Bermudez Ramos, Aida E v. Metro Caguas Incorporated
KLCE202500292
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...May 13, 2025Background
- Several former employees (the "querellantes") of the Grupo HIMA San Pablo hospital in Caguas were terminated by Metro Caguas Incorporated ("Metro") after Metro purchased hospital assets via bankruptcy proceedings.
- HIMA and related entities filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in August 2023; Metro acquired the hospital's assets in November 2023 through a "free and clear" Sale Order issued by the federal bankruptcy court.
- In February 2024, Metro dismissed the employees, who claimed unjustified dismissal and sought severance (mesada) based on their total years of service, including time under prior ownership, per Puerto Rico's Law 80.
- Metro moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal bankruptcy court based on the Sale Order, which expressly released Metro from successor liability and employment claims.
- The Puerto Rico Court of First Instance (TPI) denied Metro’s motion, citing prior Puerto Rico Supreme Court precedent that asset sales in bankruptcy do not preclude employment claims against successor employers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: Whether the Puerto Rico Court (TPI) had jurisdiction over employment claims post-Sale Order | TPI has concurrent jurisdiction per Puerto Rico precedent | Only federal bankruptcy court has jurisdiction due to Sale Order | Court declined interlocutory review; jurisdiction remains with TPI |
| Successor Liability: Does a "free and clear" asset sale shield successors from employment claims (Law 80)? | Sale under bankruptcy doesn't bar successor liability | Sale Order explicitly removes successor liability and employment claims | Not decided—court declined to review interlocutory order |
| Application of Law 80 Antigüedad (seniority) | Law 80 applies, protecting seniority across ownerships | Law 80 inapplicable; period covered only by direct Metro employment | Not decided at this stage; issue left open for future determination |
| Review of Interlocutory Decision in Summary Proceeding | No exceptional grounds for interlocutory review | Interlocutory appeal necessary to prevent injustice | Denied—no exceptional grounds present for review |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodríguez v. Urban Brands, 167 D.P.R. 509 (2006) (held that an asset sale in bankruptcy does not preclude the application of successor employer doctrine and employment law claims under Puerto Rico law)
- Dávila Rivera v. Antilles Shipping Inc., 147 D.P.R. 483 (1999) (explains limitations and policy behind certiorari and interlocutory review in summary employment proceedings)