On November 10, 2014, through the <doc id="gua-01041-2012-00224-2014-11-10-a" />, the Second Civil Court of First Instance upheld Lisa, S.A.'s prescription exception and dismissed the ordinary damages lawsuit brought by Inversiones Empresariales, S.A., ordering the plaintiff to pay costs.
Inversiones Empresariales, S.A. sued Lisa, S.A. in an ordinary civil proceeding before Guatemala's Second Civil Court of First Instance, seeking Q8,810,769.80 in damages for an alleged defamation campaign carried out over thirteen years. Lisa raised preliminary exceptions for incompetence, defective complaint, lack of standing, and prescription. In the <doc id="gua-01041-2012-00224-2014-11-10-a" />, the court rejected the first three exceptions but upheld the prescription defense, finding that the plaintiff's own complaint acknowledged the alleged acts spanned more than thirteen years, far exceeding the one-year statute of limitations under Article 1673 of the Civil Code. The damages claim was dismissed and Inversiones Empresariales was ordered to pay costs.
On March 13, 2012, Inversiones Empresariales, S.A. filed an ordinary damages lawsuit against Lisa, S.A. before the Second Civil Court of First Instance, Case No. 01041-2012-00224, seeking Q8,810,769.80 in damages. The plaintiff alleged that Lisa carried out a defamation campaign through publications, paid advertisements, press conferences, radio programs, and judicial actions abroad.
Lisa, S.A., through its special judicial attorney Licenciado Tito Enoc Marroquín Cabrera, raised five preliminary exceptions on April 10, 2012: incompetence, defective complaint, lack of standing of the defendant, lack of standing of the plaintiff, and prescription. Inversiones Empresariales was notified of the hearing but failed to appear, and the matter was opened for evidence.
On November 10, 2014, the Second Civil Court of First Instance issued the <doc id="gua-01041-2012-00224-2014-11-10-a" />, resolving the five exceptions. The court rejected the first four. On incompetence, it held that the defendant entity is incorporated in Guatemala, notwithstanding that the testimonial declaration underlying the claim was made abroad. On the defective complaint, it found the pleading satisfied Article 106 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure. On the two standing exceptions, it confirmed both parties' capacity to act as active and passive subjects under Article 51 of the same code.
The prescription exception proved decisive. Article 1673 of the Civil Code provides a one-year statute of limitations for damages claims, running from the date the harm was caused or the injured party became aware of it. The plaintiff's own complaint acknowledged that Lisa carried out the alleged campaign "over the last thirteen years," and the documentary evidence offered dated from 2000 to 2008. The court concluded that the limitations period had long expired by the time the lawsuit was filed on March 13, 2012, and it upheld the prescription exception, dismissed the damages claim, and ordered Inversiones Empresariales to pay costs under Article 576 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure.
Inversiones Empresariales' failure to appear at the exceptions hearing, combined with the admission in its own complaint that the alleged acts spanned more than a decade, left the plaintiff without an answer to the prescription defense. The ruling eliminated a damages claim of significant magnitude and reinforced Lisa, S.A.'s position.
The case is definitively resolved in favor of Lisa, S.A. No claims remain pending.