Banco Popular De Puerto Rico v. Vargas Fernandez, Jose L, KLCE202400330

Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (BPPR) filed an in-rem mortgage foreclosure action against José Vargas Fernández and Ángela L. Rosario De León for defaulting on a mortgage loan originally issued in 2006 and later modified in 2015.
Rosario De León and Vargas Fernández had previously filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 13; their personal liability was discharged, but BPPR asserted its right to pursue the secured debt on the property.
After initial litigation and mediation attempts in 2023, Rosario De León alleged improprieties by the mediator and sought her recusal, asserting the mediator was biased and had prevented appropriate legal representation in mediation.
The trial court denied the motion for recusal and subsequent motions for reconsideration and declaratory relief.
Rosario De León petitioned for certiorari, arguing procedural and substantive errors by the trial court in not granting disqualification, not compelling inclusion of her attorney in mediation, and not referring the case back to mediation.
The Court of Appeals evaluated whether discretionary certiorari review was warranted at this interlocutory stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Recusal of Mediator	Mediator was biased and acted beyond her authority, making improper factual findings and excluding representation.	Mediator was neutral; her remarks were procedural, reflecting incomplete documentation by Rosario De León.	No abuse of discretion or evidence of bias; recusal denied.
Attorney Participation in Mediation	CMC and BPPR should be compelled to allow legal counsel in compulsory mediation.	No right to counsel at this stage; no showing of exclusion by BPPR or CMC.	No basis for declaratory relief; request denied.
Continuation of Mediation Process	Case should be referred back to mediation, in line with public policy.	Ongoing litigation process; no evidence CMC or BPPR improperly stalled mediation.	No error; case need not be returned to mediation at this time.
Certiorari as Remedy	Errors are of such magnitude that immediate appellate intervention is warranted.	No extraordinary circumstances; normal appellate review is adequate.	Certiorari not warranted; interlocutory review denied.

Rivera et al. v. Arcos Dorados et al., 212 DPR 194 (standard for certiorari review)
Torres González v. Zaragoza Meléndez, 211 DPR 821 (discretionary nature of certiorari)
Lluch v. España Service Sta., 117 DPR 729 (standard for abuse of discretion by trial courts)
Citibank et al. v. ACBI et al., 200 DPR 724 (deference to trial court's control over its docket)