Denies Administradora's amplification motion on BDT's admission
Apr 26 2024
15th Civil Court
The Fifteenth Civil Court of First Instance denied the motion for amplification filed by Administradora de Restaurantes, S.A. against the April 2, 2024 order, which had rejected its challenge to the admission of BDT Investments Inc. as a third-party co-defendant supporting Lisa, S.A. The court concluded that the issues raised by Administradora are substantive matters to be resolved at the appropriate procedural stage, not omissions curable through an amplification motion.
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 Order No. 898 from Case 31638-12, issued in the Republic of Panama. The court admitted BDT as co-defendant in the March 21, 2024 order. Administradora filed a revocatoria, which was denied in the April 2, 2024 order. Administradora then filed the amplification motion resolved by this ruling.
Administradora requested that the court amplify the April 2, 2024 order 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.
The court determined that the April 2, 2024 order 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.