Damages Lawsuit by Industria Forrajera de Mazatenango
C. 01045-2012-00242 • First Civil Court • Guatemala
Damages Lawsuit by Industria Forrajera de Mazatenango
This is a commercial lawsuit. Industria Forrajera de Mazatenango, S.A. sued Lisa, S.A. for damages, alleging that Lisa caused harm by filing lawsuits in multiple countries and carrying out media campaigns that led to Forrajera’s exclusion of Lisa as a shareholder. Lisa denied liability and raised several preliminary exceptions, arguing the claim was procedurally defective, premature, and time-barred.
Decisions
Whether Lisa’s preliminary exceptions should bar Forrajera’s damages claim.
The court rejected the exceptions of defective claim and caducity, but upheld the exceptions of lack of condition fulfillment (prematurity), lack of standing, and prescription.
Forrajera’s damages action was effectively blocked at trial.
Court dismissed damages claim by Forrajera
Both parties appealed; Lisa insisted the claim was defective, Forrajera argued the trial court wrongly admitted Lisa’s exceptions.
The appellate court declared both appeals partially founded. It reversed in part, declaring the exceptions of defective claim and lack of condition fulfillment admissible, but rejecting those of lack of standing and prescription.
The court confirmed the damages claim was defective and premature, stopping the case from proceeding.
Appeals court upheld dismissal for Forrajera
Forrajera sought constitutional amparo, claiming violation of due process and access to justice when the Court of Appeals upheld Lisa’s procedural defenses.
The Supreme Court denied the amparo, confirming the appellate ruling as lawful and finding no constitutional violation.
The appellate decision remained firm: Forrajera’s damages claim against Lisa was dismissed as procedurally defective and premature. Costs and a fine were imposed on Forrajera and its attorney.
Supreme Court denied amparo filed by Forrajera
Conclusion
Across all levels, Forrajera’s damages lawsuit against Lisa, S.A. was found inadmissible. The courts consistently held the action was procedurally defective, premature, and barred. Lisa successfully avoided liability, and the case was definitively closed with the Supreme Court’s denial of amparo.