Order

The Eighth Civil Court of First Instance recognized BDT Investments Inc.'s legal representation in Case No. 01044-2017-00206 but denied its attempted third-party intervention (tercería coadyuvante). The basis for the denial was purely procedural: because judgment had already been issued in the ordinary proceeding filed by Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. against Lisa, S.A., no new party could be admitted.

Case Background

Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. filed an ordinary civil action against Lisa, S.A. seeking a declaration that Lisa's right to collect dividends had prescribed after more than five years without being claimed. BDT Investments Inc., which holds rights related to Lisa under a settlement agreement, appeared through Rossana Mishelle Ramírez Paredes as special judicial agent, requesting to intervene as a supporting third party on Lisa's side.

Court's Analysis

The court applied a strictly procedural criterion. It recognized BDT's duly accredited legal representation and noted the electronic mailbox designated for service, but held that the third-party intervention could not proceed given the state of the record. A judgment had already been rendered in the proceeding, which barred the admission of new parties. The ruling did not reach the merits of BDT's standing or its relationship with Lisa, confining itself to the procedural barrier.

Ruling

• The court recognized BDT Investments Inc.'s legal representation through its special judicial agent
• Legal counsel was confirmed as proposed
• The third-party intervention was declared inadmissible because judgment had already been issued in the proceeding

Legal Basis

• Articles 12, 28, 204 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala — due process and right of defense guarantees
• Articles 25, 28, 29, 44, 45, 50, 51, 58, 61, 62, 66, 74, 79, 229, 234, 551 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code — provisions on legal representation, third-party interventions, and ordinary proceedings
• Articles 1, 2, 3 of the Law Regulating Electronic Notifications in the Judiciary — electronic service
• Articles 57, 141–143, 189–191, 197 of the Judiciary Act — organizational and procedural provisions
• Agreement 38-2020 of the Presidency of the Supreme Court of Justice and Judiciary

Signatories

• Licda. Gloria Aracely Rosales Reynoso de Vásquez, Judge
• Lilian Rosana Balcárcel García, Clerk

Subsequent Proceedings

Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. filed a motion for amplification against a prior ruling of February 13, 2024, which the same court denied on April 19, 2024, holding that no omissions existed to warrant amplification under Article 596 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code. See the ruling of April 19, 2024.