Rivera Velazquez, Deborah v. Sci Puerto Rico I
KLCE202500215
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Mar 28, 2025Background
- Deborah Rivera Velázquez and others sued SCI Puerto Rico I and related parties for breach of contract and damages stemming from the burial arrangements at Cementerio La Resurrección.
- The dispute began when Rivera Velázquez was denied authorization to arrange her relative's burial, allegedly due to contractual ambiguities regarding the burial spaces and the co-ownership with Mr. Rivera Carcaña, who was incapacitated.
- Rivera Velázquez secured a preliminary injunction to proceed with the burial, then claimed the burial had been handled incorrectly, reducing available spaces and that maintenance obligations were not met.
- After several procedural motions, Rivera Velázquez filed to have Judge Morales Gómez recused, claiming the judge had demonstrated partiality/prejudgment during a hearing on September 6, 2024.
- The trial court denied the recusal motion, finding that the judge’s statements were judicial in nature, not evidence of personal bias or misconduct. A motion for reconsideration was similarly denied, leading to the present certiorari action before the appellate court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Rivera Velázquez) | Defendant's Argument (SCI Puerto Rico I) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Judge's recusal for partiality/prejudgment | Judge Morales Gómez prejudged the case with comments suggesting decision on key facts | No proof of bias; judge's statements were judicial, not personal | No recusal; challenged statements were legal/judicial, not personal bias |
| Judge's denial of peritaje (expert evidence) | Judge wrongfully limited scope, predetermining relevance of health regulations | Objection to recusal attempt after unfavorable legal ruling; not evidence of prejudice | Not a ground for recusal; attack should be via appeal, not judicial disqualification |
| Consolidation of related proceedings | Judge showed bias by deciding against consolidation and not fully considering arguments | Judge properly exercised discretion; two cases at distinct procedural stages | No abuse of discretion; consolidation decision was reasoned and within judicial prerogative |
| Assignment of recusal motion to same judge | Letting judge who denied previous recusal decide subsequent motion tainted process | No conflict; proper procedure followed for judicial assignments | No procedural error found; assignments complied with procedural rules |
Key Cases Cited
- Rivera et al. v. Arcos Dorados et al., 212 DPR 194 (addressing certiorari as extraordinary review remedy)
- Torres González v. Zaragoza Meléndez, 211 DPR 821 (criteria for appellate certiorari review)
- Caribbean Orthopedics v. Medshape et al., 207 DPR 994 (standards for discretion on certiorari)
- Pueblo v. Rivera Montalvo, 205 DPR 352 (proper scope for appellate intervention)
- Ruiz v. Pepsico P.R., Inc., 148 DPR 586 (recusal requires personal bias/serious issue, not merely judicial disagreement)