The Thirteenth Civil Court denied Avícola Villalobos, S.A.'s clarification and expansion motions against the judgment dismissing its damages lawsuit against Lisa, S.A.

Avícola Villalobos's Motions

Clarification motion. Avícola Villalobos argued that the Order of July 4, 2023 used the word "mayoría" (majority) when referring to evidence that was not given probative value, which it considered ambiguous. Villalobos contended that the term implied the existence of evidence unrelated to the exclusion of Lisa, S.A. that the court failed to evaluate. It requested that the court specify which evidence was discarded for relating to the exclusion issue and which pertained to the damages proceeding.

Expansion motion. Avícola Villalobos argued that the judgment, while denying the lack-of-standing exception regarding the plaintiff, failed to rule on its request to certify the matter to criminal courts. It sought expansion of the judgment to order a criminal referral against Manuel Alberto Suc Tilom, Lisa, S.A.'s representative, for investigation of alleged criminal liability.

Lisa, S.A.'s Defense

Lisa, S.A. opposed both motions. On clarification, it noted that the judgment listed twenty-seven documentary evidence items and that the judge clearly identified only items a and b as having probative value. The remainder constituted the "majority" referenced, with no ambiguity. Lisa, S.A. added that if Avícola Villalobos disagreed with the evidentiary assessment, it should have filed the appropriate remedy. On expansion, Lisa, S.A. argued that the information Avícola Villalobos invoked to support its lack-of-standing exception was publicly available, that it did not constitute a crime, and that determining criminal liability was not within the civil court's purview.

Court's Analysis

On clarification. The judge determined the motion was without merit. The judgment enumerated evidence from item a through item ff and clearly established that only items a and b received probative value. The remaining items constituted the "majority" referenced, as they pertained to matters outside the scope of the proceeding. The judge concluded that the terms of the judgment were not obscure, ambiguous, or contradictory and that the motion did not meet the requirements of Article 596 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code.

On expansion. The judge noted that the expansion remedy addresses omissions in ruling on issues submitted for decision. Because the arguments supporting the lack-of-standing exception had been rejected, there were insufficient grounds to certify the matter to criminal courts, which is why the judgment made no pronouncement on that point. The expansion was denied as without merit.

Ruling

• The clarification motion filed by Avícola Villalobos, S.A. against the Order of July 4, 2023 was denied
• The expansion motion filed by Avícola Villalobos, S.A. against the same judgment was denied

Legal Basis

• Articles 596 and 597 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code — govern the requirements and procedure for clarification and expansion motions
• Articles 25, 26, 29, 31, 44, 50, 51, 61, 62, 66–79, 96, 164, and 165 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code — supplementary procedural provisions
• Articles 15, 16, 22, 45, 51, 52, 57, 68, 141, 142, and 143 of the Judiciary Act — applicable organic provisions

Signatories

• Lcda. Liliana Marlem Joaquin Castillo, Judge
• Gilbert Diego Alejandro Aroche Avila, Clerk

Subsequent Proceedings

Avícola Villalobos, S.A. filed an appeal, which the First Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals resolved on July 16, 2024 in its Appeal Ruling, affirming the first-instance judgment. Avícola Villalobos subsequently filed a Cassation Appeal on November 20, 2024, to which Lisa, S.A. filed its opposition (Cassation Appeal) on August 11, 2025. The cassation appeal remains pending before the Supreme Court of Justice.