Objects to Administradora's legal standing

On October 22, 2024, the defendant, attorney and notary Rossana Mishelle Ramírez Paredes, appeared before the Thirteenth Pluripersonal Court of First Instance for Civil Matters of the Department of Guatemala to file, as an incident, a preliminary objection of lack of standing (falta de personalidad) against the ordinary action for absolute nullity brought by Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. She argues that the plaintiff company is not legally entitled to seek the annulment of public instrument No. 3 (protocolization of Auto No. 898 issued on April 12, 2022, in Panamanian case 31638-12, approving the settlement between BDT Investments Inc. and Lisa, S.A.), because the Guatemalan court had already refused to give that protocolization any procedural effect in the related summary case 01050-2012-00203. Therefore, the company cannot now rely on that same act to claim an interest or litigate in the name of alleged new holders of litigated rights.

The motion relies on articles 49, 51, 116, 120 and 121 of the Guatemalan Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure to stress that no one may enforce, in their own name, a right belonging to another, and that a concrete, legally protected interest must be demonstrated. She cites a Supreme Court of Justice decision (2 December 1985) to reinforce that a mere assertion of interest is insufficient. Because Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. did not clearly explain how the challenged instrument harms a legally protected interest of its own—especially after the 21 March 2024 ruling denied processing of the protocolization—she asks the court to: (i) admit the incident; (ii) open it to an eight-day evidentiary period; and, in the final ruling, (iii) declare the preliminary objection with merit, (iv) declare the nullity action unfounded, and (v) order costs against the plaintiff.