Cortes Cardona, Cesar Francisco v. Jorge Rojas Mercado H/N/C Secret Garden, KLRA202500114

Plaintiffs (Cortés Cardona and Galindo Portilla) contracted defendant (Rojas Mercado, doing business as Secret Garden) in 2021 to install a fish pond and irrigation system at their residence for $31,000.
The plaintiffs fully paid for the work, which was completed between July 2021 and January 2022.
The installation showed several construction defects: persistent water leaks, inadequate filtration, flooding, dying fish and plants, and increased water bills.
Plaintiffs incurred additional expenses attempting to rectify the issues, including replacing the pump, constructing a new wall, and buying new UV lights.
Plaintiffs filed an administrative complaint with DACo, seeking the return of money paid and reimbursement for further expenses; the DACo held a hearing, received evidence, and ruled in their favor, ordering defendant to pay $34,395.41 plus interest.
Defendant sought review in the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, challenging the evidence and application of law.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the contract breached by Rojas Mercado?	Rojas Mercado failed to repair defective work despite notice, requiring plaintiffs to expend more money.	He acted diligently; plaintiffs have benefited from (and still use) the work.	Defendant breached by not correcting defects or meeting contract guarantees.
Should the contract be rescinded and money refunded?	Plaintiffs are entitled to restitution and damages for non-performance and defective construction.	Refund would unjustly enrich plaintiffs who still use the system.	Contract rescission and full refund proper due to frustration of contract purpose and defective work.
Was judicial review of DACo decision proper?	Agency’s factual determinations based on credibility and evidence should be deferred to.	DACo failed to consider defendant's expert report; decision lacked proper analysis.	Agency findings based on credibility given deference; no clear error or prejudice found.
Is enrichment unjust since the system is still in use?	Plaintiffs had to incur significant expenses to remedy a non-functional system; no enrichment exists.	Refund is unjust because system and pond remain in use by plaintiffs.	Defendant did not establish the elements required for unjust enrichment defense.

Rolón Martínez v. Supte. Policía, 201 DPR 26 (P.R. 2018) (outlines deference to agency fact-finding)
Graciani Rodríguez v. Garaje Isla Verde, 202 DPR 117 (P.R. 2019) (judicial deference to agencies and sufficiency of evidence)
Constructora Bauzá, Inc. v. García López, 129 DPR 579 (P.R. 1991) (explains contractor obligations and contract rescission for defective work)
Álvarez v. Rivera, 165 DPR 1 (P.R. 2005) (standard for contract resolution due to partial or defective performance)
Master Concrete Corp. v. Fraya, S.E., 152 DPR 616 (P.R. 2000) (elaborates on damages for breach of service contracts)