Damages Lawsuit by Industria Forrajera de Mazatenango

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.

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.

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.