The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by Ernesto Ruiz Romero against Iván Ayala Cruz and the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico (PUCPR). The court ruled that Ruiz Romero's claims were time-barred, meaning he waited too long to file his case. This decision affects Ruiz Romero, who sought damages related to legal representation and interference in his previous legal actions.
The case, identified as TA2026AP00692, originated when Ruiz Romero filed a complaint on August 11, 2025, alleging that Ayala Cruz, his attorney, failed to file a lawsuit on his behalf against PUCPR and St. James Security. Ruiz Romero claimed that he had warned Ayala Cruz about the expiration of the statute of limitations, but the attorney did not file the lawsuit and later returned the fees paid. Ruiz Romero argued that PUCPR interfered with Ayala Cruz's ability to file the lawsuit.
The dispute began in 2016 when Ruiz Romero first filed a lawsuit regarding the same issues but later withdrew it without prejudice in 2018. This earlier action was crucial because it established a one-year statute of limitations for any subsequent claims based on the same facts. Ruiz Romero contended that his previous withdrawal was involuntary and that he was unable to file a new lawsuit until April 20, 2025, due to legal restrictions stemming from a separate criminal matter.
After several legal proceedings, the lower court dismissed Ruiz Romero's case on May 15, 2026, agreeing with the motions to dismiss filed by Ayala Cruz and PUCPR. The court found that Ruiz Romero had filed his new lawsuit seven years after withdrawing his earlier complaint, well beyond the one-year statute of limitations. The court stated, "Due to the fact that the action was filed seven (7) years later, the primary court concluded that it was time-barred." This ruling was made by a panel of judges, including Judge Hernández Sánchez, Judge Rivera Torres, and Judge Marrero Guerrero.
The court's ruling confirmed that Ruiz Romero's claims were indeed subject to the one-year statute of limitations for extracontractual actions, which includes claims of negligence against attorneys. The court emphasized that the previous lawsuit interrupted the statute of limitations, but once it was withdrawn without prejudice, a new one-year period began. Since Ruiz Romero did not file his new complaint within that timeframe, the court found his claims were barred.
This ruling has significant implications for Ruiz Romero and others in similar situations. It reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines when filing legal claims. The court's decision highlights the principle that failing to act within the prescribed time limits can result in the loss of the right to pursue legal action. This case serves as a reminder for individuals to remain vigilant about their legal rights and the timelines associated with them.
Looking ahead, Ruiz Romero may have limited options for appeal, as the court's ruling appears to be final unless new evidence or legal grounds arise. There is currently no indication of any related cases pending that could affect this ruling. The court's decision stands as a precedent for similar cases involving the statute of limitations and the responsibilities of legal representation.