KLRA202400479
Tribunal De Apelaciones De Pue...Mar 28, 2025Background
- Alice Rodríguez Meléndez contracted with Expo Kitchen & More Distributors, Inc. for the installation and fabrication of kitchen cabinets, fascia, and a kitchenette in her home.
- After installation, Rodríguez Meléndez noticed multiple defects, including misaligned drawers and doors, poor finishes, and issues with the fascia and countertops.
- She filed a complaint with the Department of Consumer Affairs (DACo), triggering multiple inspections and opportunities for Expo Kitchen to correct the defects.
- DACo conducted two inspections (with different inspectors), both identifying substantial defects, and ultimately held an administrative hearing, including an on-site inspection.
- DACo ruled in favor of Rodríguez Meléndez, ordering Expo Kitchen to pay $16,022.56 and to remove the defective kitchen cabinets. Expo Kitchen sought judicial review, challenging the sufficiency and evaluation of the evidence and the appropriateness of the remedy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DACo properly evaluated the evidence regarding the cause and extent of defects | Defects predated any third-party modifications and were documented by photos and testimony | Defects were caused by third-party work (removal of island and floor changes) after initial installation | DACo's factual findings were supported by substantial evidence; no error |
| Whether DACo exceeded its authority by ordering full refund and removal (de facto treating work as a total loss) | Remedy appropriate given persistent, substantial defects; possible under DACo's powers | Remedy was not requested and excessive; less drastic measures should have been taken | DACo authorized to issue appropriate remedies, even beyond those specifically requested |
| Whether DACo adequately considered all documentary and testimonial evidence | Substantial evidence was presented and considered, including inspection reports and photos | DACo failed to detail all evidence and its findings were not fully supported | DACo considered relevant evidence; findings were supported and properly explained |
| Whether the administrative adjudication was arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence | No; findings and remedies were based on adequate evidence and witness credibility | Yes; DACo disregarded contrary expert evidence and did not fairly weigh all proof | No arbitrariness found; the agency's decision was entitled to deference |
Key Cases Cited
- Capó Cruz v. Junta de Planificación, 204 DPR 581 (P.R. 2020) (administrative agency decisions are presumed correct and entitled to deference)
- García Reyes v. Cruz Auto Corp., 173 DPR 870 (P.R. 2008) (agency factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Otero v. Toyota, 163 DPR 716 (P.R. 2005) ("substantial evidence" means evidence a reasonable mind could accept to support a conclusion)
- Domínguez v. Caguas Expressway Motors, Inc., 148 DPR 387 (P.R. 1999) (burden on the challenger to show the administrative decision is not supported by substantial evidence)
- Suárez Figueroa v. Sabanera Real, Inc., 173 DPR 694 (P.R. 2008) (DACo's broad remedial powers in consumer protection actions)