Basis

• Article 18, Judiciary Act — legal foundation of the abuse-of-rights doctrine, requiring excess and bad faith in the exercise of a right that causes damages, with a proven causal link
• Article 49, Civil and Commercial Procedure Code — prohibition against asserting another's right in one's own name outside cases provided by law
• Article 51, Civil and Commercial Procedure Code — requirement of a legally protectable interest to file a lawsuit
• Article 610, Civil and Commercial Procedure Code — procedure for hearing and resolution on appeal, authorizing the court to confirm, reverse, or modify the first-instance ruling

Relief Sought

• Deny the appeal filed by Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A.
• Confirm the first-instance ruling of February 7, 2024
• Modify paragraph IV of the operative part to impose costs on Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A.
• Impose appellate costs on the appellant

Signatories

• Rossana Mishelle Ramírez Paredes, Attorney and Notary (signing at the request of Paola Arana Estrada)

Subsequent Proceedings

The Fifth Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals confirmed the first-instance ruling, reiterating that Avícola lacked standing and failed to prove damages. Avícola Las Margaritas subsequently filed a cassation appeal, which the Supreme Court of Justice rejected in its Cassation Ruling of July 18, 2025 for defective legal argumentation, rendering the dismissal of the lawsuit final.