Amparo 1022-19

Procedural Background

The chain of proceedings leading to this amparo began with <doc id="pty-556-99-2018-12-05-a" /> of December 5, 2018, in which the Eleventh Circuit Civil Court denied Villamorey, S.A.'s request for auction and ordered the $894,718.00 judgment satisfied through set-off against dividends that Villamorey, S.A. had retained as judicial depositary of Lisa, S.A. Villamorey, S.A. appealed, but the First Superior Court declined jurisdiction through its <doc id="pty-556-99-2019-07-12-a" /> of July 12, 2019, holding that the order did not fall within the numerus clausus of appealable resolutions under Article 1131 of the Judicial Code.

Villamorey's Constitutional Argument

Villamorey, S.A. filed the amparo invoking Article 32 of the Constitution (due process guarantee). It argued that <doc id="pty-556-99-2018-12-05-a" /> was appealable under Article 1131(5) of the Judicial Code as a resolution entailing the extinction of a claim, and additionally susceptible to cassation under Article 1164(2). The First Superior Court's refusal to hear the appeal had allegedly deprived Villamorey, S.A. of its right of defense.

Plenary's Analysis

The Court reframed the procedural debate. Because <doc id="pty-556-99-2018-12-05-a" /> was issued within the enforcement phase of <doc id="pty-556-99-2008-07-11-a" /> (as modified on appeal by the First Superior Court's <doc id="pty-556-99-2012-08-28-a" /> of August 28, 2012), the applicable appellate framework was not that of the ordinary process in <law id="pty-556-99" /> but of enforcement proceedings, pursuant to Article 1038 of the Judicial Code. The Plenary cited Article 1038, which provides that the enforcement of final judicial resolutions must follow the procedures governing enforcement proceedings, and that the condemned party may only allege that the resolution has been invalidated or satisfied.

After a thorough review of resolutions susceptible to appeal within enforcement proceedings, the Plenary concluded that Order No. 2277-2018, which denied an auction, ordered set-off, and directed a communication to another court, was not among them. The First Superior Court's inhibition was correct.

Ruling

• The Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice denied the constitutional amparo action filed by Villamorey, S.A. against the First Superior Court of the First Judicial District.

Legal Basis

• Article 32 of the Constitution — Due process guarantee, invoked by the petitioner as violated by the First Superior Court's inhibition.
• Article 1131 of the Judicial Code — Exhaustive catalog of resolutions susceptible to appeal in first instance; the Plenary confirmed that <doc id="pty-556-99-2018-12-05-a" /> was not among them.
• Article 1038 of the Judicial Code — Enforcement regime for final judicial resolutions, which requires following enforcement proceedings procedures; the central basis for the Plenary's determination of the applicable appellate framework.

Signatories

• José E. Ayú Prado Canals, Reporting Justice
• Cecilio Cedalise Riquelme, Justice
• Maribel Cornejo Batista, Justice
• Hernán A. De León Batista, Justice
• Luis R. Fábrega Sánchez, Justice
• María Eugenia López Arias, Justice
• Angela Russo de Cedeño, Justice
• Carlos Alberto Vásquez Reyes, Justice
• Olmedo Arrocha Osorio, Justice
• Yanixsa Y. Yuen, Clerk of Court