A Puerto Rico court recently issued a ruling in the case of EC Waste, LLC v. Julio E. Báez López, modifying a previous decision that required Báez López to pay over $4,600 to the waste management company. This ruling affects individuals and businesses involved in similar contract disputes, particularly those concerning payment obligations.

The case began when EC Waste filed a lawsuit against Báez López on December 9, 2025, for the collection of money under Rule 60 of the Civil Procedure Rules. EC Waste claimed that Báez López had failed to pay for solid waste collection services provided under a contract signed on February 18, 2019. The company stated that Báez López owed $4,671.06, which was the amount of unpaid invoices. They sought a court order for the payment of this sum, along with attorney fees and interest.

After proper notification, a court hearing took place on June 16, 2026. Báez López, who appeared without legal representation, indicated that he was willing to establish a payment plan but needed to verify the amount owed. The court rescheduled the hearing to allow him to prepare. On March 16, 2026, he submitted a response to the lawsuit, admitting to signing the contract and acknowledging the debt but claiming that there were issues regarding the payment terms and previous communications.

During the court proceedings, it was noted that Báez López did not attend the June hearing, and EC Waste informed the court that he had recognized the debt and was making partial payments. The court then issued a ruling in favor of EC Waste, ordering Báez López to pay the full amount claimed, plus additional costs and attorney fees.

On June 24, 2026, Báez López filed a request for reconsideration, arguing that he had been unable to attend the hearing due to mental health issues and had communicated his absence to the court. He also claimed to have made partial payments of $700 towards the debt, which he believed should be considered in the final judgment.

The court examined Báez López's claims and the circumstances surrounding his absence. It found that he had indeed made payments and that the original ruling had not accounted for these. The court noted that the debt was liquid and due, meaning it could be demanded for payment, but it also recognized the payments made by Báez López.

The court ruled, “We conclude that the balance of a certain amount, which is also enforceable, results from the comparison of the principal charge with the discount of the payments credited by the debtor before the notification of the sentence.” This statement highlighted the court's acknowledgment of the payments made and the need to adjust the total owed accordingly.

Furthermore, the court addressed the imposition of attorney fees, which Báez López contested. It concluded that there was no evidence that he acted with bad faith or frivolously during the proceedings, which would warrant such fees. As a result, the court eliminated the $1,000 in attorney fees that had been previously ordered.

In summary, the court modified the original ruling by reducing the amount Báez López owed to $3,971.06, after accounting for the $700 he had already paid. The court also removed the attorney fees, stating, “We modify the sentence issued by the TPI to the only effects of discounting the payments made by the appellant ($700.00) and eliminate the imposition of attorney fees ($1,000.00).” This modification confirmed the judgment in all other respects.

This ruling is significant as it clarifies the application of Rule 60 in Puerto Rico's civil procedure, particularly in cases involving payment disputes. It emphasizes the importance of considering partial payments in determining the total amount owed and reinforces the need for evidence of bad faith when imposing attorney fees.

Looking ahead, this case may influence similar disputes where individuals or businesses face collection actions. It highlights the importance of communication and documentation in legal proceedings, especially regarding payment agreements and obligations. The decision could serve as a precedent for future cases involving contract disputes and the enforcement of payment terms.

As for next steps, it remains to be seen whether Báez López will appeal the decision or if there are related cases pending in the court system. The court's ruling has set a standard for how similar cases may be handled in the future, particularly regarding the treatment of payments made and the justification for attorney fees.