The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals ruled on May 28, 2026, to deny a request from attorney José Miguel Pérez Villanueva to take a deposition from Pablo Roldán Cordero, the defendant in a legal dispute over unpaid legal fees. This decision affects Pérez Villanueva's ability to represent himself effectively in his case, which centers on claims of breach of contract and damages.
The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of maintaining procedural order in legal proceedings. The decision is significant as it addresses the rights of self-represented attorneys in their own legal matters, highlighting the balance between personal interests and the integrity of the judicial process.
Background
The case involves José Miguel Pérez Villanueva, who filed a lawsuit against Pablo Roldán Cordero on October 21, 2025. Pérez Villanueva claims that Cordero owes him money for legal services rendered and seeks compensation for emotional distress. In response, Cordero denied owing any fees and counterclaimed that Pérez Villanueva actually owes him money for services provided.
The case was initially heard in the Aguada Superior Court, where Pérez Villanueva sought permission to take a deposition from Cordero. However, on March 19, 2026, the court issued an interlocutory ruling stating that Pérez Villanueva could not take the deposition himself. Instead, the court required that the deposition be conducted by his co-counsel, attorney Vélez Collazo.
Pérez Villanueva disagreed with this ruling and filed a motion for reconsideration on March 24, 2026, arguing that he had the right to take depositions as part of his legal representation. The Aguada Superior Court denied this motion on April 17, 2026, leading Pérez Villanueva to appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Brignoni Mártir and joined by Judges Salgado Schwarz and Aldebol Mora, reviewed Pérez Villanueva's request for certiorari. The court ultimately denied the request, stating, "the determination interlocutoria that we are requested to review does not deal with the denial of a dispositive motion nor with any matter contemplated in Rules 56 and 57 of Civil Procedure."
The court explained that the decision made by the lower court was within its discretion to manage the proceedings and maintain order. The judges noted that the lower court's decision was made to prevent the case from devolving into personal disputes that could distract from the legal issues at hand.
In their opinion, the judges emphasized the flexibility and discretion that trial judges have in managing their cases, stating, "the judges of the Court of First Instance have great flexibility and discretion for the handling and processing of the judicial matters presented before them." This ruling reinforces the idea that trial courts have the authority to regulate procedures to ensure fair and orderly proceedings.
Impact
This ruling has implications for attorneys who represent themselves in legal matters. It underscores the challenges they may face when trying to assert their rights while also navigating the complexities of legal procedures. The decision may serve as a precedent for future cases where self-represented attorneys seek to take depositions or engage in other legal actions in their own cases.
Moreover, the ruling highlights the balance that courts must strike between allowing attorneys to represent themselves and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process. It affirms that courts have the discretion to regulate how cases are handled, particularly in situations where personal interests may interfere with legal proceedings.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Pérez Villanueva plans to appeal this decision further. There is no indication of related cases pending that may impact this ruling.