Inst De Competitividad Y Sostenibilidad v. Autoridad De Acueductos Y Alcantarillado
KLRA202400363
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Jul 31, 2024Background
- The plaintiffs (Instituto de Competitividad y Sostenibilidad Económica de Puerto Rico, Inc. and others) challenged the Authority of Aqueducts and Sewers of Puerto Rico’s (AAA) decision to increase water rates beginning July 1, 2022, as ordered by the Fiscal Oversight Board under PROMESA’s Fiscal Plan 2021.
- The AAA conducted the rate review per the requirements of the Ley 21, including the hiring of an independent examiner, public hearings, and subsequent recommendations.
- The AAA's Governing Board approved the new rates by resolution on June 3, 2022.
- Plaintiffs sought judicial review and argued the rate review process should have complied with the newer Uniform Administrative Procedure Act (LPAU), not Ley 21. They initially brought the matter to the trial court, which dismissed their claim for lack of jurisdiction.
- Subsequent appeals at the intermediate appellate and Supreme Court level affirmed the trial court, each time referencing applicable administrative procedure and exhaustion of remedies.
- Plaintiffs filed the administrative review at issue here more than 48 months after the AAA’s final resolution, and after the litigation had already worked through the Puerto Rican court system.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the LPAU govern the AAA's rate review? | Rate review should follow the LPAU, which supersedes Ley 21. | Ley 21 specifically governs AAA rate reviews and has not been repealed. | The process is governed by Ley 21, not LPAU. |
| Was the procedure for rate increases valid? | AAA failed to follow required procedural standards under LPAU and Ley 21. | AAA followed all procedural steps required by Ley 21 and the Fiscal Plan. | AAA followed required procedure under Ley 21. |
| Is the claim time-barred? | Challenge should be heard due to improper notice and jurisdictional issues. | Plaintiffs missed the applicable period for review; more than 48 months elapsed. | The action is time-barred; tribunal lacks jurisdiction. |
| Should prior determinations be set aside? | Previous rulings misapplied the law; court should reconsider prior outcomes. | Doctrine of law of the case—prior rulings are binding absent grave injustice. | Prior determinations stand; no grounds for reconsidering. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tormos Blandino v. MGMT., 135 DPR 573 (1994) (law of the case doctrine - prior firm judgments are binding and should not be revisited unless clearly erroneous or unjust)
- Meléndez Ortiz v. Valdejully, 120 DPR 1 (1987) (Ley 21 provides a “fair and uniform” procedure for rate setting in public corporations)
- Bird Construction Corp. v. Autoridad de Energía Eléctrica, 152 DPR 928 (2000) (final administrative orders must resolve all controversies to be reviewed)
- Molini Gronau v. Corp. P.R. Dif. Púb., 179 DPR 674 (2010) (proper notice is essential for due process in administrative determinations)