Tribunal exonerates Lisa from $40,000 cost sanction but upholds dismissal for lack of standing
Jul 9 2025
1st Superior Tribunal
The First Superior Tribunal of the First Judicial District ruled on the appeals filed by Lisa, S.A. and BDT Investments Inc. against Sentence No. 71 of January 31, 2025, issued by the Sixteenth Circuit Civil Court, which had declared both active and passive lack of standing, denied the summary accounting demand, rejected BDT's intervention as litisconsorte, and condemned Lisa to pay $40,000.00 in costs. The Tribunal modified the sentence solely to exonerate Lisa from the cost sanction, and upheld everything else.
Lisa argued that it filed the summary accounting proceeding against Juan Luis Bosch Gutiérrez in his capacity as judicial depositary of dividends withheld without legal justification to the detriment of Lisa and Villamorey, S.A. Lisa recalled that when the Eleventh Court initially denied admission of the demand through Order No. 1623 of September 2021, the First Superior Tribunal itself reversed that decision on September 30, 2022, validating Lisa's standing to sue.
Lisa contended that at the time the demand was filed (August 26, 2021), judicial approval of the assignment of rights to BDT was not yet final, making Lisa's active standing unquestionable. Lisa challenged the trial court's refusal to admit BDT's intervention despite the defendant's own acknowledgment of the assignment and BDT's formal request for inclusion since January 2024. Finally, Lisa contested the $40,000.00 cost sanction, arguing that no bad faith or abusive procedural conduct existed to justify it under Articles 1071 and 1072 of the Judicial Code.
BDT Investments Inc. argued that it had sought admission as litisconsorte at first instance, having acquired Lisa's litigation rights through Order No. 898 of April 12, 2022. Although the trial judge acknowledged that BDT met the requirements of Article 612 of the Judicial Code for intervention, he inexplicably postponed admission until the merits judgment, then denied it. BDT characterized this as contradictory and violative of due process, arguing that under Articles 602, 603, and 747 of the Judicial Code, the judge should have accepted BDT's intervention and personally notified it as the new rights holder.
The Tribunal framed the proceeding within Article 1379 of the Judicial Code, which governs summary accounting proceedings, and acknowledged that Lisa used the correct procedural avenue to demand an accounting from a judicial depositary.
However, the Tribunal found that Lisa assigned its rights to BDT through the Settlement Agreement with Obligation to Assign Rights dated February 19, 2020, before filing the demand on August 26, 2021. That agreement was judicially recognized through Order No. 898 of April 12, 2022, issued by the Twelfth Circuit Civil Court. Lisa therefore lacked active standing.
On passive standing, the Tribunal determined that the letter in the record communicating dividend retentions to the court was signed by Bosch in his capacity as Legal Representative of Villamorey, S.A. on November 25, 2008. The demand should have been directed against Villamorey rather than against Bosch personally, establishing lack of passive standing.
"La legitimación para obrar consiste en la cualidad que tiene una persona para reclamar respecto de otra por una pretensión en el proceso y la falta de legitimación para obrar existe cuando no media coincidencia entre las personas que efectivamente actúan en el proceso y las personas a las cuales la ley habilita especialmente para pretender o contradecir respecto de la materia sobre la cual versa el proceso." (Page 11)
On costs, the Tribunal concluded that Lisa pursued a legitimate legal controversy and, although its arguments did not prevail, it did not act recklessly or abusively. The documentary evidence, while insufficient, was not entirely unfounded, and the bad-faith cost sanction lacked reasonable support.