The Supreme Court, Civil Chamber, dismissed Avícola Las Margaritas' cassation against the ruling that rejected its abuse-of-rights lawsuit against Lisa, S.A., finding fatal defects of argumentation on both error-of-law and error-of-fact grounds.

Case Background

Avicola Las Margaritas, S.A. filed a summary proceeding for abuse of rights against Lisa, S.A., alleging excess and bad faith in Lisa's exercise of its right of action. The claim rested on Lisa's filing of lawsuits, amparos, and criminal complaints in Guatemala, the United States, and Panama, conduct that Avicola characterized as an abusive exercise of Lisa's rights in connection with its status as a shareholder.

On February 7, 2024, the Eighth Multi-Judge Civil Court of First Instance (Judge B) issued the Order, sustaining Lisa's peremptory exceptions (failure to meet the prerequisites of abuse of rights, lack of standing in the plaintiff, and lack of standing in the defendant) and dismissing the lawsuit. Both parties were exempted from costs. Avicola appealed, and the Fifth Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals affirmed the first-instance ruling in full on June 10, 2024, concluding that the documentary evidence offered by Avicola was neither suitable nor sufficient to demonstrate the alleged abuse.

Grounds and Sub-grounds Invoked

Avicola Las Margaritas filed cassation on substantive grounds, invoking two sub-grounds under Article 621(2) of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure: error of law in the appreciation of evidence and error of fact in the appreciation of evidence.

Chamber's Analysis

On error of law. Avicola Las Margaritas argued that the Court of Appeals failed to confer the probative value required by Article 186 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure on three documents: amended pleadings from a lawsuit Lisa filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 99-03519 CA 21) together with the dismissal order, a criminal complaint filed before the Seventh Criminal Court of First Instance (file 01079-2018-00056), and a criminal complaint filed with the Public Ministry of Panama.

The Chamber identified multiple deficiencies: the appellant failed to formulate an individual thesis for each piece of evidence challenged, failed to clearly identify the nature of the alleged error under the invoked sub-ground, presented a contradictory thesis by simultaneously arguing that the Court of Appeals omitted to appreciate the evidence and that it denied the evidence its proper value, and failed to develop argumentation for each rule of the valuation system. The Chamber further noted that the appellate court had not assigned probative value to the challenged documents because it found them unsuitable for the claim, which is a necessary predicate for substantive review.

On error of fact. Avicola Las Margaritas argued that the Court of Appeals erred in appreciating a criminal complaint filed on August 29, 2001, by Juan Guillermo Gutierrez Strauss before the Seventh Criminal Court of First Instance, by finding that the document did not link Lisa as a complainant. The appellant contended that Gutierrez Strauss acted in his capacity as majority shareholder and ultimate beneficiary of Lisa.

The Chamber found that the appellant failed to specify whether the alleged error was one of omission or distortion, and failed to present a clear and precise thesis explaining how the alleged defect arose. Lisa, S.A. responded that natural and juridical persons maintain separate legal personality, so acts by a shareholder in a personal capacity are not attributable to the entity.

Ruling

• The cassation filed by Avicola Las Margaritas, S.A. was dismissed
• The appellant was ordered to pay procedural costs
• A fine of Q100.00 was imposed, payable to the Treasury of the Judiciary within three days of the ruling becoming final

Legal Basis

• Article 621(2) of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — cassation sub-grounds for error of law and error of fact in the appreciation of evidence
• Article 633 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — costs and fine upon dismissal of cassation
• Articles 12 and 203 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala — right of defense and judicial authority
• Articles 25, 26, 67, 70, 71, 72, 619, 620, 635 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — procedural rules governing the appeal
• Articles 49, 57, 74, 77, 79(a), 141, 143, 149, 172, and 187 of the Judiciary Act — supplementary organic provisions

Signatories

The ruling does not identify by name the justices of the Civil Chamber who signed it.