Ross Valedón y otro v. Hospital Dr. Susoni Health Community Services, Corp. y otros
2024 TSPR 10
Supreme Court of Puerto Rico2024Background
- Elga Ross Valedón sued Hospital Dr. Susoni Health Community Services and others for alleged negligent medical treatment of her late daughter.
- The initial lawsuit was filed on February 19, 2021, but Ross Valedón did not serve defendants within the 120-day period required by Civil Procedure Rule 4.3(c).
- The trial court ordered Ross Valedón to show cause for failing to serve within the timeline; she instead moved to voluntarily dismiss the action without prejudice, which the court granted by judgment on November 1, 2021.
- On September 8, 2022, Ross Valedón filed a second, nearly identical lawsuit, arguing the limitations period was tolled by the initial suit and restarted upon the dismissal.
- Defendants moved to dismiss, contending the second suit was time-barred because the prescriptive period began when the 120 days to serve expired, not upon the court's dismissal order.
- The trial court denied dismissal; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the second action was prescribed. The Supreme Court reversed the appellate judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Ross Valedón’s Argument | Defendants’ Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When does the prescriptive period recommence after dismissal? | It starts from the judicial dismissal order becoming final | It starts when the 120-day service period expires | Starts when judicial order of dismissal becomes final |
| Is judicial intervention needed for dismissal under Rule 4.3(c)? | Yes; the court must enter a dismissal judgment | No; dismissal is automatic upon lapse of 120 days | Judicial intervention and order are required |
| Can plaintiff withdraw the case after missing the 120 days? | Yes, via voluntary dismissal motion under Rule 39.1(a) | No, only dismissal under Rule 4.3(c) applies | Court must dismiss under Rule 4.3(c), not voluntary withdrawal |
| Did the second complaint meet the prescriptive term? | Yes, filed within a year of first judgment’s finality | No, it was filed over a year after service period lapsed | Second suit was timely, as the period restarted after first dismissal’s finality |
Key Cases Cited
- Bernier González v. Rodríguez Becerra, 200 DPR 637 (P.R. 2018) (rule on strict 120-day service timeline and non-extendability)
- Sánchez Ruiz v. Higueras Pérez, 203 DPR 982 (P.R. 2020) (computation of service term under Rule 4.3)
- Pérez Quiles v. Santiago Calderón, 206 DPR 379 (P.R. 2021) (service term begins from date of issuance)
- Martajeva v. Ferre Morris, 210 DPR 612 (P.R. 2022) (suspension of service period in certain procedural contexts)
- Silva Wiscovich v. Weber Dental Mfg. Co., 119 DPR 550 (P.R. 1987) (effect of voluntary dismissal on prescriptive periods)