KLRA202300332
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Sep 28, 2023Background
- Condo Council (Condominio Terrazas de San Juan) contracted Unlimited Construction to repair/remove damaged roof tiles after Hurricanes Irma and María; work included sealing and installing tiles over multiple buildings.
- Condo filed a complaint with DACo alleging Unlimited performed defective work that left persistent leaks; sought specific performance, damages, and, alternatively, payment under the performance bond.
- Administrative hearings were held; DACo found Unlimited breached the contract and ordered $10,200 in damages (34 flashing areas × $300), rejecting the DACo inspector’s cost estimate for failing to comply with Rule 14.4.
- Unlimited filed for reconsideration; DACo did not rule within the statutory period, and Unlimited sought administrative review in the Court of Appeals.
- Unlimited argued the record lacked proof of leaks, its expert engineer testified the work was properly performed, and DACo erred by discarding the inspector’s estimate and relying on the Condo’s contractor’s estimate.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed because Unlimited failed to provide a transcript or seek reproduction of the oral testimony, so it could not overcome the presumption of correctness accorded to DACo’s factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DACo’s finding that Unlimited’s work was defective is supported by substantial evidence | DACo relied on testimony and evidence showing incomplete sealing and need for additional flashing; costs documented | No evidence showed the worked areas leaked; expert testified work complied with contract | Affirmed — Court defers to agency findings; appellant failed to supply transcript to rebut evidence in record |
| Credibility of Unlimited’s expert testimony | Condo pointed to inspectors and contractor testimony supporting defects | Unlimited said its expert (engineer) was unchallenged and dispositive | Affirmed — appellate court will not reassess witness credibility absent transcript/reproduction of oral testimony |
| Use and substitution of cost estimates (inspector vs. contractor) | DACo used Condo’s contractor estimate after finding inspector’s report noncompliant with Rule 14.4 | Unlimited argued DACo erred in discarding inspector’s estimate, leaving no adequate evidentiary basis for the award | Affirmed — court found DACo’s cost determination permissible on the administrative record; appellant did not carry burden to show error |
| Procedural obligation to reproduce oral testimony for appellate review | Condo relied on administrative hearing record and agency findings | Unlimited failed to request transcription or move to reproduce oral testimony per appellate rules, yet challenged factual findings | Held against Unlimited — failure to provide transcript/motion to reproduce barred effective challenge to agency fact determinations; presumption of correctness stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Empresas Ferrer v. A.R.Pe., 172 D.P.R. 254 (explaining limits and purpose of LPAU judicial review)
- Domínguez v. Caguas Expressway Motor, 148 D.P.R. 387 (party must point to record evidence sufficient to overcome administrative findings)
- IFCO Recycling v. Autoridad de Desperdicios Sólidos, 184 D.P.R. 712 (deference to agencies yields when determinations are reasonable)
- Camacho Torres v. A.A.F.E.T., 168 D.P.R. 66 (transcript or reproduction of oral testimony required to challenge credibility findings)
- González Segarra v. CFSE, 188 D.P.R. 252 (reasonableness is the governing standard for reviewing administrative actions)
- Super Asphalt v. AFI, 206 D.P.R. 803 (substantial-evidence standard applies to review of agency fact findings)