Island Portfolio Services LLC v. Baez Rosario, Yadira
KLAN202401063
| Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue... | Mar 25, 2025Background
- Yadira Báez Rosario obtained a personal loan from Banco Popular de Puerto Rico, which was later assigned to Fairway Acquisitions Fund LLC (FAF); Island Portfolio Services (IPS) acted as FAF's collection agent.
- IPS filed a summary monetary claim against Báez Rosario under Rule 60 of Puerto Rico's Civil Procedure after alleging default on the loan.
- Báez Rosario raised various affirmative defenses, including prescription (statute of limitations), and requested supporting documentation.
- The trial court (TPI) ordered both parties to submit briefs on the prescription issue within 15 days, but neither complied.
- The TPI dismissed IPS's claim without prejudice due to noncompliance, prompting IPS to appeal and argue that conversion to ordinary procedure was required before dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dismissal was proper for failing to file briefs on the prescription issue | IPS argued that only Báez Rosario needed to brief first, as she raised the defense | Báez Rosario raised the prescription defense but also did not submit a brief | The court held dismissal was improper; it should have converted the process to ordinary before dismissal. |
| Whether dismissal without conversion to ordinary proceedings contravenes Rule 60 procedure | IPS asserted that TPI was required to consider conversion before imposing drastic sanctions | (No brief submitted on appeal) | Court agreed: Conversion to ordinary proceedings required before considering dismissal under Rule 60. |
| Application of sanctions for procedural noncompliance in summary procedure cases | IPS contended dismissal is the harshest sanction and should be last resort | (No brief submitted on appeal) | Court found desisting from immediate dismissal accords with policy favoring merits determinations. |
| Adequacy of notice and opportunity to cure before dismissal under procedural rules | IPS claimed no proper notice/opportunity as required by procedural rules | (No brief submitted on appeal) | Court noted procedural steps (notice/opportunity to cure) were mandatory before dismissal under Rule 39.2(a). |
Key Cases Cited
- Cooperativa v. Hernández Hernández, 205 DPR 624 (P.R. 2020) (summary procedures under Rule 60 require considering conversion to ordinary procedure before imposing the ultimate sanction of dismissal)
- Asoc. Res. Colinas Metro v. S.L.G., 156 DPR 88 (P.R. 2002) (Rule 60 designed for summary, efficient, and fair adjudication of small claims)
- Mercado Figueroa v. Mun. San Juan, 192 DPR 279 (P.R. 2017) (judicial policy favors merits-based adjudication over dismissal for procedural defaults)
- Mun. de Arecibo v. Almac. Yakima, 154 DPR 217 (P.R. 2001) (dismissal for procedural noncompliance only after opportunity to cure and proper notice)
- Maldonado v. Secretario de Rec. Naturales, 113 DPR 494 (P.R. 1982) (procedural fairness requires notice and opportunity before sanctioning with dismissal)