Castro Marquez, Elvin F v. Adm De Los Sistemas De Retiro De Los
KLRX202500013
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...May 16, 2025Background
- Elvin Francisco Castro Márquez (plaintiff) sought to obtain a pension for thirty years of government service in Puerto Rico, but was informed that some years were not credited due to missing contributions.
- In a 2022 Appellate Court decision, it was determined he was eligible for the pension upon payment for the uncredited service years, as calculated by the Retirement Board.
- The plaintiff disputed the Retirement Board's calculations, particularly the interest rate used for the non-credited period and sought intervention on this point.
- Various exchanges and proceedings followed, including administrative appeals, arguments over proper crediting and calculation, and multiple communications between the parties.
- Castro Márquez ultimately filed a petition for mandamus in 2025, asserting the Board had not complied with prior court orders and had delayed granting him his pension.
- The Retirement Board maintained that it had informed Castro Márquez of the necessary steps and amount owed, and that he must pay this to receive his pension benefit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eligibility for Pension | Castro qualifies after 30 years and Board must comply with prior judgment | Pension requires paying for years not contributed; Board has followed procedure | Court agreed plaintiff is eligible once payment is made, as previously ruled |
| Calculation of Amount Due | Board's calculation is incorrect, interest should be 6% per statute | Amount and interest used are appropriate, consistent with law | No finding of error in the Board’s calculation process |
| Failure to Execute Judgment | Board is delaying granting the pension contrary to court order | Board has provided instructions; plaintiff hasn’t completed payment | No mandamus relief as defects were not established; process not exhausted |
| Appropriateness of Mandamus Relief | Mandamus is proper to enforce clear ministerial duty | No jurisdiction—case is res judicata, no new adverse decision by Board | Petition denied; prerequisites for mandamus not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. Corte, 53 D.P.R. 575 (1938) (explains principles guiding the issuance of mandamus orders)
- Báez Galib v. Comisión Estatal de Elecciones, 152 D.P.R. 382 (2000) (clarifies distinction between ministerial and discretionary duties in mandamus actions)
- Partido Popular v. Junta de Elecciones, 62 D.P.R. 745 (1944) (holds mandamus cannot compel discretionary acts)