Ordinary Proceeding

I. Preliminary Exceptions and Appeal

Avícola Villalobos, S.A. brought this ordinary proceeding against Lisa, S.A. for abuse of right and damages, alleging that Lisa acted with excess and bad faith when it filed a criminal complaint in 2013 before the Fourth Criminal Court of First Instance (criminal case 01069-2013-00541), a complaint later dismissed at the request of the Public Prosecutor's Office. The claim reverses the parties' real positions: Avícola Villalobos accuses Lisa of abuse of right for having filed a criminal complaint, when Lisa was excluded as a shareholder by entities of the same Villalobos Group.

On July 26, 2024, the Seventh Civil Court of First Instance issued its first-instance ruling (Order), rejecting both preliminary exceptions raised by Lisa: defective complaint and failure to meet a condition. On the first, Lisa argued that the complaint grounded its claim in Article 18 of the Judiciary Act (abuse of right) while the facts described alleged defamation, which should have been grounded in Article 1656 of the Civil Code. On the second, Lisa maintained that its 2013 criminal complaint was the legitimate exercise of a subjective right that collided with no third-party right. The court held that these arguments sought a merits determination reserved for trial, found that the complaint satisfied all formal requirements of law, and concluded that the plaintiff's claim was subject to no condition or term within the meaning of the exception. Lisa was ordered to pay the costs of the incident.

Lisa appealed on three grounds: the disconnect between the legal basis invoked and the facts alleged as an incurable formal defect, the failure to prove the alleged illicit purpose and resulting harm, and the impropriety of the cost award given that Lisa had acted in good faith. On March 17, 2025, the Second Civil and Commercial Court of Appeals issued its appellate ruling (Appeal Ruling), confirming the first-instance decision. The court held that the defective-complaint exception is strictly procedural and confined to verifying formal requirements, that the legal basis invoked bears a relationship to the facts alleged, and that whether those facts constitute defamation is a merits question. On the failure-to-meet-a-condition exception, the court drew on the doctrine of Mario Aguirre Godoy, Juan Montero Aroca, and Mauro Chacón Corado, together with the Circular of March 27, 1980, to conclude that Lisa's arguments on the nonexistence of abuse are matters of merits, not conditions. On costs, applying Article 576 of the Civil and Commercial Procedural Code, the court held that the good faith invoked by Lisa is not a ground for exemption.