Marquez, Fernando v. Puerto Rico Telephone Company, KLAN202400066

This case involves a class action lawsuit against Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) by various consumer and business classes, alleging that PRTC illegally charged a monthly fee for the "tele-tecla" (touchtone) service not based on cost, in violation of the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Act (Law 213-1996).
Plaintiffs sought reimbursement of approximately $105 million plus costs and damages for charges levied between September 1996 and November 2003.
The case bounced between the Bayamón Superior Court and the Puerto Rico Telecommunications Regulatory Board (JRT) due to jurisdictional amendments to the statute during the litigation.
In December 2023, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, basing its ruling on the plaintiffs' expert report and prior administrative case admissions by PRTC.
PRTC appealed, arguing summary judgment was procedurally premature, that there were genuine issues of material fact, and that certain evidence (notably from settlement talks and expert reports) was improperly admitted or relied upon.
The appeals court revoked the partial summary judgment, finding the trial court erred by ruling before discovery was complete and by considering inadmissible settlement evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was summary judgment appropriate before discovery closed?	Sufficient uncontested facts, discovery was sufficient	Needed more time for discovery, open issues remain	Judgment was premature; discovery should have been completed.
Admissibility of evidence from prior settlement/administrative case	Prior statements by PRTC establish illegality of charge	Such evidence is inadmissible (settlement privilege)	Evidence from settlement negotiations was inadmissible for supporting summary judgment.
Application of collateral estoppel (issue preclusion)	PRTC's prior case admissions estop it from re-litigating issue	Could not have litigated fully, not the losing party	Collateral estoppel did not apply—issues not previously litigated and lost by PRTC.
Need for perito (expert) testimony at summary judgment stage	Uncontested expert analysis, further testimony unnecessary	Both parties' experts needed to be heard in full	Premature to exclude expert testimony before completion of discovery and cross-examinations.

Rivera y otros v. Banco Popular, 152 DPR 140 (emphasizes wide latitude in discovery to ensure fairness and prevent surprises)
Pérez v. El Vocero de P.R., 149 DPR 427 (addresses when summary judgment is premature if discovery is incomplete)
Carpets & Rugs v. Tropical Reps, 175 DPR 615 (explains the boundaries of admissibility for settlement negotiations and issue preclusion)
Valentín v. Municipio de Añasco, 145 DPR 887 (due process implicated by premature restriction on proof and testimony)