The Supreme Court's Civil Chamber summarily rejected Administradora de Restaurantes' cassation appeal against the ruling that found its prescription claim on Lisa, S.A.'s dividends defective.

Case Background

The proceeding originated with Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. (successor of Compañía Importadora La Perla, S.A.) filing a complaint against Lisa, S.A., seeking a judicial declaration that Lisa's right to collect dividends decreed at La Perla's annual general shareholders' meeting of May 28, 2013 had expired by prescription. The Eleventh Multi-Judge Civil Court of First Instance, in its Order of August 4, 2023, upheld the defective complaint exception, finding that the plaintiff failed to present the complete assembly minutes, lacked clarity in its claims, and did not justify the use of ordinary proceedings over the arbitration clause in its own bylaws. The First Chamber of the Court of Appeals confirmed this decision in its Appeal Ruling of May 6, 2024, and subsequently rejected Administradora's motions for clarification and amplification in its Appeal Ruling of August 6, 2024. Administradora then filed a cassation appeal against the appellate ruling.

Court's Analysis

The Civil Chamber based its summary rejection on the appealed resolution's lack of objective appealability. Article 620 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code establishes the definitiveness requirements a resolution must meet to be subject to cassation review. A resolution confirming a defective complaint exception does not prevent renewal of the litigation, which deprives it of the definitiveness required to open the cassation pathway. Administradora formally retains the ability to correct the identified defects and file a new complaint, which prevents the resolution from being considered definitive in the procedural sense required for cassation.

This outcome is significant in the context of the Avícola Group's strategy of using prescription actions to extinguish Lisa's shareholder rights. The complaint sought to declare prescribed dividend rights that the plaintiff entity itself, through its predecessor La Perla, was obligated to pay to Lisa as holder of 25% of the equity. The rejection across all three instances confirms that the procedural approach lacked an adequate legal foundation and that Lisa's rights to the decreed dividends remain in force.

Ruling

• The cassation appeal filed by Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. was summarily rejected as not conforming to law, because the appealed resolution lacks objective appealability
• Notification and return of the case file to the First Chamber of the Court of Appeals with certification of the resolution was ordered
• The cassation proceedings were ordered archived

Legal Basis

• Articles 12, 203, and 204 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala — Due process guarantees and jurisdictional function
• Articles 45, 50, 61, 64, 626, 628, and 635 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code — Procedural requirements and regulation of cassation appeals
• Article 620 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code — Objective appealability and definitiveness requirement for resolutions subject to cassation
• Articles 79(a), 141, 143, and 165 of the Judiciary Act — Organizational and procedural provisions

Signatories

• Dra. Claudia Lucrecia Paredes Castañeda, Sixth Associate Justice, Supreme Court of Justice, President of the Civil Chamber
• Lcda. Cecilia Odette Moscoso Arriaza de Salazar, Secretary, Supreme Court of Justice