The First Superior Tribunal rejects Villamorey's amparo, holding that tacit denial does not exist in civil jurisdiction and that the true target was the $44.9 million attachment order.

Tribunal's Analysis

The Tribunal examined the amparo petition and identified three defects precluding its admission. On tacit denial. The Tribunal held that while Article 1381 of the Judicial Code grants the right to file a complaint, the concept of tacit denial does not exist in civil jurisdiction, unlike the contentious-administrative jurisdiction where it is expressly regulated. Villamorey could not explain what it meant by "tacit order to deny" when, instead of resolving its complaint against Order 283 of February 25, 2021, the judge issued Order 1234 on August 2, 2022 decreeing the attachment.

Incongruence between the challenged act and the alleged violation. The Tribunal concluded that Villamorey's allegations, including lack of motivation, untimeliness, and violation of summary proceeding procedure, actually targeted the attachment order rather than any supposed tacit denial. Even in the hypothetical scenario that the Tribunal revoked the "tacit denial," the attachment order would remain in force.

Failure to exhaust remedies. The Tribunal found that Villamorey had filed motions for reconsideration and appeal against the attachment order, neither of which appeared to have been resolved. This precluded amparo admission, since ordinary remedies had not been exhausted.

Ruling

• The amparo petition filed by Villamorey, S.A. against the Fourth Circuit Civil Court Judge is denied admission, within the summary accounting proceeding (Exp. 14606-21) brought by Lisa, S.A. against Villamorey, S.A.

Signatories

• Guimara Aparicio Ortega, Magistrate (reporting judge)
• Melina Robinson Oro, Magistrate
• Lilianne M. Ducruet N., Magistrate