Ruiz Colon, Julio v. a De Carreteras Y Transportacion De Pr, KLAN201901135

Julio Ruiz Colón sued the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (ACT) initially for money owed regarding construction work done for an expropriation project.
The lawsuit was subsequently amended to add José A. Lugo Lugo and JAL Outlet, Inc. as defendants based on their contractual involvement and benefitting from the work.
The ACT’s involvement in bankruptcy proceedings under PROMESA led to the case being administratively stayed as to ACT, but the case proceeded against the other defendants.
The San Juan Superior Court granted summary judgment to Ruiz Colón, ordering defendants to pay $360,000 plus costs, interest, and attorney fees, but the dispositive section omitted JAL Outlet, Inc.; this was later corrected nunc pro tunc.
Lugo and JAL Outlet appealed, arguing they were not served timely and that the amended judgment issued in 2019 restarted their time to appeal.
The Court of Appeals focused on whether it had jurisdiction to review the appeal, given the timing related to the nunc pro tunc amendment.

Issue	Ruiz Colón's Argument	Lugo/JAL Outlet's Argument	Held
Whether defendants were properly notified and served timely	All defendants were served within 120 days as required.	They were not served timely; improper notification.	Court found service/notification adequate and previously decided by TPI.
Whether omission of JAL Outlet, Inc. in initial dispositive section was a substantive error or mere formality	Omission was just an error of form, not substance—the merits found both liable.	The omission made the amended judgment a new, appealable order.	Amendment was mere formality (nunc pro tunc); did not restart appeal clock.
Whether the time to appeal restarted with nunc pro tunc amendment	N/A (argued time had run out)	Time to appeal should run from amended judgment.	Time runs from original judgment; appeal was untimely.
Whether appeal should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction	N/A	Appeal was timely and should be considered.	Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to late filing.

JMG Investment, Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, 203 DPR 708 (duty of courts to evaluate their own jurisdiction even when not raised by parties)
Ruiz Camilo v. Trafon Group, Inc., 200 DPR 254 (jurisdictional issues must be addressed prior to other matters)
Yumac Home v. Empresas Massó, 194 DPR 96 (jurisdictional terms are fatal and insubstantial)
Horizon Media v. Jta. Revisora, RA Holdings, 191 DPR 228 (courts cannot assume jurisdiction where none exists)
Otero Vélez v. Schroder Muñoz, 200 DPR 76 (Rule 49.1 allows correction of errors of form at any time)
Lawton v. Rodríguez, 41 DPR 447 (nunc pro tunc amendments are valid for correcting clerical errors; do not restart appellate clock)
Security Insurance Co. v. Tribunal Superior, 101 DPR 191 (authority for nunc pro tunc corrections of judgments)