UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

In re:

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND 

MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO,

as representative of

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, et 

al.,

Debtors.1

PROMESA

Title III

No. 17 BK 3283-LTS

(Jointly Administered)

This filing relates to the 

Commonwealth, ERS, and PBA.

REPLY OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, THE EMPLOYEES 

RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF

PUERTO RICO, AND THE PUERTO RICO PUBLIC BUILDINGS AUTHORITY TO 

RESPONSES [ECF NOS. 19830, 19831, 19889, 21122, 21123, 21465, 21686, 23118] TO 

THE THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY-FIRST OMNIBUS OBJECTION (SUBSTANTIVE)

TO EMPLOYEE CLAIMS ASSERTING LIABILITIES OWED BY ENTITIES THAT 

ARE NOT TITLE III DEBTORS

To the Honorable United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain:

Pursuant to the Court’s Order Concerning Unresolved Responses to Certain Omnibus 

Objections to Claims, dated January 11, 2023 [ECF No. 23238 (the “Order”)], the Commonwealth 

 1 The Debtors in these Title III Cases, along with each Debtor’s respective Title III case 

number and the last four (4) digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number, as applicable, 

are the (i) Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 

3283-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3481); (ii) Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing 

Corporation (“COFINA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 3284-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal 

Tax ID: 8474); (iii) Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority (“HTA”) (Bankruptcy 

Case No. 17 BK 3567-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3808); (iv) Employees 

Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”) (Bankruptcy 

Case No. 17 BK 3566-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 9686); (v) Puerto Rico Electric 

Power Authority (“PREPA”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 17 BK 4780-LTS) (Last Four Digits of 

Federal Tax ID: 3747); and (vi) Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority (“PBA”, and together with 

the Commonwealth, COFINA, HTA, ERS, and PREPA, the “Debtors”) (Bankruptcy Case No. 19-

BK-5523-LTS) (Last Four Digits of Federal Tax ID: 3801) (Title III case numbers are listed as 

Bankruptcy Case numbers due to software limitations).

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 11
2

of Puerto Rico (the “Commonwealth”), the Employees Retirement System of the Government of 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (“ERS”), and the Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority 

(“PBA,” and together with the Commonwealth and ERS, the “Debtors”), by and through the 

Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico (the “Oversight Board”), as the 

Debtors’ sole Title III representative pursuant to Section 315(b) of the Puerto Rico Oversight, 

Management, and Economic Stability Act (“PROMESA”),2 file this reply (the “Reply”) to certain 

Unresolved Responses (as defined in the Order) and in support of the Three Hundred Eighty-First 

Omnibus Objection (Substantive) of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, The Employees Retirement 

System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Puerto Rico Public 

Buildings Authority to Employee Claims Asserting Liabilities Owed By Entities That Are Not Title 

III Debtors [ECF No. 17917] (the “Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus Objection”), and 

respectfully state as follows: 

1. On August 20, 2021, the Debtors filed the Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus 

Objection seeking to disallow claims associated with allegedly unpaid wages or other employment 

benefits purportedly owed by entities that are not Title III debtors, each as listed on Exhibit A 

thereto (the “Claims to Be Disallowed”). Each of the Claims to Be Disallowed fails to comply 

with the applicable rules because they do not provide a basis for asserting a claim against the 

Commonwealth or any other Title III Debtor for liabilities purportedly owed by entities that are 

not Title III Debtors. 

2. Any party who disputed the Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus Objection was 

required to file a response by 4:00 p.m. (Atlantic Standard Time) on September 20, 2021 (the 

“Omnibus Objection Response Deadline”), in accordance with the Court-approved notices 

 2 PROMESA is codified at 48 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2241.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 11
3

attached to the Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus Objection as Exhibit C, which were served 

in English and Spanish on the individual creditors subject to the Three Hundred Eighty-First 

Omnibus Objection, the U.S. Trustee, and the Master Service List (as defined in the Fifteenth 

Amended Case Management Procedures [ECF No. 17127-1]). See Certificate of Service [ECF 

No. 17989]. 

3. Subsequently, at various hearings, the Debtors prosecuted, and the Court sustained, 

the Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus Objection as to certain claims associated with claimants 

who responded to the Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus Objection by the Omnibus Objection 

Response Deadline.

4. Thereafter, on May 24, 2022, the Debtors filed the Notice of Presentment of 

Proposed Order Granting the Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus Objection (Substantive) of 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Puerto Rico Public Buildings Authority to Employee 

Claims Asserting Liabilities Owed by Entities That Are Not Title III Debtors [ECF No. 20979 (the 

“Notice of Presentment”)]. Any party who objected to the Notice of Presentment was required to 

file a response by 4:00 p.m. (Atlantic Standard Time) on May 31, 2022 (the “Notice of Presentment 

Response Deadline,” and together with the Omnibus Objection Response Deadline, the “Response 

Deadlines”). 

5. On January 11, 2023, the Court issued the Order. Among other things, the Order 

directed the Commonwealth to file replies in support of the Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus 

Objection on or before February 2, 2023, at 5:00 p.m. (Atlantic Standard Time), to any Unresolved 

Responses to the Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus Objection that (i) were dated on or before 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 11
4

the Response Deadlines and were filed within thirty (30) days of the Response Deadlines, or (ii) 

proffer any reason for being filed after the Response Deadlines. 

6. Upon a thorough review of the docket in the Commonwealth’s Title III case, the 

Oversight Board identified the following responses to the Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus 

Objection that meet the criteria set forth in the Order:

a) Reply to Omnibus Objection [ECF No. 19830] (the “Torres Escobar Response”) 

filed by Arnaldo Torres Escobar (“Torres Escobar”);

b) Reply to Omnibus Objection [ECF No. 19831] (the “Lugo González Response”) 

filed by Sandra Lugo González (“Lugo González”);

c) Reply to Omnibus Objection [ECF No. 19889] (the “Morales Martínez Response”) 

filed by Myra Morales Martínez (“Morales Martínez”);

d) Reply to Omnibus Objection [ECF No. 21122] (the “Cintrón González Response”) 

filed by Doris Cintrón González (“Cintrón González”);

e) Reply to Omnibus Objection [ECF No. 21123] (the “Villanueva Correa Response”) 

filed by Mayra Ivelisse Villanueva Correa (“Villanueva Correa”);

f) Reply to Omnibus Objection [ECF No. 21465] (the “Vega Vargas Response”) filed 

by Reynaldo Vega Vargas (“Vega Vargas”);

g) Reply to Omnibus Objection [ECF No. 21686] (the “Santos Santiago Response”) 

filed by Marta E. Santos Santiago (“Santos Santiago”);

h) Reply to Omnibus Objection [ECF No. 23118] (the “Fare Santiago Response,” and 

together with the Torres Escobar Response, the Lugo González Response, the 

Morales Martínez Response, the Cintrón González Response, the Villanueva

Correa Response, the Vega Vargas Response, and the Santos Santiago Response, 

the “Responses”), filed by Zulma I. Fare Santiago (“Fare Santiago,” and together 

with Torres Escobar, Lugo González, Morales Martínez, Cintrón González, 

Villanueva Correa, Vega Vargas, and Santos Santiago, the “Claimants”).

7. Each of the Responses contained a completed, Spanish-language response form 

(the “Response Form”) which asserted, among other things:

The court should not grant the Omnibus Objection, because the[] 

[claimed] amounts are owed based on the following laws passed by 

the government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico: 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 11
5

Act 89 Romerazo – Effective July 1, 1995 

June 6, 2008 Pay Scale Act – Step Increases 

Act 96 (2002) of Dr. Pedro Rosello – effective July 2002 

Act 164 (2004) of Ms. Sila M. Calderón, effective January 2004

See, e.g., Torres Escobar Response at 1.

8. Each of the Responses also asserted that each Claimant worked for the Puerto Rico 

Telephone Company (the “Telephone Company”) and provided additional information, and, in 

some instances, supporting documentation demonstrating Claimants’ employment, either at the 

Telephone Company or at Claro, the successor entity to the Telephone Company. 

9. Furthermore, each of the Responses included a boilerplate statement 

acknowledging the untimeliness of each Response, but explaining the Response was “sent on 

today’s date” “[d]ue to the recent emergency situation in Puerto Rico brought on by earthquakes 

and COVID-19.” See, e.g., Torres Escobar Response at 2.

I. Overview of the Responses

a. The Torres Escobar Response

10. Torres Escobar filed a proof of claim against the Commonwealth on September 2, 

2020, logged by Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC (“Kroll”) as Proof of Claim No. 174947

(the “Torres Escobar Claim”). The Torres Escobar Claim purports to assert liabilities in an amount 

of $8,400.00 associated with allegedly accrued, but unpaid, wages purportedly owed by the

Telephone Company. 

11. The Torres Escobar Response, which consists of a completed Response Form and 

accompanying letter and supporting documentation, is dated January 13, 2022, and was filed on 

January 18, 2022. Therein, Torres Escobar contends (1) he worked for the Telephone Company 

“from January 27, 1992 [] through the present” (Torres Escobar Response at 2); (2) “[t]he Puerto 

Rico Telephone Company belonged to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico until 1999 when the 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 5 of 11
6

incumbent governor of the party in power sold it” (id. at 3); and (3) the Torres Escobar Claim “is 

based on the money owed for increases under some laws that were signed during the period that 

[the Telephone Company] belonged to the Government of PR (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico)” 

(id.). The Torres Escobar Response also enclosed an employment certification from Claro 

asserting Torres Escobar worked in the corporate services department at Claro as an “Inst/Rep 

tables/SE II.” [ECF No. 19830-1.]

b. The Lugo González Response

12. Lugo González filed a proof of claim against the Commonwealth on September 2, 

2020, logged by Kroll as Proof of Claim No. 174946 (the “Lugo González Claim”). The Lugo 

Gonzalez claim purports to assert liabilities in an amount of $8,400.00 associated with allegedly 

accrued, but unpaid, wages purportedly owed by the Telephone Company.

13. The Lugo González Response, which consists of a completed Response Form and 

accompanying letter and supporting documentation, is dated January 13, 2022 and was filed on 

January 18, 2022. Therein, Lugo González contends (1) she worked for the Telephone Company 

“from March 23, 1992 [] through the present” (Lugo González Response at 2); (2) “[t]he Puerto 

Rico Telephone Company belonged to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico until 1999 when the 

incumbent governor of the party in power sold it” (id. at 3); and (3) the Lugo González Claim “is 

based on the money owed for increases under some laws that were signed during the period that 

[the Telephone Compay] belonged to the Government of PR (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico)” 

(id.). The Lugo González Response also enclosed a certificate regarding Lugo González’s 

employment in Claro’s comptroller’s office. [ECF No. 19831-1.]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 6 of 11
7

c. The Morales Martínez Response 

14. Morales Martínez filed a proof of claim against the Commonwealth on September 3, 

2020, logged by Kroll as Proof of Claim No. 175005 (the “Morales Martínez Claim”). The 

Morales Martínez Claim purports to assert liabilities in an amount of $14,400.00 associated with 

allegedly accrued, but unpaid, wages purportedly owed by the Telephone Company. 

15. The Morales Martínez Response, which consists of a completed Response Form and 

accompanying letter, is dated January 18, 2022 and was filed on January 24, 2022. Therein, 

Morales Martínez states (1) she worked for the Telephone Company “from August 15, 1987 to the 

present” (Morales Martínez Response at 2); (2) “[t]he Puerto Rico Telephone Company belonged 

to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico until 1999 when the incumbent governor of the party in 

power sold it” (id. at 3); and (3) the Morales Martínez Claim “is based on the money owed for 

increases under some laws that were signed during the period that [the Telephone Company]

belonged to the Government of PR (Commonwealth of Puerto Rico)” (id.).

d. The Cintrón González Response

16. Cintrón González filed a proof of claim against the Commonwealth on July 22, 2020, 

logged by Kroll as Proof of Claim No. 174476 (the “Cintrón González Claim”). The Cintrón 

González Claim purports to assert liabilities in an undetermined amount associated with allegedly 

accrued, but unpaid, wages purportedly owed by the Telephone Company. 

17. The Cintrón González Response, which consists of a completed Response Form with 

a hand-written postscript, is dated June 3, 2022 and was filed on June 6, 2022. Therein, Cintrón 

González (1) states she worked for the Telephone Company “from the 23rd of May 1988 through 

the [] present” (Cintrón González Response at 2); and (2) asserts “I do not agree with my claim 

being dismissed, due to the fact that it is based on money that is owed based on a pay raise under 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 7 of 11
8

laws that were enacted during the time that [the Telephone Company] was an agency of the 

government of P.R. As such, it was a government agency until 1999” (id.).

e. The Villanueva Correa Response

18. Villanueva Correa filed a proof of claim against the Commonwealth on July 22, 2020, 

logged by Kroll as Proof of Claim No. 174457 (the “Villanueva Correa Claim”). The Villanueva 

Correa Claim purports to assert liabilities in an undetermined amount associated with allegedly 

accrued, but unpaid, wages purportedly owed by the Telephone Company.

19. The Villanueva Correa Response, which consists of a completed Response Form with 

a hand-written postscript, is dated June 3, 2022 and was filed on June 6, 2022. Therein, Villanueva 

Correa (1) states she worked for the Telephone Company “from the 16th of March of 1987 through 

the [] present” (Villanueva Correa Response at 2); and (2) asserts that she “do[es] not agree with 

[her] claim being dismissed, due to the fact that it is based on money that is owed from a pay raise 

under laws that were enacted during the time that [the Telephone Company] was an agency of the 

government of P.R. As such, it was a government agency until 1999” (id.).

f. The Vega Vargas Response 

20. Vega Vargas filed a proof of claim against the Commonwealth on August 18, 2020, 

logged by Kroll as Proof of Claim No. 174802 (the “Vega Vargas Claim”). The Vega Vargas 

Claim purports to assert liabilities in an amount of $4,800.00 associated with allegedly accrued, 

but unpaid, wages purportedly owed by the Telephone Company. 

21. The Vega Vargas Response, which consists of a completed Response Form with a 

hand-written postscript and supporting documentation, is dated July 5, 2022 and was filed on July 

7, 2022. Therein, Vega Vargas (1) states he worked for the Telephone Company from “March of 

1987 through the [] present” (Vega Vargas Response at 2); and (2) states “[t]he basis of my claim 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 8 of 11
9

is money owed for pay raises under laws that were enacted during my years of service when the 

PRTC was an agency of the government of Puerto Rico. As such, it was a government agency 

until 1999” (id.). The Vega Vargas Response also enclosed a certificate of employment stating 

Vega Vargas was employed by Claro’s field operations division in Ponce as a “Splicer.” [ECF 

No. 21465-1.]

g. The Santos Santiago Response

22. Santos Santiago filed a proof of claim against the Commonwealth on July 22, 2020, 

logged by Kroll as Proof of Claim No. 174466 (the “Santos Santiago Claim”). The Santos Santiago 

Claim purports to assert liabilities in an undetermined amount associated with allegedly accrued, 

but unpaid, wages purportedly owed by the Telephone Company.

23. The Santos Santiago Response, which consists of a completed Response Form with a 

hand-written postscript and supporting documentation, is dated December 13, 2022 and was filed 

on December 19, 2022. Therein, Fare Santiago (1) states she worked for the Telephone Company 

“from the 14th of September of 1987 through the 1st of January of 2022” (Santos Santiago 

Response at 2); and (2) states “I do not agree with my claim being dismissed. My claim is based 

on money owed from a pay raise under laws that were enacted during the time that [the Telephone 

Company] was an agency of the government of PR. Until 1999, we were a government agency” 

(id.). The Santos Santiago Response also enclosed a photocopy of Santos Santiago’s Claro 

employee identification badge and a certificate of employment from Claro stating Santos Santiago 

was employed by Claro’s field operations division in Ponce as an “Operator Delivery OC II.” 

[ECF No. 21686-1.]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 9 of 11
10

h. The Fare Santiago Response 

24. Fare Santiago filed a proof of claim against the Commonwealth on July 27, 2020, 

logged by Kroll as Proof of Claim No. 174567 (the “Fare Santiago Claim,” and together with the 

Torres Escobar Claim, the Lugo González Claim, the Morales Martínez Claim, the Cintrón 

González Claim, the Villanueva Correa Claim, the Vega Vargas Claim, and the Santos Santiago 

Claim, the “Claims”). The Fare Santiago Claim purports to assert liabilities in an undetermined 

amount associated with allegedly accrued, but unpaid, wages purportedly owed by the Telephone 

Company. 

25. The Fare Santiago Response, which consists of a completed Response Form with a 

hand-written postscript and supporting documentation, is dated July 26, 2022 and was filed on July 

28, 2022. Therein, Fare Santiago states (1) she worked for the Telephone Company “from the 

16th of December of 1987 through the [] present” (Fare Santiago Response at 2); and (2) she 

“do[es] not agree with [her] claim being dismissed, due to the fact that it is based on money owed 

for a pay raise under laws that were enacted during the time that PRT was an agency of the 

government of PR, and so was government-run until 1999” (id.). The Fare Santiago Response 

also enclosed a certificate of employment stating Fare Santiago “joined PRT/Claro effective 

12/25/1987” and “[a]t present she works as a regular active employee.” [ECF No. 23118-1.]

II. Argument

26. As explained in the Three Hundred Eighty-First Omnibus Objection, the Telephone 

Company is not a Title III Debtor. Rather, the Telephone Company was a former government 

entity which was privatized and, accordingly, is no longer in existence. Neither the Responses nor 

the Claims provide a basis for asserting a claim against the Commonwealth, ERS, PBA, or any 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 10 of 11
11

other Title III Debtor in respect of allegedly accrued but unpaid wages purportedly owed by the 

Telephone Company. Accordingly, the Claims should be disallowed.

III. Conclusion

27. Because the Responses do not provide a basis for asserting liabilities associated with 

the Claims, the Debtors respectfully request the Claims be disallowed, notwithstanding the 

Responses.

Dated: February 2, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

San Juan, Puerto Rico

/s/ Hermann D. Bauer

Hermann D. Bauer

USDC No. 215205

Carla García-Benítez

USDC No. 203708

Gabriel A. Miranda

USDC No. 306704

O’NEILL & BORGES LLC

250 Muñoz Rivera Ave., Suite 800

San Juan, PR 00918-1813

Tel: (787) 764-8181

Fax: (787) 753-8944

/s/ Brian S. Rosen

Martin J. Bienenstock (pro hac vice)

Brian S. Rosen (pro hac vice)

PROSKAUER ROSE LLP

Eleven Times Square

New York, NY 10036

Tel: (212) 969-3000

Fax: (212) 969-2900

Attorneys for the Financial 

Oversight and Management Board 

for Puerto Rico, as representative of 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

the Employees Retirement System of 

the Government of the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 

the Puerto Rico Public Buildings 

Authority

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:23461 Filed:02/02/23 Entered:02/02/23 15:12:27 Desc: Main

Document Page 11 of 11