Cassation Appeal

Lisa, S.A., represented by Lcda. María Luisa Villarreal Palacios, filed a cassation appeal on substantive grounds against the July 9, 2025 ruling by the First Superior Tribunal of the First Judicial District of Panama, which upheld Judgment No. 71 of January 31, 2025 issued by the Sixteenth Circuit Civil Court. That judgment dismissed Lisa's summary accounting proceeding against Juan Luis Bosch Gutiérrez after declaring ex officio that the plaintiff lacked active standing. The appeal seeks reversal of the challenged ruling and continuation of the proceeding before the First Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.

Grounds for Cassation

The appeal invokes two substantive grounds under Article 1169 of the Judicial Code.

First ground. Error of law in the evaluation of evidence. Lisa argues that the appellate tribunal incorrectly assessed Auto No. 898 Exp. 31638-12 of April 12, 2022, through which the Twelfth Circuit Civil Court approved the settlement and judicially recognized the Liquidation Agreement with assignment of rights between Lisa, S.A. and BDT Investments Inc. The core argument is chronological: Lisa filed its accounting demand on August 26, 2021, while the judicial recognition of the assignment did not occur until April 12, 2022. Therefore, at the time of filing, Lisa held full active standing.

Second ground. Direct violation of a substantive legal norm by omission. Lisa argues that despite full proof of the judicially approved Liquidation Agreement in the record, and despite the appellate ruling itself expressly acknowledging the existence of that agreement, the Tribunal failed to rule on the request for intervention as litisconsortium filed by BDT Investments Inc., which had been denied at first instance and formed part of the grounds raised on appeal.

Infringed Provisions

• Article 32 of the National Constitution (due process and effective judicial protection), violated by omission when the Tribunal failed to rule on BDT's intervention request, undermining the integrity of the proceeding and the proper joinder of parties
• Article 835 of the Judicial Code (authenticity of public documents), violated by omission in failing to properly assess Auto No. 898 despite it not having been challenged as false by the defendant and being acknowledged as full proof in the answer
• Article 612 of the Judicial Code (right of an assignee to intervene as litisconsortium of the assignor), violated by omission in failing to admit BDT's intervention as assignee of Lisa's litigation rights

"Siendo así, para la fecha en que LISA, S.A., interpuso su Demanda de Rendición de Cuentas, 26 de agosto de 2021 (fs. 4 a 8), ostentaba plena legitimidad activa para accionar su demanda de rendición de cuentas." (Page 3)

Relief Sought

• Admission of the formalized cassation appeal
• Reversal of the challenged July 9, 2025 ruling upon completion of procedural steps

Legal Basis

• Articles 1163 and 1164 of the Judicial Code — availability of cassation against rulings that extinguish the claim or preclude continuation of the proceeding
• Article 1169 of the Judicial Code — substantive grounds for cassation invoked
• Article 32 of the National Constitution — guarantee of due process and effective judicial protection
• Article 835 of the Judicial Code — presumption of authenticity for public documents not challenged as false
• Article 612 of the Judicial Code — right of an assignee of a litigated right to intervene as litisconsortium of the assignor

Signatories

• Lcda. María Luisa Villarreal Palacios, counsel for Lisa, S.A.