In a recent ruling, the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals confirmed a lower court's decision favoring David Quiñones Román, a contractor who claimed Alejandro Figueroa Vélez owed him money for construction work. The court's decision, issued on June 4, 2026, affects contractors and clients involved in similar disputes over payment and contract enforcement.
The case, docketed as TA2026AP00414, arose from a dispute between Quiñones and Figueroa regarding a construction project in Isabela, Puerto Rico. Quiñones filed a lawsuit against Figueroa for $4,169.25, claiming he was owed for work performed on a house. Figueroa countered with a reconvención, or counterclaim, alleging Quiñones had not fulfilled his contractual obligations.
The dispute began when Quiñones was hired to construct a house for Figueroa. They had agreed on a payment structure based on the completion of various stages of the project. However, during the third stage of construction, Figueroa barred Quiñones from continuing the work, claiming the contractor had not obtained the necessary permits and had not addressed issues with the construction.
After a trial in the Aguadilla Superior Court, the judge ruled in favor of Quiñones, ordering Figueroa to pay him $3,262.00 plus $2,500.00 in attorney's fees for acting in bad faith. Figueroa appealed the decision, arguing that the trial court had made several errors, including not allowing him to question Quiñones about his registration as a contractor.
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Romero GarcÃa and joined by Judges Sánchez Ramos and Pérez Ocasio, reviewed the case. They found that the trial court had acted correctly in its rulings and that Figueroa's arguments did not hold sufficient weight. The court stated, "We confirm the Sentencia apelada," affirming the lower court's decision.
In their ruling, the appellate judges noted that the trial court had credible evidence supporting Quiñones' claim. They highlighted that Figueroa had failed to provide evidence of any construction defects or negligence on Quiñones' part. The court emphasized that the contract had been valid, regardless of Figueroa's claims about Quiñones' registration status.
The appellate court's decision reinforces the importance of contractual agreements in construction projects. It clarifies that a contractor's registration status does not automatically invalidate a contract unless explicitly stated in law or prior case rulings. The judges pointed out that the lack of registration does not nullify the obligations established by the contract, stating, "The obligations that arise from these must be fulfilled according to the terms agreed upon."
This ruling has significant implications for contractors and clients in Puerto Rico. It establishes a precedent that emphasizes the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the need for clear communication between parties involved in construction projects. The court's decision may encourage contractors to pursue claims for unpaid work, knowing that the courts will uphold valid contracts even in the face of disputes over licensing or permits.
Looking ahead, Figueroa may seek further legal recourse, although the court's ruling is a strong affirmation of Quiñones' rights as a contractor. The case illustrates the complexities of construction law and the necessity for both parties to understand their rights and obligations under the contract. As of now, there are no indications of related cases pending that could further impact this area of law.