Puerto Rico Court of Appeals – Representative Cases

1. Labor Case (discrimination): Díaz v. Ghaffar, KLCE2022-00090. Defendant requested a protective order against our client, Mr. Díaz, claiming that all interrogatories shall be translated to the English language. After opposing, the Court of First Instance entered a Resolution denying defendants’ request. Defendant filed a Writ of Certiorari and the Court of Appeals denied the issuance.

2. Banking Law: Mario Negrón Morales v. Flash Auto; Americas Leading Finance, LLC (“ALF”), KLRA2021-00236. Plaintiff filed a claim against the dealer and against our client, ALF, claiming deceit while selling a vehicle. DACO imposed liability upon ALF and once we appealed the Court of Appeals reversed such decision and dismissed the whole complaint against our client.

3. Contracts: Santos Codesal v. Subway Real Estate, et als; KLCE 202000378. The Court of First Instance authorized Plaintiff to serve defendant thru edict. Our client filed a Writ of Certiorari and the Court of Appeals reserved the inferior Court’s decision.

4. Banking Law: ALF v. Diana Serrrano Fuentes, KLAN2021-00644, KLAN2021-00644. Defendant filed a counterclaim against our client, ALF. ALF immediately filed a motion to dismiss and the Court of First Instance entered Partial Judgment dismissing all counterclaim against our client. On Appeal, our client prevailed.

5. Banking Law: In Popular Auto LLC v. Ileanexy Orozco, KLAN2020-00252, the Court of First Instance entered judgment dismissing case for failing to timely served by edict. The Court of Appeals reversed and concluded that Plaintiff timely moved for service by edict, however it was the Court of First Instance that failed to timely allow the service by publication. Thus, the Court of Appeals ordered continuation.

6. Banking Law: In Popular Auto LLC v. AAFCU, the Appellate Court confirmed the judgment in the Court of First Instance. The Court of Appeals concluded that Popular Auto was a good faith buyer, that Art. 59 of the Code of Commerce applied and that the contract was valid despite that the dealer had no license to operate. 

7. Insurance claim: In Johnson Controls Inc., v. SM Electrical, KLAN2018-01297, KLAN2018-01297, our client, Johnson Controls Inc (JCI) filed a complaint against MAPFRE and SM Electrical claiming that defendants breached a construction contract. MAPFRE moved for summary judgment and so it did JCI. The Court of First Instance denied MAPFRE’s motion for summary judgment and granted JCI’s motion for summary judgment. After defendants appealed, the Court of Appealed entered Judgment confirming the instance’s judgment. The Court of Appealed concluded that (a) the 90 days term specified on the bond agreement was not a lapse (“caducidad”) of action but rather a prescription (“prescripción”); (b) JCI was a third party to the bond agreement and was not obliged to take affirmative actions to know if a bond agreement existed; (C) SM Electrical and MAPFRE agreed joint liability and thus Art. 1875 of the Civil Code was inapplicable; (d) JCI interrupted the prescriptive period and thus had the right to claim the amount owed.

8. Banking Law: In Scotiabank de Puerto Rico v. Francisco Gendes Mateo, KLAN201900439, the Court of First Instance dismissed the case with prejudice per the two dismissal rule after Scotiabank filed a complaint and requested the voluntary dismissal and then re-filed and the Court dismissed the case for failure to comply with the Court’s orders. After our client Appealed, the Appellate Court entered Judgement reversing and setting aside the dismissal Judgment entered by the Court of First Instance. The Appellate Court agreed and adopted our position and theory as to the prior dismissals and the two dismissal rule. Our arguments rested on the fact that the two prior dismissals were the result of two different reasons and therefore the two dismissal rule did not apply. Important to note that the two previous dismissal were entered before our Law Firm received the case. 

9. Banking Law: In Bosco IX Overseas LLC v. Frankie Habibe, KLCE2019-00472, the court of first instance granted defendant the litigious credit claim. Bosco appealed and prevailed. The Appeal Court solved that the litigious credit doctrine does not apply to mortgage notes.

10. Corporate Law: In Medial Group v. González Vázquez, the Court of Appeals reversed a Judgment dismissing complaint against third party defendant, Rosa Echevarría. The Court of Appeals determined that the Court of First Instance cannot reduce de 120 term and that Third Party Plaintiff timely and correctly filed a motion requesting summons by edict.

11. Banking Law: In Condado 3 CR LLC v. Inmobiliaria JRM, KLCE2019-00295, the Court of Appeals reverse the Court of First Instance’s order and resolution. The Court of Appeals determined that the Mediation is inapplicable since the Mediation Act was effective after entering judgment. Also determined that a party with interest is not allowed to file a counterclaim. 

12. Banking Law: In BPPR v. Anthony Ramos, KLAN201900212, the Court of Appeals reversed a Judgment dismissing complaint. The Court of Appeals solved that BPPR timely requested the summons by edict which was unreasonably denied by the Court. 

13. Banking Law: In BPPR v. Carmen Suau Sanchidrian, KLCE2018-01463, the Court of Appeals reversed an order dismissing case pursuant to Bernier González v. Rodríguez Becerra, 2018 TSPR 114. The Court Appeals solved that Bernier, supra, is inapplicable when Plaintiff amends complaints.

14. Banking Law: BPPR v. Irvin De Jesús Maldonado, KLAN201801036. Due to failure to comply with orders by previous Law Firm for BPPR, the Court of First Instance entered Judgment dismissing with prejudice all claims against defendants. The Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed the case without prejudice so that BPPR can re-file the complaint. 

15. Banking Law: Bosco Credit v. Jaime J. Silva Glass, KLCE201801358. The Court of First Instance entered Order granting defendants’ motion requesting litigious credit. Bosco Credit filed a Writ of Certiorari and the Court of Appeals Reversed the Order. The Court of Appels determined that defendants had no right to receive the information as to the litigious credit since said request was not timely filed.

16. Banking Law: Popular Auto LLC v. Caribbean Power Systems, KLAN2018-00831. Court of First Instance entered Judgment in Popular Auto’s favor. Defendants filed an Appeal. The Court of Appeals confirmed the inferior court’s judgment and solved that (a) defendants submitted themselves to the Court’s jurisdiction; (b) that Law 76 allows mixed caused of actions (repossession and debt collection); (c) and that Law 76 do not exclude joint debtors. 

17. Banking Law: Richard Baez v. Best But Auto Sales Inc, KLAN2018-00132. Our client filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Appeal was premature since court of first instance failed to notify a defendant. Subsequently the Court of Appeal entered Judgment dismissing Appeal for being premature.

18. Banking Law: BPPR v. Lillian Martínez Rolón, KLAN201701390. BPPR filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that securitization that does not exists in PR. The Court of First Instance entered Judgment in BPPR’s favor. Defendants appealed and the Court of Appeals confirmed judgment and solved that the securitization theory is speculative and does not rise any controversy.

19. Labor Law: Santos Medina Félix v. Claro, KLAN2016-00440, the Court of First Instance, entered a Summary Judgment dismissing each and every claim filed by Plaintiff. Upon filing an Appeal on behalf of our client (Plaintiff), the Court of Appeal reversed the Summary Judgment and denied motion for summary judgment filed by defendants. 

20. Banking Law: Alfredo Cardona v. BPPR, KLAN2015-01994. BPPR filed a motion to dismiss. The Court entered Judgment dismissing without prejudice the Complaint. BPPR filed an Appeal and the Court of Appeals modified the inferior Court’s judgment so that the dismissal would be with prejudice. 

21. Labor Law: Felipe González Galán v. Panadería y Repostería La Ruca, Inc., KLAN2016-01655. Our client prevailed after a full labor trial. Defendants filed an Appeal. The Court of Appeals only modified the Judgment to eliminate $2,000.00 for a tort compensation but confirmed in all other aspects. 

22. Banking Law: BPPR v. Juan Ramos, KLAN2015-00146. The Court of Appeals reversed a Court of First Instance’s judgment dismissing the case. The Court of Appeals solved that the inferior Court failed to dismiss BPPR’s Complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

23. Banking Law: José Ortíz Marciales v. Banco Popular, KLAN2014-01918, the Court of Appeals dismissed Plaintiffs Appeal for failure to pay the internal revenue stamp.

24. Banking Law: BPPR v. Traslado, Inc., KLAN2014-00751. The Court of Appeals entered Judgment to confirm the Judgment entered by the inferior court, which was in BPPR’s favor. Also imposed Appellant, which was represented by Jaime López, Esq., a sanction for the total amount of $2,000.00 for filing a frivolous appeal. 

25. Banking Law: PRAPI v. Ramón Negrón Falcón, KLAN2014-01313. The Court of Appeals confirmed the inferior court’s judgment solving that rebus sic stantibus does not apply.  

26. Medical Malpractice: Felix Feliciano v. Dra. Alma Cruz Santana, Civil Núm. KLAN2011-00291: The Court of Appeals entered Judgment reversing the Court of First Instance’s Judgment, in Plaintiff’s favor. Our Client prevailed on such Appeal.

27. Banking Law: BPPR vs. Alfonso Pastrana, Civil Núm. KLAN2012-01752. The Court of Appeals dismissed defendants’ Appeal for lack of jurisdiction.  Our Client prevailed on such Appeal.

28. Labor Law: Carlos Rosa vs. Cyma Cleaning, Civil Núm. KLAN2013-1058. The Court of Appeals entered Judgment in favor of CYMA (our client) dismissing all labor claims against them. Our Client prevailed on such Appeal.

29. Banking Law: BPPR vs. G Managment, Civil No. KLAN201300013. The Court of Appeals dismissed defendants’ Appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Our Client prevailed on such Appeal.

30. Contracts/Insurance: Melvin Nieves v. Catterpilar, Inc., et als, KLAN2012-02093. PR Court of Appeals entered a Judgment reversing Court of First Instance dismissing case. Our client, Plaintiff, prevailed on reversing Court of First Instance’s decision.

31. Contracts: VL Construction vs. AAA, KLAN2013-01077. Court of Appeals confirmed judgment entered in Plaintiffs favor after a two day trial. Our Client prevailed on such Appeal.

32. Banking Law: BPPR v. David Prieto Silvia, KLAN2013-01509. Court of Appeals confirmed judgment entered by the Court of First Instance in BPPR’s favor. Our Client prevailed on such Appeal.

33. Banking Law: BPPR vs. José Torres Suárez, KLCE2013-1595. Court of Appeals reversed Court of First Instance’s decision denying BPPR’s motion for summary judgment and granted BPPR’s motion for summary judgment.

34. Banking Law: PRAPI v. Family Land, KLAN2013-01972. Court of Appeals confirmed Judgment entered by the Court of First Instance. Court of Appeals determined that when both parties agrees on the interest then it prevails over the legal interest. Also determined that parties’ agreement regarding a penalty of 10% of legal fees, is legal and correct.