The Eighth Civil Court of Guatemala dismissed Avícola Las Margaritas' abuse-of-rights suit against Lisa, S.A., finding the plaintiff was not a party to the proceedings alleged as abusive and failed to prove damages.

Case Background

Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. (acting also on behalf of entities it absorbed by merger: Importadora de Alimentos de Guatemala, S.A., Compraventa de Productos Alimenticios, S.A., and Compañía Alimenticia de Centroamérica, S.A.) filed the complaint on March 23, 2022. The summary proceeding was conducted under Articles 229 through 236 of the Code of Civil and Mercantile Procedure. The evidentiary period opened on July 20, 2023, the hearing took place on January 24, 2024, and the ruling was issued on February 7, 2024.

Plaintiff's Claims

Avícola Las Margaritas invoked Article 1653 of the Civil Code and Article 18 of the Ley del Organismo Judicial, which require the holder of a right to indemnify when its excessive or bad-faith exercise causes damages. The plaintiff alleged that Lisa, S.A. committed abuse of right by filing a series of legal actions across multiple jurisdictions over more than 20 years.

Specific actions alleged as abusive. Amparos filed in 1999 and 2001 before courts in Escuintla and Coatepeque that suspended shareholder assemblies; a 2001 criminal complaint filed by Juan Guillermo Gutiérrez Strauss before the Seventh Criminal Court of Guatemala (Expediente 413-2001) against 14 persons, dismissed on December 13, 2005; a civil lawsuit before the U.S. District Court, S.D. Florida (Case No. 99-03519 CA-21) against 60 defendants from the Avícola Group, dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds; a 2018 criminal complaint filed by Lisa, S.A. before the Seventh Criminal Court of Guatemala (Expediente 01079-2018-00056) against 74 persons for money laundering, aggravated fraud, and other offenses, dismissed on August 3, 2018; and a 2018 criminal complaint filed by Lisa, S.A. before the Public Ministry of Panama for money laundering against the same defendants. The plaintiff sought a declaration of abuse of right and indeterminate damages to be quantified by expert.

Defense of Lisa, S.A.

Lisa, S.A. filed a negative answer and raised four peremptory exceptions.

Failure to meet the prerequisites for abuse of right. Lisa systematically analyzed the six doctrinal prerequisites of the institution. It argued there was no conflict with the plaintiff's patrimonial interests because the criminal complaints never advanced past initial acceptance and were all dismissed by the Public Ministry; that the amparos were granted by the courts, confirming that Lisa's rights had been violated; that no procedural or extra-procedural act demonstrated bad faith; and that the plaintiff failed to prove direct patrimonial harm or a causal nexus between Lisa's actions and any concrete damage.

Lack of standing in the plaintiff. Lisa argued that Avícola Las Margaritas did not appear as a defendant or suspect in any of the proceedings it alleged were abusive, and that under Article 49 of the CPCM no one may assert another's right in their own name.

Lack of standing in the defendant. Regarding the 2001 complaint, Lisa invoked Article 14 of the Commercial Code (separate legal personality of the corporation from its shareholders), arguing that the complaint filed by Juan Guillermo Gutiérrez Strauss in his personal capacity could not be attributed to Lisa, S.A.

Statute of limitations. Lisa invoked Article 1513 of the Civil Code (one-year prescription for civil liability arising from damages), arguing that all actions alleged as abusive had concluded more than one year before the March 2022 complaint.

Court's Analysis

On the prerequisites for abuse of right. The court found that for the claim to succeed, the plaintiff must have been a direct victim in the underlying proceedings. It confirmed that only two amparos named Avícola Las Margaritas as autoridad denunciada, each with a distinct acto reclamado, which was insufficient evidence of excessive and malicious exercise of the right of action. The 2018 criminal complaints in Guatemala and Panama did not name Avícola Las Margaritas or its merged entities as suspects. The Florida lawsuit was not directed against the plaintiff. The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate how the alleged damages were generated or that they were a direct and immediate consequence of Lisa's actions. Exception sustained.

On lack of standing in the plaintiff. The court verified that Avícola Las Margaritas did not appear as a suspect or defendant in the criminal complaints or the Florida lawsuit. The plaintiff's own declaration of party (January 9, 2024) confirmed that Avícola Las Margaritas was not named as a possible suspect in the 2018 Guatemala complaint or the Panama complaint, and that no citations or diligences were directed at it. The official report from the Seventh Criminal Court corroborated this finding. Under Article 49 of the CPCM, the plaintiff lacked legitimation to assert third-party rights. Exception sustained.

On lack of standing in the defendant. Applying Article 14 of the Commercial Code and Article 1653 of the Civil Code, the court found that the 2001 complaint (Expediente 413-2001) was filed by Juan Guillermo Gutiérrez Strauss in his personal capacity, not by Lisa, S.A. The attempt to attribute the personal acts of a shareholder to the corporation was rejected as contrary to the principle of separate corporate personality. Exception sustained.

On statute of limitations. The court rejected this exception, reasoning that the principal claim was the declaration of abuse of right and the damages claim was accessory. Under Article 1501 of the Civil Code, prescription of the principal obligation extinguishes the accessory, making Article 1513's one-year period inapplicable when damages are claimed as a consequence of another principal claim. Exception overruled.

On the merits. After analyzing the evidence, the court concluded that: the amparos were filed by Lisa in legitimate exercise of its shareholder rights under Article 15 of the Commercial Code; the 2001 complaint was not attributable to Lisa, S.A.; the 2018 complaints and the Florida lawsuit did not involve the plaintiff; and the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of patrimonial damages, their amount, or a causal nexus. Complaint dismissed.

Ruling

• The peremptory exceptions of failure to meet the prerequisites for abuse of right, lack of standing in the plaintiff, and lack of standing in the defendant were sustained
• The negative answer to the complaint was overruled
• The statute-of-limitations exception was overruled
• The summary complaint for abuse of right by excess and bad faith in the exercise of action against Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. and consequential damages was dismissed
• Both parties were exempted from costs due to reciprocal partial success

Legal Basis

• Articles 12, 28, 203, 204 of the Constitution of Guatemala — jurisdiction, right of petition, judicial independence
• Article 1653 of the Civil Code — abuse of right: the holder who causes damage through excess or bad faith must indemnify
• Article 1501 of the Civil Code — prescription of the principal obligation extinguishes the accessory
• Article 1513 of the Civil Code — one-year prescription for civil liability arising from damages
• Article 14 of the Commercial Code — separate legal personality of the corporation from its shareholders
• Article 15 of the Commercial Code — legal relationship between shareholder and corporation
• Article 49 of the CPCM — no person may assert another's right in their own name
• Article 51 of the CPCM — legitimate interest required to bring suit
• Articles 229 through 236 of the CPCM — summary proceeding procedure
• Article 18 of the Ley del Organismo Judicial — abuse of right

Signatories

• Lic. Mynor David Rangel Coromac, Judge, Eighth Multi-Judge Civil Court of First Instance, Civil Branch, Department of Guatemala
• Lilian Rosana Balcárcel García, Secretary

Subsequent Proceedings

The ruling was appealed by Avícola Las Margaritas, S.A. The Fifth Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals affirmed the first-instance judgment in the Appeal of June 3, 2024. Avícola Las Margaritas then filed a cassation appeal, which the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed in the Cassation Ruling of July 18, 2025, with costs and a monetary fine imposed, leaving the dismissal of the lawsuit final.