Oficina de Asuntos Monopolísticos del Departamento de Justicia y otro v. Abarca Health, LLC
2025 TSPR 23
P.R.2025Background
- The Office of Monopolistic Affairs (OAM) of Puerto Rico’s Department of Justice filed an administrative complaint in December 2022 against Abarca Health, LLC (Abarca) for alleged violations of Article 3 of Puerto Rico’s Antitrust Act.
- OAM alleged that Abarca, as a pharmacy benefit manager for Triple-S Medicare Advantage, sent misleading communications to pharmacies regarding fee changes, claiming they were based on market studies that, according to OAM, did not exist.
- Abarca sought dismissal based on lack of jurisdiction, insufficient allegations, and expiration of the statute of limitations, arguing that the Antitrust Act provided a four-year prescriptive term, which had elapsed.
- DACo (Department of Consumer Affairs) denied the motion to dismiss without specific reasoning, prompting Abarca to simultaneously file for judicial review in both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeals, due to conflicting statutes about proper forum.
- The Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, finding DACo’s order was interlocutory and not judicially reviewable; Abarca then appealed to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court.
- The Supreme Court clarified the proper judicial review forum and whether a four-year statute of limitations applies to administrative antitrust actions under Article 3.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for judicial review of DACo antitrust adjudications | Abarca: Article 3(d) of Antitrust Act requires review in the Court of First Instance | OAM: LPAU, as later law, provides for review in Court of Appeals | Court of Appeals is the competent forum under LPAU |
| Applicability of prescriptive period to administrative complaints | Abarca: Four-year statute of limitations applies to admin actions under Antitrust Act | OAM: Four-year term acknowledged but not necessarily applicable based on discovery of harm | Four-year statute applies; begins at commission of act, not discovery |
| Judicial review of interlocutory agency decisions | Abarca: Review possible due to substantive defense (prescription) | OAM: Interlocutory orders not subject to review absent exception | Defense of prescription is an exception and merits interlocutory review |
| Whether OAM’s complaint was time-barred | Abarca: Complaint filed outside four-year period from challenged act | OAM: Discovery rule should apply; OAM learned of act later | Complaint was prescribed; discovery rule does not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Farmacias Moscoso, Inc. v. K-mart Corp., 138 DPR 497 (Sup. Ct. P.R. 1995) (re: judicial review forum and legislative repeal/interplay of administrative statutes)
- Fuentes Bonilla v. ELA et al., 200 DPR 364 (Sup. Ct. P.R. 2018) (LPAU's role in superseding inconsistent earlier statutes for judicial review)
- Perfect Cleaning v. Cardiovascular, 162 DPR 745 (Sup. Ct. P.R. 2004) (LPAU displaces incompatible agency procedures)