Lisa, S.A. files a criminal complaint with the Anticorruption Prosecutor against the former Eleventh Civil Court judge for abuse of authority and breach of duties after she paralyzed the enforcement proceeding against Villamorey, S.A. for over two years, refusing to process embargo requests despite the appeal being in devolutive effect only.

Facts Alleged

The complaint, brought through counsel Carlos De Icaza Muñoz before the Primary Attention Section of the Anticorruption Prosecutor, is grounded in the conduct of Lesbia Wolfschon Puga, who served as judge of the Eleventh Circuit Civil Court until December 2024, during the enforcement proceeding brought by Lisa, S.A. against Villamorey, S.A. Through Order 2567, issued on December 22, 2021, the Eleventh Circuit Court admitted the high-value simple executive claim and issued a payment order pursuant to Article 1454 of the Judicial Code. Service on Villamorey, S.A.'s registered agent, the law firm Galindo Arias y López, was completed on July 7, 2022, and on July 20, 2022, the defendant filed an appeal in devolutive effect against the admission order.

Lisa, S.A. opposed the appeal on July 25, 2022, within the statutory deadline. Despite the appeal having been granted in devolutive effect only, pursuant to Article 1138(2) of the Judicial Code, the judge kept the proceeding paralyzed for over two years, refusing to process the asset seizure requests filed by the plaintiff.

Prior Remedial Efforts

The complaint details three measures taken by Lisa, S.A. to unblock the proceeding:

• On November 25, 2022, Lisa, S.A. filed an Amparo before the First Superior Tribunal challenging the judge's implicit order of inaction. The Tribunal did not grant relief.
• On February 10, 2025, Lisa, S.A. filed a Motion to proceed with the embargo of the claimed assets, arguing that the rules governing enforcement proceedings were being disregarded.
• On February 11, 2025, Lisa, S.A. filed a Motion seeking a finding of contempt against Villamorey, S.A. and Juan Luis Bosch for nonpayment of dividends and sums retained in the context of the declaratory proceeding with counterclaim.

Typicality Analysis

Abuse of authority (Article 355). The complaint argues that the judge, as a public servant, abused her office by failing to process the enforcement proceeding and refusing to order the seizure of Villamorey, S.A.'s assets. The two-year paralysis of the case, despite the appeal having been granted in devolutive effect only, constitutes an arbitrary act that caused economic harm to Lisa, S.A. and violated its right to effective judicial protection. The complaint cites the Supreme Court Criminal Chamber's decision of August 28, 2014, which holds that abuse of authority is established both when a public official improperly executes an act and when the official exceeds the lawful scope of the position.

Breach of duties (Article 356). The complaint contends that the judge refused, omitted, and delayed acts inherent to her office by failing to process the enforcement proceeding or issue required resolutions for over two years. The conduct was unlawful because it contravened Judicial Code provisions requiring continuation of enforcement proceedings notwithstanding an appeal granted in devolutive effect. The complaint emphasizes that the same judge had also presided over the declaratory proceeding that produced the judgment being enforced, revealing a sustained pattern of noncompliance: first by failing to give effect to the declaratory-phase decision and then by obstructing its execution.

"Su actuación no solo priva a la parte demandante del derecho a una tutela judicial efectiva, sino que erosiona la confianza en la administración de justicia al permitir que una sentencia firme quede en letra muerta por la propia omisión del órgano llamado a hacerla cumplir." (Page 7)

Relief Sought

• That the Prosecutor's Office take cognizance of the complaint and admit it.
• That a criminal investigation be opened against Judge Lesbia Wolfschon Puga.
• That necessary measures be adopted to ensure compliance with the public servant's duties by the accused official.

Legal Basis

• Article 355 of the Criminal Code — Criminalizes abuse of authority: a public servant who, abusing the office, orders or commits an arbitrary act to the detriment of any person.
• Article 356 of the Criminal Code — Criminalizes breach of public-service duties: a public servant who unlawfully refuses, omits, or delays any act inherent to the office.
• Article 27 of the Criminal Code — Defines criminal intent (dolo): one acts with intent who desires the result of the legally described act.
• Article 1138(2) of the Judicial Code — Governs the devolutive effect of appeals, which does not stay enforcement proceedings.
• Article 1454 of the Judicial Code — Provides the legal basis for payment orders in enforcement proceedings.