Appeal Ruling

The First Superior Tribunal of the First Judicial District of Panama affirmed the substance of Sentence No. 42-08 issued by the Eleventh Circuit Civil Court, which had declared Lisa, S.A.'s claims unproven and granted Villamorey, S.A.'s counterclaim for $200,000.00 in material damages. The appellate court, however, found the costs imposed at first instance to be excessive and reduced them substantially, setting the total enforceable judgment at $894,718.00.

Appellant's Arguments

Lisa, S.A. appealed on the ground that the trial court mischaracterized its claim as one of extracontractual tort liability, when in substance it arose from the rights and obligations of the corporate bylaws (pacto social) of Villamorey, S.A. as a corporation. The appellant argued that the evidentiary failures were attributable to the court rather than the plaintiff: banking records in English, admitted into evidence, were never translated as mandated by Article 878 of the Judicial Code, and a letter rogatory dispatched to Guatemala for judicial inspection and witness depositions was never executed.

Regarding the counterclaim, Lisa, S.A. characterized it as reckless, contending that the court-appointed expert lacked valid proof of the proceedings in other jurisdictions that underpinned her damage quantification, and that the expert opinion was valued in violation of Article 980 of the Judicial Code. Lisa, S.A. also sought to revive a "premature petition" (petición antes de tiempo) exception against the counterclaim.

Tribunal's Analysis

The First Superior Tribunal agreed with the trial judge that Lisa, S.A. failed to discharge its burden of proof under Article 784 of the Judicial Code. The court admitted and took the testimony of Juan José Rodríguez in the second instance, but concluded that the evidentiary record remained insufficient. Documentation from the United States lacked the required formalities for foreign documents and was never translated under Article 877 of the Judicial Code. The document production order against Ancona Finance, S.A. was never carried out because Lisa, S.A. itself failed to post the required bond, and the evidence requested through the letter rogatory to Guatemala could not be obtained.

On the premature petition exception, the Tribunal found that Lisa, S.A. raised it when answering the first counterclaim, but when Villamorey, S.A. filed a new counterclaim following Lisa's amended complaint, Lisa, S.A. answered without reiterating the exception or filing it separately. No exception existed in the legal record for the court to resolve.

Modification of Costs

The Tribunal found that the costs set at first instance did not correspond to the declaratory nature of the proceeding. Although Lisa, S.A. did not assign a formal amount to its claim, the Tribunal identified in the twenty-first fact of the complaint a reference to $12,000,000.00 as the sum allegedly lost, and used this figure as the basis for cost assessment. Applying the minimum progressive fee schedule with a 30% reduction under Article 1078 of the Judicial Code, the costs were set as follows:

Concept	First Instance	As Modified
Counterclaim damages (capital)	$200,000.00	$200,000.00 (unchanged)
Costs, main claim	$1,200,000.00	$669,200.00
Costs, counterclaim	$40,000.00	$25,200.00
Expenses	$118.00	$118.00
Total enforceable	$1,440,118.00	$894,718.00

The cost reduction represented a 38% decrease from the first-instance total, reflecting the Tribunal's assessment of the type of proceeding and the scope of legal work performed.

Ruling

• The declaration that Lisa, S.A.'s claims against Villamorey, S.A., San Cristóbal, Sociedad Anónima, and Inversiones Truchu, S.A. were not proven is affirmed
• The counterclaim award of $200,000.00 in material damages in favor of Villamorey, S.A. is affirmed
• Costs on the main claim are modified and set at $669,200.00 in favor of the defendants
• Costs on the counterclaim are modified and set at $25,200.00 in favor of Villamorey, S.A.
• All other aspects of the first-instance judgment are maintained

Legal Basis

• Article 469 of the Judicial Code — the court's obligation to resolve disputes in pursuit of substantive justice
• Article 784 of the Judicial Code — burden of proof, whose non-fulfillment grounded the affirmance
• Article 877 of the Judicial Code — mandatory translation of foreign-language documents, whose non-compliance deprived the banking records of probative value
• Article 1069 of the Judicial Code — legal definition of costs and the items comprising them
• Article 1071 of the Judicial Code — imposition of costs on the losing party, with good faith as the sole exemption
• Article 1078 of the Judicial Code — authority to reduce costs by up to 30%, applied by the Tribunal to moderate the first-instance amounts
• Article 1148 of the Judicial Code — principle of reformatio in pejus, which limited the Tribunal's review to the matters raised by the appellant

Signatories

• Lilianne M. Ducruet N., Magistrate
• Nelson H. Ruiz C., Magistrate
• Carlos R. Trujillo S., Magistrate