Baez Rivera, Carmen M v. Cruz Cesteros, Jose R, KLCE202400697

In 2013, Carmen M. Báez Rivera and her children (the petitioners) filed a medical malpractice suit against Dr. José R. Cruz Cestero and others, claiming negligent cervical block caused severe injury to Báez Rivera.
After trial, the trial court (TPI) dismissed the claim, but this was reversed on appeal, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Upon prevailing on remand, the petitioners sought $15,251.20 in costs under Rule 44 of Civil Procedure, exhibiting supporting evidence where possible.
The TPI partly granted their request, awarding $14,201.00 in costs, later adjusted to $15,101.00 following further motions and submissions of evidence.
The defendants paid $15,101.00 into court, leading to a dispute over whether the remaining controversy over costs was moot (i.e., academic), as the petitioners sought a slightly higher sum.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether TPI erred in granting extensions and considering untimely objections to costs	Extensions and late objections violate strict, non-extendable ten-day deadline in Rule 44.1	Extension was proper, and review of all evidence required for fair cost assessment	TPI acted within its discretion under the circumstances
Whether the reduction/exclusion of certain claimed costs (e.g., service fees) was lawful	All claimed costs were proven, and excluding them was arbitrary and an abuse of discretion	Some costs (e.g., for service, expert fees) were not properly documented or not necessary	TPI may exclude costs not properly evidenced or unnecessary
If the payment of $15,101.00 rendered the case academic/moot	Not all costs were paid, so controversy stayed alive	Payment of $15,101.00 matches proven and awarded costs, so nothing remains to litigate	Controversy was moot; case academic
Whether review by certiorari was appropriate under Rule 52.1/Rule 40 factors	TPI abused discretion and review warranted to prevent injustice	Ordinary exercise of TPI discretion; no abuse, no showing of prejudice	Discretion not abused; no reason to disturb TPI decisions

Medina Nazario v. McNeil Healthcare LLC, 194 DPR 723 (nature of certiorari as discretionary remedy)
IG Builders v. BBVAPR, 185 DPR 307 (certiorari procedural standards)
Rosario Domínguez v. ELA, 198 DPR 197 (ten-day deadline for costs is strict, not extendable)
Maderas Tratadas v. Sun Alliance, 185 DPR 880 (trial judge has broad discretion in awarding costs)
Lluch v. España Service Sta., 117 DPR 729 (review standard for discretionary trial court rulings)
Super Asphalt Pavement, Corp. v. Autoridad para el Financiamiento de la Infraestructura de Puerto Rico, 206 DPR 803 (application of the mootness doctrine)