Cruz Vega, Jose a v. a De Acueductos Y Alcantarillados
KLRA202400310
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Jul 15, 2024Background
- José A. Cruz Vega contested the interim appointment of Mariangelys Viruet Díaz as Gerente de Compras (Purchasing Manager) in the Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AAA), arguing that she did not meet the minimum experience required for the position.
- Cruz Vega claimed he met all requirements for the post and was on the list of eligible candidates but was not considered for the interim appointment.
- AAA defended the appointment by citing its internal regulations, allowing interim appointments for employees with at least the required academic qualifications.
- The Office of Appeals of AAA ruled that the interim appointee must meet both academic and experience requirements, finding for Cruz Vega on the merits, and ordered that Viruet Díaz's interinato conclude when the decision became final.
- Cruz Vega sought broader remedies, including his own appointment to the post, back pay, and recognition of seniority/experience.
- AAA opposed, asserting such remedies exceeded the forum’s authority and pointing out that Cruz Vega's eligibility had expired before the interim opportunity arose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of interim appointment | Viruet Díaz did not meet minimum experience, so appointment was invalid | Internal rules allow appointments with academic requirements only | Appointment invalid for lack of full requirements; must conclude |
| Right to be appointed/interinato | As qualified and only claimant, Cruz Vega should be appointed | No acquired right to appointment; managerial prerogative | No right to appointment; decision to appoint is AAA’s prerogative |
| Retroactive remedies (pay, experience, benefits) | Entitled to back pay and experience as if he had filled the position | No right to benefits he never actually performed; not appropriate | Remedies denied; only interinato’s conclusion ordered |
| Effect of eligibility expiration | Remaining eligible entitles consideration; registry period should be honored | Eligibility expired before opportunity; no standing for appointment | Expiration of eligibility barred further claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Unlimited v. Mun. de Guaynabo, 183 DPR 947 (standard for judicial review of administrative discretion)
- Empresas Ferré v. A.R.Pe., 172 DPR 254 (scope and limits of reviewing agency actions)
- Pérez López v. Depto. Corrección, 208 DPR 656 (deference to agencies; arbitrary, illegal, or unreasonable abuse of discretion required for court intervention)
- Batista, Nobbe v. Jta. Directores, 185 DPR 206 (reviewing determinations of fact in the administrative record)
- Otero v. Toyota, 163 DPR 716 (substantial evidence standard in administrative matters)