Revocation of Precautionary Measures by Agroprocesos Avícolas
Agroprocesos Avícolas, S.A.
C. 01045-2012-00179
Summary
This is an ordinary civil lawsuit. Agroprocesos Avícolas, S.A. sued Lisa, S.A. Lisa requested revocation of precautionary measures imposed in 2012, arguing that the plaintiff’s guarantee had expired. The trial court and later the appellate court addressed the validity of those measures and the procedural challenges raised by Agroprocesos Avícolas.
Decisions
Lisa, S.A. petitioned to revoke precautionary measures (embargoes) imposed in March 2012 because the plaintiff’s guarantee bond of Q100,000 had expired in 2013.
The court granted Lisa’s request and revoked the precautionary measures.
The embargoes against Lisa were lifted; the plaintiff lost its main procedural tool.
Agroprocesos Avícolas filed a nullity motion, claiming violations of procedure and law in the December 2016 order. It argued the court should have allowed extra time to renew the bond and that lifting measures required an incidental procedure.
The nullity motion was denied. The judge confirmed that the measures were properly lifted because the guarantee had expired and Agroprocesos failed to renew it.
The revocation of precautionary measures remained in force. Agroprocesos was ordered to pay costs.
Agroprocesos Avícolas appealed the February 2017 denial of nullity, repeating its arguments about due process and the need for an incidental proceeding.
The appellate court rejected the appeal and confirmed the trial court’s order, holding that the lifting of precautionary measures was lawful once the guarantee expired.
Agroprocesos definitively lost its challenge; the precautionary measures remained revoked. Costs were imposed on the appellant.
Conclusion
Both the trial and appellate courts ruled against Agroprocesos Avícolas. The precautionary measures imposed on Lisa, S.A. in 2012 were revoked in 2016 because the plaintiff failed to renew the required bond. Attempts by Agroprocesos to annul or reverse that ruling were dismissed at both trial and appeal. This left Lisa free from the restrictions and confirmed that the plaintiff could not sustain its procedural attacks.