Amparo

Procedural Background

The enforcement proceeding, <law id="pty-117030-21" />, originated with <doc id="pty-117030-21-2021-12-22-a" />, through which the Eleventh Civil Court admitted the executive action and issued a payment order for $51,643,208.80 in favor of Lisa, S.A. and against Villamorey, S.A. on December 22, 2021. Service of the payment order was completed on July 7, 2022, when the firm Galindo Arias y López appeared as Villamorey's counsel. On July 20, 2022, the firm filed an appeal, which was granted in devolutive effect. Lisa filed its opposition to the appeal on July 25, 2022, within the statutory deadline under Article 1138 of the Judicial Code.

From that date forward, the court took no further action. Lisa filed a first <doc id="pty-117030-21-2022-11-25-a" /> on November 25, 2022, denouncing the judicial paralysis after two months of inactivity, but the tribunal did not act on it. Subsequently, on February 10, 2025, Lisa filed a motion to proceed with the embargo of identified assets, and on February 11, 2025, filed a contempt motion against Villamorey and Juan Luis Bosch for nonpayment of dividends. None of these filings produced any judicial action.

Constitutional Violations

Lisa grounds the amparo on three axes of constitutional violation. First, infringement of the right to due process enshrined in Article 32 of the Constitution, given that Article 1138(2) of the Judicial Code provides that an appeal in devolutive effect does not suspend compliance with the appealed order or the course of the proceeding. Articles 1640, 1643, and 1682 of the Judicial Code reinforce this obligation by providing that, once the payment order is served, the judge must proceed immediately with the embargo of identified assets, regardless of any appeal filed by the defendant.

"Al concederse el Recurso de Apelación en el efecto devolutivo, no se suspenderá el cumplimiento de la resolución apelada ni el curso del proceso." (Page 4)

Second, violation of the principle of legal certainty under Article 17 of the Constitution, which obligates Panamanian authorities to protect the property of nationals and foreigners under their jurisdiction. The judicial omission has generated uncertainty in the enforcement of judicially recognized credit rights, undermining confidence in the system and the investment climate.

Third, violation of the right to equality, as the court's inaction has favored Villamorey by freezing the proceeding while Lisa suffers continuous economic harm without effective access to justice. The amparo further invokes Article 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to be heard within a reasonable time, arguing that the paralysis of over two years constitutes a flagrant violation of this international guarantee ratified by Panama.

Strategic Context

This second amparo forms part of a comprehensive enforcement strategy by Lisa. Weeks before this constitutional action, Lisa filed in the related declaratory proceeding (<law id="pty-556-99" />) a <doc id="pty-556-99-2025-02-10-a" /> demanding return of dividends retained for sixteen years and a <doc id="pty-556-99-2025-02-11-a" /> seeking to hold Juan Luis Bosch in contempt for breaching his duties as judicial depositary. The convergence of these three filings in February and March 2025 reflects a coordinated effort to activate all available enforcement and compliance avenues simultaneously, across both the executive and declaratory proceedings.

Relief Sought

• Declare the amparo valid for violations of Articles 17 and 32 of the Constitution
• Order the Eleventh Civil Judge to resume the enforcement proceeding immediately in accordance with Article 1138 of the Judicial Code
• Order the court to refrain from freezing proceedings over non-suspensive appeals, under warning of contempt pursuant to Article 2632 of the Judicial Code, and to decree the embargo on assets identified by the plaintiff
• Notify the Attorney General's Office for its intervention pursuant to Article 30 of the Amparo Act

Legal Basis

• Article 17 of the Political Constitution of Panama — obligation of authorities to protect the property of nationals and foreigners under their jurisdiction
• Article 32 of the Political Constitution of Panama — due process guarantee, protecting the right to proceedings without undue delay
• Article 25 of the Political Constitution of Panama — equality before the law
• Article 54 of the Political Constitution of Panama — establishes amparo as a remedy against acts or omissions violating constitutional guarantees
• Article 1138(2) of the Judicial Code — appeals in devolutive effect do not suspend compliance with the appealed order or the course of the proceeding
• Article 2615 of the Judicial Code — defines amparo as the appropriate action to revoke orders that harm fundamental rights
• Article 8.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights — guarantees the right to be heard within a reasonable time

Signatories

• Lcda. María Luisa Villarreal Palacios, judicial representative of Lisa, S.A.