The First Chamber of the Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A.'s damages lawsuit against Lisa, S.A., finding the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of actual damage suffered.

Case Background

Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (successor by merger of Compañía Alimenticia de Centroamérica, S.A.) sued Lisa, S.A. in an ordinary damages proceeding (Exp. 01045-2012-00210), alleging broadly that Lisa caused harm through the filing of multiple lawsuits and an alleged defamation campaign against the Avícola Group entities.

Lisa, S.A. answered the complaint in the negative, raised peremptory exceptions, and filed a counterclaim.

In Order of May 31, 2022, the judge of the First Court of First Instance, Civil Division, dismissed the complaint, finding that the evidence did not establish Lisa, S.A.'s liability for the alleged acts. The court sustained the peremptory exception of non-liability for acts committed by third parties. Lisa's counterclaim was also dismissed for lack of sufficient proof. No costs were imposed at first instance.

Appellant's Grievances

Avícola Las Margaritas raised two grievances on appeal:

First grievance. The appellant argued that the first-instance judge failed to evaluate essential evidence linking Lisa, S.A. to the acts that allegedly caused damage. The appellant pointed to the protocolization of a case file from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Canada (CV-11-9062-00CL), containing a lawsuit filed by Margarita Gutiérrez Strauss de Castillo against Juan Arturo Gutiérrez Gutiérrez, Juan Guillermo Gutiérrez Strauss, and several corporate entities. The appellant also invoked an accounting certification quantifying expenses and provisions attributable to Lisa's actions at Q4,467,032.32 as of December 31, 2011.

Second grievance. The appellant argued that the judge failed to address lawsuits filed directly by Lisa, S.A. in Guatemala and abroad, which the appellant characterized as an abuse of rights that caused defense costs.

Court's Analysis

The Court of Appeals framed its analysis under Articles 1645 and 1648 of the Civil Code and Article 126 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure. Under Article 1648, fault is presumed, but the injured party bears the burden of proving the damage or injury suffered.

On the first grievance. The Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff's evidence failed to prove the damage suffered. The appellant itself acknowledged that its evidence established acts financed by the corporate group to which Lisa belongs, carried out directly or through intermediaries, but not the specific damage caused. The accounting certification for Q4,467,032.32 was insufficient to establish a formula for valuing the claimed damage.

"acredita ciertos actos realizados por la parte demandada o por medio de personas y sociedades vinculadas con la parte demandada pero no los daños causados como lo establece el precepto legal, artículo 1648 del Código Civil" (Page 41)

On the second grievance. The Court of Appeals found no merit to this grievance, noting that the first-instance judge did identify that the claim concerned the alleged defamation campaign and did not depend on the shareholder exclusion. The appellant, however, failed to prove the existence of damage, the essential procedural prerequisite under Article 1434 of the Civil Code, which defines damages as patrimonial losses suffered and lost profits as lawful gains foregone.

Abuse of Legal Process

This case is significant in the broader litigation because it represents a damages lawsuit brought by an Avícola Group entity against Lisa, S.A. The claim sought to hold Lisa liable for exercising its legal rights as a shareholder and for alleged defamation campaigns. The dismissal of this lawsuit at both the first-instance and appellate levels establishes that Lisa's judicial actions did not give rise to civil liability and that the plaintiff failed to prove the damages it alleged.

The Bermuda Supreme Court judgment (Ruling No. 1999-108-2001-79) was offered by Lisa as part of its defense.

Ruling

• The appeal filed by Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. was denied
• The first-instance ruling of May 31, 2022 was upheld in full
• The appellant was ordered to pay costs at the appellate level

Legal Basis

• Articles 1645, 1648, and 1434 of the Civil Code — extracontractual civil liability regime and the injured party's burden of proof
• Article 126 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — burden of proof for facts constituting the claim
• Article 603 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — principle limiting appellate review to matters unfavorable to the appellant and expressly challenged
• Article 572 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — costs

Signatories

No individual magistrate names are identified in the body of the reviewed ruling.

Subsequent Proceedings

Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. filed a cassation appeal against this ruling. In Cassation Ruling of April 5, 2024, the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the cassation appeal, imposing costs and a Q500 fine on the appellant, thereby rendering the dismissal of the damages lawsuit final.