Latest update
On September 11, 2024, the Constitutional Court confirmed the amparo denial and dismissed the appeal filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A., definitively closing the constitutional challenge over caducidad.
Exp. 01043-2011-00112 · Summary Opposition to Shareholder Exclusion
On September 11, 2024, the Constitutional Court confirmed the amparo denial and dismissed the appeal filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A., definitively closing the constitutional challenge over caducidad.
Lisa, S.A. filed a summary opposition lawsuit before the Ninth Civil Court of First Instance of Guatemala City to challenge its exclusion as a shareholder of Reproductores Avícolas, S.A., resolved by the annual ordinary general shareholders' assembly on April 4, 2011. During the proceedings, Reproductores sought caducidad (expiration of the trial stage) alleging procedural inactivity. Courts at every level, including the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, rejected the caducidad claim, determining that the inactivity was attributable to the court itself, not to the parties. The opposition lawsuit on the merits of the exclusion remains pending.
Lisa, S.A. filed a summary opposition-to-exclusion lawsuit before the Ninth Civil Court of First Instance of Guatemala City against Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. (Case No. 01043-2011-00112). The complaint, admitted on December 4, 2012, challenged the exclusion resolution adopted by the annual ordinary general shareholders' assembly on April 4, 2011. As a precautionary measure, the court decreed the provisional cessation of the effects of the exclusion resolution.
During the evidentiary phase, the court rejected scientific evidence proposed by Reproductores in a ruling of October 21, 2016, the last recorded action. Eight rulings issued between September 30 and October 21, 2016 were not served until July 17, 2017, due to the court notifier's failure to act.
On June 6, 2017, Reproductores filed for caducidad of the first instance, alleging more than six months of inactivity. On June 7, 2017, the court rejected the request, finding that notifications to the parties remained pending. Reproductores appealed, and the Second Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals confirmed the rejection on March 9, 2022, determining that the delay was attributable to the court's notifier. The appellate court referred the matter to the Judicial Discipline Board for the approximately five-year delay in transmitting the case file.
Reproductores' attempt to terminate the opposition lawsuit through caducidad fits within a pattern of procedural conduct aimed at preventing Lisa from exercising its right to challenge its exclusion as shareholder.
The Supreme Court of Justice, Amparo and Preliminary Hearing Chamber, denied as manifestly inadmissible the amparo filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. against the appellate ruling confirming the rejection of caducidad. Reproductores alleged violations of legal certainty, due process, and the right of defense, arguing that Articles 588 and 590 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure do not condition the computation of caducidad on the service of notifications.
The Chamber grounded its decision in the doctrinal distinction between party inactivity and judicial inactivity, citing Montero Aroca and Chacón Corado. It concluded that the proceedings were inactive because the court failed to serve pending notifications, not because of any party inaction. A fine of Q. 1,000.00 was imposed on sponsoring attorney Javier Antonio Mendizábal Rojas for the manifest inadmissibility of the amparo.
The ruling preserved Lisa's summary opposition lawsuit, preventing Reproductores from terminating the proceeding.
The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. and confirmed the amparo denial. Reproductores raised three grievances: that the summary rejection prevented it from proving procedural inactivity, that the denial constituted an ex officio defense benefiting Lisa, and that Lisa did not appear until eight months after the last procedural action.
The Court conducted an independent examination and determined that the Second Court of Appeals issued a correctly reasoned decision. Applying Article 66(c) of the Judiciary Act, the Court concluded that the caducidad incident was inadmissible because the inactivity resulted from the court's failure to serve notifications, a judicial function. The Court characterized Reproductores' objections as an attempt to obtain review of the merits of what had already been decided.
The ruling definitively closed the constitutional challenge over caducidad, leaving Lisa's opposition lawsuit protected against any future attempt at termination through this procedural mechanism.
| Date | Document | Issued by |
|---|---|---|
| Jun 6 2023 | Amparo Ruling | Supreme Court |
| Sep 11 2024 | Amparo Ruling | Constitutional Court |
The summary opposition-to-exclusion lawsuit remains pending on the merits. The central question, the validity of Lisa, S.A.'s exclusion as a shareholder of Reproductores Avícolas, S.A., has not yet been decided.