Denies amparo challenging BDT's admission as Lisa's co-party
Jan 27 2025
Court of Appeals
The Third Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals, sitting as an Amparo Tribunal, denied the constitutional amparo action filed by Avícola Villalobos, S.A. against the Twelfth Multi-Judge Civil Court of First Instance of the department of Guatemala. Avícola Villalobos challenged the resolution admitting BDT Investments Inc. as a supporting co-party (tercero coadyuvante) of Lisa, S.A. in the summary proceeding for extinctive prescription of dividends (Expediente 01162-2017-00735). The tribunal concluded that the challenged authority acted in accordance with the law, that no constitutional violation occurred, and that the amparo constituted an improper use of the constitutional guarantee as an ordinary remedy. Avícola was ordered to pay costs, and its counsel was fined Q 1,000.00.
On June 19, 2017, San Juan, S.A. filed a summary proceeding against Lisa, S.A. before the Twelfth Multi-Judge Civil Court of First Instance, seeking a declaration that the obligation to pay dividends approved at the annual general shareholders' meetings of San Juan, S.A. had been extinguished by prescription. Lisa, S.A. filed a negative answer with peremptory exceptions on October 7, 2019, but the court denied that filing on October 8, 2019. On December 3, 2020, the court deemed the complaint answered in the negative and continued the proceeding in default of Lisa, S.A., opening the evidentiary period.
On July 19, 2021, Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. appeared in the proceeding and, through merger by absorption, substituted the plaintiff San Juan, S.A. (currently Avícola Villalobos, S.A.).
On March 20, 2024, BDT Investments Inc. appeared and requested admission as a supporting co-party of Lisa, S.A., attaching a transaction agreement between BDT Investments Inc. and Lisa, S.A. whose purpose was to settle disputes between the two entities. The court granted the request that same date. Avícola Villalobos filed a motion for revocation (revocatoria), which was denied on April 19, 2024. On April 2, 2024, the court issued a first-instance sentence dismissing the prescription claim, holding that Avícola failed to prove with certainty when the dividend payment obligation became legally enforceable.
Avícola Villalobos challenged two resolutions: (i) the resolution of March 20, 2024 admitting BDT Investments Inc. as a supporting co-party of Lisa, S.A., and (ii) the order of April 19, 2024 denying the motion for revocation filed against the first resolution. The petitioner alleged violations of the right to defense and the principles of due process and legality.
Avícola Villalobos argued that the court committed two errors: first, that it admitted a third party who failed to demonstrate a certain and direct interest in the case, since the transaction document between BDT Investments Inc. and Lisa, S.A. did not establish BDT's interest in the specific proceeding between Reproductores Avícolas, S.A. (now Avícola Villalobos, S.A.) and Lisa, S.A., and neither Reproductores Avícolas nor the Avícola Group appeared in the document. Second, that the court resolved the third-party intervention prematurely through a decree, in violation of Article 551 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, which provides that third-party claims shall be resolved together with the principal matter in the sentence. The petitioner highlighted the contradiction that, in ruling on the revocation, the court acknowledged that the merits of the third-party intervention would be determined in the sentence, while having already effectively resolved it by admitting BDT in the challenged decree.
The challenged authority reported that in admitting the supporting co-party intervention, it did not substitute Lisa, S.A., as the petitioner claimed, but merely gave procedural effect to the request based on the attached transaction document. It stated that under Article 551 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the admissibility or inadmissibility of the third-party intervention would be resolved at the time of sentencing, together with the principal matter.
The Public Ministry, through the Office of Constitutional Affairs, maintained that the authority acted within its faculties under Article 203 of the Constitution (judicial independence and the power to adjudicate), that the court applied a substantive standard under Article 548 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure in admitting the intervention for processing, and that amparo does not serve as a mechanism for reviewing ordinary judicial decisions. It concluded that the alleged grievance was nonexistent.
The tribunal determined that the first challenged act was subsumed within the second (the resolution denying the revocation), as the latter conferred definitiveness on the challenged decision.
On the merits, the tribunal concluded that the petitioner failed to articulate logical-juridical reasoning that would refute the challenged authority's decision or objectively explain how the ruling produced illegalities or violated constitutional rights. Avícola Villalobos's arguments rested on the same points already analyzed by the authority in resolving the revocation, reflecting mere disagreement with the outcome. The tribunal emphasized that amparo is not an additional ordinary remedy against disagreements arising in judicial proceedings, but rather an extraordinary procedure available when constitutional rights face a genuine threat or violation.
The tribunal concluded that the challenged authority acted in accordance with the case record and the law, properly reasoning the grounds for its decision, and that the element of constitutional grievance required for the viability of amparo was absent.
Following denial of the amparo, the main proceeding continued its course. On December 9, 2025, the Third Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals issued an appellate ruling affirming in full the first-instance sentence that had dismissed the dividend prescription claim, with costs imposed on Avícola Villalobos, S.A.