Ninth Civil Court grants exception of lack of standing, ruling Avícola Las Margaritas lacks legitimation to challenge BDT Investments Inc.'s power of attorney.

Case Background

Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. filed an ordinary action for absolute nullity against the public instrument through which BDT Investments Inc. constituted a special judicial power of attorney in favor of Rossana Mishelle Ramírez Paredes. The plaintiff based its interest on the fact that Ramírez Paredes, acting as BDT's attorney, appeared in multiple proceedings where Lisa, S.A. is named as defendant, seeking to substitute or appear as third-party coadjutant, including the summary prescription proceeding (Exp. 01163-2022-01188) before the Thirteenth Pluripersonal First Instance Civil Court. In that proceeding, Avícola Las Margaritas is the plaintiff and Lisa, S.A. is the defendant.

In responding to the exception, the plaintiff itself acknowledged that the Thirteenth Court had already denied BDT Investments Inc.'s request to appear as third-party coadjutant, by resolution of February 9, 2024, because the documentation was submitted in plain copy without meeting the requirements of Article 38 of the Judiciary Act. Nevertheless, the plaintiff argued that if those deficiencies were cured, the instrument could be used again, and that under Article 32 of the Notarial Code, nullity may be sought by any interested party.

Court's Analysis

The court focused its analysis on whether Avícola Las Margaritas possesses the formal procedural standing necessary to bring the nullity action. Applying the doctrine on the exception of lack of standing (falta de personalidad), the court concluded that this exception lies when the party bringing suit lacks a juridical link to the substantive relationship at issue.

From its review of the complaint and the evidence submitted during the incidental proceedings, the court determined that the entity presumably affected by BDT Investments Inc.'s actions is Lisa, S.A., since Lisa is the defendant in the proceedings where BDT seeks to appear or substitute. It is Lisa, S.A. that has the right to oppose and challenge the public instrument whose nullity is sought, as the principal affected party, not the plaintiff.

"La entidad presuntamente afectada por la pretensión de la entidad BDT INVESTMENTS INC, es la entidad LISA SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, debido a que esta última es quien figura como demandada en los procesos entablados por la parte actora AVICOLA LAS MARGARITAS, SOCIEDAD ANONIMA, es decir es la entidad a la que la entidad BDT INVESTMENTS INC pretende sustituir o presentarse como tercero coadyuvante" (Page 4)

This ruling is significant for the broader litigation: the court recognized that BDT Investments Inc. seeks to participate in proceedings where Lisa, S.A. is the defendant, and that standing to challenge that participation belongs to Lisa, not to the Avícola Group entities. By seeking nullity of the power of attorney that enables BDT's representation, Avícola Las Margaritas attempted to obstruct the intervention of a third party seeking to support Lisa's defense. The court determined that the plaintiff lacks a legally protectable interest to pursue this challenge.

Ruling

• The prior exception of lack of standing in the plaintiff was declared granted, as filed by Rossana Mishelle Ramírez Paredes
• Costs were imposed on the plaintiff, Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A.

Legal Basis

• Articles 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 44, 51, 66–69, 78, 79, 81–83, 106, 107, 116, 121, 123, 124, 126, 129, 178, 179, 181, 186 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — prior exceptions regime, procedural standing, and burden of proof
• Articles 135–142 of the Judiciary Act — supplementary procedural rules

Signatories

• Lic. Federico Gerardo Maza González-Campo, Judge
• Lic. Dominic Iván Medina Tzunún, Clerk