Order

Case Background

Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. and Compañía Importadora La Perla, S.A., entities within the Avícola Villalobos Group, sued Lisa, S.A. in a commercial summary proceeding (Expediente 01165-2018-00276). On March 18, 2024, BDT Investments Inc. petitioned to intervene as Lisa's third-party co-defendant, submitting a protocolized copy of <doc id="pty-31638-12-2022-04-12-a" />, a decision issued in the Republic of Panama within case <law id="pty-31638-12" />. The court admitted BDT as co-defendant in <doc id="gua-01165-2018-00276-2024-03-21-a" />. Administradora filed a revocatoria, which the court denied in <doc id="gua-01165-2018-00276-2024-04-02-a" />. Administradora then filed the amplification motion resolved by this ruling.

Administradora's Arguments

Administradora requested that the court amplify the order of April 2, 2024 for allegedly failing to address three points: (a) BDT's documentation was issued in Panama and lacks legal efficacy in Guatemala, (b) the Panamanian court decision approving a settlement agreement between Lisa and BDT cannot be enforced outside the territory where it was issued, per Article 211 of the Code of Private International Law, and (c) BDT's intervention is contradictory because its true intent is to substitute itself for the defendant rather than act as co-defendant.

Court's Analysis

The court determined that the order of April 2, 2024 was issued in accordance with law. The three points Administradora sought to have addressed are substantive matters, and the procedural stage was not appropriate for the court to rule on them. Under Article 551 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the analysis of the documents submitted by BDT will be conducted when issuing the corresponding resolution, at which point the court will determine the admissibility or inadmissibility of the third-party intervention.

The court applied the standard set by Articles 596 and 597 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, which limit amplification to cases where the court omitted ruling on a point at issue in the proceeding. Because the matters raised are substantive questions pending resolution, no omission warranting amplification existed.

The opposing party was given a two-day period to respond as required by law and did not file a response.

Ruling

• The motion for amplification filed by Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. was declared denied
• <doc id="gua-01165-2018-00276-2024-04-02-a" /> remained firm

Legal Basis

• Articles 596 and 597 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — govern motions for clarification and amplification, limiting the latter to omissions on points at issue in the proceeding
• Article 551 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure — provides that the analysis of submitted documents will be conducted when issuing the corresponding resolution
• Articles 203 and 204 of the Constitution of the Republic of Guatemala — independence of the judiciary and court jurisdiction
• Articles 141, 142, and 143 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary — general rules for judicial decisions