Figueroa Nieves, Carlos M v. Corporacion Del Fondo Del Seguro Del
KLRA202400395
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | Oct 2, 2024Background
- Carlos M. Figueroa Nieves was employed by the Corporación del Fondo del Seguro del Estado (CFSE), first as a transitory employee, then as a regular employee from September 1, 1996.
- Figueroa was granted two salary increases ("pasos por mérito") in 2000, retroactive to 1998, after applying for them in 1998.
- In 2007, CFSE discovered and notified Figueroa that the merit increases had been granted in error, due to mistakenly including his time as a transitory employee when computing the required three years of regular service; they sought to recover $7,743.70 paid in excess.
- Figueroa contested the recoupment, arguing the recovery was barred by improper legal process, lack of due process, prescription (timeliness), and that the error was a matter of law, not fact.
- The Junta de Apelaciones (Appeals Board) upheld the agency's position, Figueroa appealed to the Court of Appeals, and the court reviewed whether the Recovery was permissible under administrative and civil law standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the error of fact or law? | It was an error of law (regulation misinterpretation), so no recoupment. | It was an error of fact (miscalculating years), so recoupment allowed. | Court held it was error of fact; recoupment allowed. |
| Was the action prescribed (timeliness)? | Only 3 years to recover, so claim was prescribed. | Action has 15-year prescriptive period under civil law. | Court held 15-year term applies; action was timely. |
| Due process before salary deductions | Needed an informal hearing before deduction (due process violation). | No due process since erroneous benefit never created property right. | Court agreed: no due process right triggered here. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for summary ruling | Claimed factual disputes required a hearing. | No genuine dispute—facts showed improper payment. | Court found facts undisputed; summary resolution proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sepúlveda v. Departamento de Salud, 195 DPR 560 (P.R. 1998) (distinguished between error of fact and law for recovery of funds)
- ELA v. Crespo Torres, 180 DPR 776 (P.R. 2011) (adopted modern view allowing recovery for both factual and legal errors)
- Gonzalez v. ELA, 167 DPR 400 (P.R. 2006) (addressed similar administrative recoupment and prescriptive period)
- Rivera Padilla et al. v. OAT, 189 DPR 315 (P.R. 2013) (discussed effect of administrative error on employee rights)