The Twelfth Civil Court of First Instance admitted BDT Investments Inc. as a third-party intervenor supporting Lisa, S.A. in the extinctive prescription summary proceeding filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A.

Case Background

BDT Investments Inc. appeared in the summary proceeding for extinctive, negative, or liberatory prescription (Exp. 01162-2017-00791) filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. against Lisa, S.A., seeking to be admitted as a third-party intervenor (tercero coadyuvante) supporting the defendant. BDT's intervention was grounded in a Transaction Agreement between BDT and Lisa, through which Lisa assigned and transferred to BDT the rights and obligations arising from the proceedings related to the Avícola Group. The appearing attorney acted as special judicial agent with representation (mandataria especial judicial con representación) for BDT.

Ruling

• The filing and attached documents were admitted and added to the case record
• The court recognized that the appearing attorney acted as special judicial agent with representation for BDT Investments Inc.
• The court took note of the attorney's own direction and legal representation, as well as the electronic mailbox designated for notifications
• BDT Investments Inc. was admitted as third-party intervenor supporting the defendant, taking the proceeding in its current state
• The evidence identified in the filing was accepted as offered

Legal Basis

• Articles 12, 28, 44, 46, 203, and 204 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala — due process guarantees, right of petition, and administration of justice
• Article 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights — judicial guarantees
• Articles 25, 26, 28, 29, 31, 44, 50, 51, 61–64, 66–68, 70–72, 75, 79, and 553 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — procedural rules governing third-party interventions and summary proceedings
• Articles 15, 16, 57, 68, 141–143 of the Judiciary Act — organic provisions on jurisdiction and procedure

Subsequent Proceedings

Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. filed a revocatoria motion against this order, arguing that BDT failed to demonstrate a certain and own interest in the matter, that the assignment of rights in the Transaction Agreement did not encompass this proceeding, and that deficiencies existed in the notarial protocolization and in compliance with tax obligations. The court denied the revocatoria by Order on April 19, 2024, reasoning that BDT was admitted only as a co-party and not as a substitute for Lisa, and that whether BDT held a certain and own interest was to be resolved in the final judgment together with the merits of the case.