The admission of the modification of the claim to correct formal errors before its answer

Alegalis | Modern civil procedure is characterized by a constant tension between respect for procedural formalities and the effectiveness of the substantive rights that the parties submit to the court. In this context, the possibility of amending or expanding the complaint before its response, regulated in Article 110 of the Guatemalan Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, is a key tool for guaranteeing access to justice, the right to a defense, and due process, especially when the amendment seeks to correct purely formal errors. This article analyzes the admissibility of amending the complaint to correct formal errors or even errors that would give rise to a preliminary objection, even when such objections are pending resolution.

Legal Framework for Amending a Complaint
Article 110 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure clearly and categorically establishes that: "The complaint may be amended or expanded before it has been answered." The rule does not introduce additional distinctions nor does it condition the admissibility of the amendment on the absence of prior procedural incidents, limiting itself to requiring a single temporal condition: that the complaint has not been answered. From a literal and systematic interpretation, it is evident that the legislator chose to prioritize the definitive positioning of the litigation from the moment the defendant answers the complaint, since it is in this procedural act that the claims, defenses, and substantive exceptions are precisely defined. Before this procedural milestone, the process is in a preliminary phase that allows for reasonable adjustments by the plaintiff.

Answering the Complaint and Preliminary Objections: A Necessary Distinction
A central point in the practical discussion lies in differentiating the answer to the complaint from the filing of preliminary objections. According to Article 118 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, the answer to the complaint must meet the same formal requirements as the initial pleading and constitutes the act by which the defendant establishes their position regarding the plaintiff’s claims. Preliminary objections, on the other hand, aim to rectify the proceedings by addressing formal defects or procedural requirements, without examining the merits of the dispute. Consequently, simply filing preliminary objections is not equivalent, either legally or functionally, to an answer to the complaint.
Accepting the contrary would imply introducing a restriction not provided for by law and emptying the cited article 110 of its content, since the presentation of any preliminary incident would be enough to close in advance the possibility of modifying the claim, even when it has not been answered.

Correcting Formal Errors and the Principle of the Instrumentality of Procedural Forms
Amending a complaint to correct formal errors, such as typographical mistakes, grammatical inconsistencies, or inaccuracies in document identification—and even errors not in the complaint itself but in the accompanying documents—is in accordance with the principle of procedural formality. This principle recognizes that formalities are not an end in themselves, but rather a means to ensure an orderly process that respects the rights of the parties. From this perspective, formal errors that do not cause actual prejudice or affect the defendant’s right to a defense should be corrected, not penalized with decisions that unjustifiably paralyze or delay the proceedings. The timely correction of such errors through amending the complaint contributes to procedural efficiency and the achievement of effective judicial protection.

Ruling of the Constitutional Court
The Constitutional Court has repeatedly held a position in favor of admitting amendments to a complaint before it is answered, even when preliminary objections remain unresolved. In case file 5126-2023, the Court established that the filing of preliminary objections, since they do not challenge the merits of the claims, does not prevent the plaintiff from amending or expanding their complaint, provided it has not yet been answered.
Furthermore, the Court has warned against the risk of excessive formalism (not only in this discussion), noting that procedural formalities must be interpreted in a way that does not nullify the effectiveness of the fundamental rights of the parties involved. This criterion is especially relevant when the errors that are to be corrected are obvious, understandable, and do not generate real confusion regarding the claim being pursued. An example of this criterion is found in cases related to the accreditation of legal standing. Constitutional jurisprudence has been clear in indicating that it is sufficient to submit the corresponding power of attorney, and that errors in its formal identification do not justify decisions that violate due process or the right of access to justice.

Practical analysis: effects of accepting or rejecting the modification
From a practical standpoint, allowing amendments to the complaint to correct formal errors before the response prevents the proliferation of unnecessary procedural incidents and reduces the risk of contradictory rulings. It also allows the judge to have a clear and refined argument when ruling on preliminary objections and, subsequently, on the merits of the case. Conversely, rejecting the amendment on the grounds that the formal errors are the subject of a pending incident can generate undue delays, promote the strategic use of formalities, and distort the civil process as an instrument for resolving substantive disputes.

Conclusion
The admissibility of amending a complaint to correct formal errors, provided it has not been answered, is firmly supported by Article 110 of the Guatemalan Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure, procedural doctrine, and Guatemalan constitutional jurisprudence. Preliminary objections do not constitute a legal impediment to such amendment, as they do not define the defendant’s claims nor do they amount to an answer to the complaint.
A rights-based and functional interpretation of the process requires judges to prioritize the correction of formal errors and the early clarification of the dispute, avoiding excessive rigidity that ultimately undermines due process, legal certainty, and effective judicial protection. Ultimately, amending the complaint, when used to correct formal errors and presented within the legal timeframe, should be accepted as a legitimate exercise of the right to legal action and the principle of substantive justice. Because, ideally, mistakes should not be made, but reality is different, and as humans conditioned by our environment, we will inevitably find ways to "make mistakes" but also ways to resolve them.

alegalis.com