Colon Burgos, Carlos Elyd v. Rivera Duran, Pedro
KLCE202500475
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...May 30, 2025Background:
- Carlos E. Colón Burgos and Xiomara S. Rivera Rodríguez (plaintiffs) claimed to be co-owners of several corporations (Versatech, Inc., Versatech Products, Inc., Prime Development Corp., Tu Farmacia Móvil Corp.) together with Pedro Rivera Durán (defendant).
- Plaintiffs alleged that there were oral agreements establishing 50-50 co-ownership and equal sharing of company profits and sought declarations reflecting this, judicial dissolution, and $3,000,000 in damages for breach of contract, breach of good faith, and tortious conduct.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss all claims, contesting the existence of the oral contract and plaintiffs’ right to relief.
- The trial court (TPI) denied the summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact about the existence of the oral agreements and other key matters, and allowed the case to proceed to trial.
- Defendants petitioned the Court of Appeals via certiorari to overturn the denial of summary judgment, arguing several errors by the TPI.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether oral agreements created equal ownership and profit-sharing rights | Plaintiffs claim equal co-ownership and equal division of corporate profits | Defendants deny binding oral contract and claim lack of evidence | Court found genuine factual disputes, must be tried |
| Whether Colón Burgos’s prior statement (employee, not shareholder) bars claims | Statement not determinative; oral agreement exists | Statement should preclude all plaintiff claims | Court rejected defendants’ argument |
| Whether Rivera Rodríguez can claim damages | Rivera Rodríguez claims damages stemming from torts beyond contract | She lacks standing; not party to any contract | Court allowed non-contractual damage claims |
| Whether dual recovery for contract and tort is allowed | Separate actions for breach and tort possible; no double recovery permitted | All tort claims are duplicative of contract claims, must be dismissed | Court: both allowed, but no duplicative compensation |
Key Cases Cited
- Jusino v. Walgreens, 155 DPR 560 (P.R. 2001) (explains summary judgment standards).
- Ramos v. Orientalist Rattan Furniture, Inc., 130 DPR 712 (P.R. 1992) (on election of remedies for damages).
- Maderas Tratadas v. Sun Alliance, 185 DPR 880 (P.R. 2012) (same conduct may give rise to contract and tort claims).
- Meléndez González v. M. Cuebas, 193 DPR 100 (P.R. 2015) (summary judgment appropriate only if no genuine issue of material fact).
- Vera v. Dr. Bravo, 161 DPR 308 (P.R. 2004) (limits on appellate review of summary judgment denials).