CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Commoloco of Caguas v. Benitez Diaz, 1990 JTS 80 (1990)

_______________

126 D.P.R. 478

I, Juan E. Segarra, USCCI #06-067/translator, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate

translation, to the best of my abilities, of the document in Spanish which I have seen.

1990 JTS 80, 126 D.P.R. 478, 1990 WL 

710118 (P.R.)

COMMOLOCO OF CAGUAS, INC., 

plaintiff and petitioner

v.

RAMIRO BENITEZ DIAZ, defendant; 

AUTORIDAD DE CARRETERAS DE 

PUERTO RICO, intervenors and appellees.

In the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

Numbers: RE-86-470, CE-87-9, CE-86-759, 

CE-86-583, CE-86-694, CE-86-722, CE-86-

448

Synopsis

CERTIORARI PETITION (CE-87-9) to 

review an ORDER of Rafael Riefkohl 

Marcano, Judge (Ponce) that confirms a 

previous order that ordered the garnishment

of the wages of an employee of certain public 

corporation. The writ is issued and the 

appealed order is reversed in Case No. CS86-2084.

Carmelo Nieves Figueroa, José Julián

Álvarez González and Cándido F. 

Monteserrin, attorneys for the Autoridad de 

Acueductos y Alcantarillados, petitioner, 

José E. Vila Barnes, attorney of Commoloco 

of Sabana Grande, Inc., appellee; Norma 

Cotti Cruz, Sub District Attorney; Blanca

Díaz Segarra and Anabelle Rodríguez

Assistant General Attorneys, in Report; 

Patrick D. O’Neill, Luce Vela Gutiérrez and 

Lawrence Odell, of Martínez, Odell Calabria 

& Sierra, and Carlos F. López attorneys of 

*483 the Asociación Puertorriqueña de 

Financieras del Consumidor, amicus curiae.

Synopsis

CERTIORARI PETITION (CE-86-759) to 

review an ORDER of Delia Lugo Bougal, 

Judge (Ponce) that confirms a previous order 

that ordered the garnishment of wages of an 

employee of certain public corporation. The 

writ is issued and the appealed order is 

reversed in Case No. CS-86-1909.

Richard V. Pereira and Jose Julian Alvarez 

Gonzalez, attorneys of the Autoridad de 

Acueductos y Alcantarillados, petitioner, 

Oreste Ramos, attorney of Metro Finance 

Co., appellee; Norma Cotti Cruz, Sub 

Attorney General, Blanca Diaz Segarra and 

Anabelle Rodríguez Assistant General 

District Attorneys, in Report; Patrick D. 

O’Neill, Luce Vela Gutierrez and Lawrence 

Odell from Martinez, Odell Calabria & Sierra 

and Carlos F. Lopez, attorneys from the 

Asociacion Puertorriquena de Financieras del 

Consumidor, amicus curiae.

Synopsis

CERTIORARI PETITION (CE-86-583) to 

review an ORDER of Enrique Rivera 

Santana, Judge (Bayamon) that denies a 

certiorari petition to review an order that 

ordered the garnishment of wages of an 

employee of certain public corporation. The 

writ is issued and the appealed order is 

reversed in Case No. CS-86-3080.

Gilberto Rodríguez Zayas, Carmelo Nieves 

Figueroa and José Julián Álvarez González, 

attorneys for the Autoridad de Acueductos y 

Alcantarillados, petitioner; Oreste Ramos, 

attorney of Metro Finance Co., Appellee; 

Norma Cotti Cruz, Sub-General Attorney, 

Blanca Díaz Segarra and Anabelle 

Rodríguez; Assistant General Attorneys in 

Report; Patrick D. O’Neill, Luce Vela 

Gutiérrez and Lawrence Odell from 

Martínez, Odell Calabria & Sierra and Carlos 

F. López, attorneys for the Asociación

Puertorriqueña de Financieras del 

Consumidor, amicus curiae.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3858-2 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 09:57:20 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 1 of 9
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Commoloco of Caguas v. Benitez Diaz, 1990 JTS 80 (1990)

_______________

126 D.P.R. 478

I, Juan E. Segarra, USCCI #06-067/translator, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate

translation, to the best of my abilities, of the document in Spanish which I have seen.

Synopsis

JUDGMENT (RE-86-470) of Angel G. 

Hermida, Judge (San Juan) that reverses a 

previous judgment that ordered the 

garnishment of wages of an employee of 

certain public corporation. Confirmed the 

Judgment in case No. PE-86-805.

Luis A. Arrufat Pimentel, attorney of the 

Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito de Catano, 

petitioner; Moraima Arbona, Cándido F. 

Monteserrin and José Julián Álvarez

González, attorneys of the *484 Autoridad de 

Acueductos y Alcantarillados, appellee; 

Norma Cotti Cruz, General Sub District 

Attorney, Blanca Díaz Segarra and Anabelle 

Rodríguez, Assistant General Attorneys in 

Report; Patrick D. O’Neill, Luce Vela 

Gutiérrez and Lawrence Odell from Odell 

Calabria & Sierra and Carlos F. López

attorneys for the Asociación Puertorriqueña

de Financieras del Consumidor, amicus 

curiae.

Synopsis

CERTIORARI PETITION (CE-86-448) to 

review a JUDGMENT of Angel G. Hermida, 

Judge (San Juan) that reverses a previous 

judgment that ordered the garnishment of 

wages of an employee of certain public 

corporation. The writ is issued and the 

appealed judgment is confirmed in case no. 

PE-86-562.

Jose M. Casanova Edelmann, attorney of 

Island Finance Corporation of Santurce, 

petitioner, Gilberto Rodriguez Zayas, 

Ernesto Lebron Gonzalez, Moraima Arbona 

and Candido F. Monteserrin, attorneys for the 

Autoridad de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, 

appellee; Norma Cotti Cruz, General Sub 

District Attorney, Blanca Diaz Segarra and 

Anabelle Rodriguez Assistant General 

Attorneys, in Report; Patrick D. O’Neill, 

Luce Vela Gutierrez and Lawrence Odell, of 

Martinez, Odell Calabria & Sierra and Carlos 

F. Lopez attorneys for the Asociacion 

Puertorriquena de Financieras del 

Consumidor, amicus curiae.

Synopsis

CERTIORARI PETITION (CE-86-722) to 

review an ORDER of Carlos de Jesus Rivera 

Marrero, Judge (Humacao) that reverses a 

previous order that ordered the garnishment

of wages of an employee of certain public 

corporation. The writ is issued and the 

appealed order is confirmed in Case No. CS86-732.

Jimmy Soto Ledesma, attorney of Best 

Finance Corporation, petitioner, Carmelo 

Nieves Figueroa, Jose Julian Alvarez 

Gonzalez, and Candido F. Moteserrin,

attorneys of the Autoridad de Acueductos y 

Alcantarillados, appellee; Norma Cotti Cruz, 

General Sub District Attorney, Blanca Diaz 

Segarra and Anabelle Rodriguez Assistant 

General District Attorneys in Report; Patrick 

D. O’Neill, Luce Vela Gutierrez and 

Lawrence Odell, from Martinez, Odell 

Calabria & Sierra, and Carlos F. Lopez 

attorneys for the Asociacion Puertorriquena 

de Financieras del Consumidor, amicus 

curiae.

Synopsis

CERTIORARI PETITION (CE-86-694) to 

review an ORDER of Enrique A. Jordan 

Musa, Judge (Caguas) that reverses a 

previous order that ordered the garnishment

of wages of an employee of certain public 

corporation. The writ is issued and the 

appealed order is reversed in case No. CS-86-

1071.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3858-2 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 09:57:20 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 2 of 9
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Commoloco of Caguas v. Benitez Diaz, 1990 JTS 80 (1990)

_______________

126 D.P.R. 478

I, Juan E. Segarra, USCCI #06-067/translator, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate

translation, to the best of my abilities, of the document in Spanish which I have seen.

Jose E. Vila Barnes, attorney for Commoloco 

of Caguas, Inc., petitioner; Hector M. Torres 

Cartagena, attorney for the Autoridad de 

Carreteras de Puerto Rico, appellee; Norma 

Cotti Cruz, General Sub District Attorney; 

Blanca Diaz Segarra and Anabelle 

Rodriguez, Assistant General District

Attorneys, in Report; Patrick D. O’Neill., 

Luce Vela Gutierrez and Lawrence Odell, of 

Martinez, Odell Calabria & Sierra and Carlos 

F. Lopez, attorneys of the Asociacion 

Puertorriquena de Financieras del 

Consmidor, amicus curiae.

ASSOCIATE JUDGE MRS. NAVEIRA DE 

RODON issued the opinion of the Court.

[1] From the beginning of the century the 

question of whether the wages of the public 

employees are subject to garnishment or not 

has been presented before this Court, with 

different variants. Consistently we have 

denied the use of this procedural mechanism 

for these purposes. The policy has been to 

“exempt the wages of officers and employees 

of the Government not to favor the debtors 

but to ensure an efficient and continuous 

service to the very [G]overnment” Blanco v. 

Carballeira, Judge, 41 D.P.R. 533 (1930).

[2-3] ‘The rule in this jurisdiction, as in the 

United States is that the wages of the public 

employees are exempt from garnishment. 

That rule is based on a reason of public order, 

which is, that if such garnishment were 

allowed, the government that must receive 

the services of that employee would be 

greatly affected because it is presumed that 

said employee that is deprived of his/her 

wages will not render services with the same 

efficiency that he/she would, having the 

incentive of receiving in due time the 

compensation for his/her work. ‘Padron 

Rivera v. Cordoves, Juez 59 D.P.R. 255, 258 

(1941). Also, ‘the governmental activities 

must not be subject to the inconveniences of 

these proceedings that interfere with the 

carrying out of public duties in detriment of 

the common good...’ Stump Corp. v Tribunal 

Superior. *486 99 D.P.R. 179, 181 (1970). 

‘That has the effect of converting the State in 

a collecting agent of plaintiff against its will. 

‘ Torres Santa v. Benitez Roldan, 115 D.P.R. 

85, 87 (1984).

I.

In the case before us we are posed with the 

question of whether the aforementioned

principles apply as to the garnishment of 

wages of employees of a public corporation. 

Below we will state the facts that give rise to 

the question.

Within a relatively short period of time seven 

(7) seven petitions were filed before this 

Court with basically identical questions of 

fact and law. In view of such situation we 

consolidated them. In each one of those 

cases, the plaintiff in collection of money was 

a company of small personal loans (finance 

company) and defendant an employee of a 

public corporation. Specifically six (6) of 

these work in the Autoridad de Acueductos y 

Alcantarillados (hereinafter AAA) and one 

(1) in the Autoridad de Carreteras.

In each of the cases the Court of First 

Instance entered judgments favorable to the 

plaintiffs. In view of this, and to that effect, 

the parties that won the cases requested and 

obtained from the respective courts 

garnishment of wages orders addressed to the 

public corporations for which defendants 

worked. In such circumstances, the 

referenced public corporations obtained

authorization to intervene in the proceedings 

with the objective of presenting arguments in 

favor of removing the garnishment orders.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3858-2 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 09:57:20 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 3 of 9
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Commoloco of Caguas v. Benitez Diaz, 1990 JTS 80 (1990)

_______________

126 D.P.R. 478

I, Juan E. Segarra, USCCI #06-067/translator, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate

translation, to the best of my abilities, of the document in Spanish which I have seen.

The main argument of the aforementioned 

corporations was basically that their 

employees must be considered public 

employees and that, as such, their wages 

cannot be garnished pursuant to the doctrine 

stated above by this Court.

The courts of first instance agreed with the 

argument in four (4) of the seven (7) 

consolidated cases, while in the remaining 

three (3) they decided that the *487 principles 

that support the prohibition of garnishment of 

wages of public employees are not applicable 

to the public corporations. As there are 

conflicting decisions in the courts of instance 

we decided to review and we issued the writs 

of certiorari.

II.

Until mid-1919 the Code of Civil Procedure 

of Puerto Rico, Art. 249(7) had an express 

provision that forbade the garnishment of 

wages of the public officers or employees. 

Law No. 32 of June 3, 1919 (32 L.P.R.A. sec. 

1130) eliminated the distinction between the 

public employees and those of the private 

entities. It provided a limited protection to 

three fourths parts of the salary of the 

employee as long as he/she could prove that 

such amount was necessary to support his/her 

family. There is no discussion in the 

legislative history regarding the reason for 

eliminating the specific provision that 

forbade the garnishment of the wages of the 

public employee.

In absence of provision of law about the 

protection against garnishment of the wages 

of the public employee, the norm that 

occupies us today was born via case law in 

Blanco v. Carballeira, Judge, supra. In that 

case Associate Judge Mr. Wolf decided that 

the wages of public employees could not be 

subject to garnishment.1Its principal 

argument was that from the elimination of the 

express provision that forbade the 

garnishment of the wages of the public 

employees it ‘the intention to make such 

wages subject to garnishment could not be 

inferred unless they were generally subject to 

garnishment pursuant to some specific 

provision of law’. Id. Page 534. After all, 

there was no specific provision of law that 

imposed upon any officer the duty to retain 

the garnished wages.

[4] Since that case, the doctrine has only been

adding arguments in favor of maintaining the 

prohibition of *488 garnishment of public 

employees’ wages. See: Padron Rivera v. 

Cordoves, Judge, supra; ELA v. Tribunal 

Superior, supra; Stump Corp. v. Tribunal 

Superior, supra; Torres Santa v. Benítez

Roldan, supra. However, in none of these 

cases was there a garnishment of wages of 

employees of a public corporation implied. 

The cases that are most similar to the problem 

before us are Rodriguez v. Fontes y Am. R.R. 

Co. Int., 51 D.P.R. 670, 672, 678 (1937) and 

Arraiza v. Reyez; Leon, Intervenor, 70 

D.P.R. 614 (1949). In the first, the American 

Railroad filed a motion to intervene in which 

it alleged that a garnishment of wages 

ordered by the court of first instance 

regarding one of its employees “interrupted 

the operation of its office and affected the 

service that it rendered as a public service 

company that it was”. Rodríguez v. Fontes y 

Am. R.R. Co. Int., supra, page 672. The court 

of instance stated in its order that “a private 

corporation, even if it exploits a public 

service company, is not in the same position 

of privilege that is inherent to the organisms

and official offices of the government and the 

very prerogatives of these organisms are not 

enjoyed at all by the private entities.” 

Rodriguez v. Fontes y Am. R.R. Co. Int., 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3858-2 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 09:57:20 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 4 of 9
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Commoloco of Caguas v. Benitez Diaz, 1990 JTS 80 (1990)

_______________

126 D.P.R. 478

I, Juan E. Segarra, USCCI #06-067/translator, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate

translation, to the best of my abilities, of the document in Spanish which I have seen.

supra page 675. On that occasion, when 

reversing the court of first instance, we stated 

that the American Railroad was not obligated 

to comply with the garnishment order as to 

“wages that had not been accrued at the date 

it refers to.”

2 We did not say anything as to 

the effect it had it was a private corporation, 

not public.

*489 On the other hand, in Arraiza v. Reyes; 

Leon, Intervenor, supra, there was an attempt 

to garnish a credit that a judgment debtor had 

against the AAA. Through a motion to 

intervene, a third party requested the nullity 

of the garnishment alleging that said credit 

could not be garnished as it derived from the 

construction of a public work and the amount 

garnished was in possession of the AAA a 

public corporation.

3 The petition was 

dismissed.

It was determined, pursuant to the express 

provisions of the organic law of the AAA, 

Law No. 40 of May 1st, 1945 (22 L.P.R.A.

sec. 144) and what was resolved in F.H.A v. 

Burr, 309 U.S. 242 (1940), that the 

Legislature had granted sufficient operational 

powers to the AAA to consider it “so subject 

to judicial procedures as in analogous

circumstances any private company would 

be, as long as it does not interfere with the 

execution of its executive duties’; Arraiza v. 

Reyes; Leon, Intervenor, supra, page 618. 

This case is clearly distinguishable from the 

present one. Firstly, in Arraiza v. Reyes; 

Leon, Intervenor, supra, the seizable credit 

did not belong to a regular employee of the 

corporation. It was an independent 

contractor. Secondly, even facing this fact, 

the permission to garnish was conditioned to 

not interfering with the work of the executive 

duties of the corporation. 

The case before us is not an isolated incident 

regarding an independent contractor in whose 

favor the public corporation has an unpaid 

credit. On the contrary, the expected 

garnishments would potentially include all 

the wages of the regular employees that 

operate any of the public corporations. 

Having clarified the foregoing, in view that 

the prohibition to garnish wages has been 

applied in cases of public employees 

assigned to the central government system, 

we now have to determine if this doctrine 

should be extended to the employees of the 

public corporations. 

*490 III.

[5] Public corporations, as they operate 

currently, arose as a response to the desire to 

quicken and promote the efficiency of the 

public works in view of the complexity of the 

duties faced by the governments since World 

War One. Torres Ponce v. Jimenez, 113 

D.P.R. 58 (1982)4

[6-7 Pursuant to their functional 

configuration, the public corporations are 

defined as “institutions that offer an 

economic or social service in the name of the 

government, but as an independent judicial 

entity; they conduct their operations with 

great autonomy, even though it is responsible 

in front of the public, through the government 

and the parliament and subject to some 

direction on the part of the government, 

equipped on the other hand, with their own 

independent and separate funds, and with the 

legal and commercial attributes of a 

commercial enterprise. These attributes 

would place the public corporation 

someplace in between a pure public authority 

and a commercial company of private right. 

(Our translation). W. Friedman, the Public 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3858-2 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 09:57:20 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 5 of 9
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Commoloco of Caguas v. Benitez Diaz, 1990 JTS 80 (1990)

_______________

126 D.P.R. 478

I, Juan E. Segarra, USCCI #06-067/translator, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate

translation, to the best of my abilities, of the document in Spanish which I have seen.

Corporation: A Comparative Symposium, 

Toronto, Carswell, Co., 1954, page 541. 5

[8] What impulses the strategic adoption of 

this independent entity is the reality that “the 

corporation is intrinsically more apt to 

succeed in certain fields, than the ordinary 

department of the administration.” A.R. 

Brewer Carias, Las empresas publicas en el 

derecho comparado, Caracas, U. Central de 

Venezuela, Vol.XXXVII, 1967, page 86.

*491 [9] However, despite of the autonomy 

that characterizes the public corporations, 

they do not lose their quality of governmental 

instrumentality, created to respond to 

purposes of public utility. See York County 

Fair Assn. v. South Carolina Tax Commn., 

154 S.E.2d 361 (1967); Sharon Realty 

Company v. Westlake, 188 N.E.2d 318 

(1961). 6 For that reason, inasmuch as that 

they carry out this type of duty, the Executive

and the Legislature exercise, pursuant to law 

and custom, different degrees of control over 

their duties. Friedman, op. cit, pages 557-

558.

[10] The public corporations receive through 

their organic statute certain degree of 

economic independence as to their 

operational budget. Aside of the budget 

assignments that they may receive from the 

State, the objective with this is that they seek 

in whole or in part to generate their own 

capital, be it through issuing obligations, 

loans or through the income they receive 

from the properties and services they offer. 

We have to clarify, however, that this 

financial autonomy receives more or less 

supervision on the part of the State pursuant

to the focus or public policy that to that end 

the country in which the public corporation 

operates, adopts. 

7

[11] In Puerto Rico, the governmental control 

over the public corporations is expressed 

through the organic laws of the public 

corporation in question and laws that directly 

or indirectly have an impact on it.

*492 [12] Also, Art. III, Sec. 22 of the 

Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, L.P.R.A. Tome 1, ed. 1982, page 347, 

provides that:

There shall be a Comptroller that shall be 

appointed by the Governor with the counsel 

and consent of the majority of the total 

number of members that compose each 

House. The Comptroller shall have the 

requirements provided by law, he/she will 

carry out his/her duty for a term of ten years 

and until his/her successor is appointed and 

takes possession. The Comptroller shall

supervise all the profits, accounts, and 

disbursements of the State, its agencies and 

instrumentalities and of the municipalities, to 

determine if they have been done according 

to the law. It will render annual reports and 

all those special reports that are required by 

the Legislative Assembly or the Governor. 

(Emphasis provided).

[13-15] In order to provide validity to the 

cited constitutional provision Law No. 9 of 

July 24, 1952, as amended, 2 L.P.R.A. sec. 72 

was approved. It created the Office of the 

Comptroller. Through this statute the 

mechanisms through which the Comptroller 

carries out his/her supervision duty were 

elaborated. These duties “will be performed 

regarding the accounts, the funds, the 

income, the disbursements and the properties 

of the Government and the ones placed in 

trust.” 2 L.P.R.A. sec. 73. The supervising 

duties of the Comptroller encompass the 

operations of the public corporations.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3858-2 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 09:57:20 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 6 of 9
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Commoloco of Caguas v. Benitez Diaz, 1990 JTS 80 (1990)

_______________

126 D.P.R. 478

I, Juan E. Segarra, USCCI #06-067/translator, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate

translation, to the best of my abilities, of the document in Spanish which I have seen.

See also, for illustrative purposes as to the 

governmental control, among others, 

Accounting Law of the Government of 

Puerto Rico, Law No. 230 of July 23, 1974 (3 

L.P.R.A. sec. 283 and ss); Law of the 

Ombudsman, Law No. 134 of June 30, 1977, 

amended by Law No. 6 of March 16, 1987 (2 

L.P.R.A. secs. 701-726.) 8*493 [16-17] The 

governmental intervention in the 

development of the public corporations 

responds primarily to that, despite the 

combination of public and private 

characteristics we have stated, the funds with 

which the entity operates are considered 

public regardless that they do not form part of 

the State’s budget. Therefore, we have stated 

that the funds with which the employees of 

the public corporations are paid come from 

governmental sources and constitute public 

funds. Municipio de Mayaguez v. Rivera, 

113 D.P.R. 467 (1982).

[18-19] The State chooses the figure of the 

public corporation as a tool to implement a 

public policy in particular when it determines 

that through this means is how, with greater 

probability of efficiency, it can carry out a 

program or service. It should be noted that 

great part of them are classified as essential 

services. This means that even though the 

public corporations are erected on certain 

bases of operational autonomy, they still are 

invested with a great governmental interest in 

that their operation is of the greatest possible 

quality and efficiency, and therefore its 

operation be protected from all unnecessary 

interference.

[20-21] as to the inquiry of whether the 

employees of said corporations are public 

employees or not, recently in Pueblo v. 

Hernandez Torres y Barreda, 125 D.P.R. 560 

(1989) we stated the following in regards to 

the employees of the Puerto Rico Telephone 

Co. a public-private corporation:

...[T]he fact that they are not part of the 

central system of personnel does not alter 

their condition of public employees. The Law 

of Public Service Personnel of Puerto Rico 

[31 L.P.R.A. sec 1301 and ss.] expressly 

excludes from the application of the law all 

of the employees of public corporations. 

However, this does not mean they are private 

employees. On the contrary, from the 

language of the referenced provision it is 

evident that even if they are considered 

public employees, for reasons of public

policy it was decided not to submit them to 

the detailed application of the law, although 

to the merit principles yes.

*494 [22] Also, that quality is not devalued 

at all by the fact that pursuant to Art. II, Sec. 

17 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, L.P.R.A., Tome 1 they were 

acknowledged the right of collective 

bargaining. 

[23] Even though in some countries they are 

not considered public employees, in Puerto 

Rico all legislation that directly or 

incidentally alludes to the employees of 

public corporations has been consistent as to 

consider them public employees. See for 

illustrative purposes: the law that creates the 

Retirement System for Employees of the 

Government of Puerto Rico and its 

Instrumentalities, Law No. 447 of May 15, 

1951, as amended, 3 L.P.R.A. secs. 761-788, 

Art.7(16) of the Penal Code of Puerto Rico, 

33 L.P.R.A. sec. 3022(16); the Governmental 

Ethics Law of the Commonwealth of Puerto 

Rico, Law No. 12 of July 24, 1985 (3 

L.P.R.A. sec. 1801 and ss).

The Economic Report to the Governor of 

1984, and the preliminary data of the Report 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3858-2 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 09:57:20 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 7 of 9
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Commoloco of Caguas v. Benitez Diaz, 1990 JTS 80 (1990)

_______________

126 D.P.R. 478

I, Juan E. Segarra, USCCI #06-067/translator, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate

translation, to the best of my abilities, of the document in Spanish which I have seen.

of 1986 reflect an alarming increase in the 

rate of the growth of the debt of the 

consumers. The data regarding that matter, 

per the last report published for the period 

1986-1987, state that “at the end of the fiscal 

year 1987, the debt of the consumers 

amounted to $7,779.9 million (amount that 

represented a growth of $1,534.8 million or 

24.6 percent over the debt of $6,245.0 million 

of the fiscal year 1986. That growth is 

superior to the one shown in fiscal year 1986 

that was of $1,129.8 million or 22.1 percent 

when you compare such debt with the one 

registered in fiscal year 19859. Economic 

Report to the Governor of 1986-1987, 

Planning Board of Puerto Rico, Part VIII, 

page 18.

A logic consequence of this consumption 

behavior is that a proportional number of 

employees of the public corporations shall be 

comprised within the universe of Puerto 

Rican debtors *495 whose wages would be 

subject to garnishment if the use of this 

procedural mechanism is authorized. If we 

add the fact that the employees of the A.A.A. 

are already subject to a series of discounts10

that include those coming from loans 

obtained within the work place acquired 

usually at lower interest than those in the 

regular market, we can deduce that this places 

them, on multiple occasions, as high risk 

debtors for private entities known as finance 

companies. These circumstances increase the 

probability of the use of the wage 

garnishment mechanism, with the 

consequential detrimental and damaging 

effect for the public corporation.

[24-26] In accordance with the foregoing, we 

extend the protection against the use of the 

procedural mechanism of garnishment-as 

adopted by our case law as to the wages of 

the employees of the central government 

system-to the wages of the employees of 

public corporations. Deciding the contrary 

would be to add foreign and unconnected 

duties to the tasks of the officers of public 

corporations, as they would have to carry out 

the duties regarding the discount process. The 

expenses incurred would be paid with public 

funds in benefit of the exclusive interest of a 

private entity and the time invested by the 

officers would take away from public duty. 

Undeniably, this, in addition to being 

contrary to the interests of the State, causes 

an unjustified and undue interference in the 

execution of the tasks of the agency and an 

unallowable deviation of public funds. 

“[T]the governmental activities must not be 

subject to the inconvenience of these 

proceedings that interfere with the discharge 

of public duties in detriment of common 

wellbeing.’ Stump Corp. v. Tribunal *496

Superior, supra, page 181. This procedure 

also has the effect of reducing the motivation 

and enthusiasm with which these employees 

must serve our people. Padron Rivera v. 

Cordoves, Judge, supra. 

[27] Private financial entities have to take the 

necessary precautions to guarantee the 

suitability of their debtors, minimizing the 

possible delinquency in the payment of the 

loans.

Wherefore, judgment shall be entered 

reversing the ones entered by the Superior 

Court, Ponce Part, in cases CS-86-2084 and 

CS-86-1909 and by the Superior Court, 

Bayamon Part, in the case CS-86-3080 and 

that confirms the ones issued by the Superior

Court, San Juan Part, in cases PE-86-805 and 

PE-86-562 by the Superior Court, Humacao 

Part, in the case CS-86-732 and by the 

Superior Court, Caguas Part, in case CS-86-

1071.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3858-2 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 09:57:20 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 8 of 9
CERTIFIED TRANSLATION

Commoloco of Caguas v. Benitez Diaz, 1990 JTS 80 (1990)

_______________

126 D.P.R. 478

I, Juan E. Segarra, USCCI #06-067/translator, certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate

translation, to the best of my abilities, of the document in Spanish which I have seen.

The President Judge Mr. Pons Nunez, notes 

that even when he dissented from the 

majority in Pueblo v. Hernandez Torres y 

Barreda, 125 D.P.R. 560 (1989) for the 

reasons stated in his dissent, which he 

reaffirms, he votes in agreement with the 

opinion of the Court in this case as it is the 

same logic consequence of the majority of the 

Court in such case. Associate Judge Mr. 

Rebollo Lopez did not intervene. Associate 

1 This matter had been brought up but not resolved in 

Torres v. Corte Municipal, 35 D.P.R. 378 (1926).

2 For the definition of what are un-accrued wages refer 

to Diego Agueros & Co. v. Heres, 50 D.P.R. 533 

(1936). Specifically, as to the wages of public 

employees, they are not subject to garnishment even if 

accrued while they had not been paid. We so decided 

in Torres Santa v. Benitez Roldan, 115 D.P.R. 85, 87 

(1984): “Call it garnishment, seizure, or whatever, the 

truth is that the order entered has the effect of forcing 

the State to discount from every biweekly pay of 

defendant an amount of money and pay it to a third 

party. That has the effect of turning the State in a 

collecting agent of plaintiff against its will. It is easy 

to imagine the adverse effect that this practice would 

have on the process of the Treasury Department to pay 

the State’s employees, if it were generalized.” The 

prohibition of garnishment of wages of public 

employees is applicable to un-accrued wages as to 

those already accrued, as they are in the possession of 

the State.

3

In a footnote the Court clarifies that it does not know 

the interest of the intervenor, but presumes it must 

have had one.

4

‘It should be noted that before all that it is a universal 

phenomenon that of the progressive and each time 

faster extension of the tasks of the state entities, in 

light of the satisfaction of needs of general interest.” 

A.R. Brewer Carias, Las empresas publicas en el 

derecho comparado, Carracas, U. Central De 

Venezuela, 1967, Vol. XXXVII, page 22.

5 Precisely, pursuant to the factors in this definition, 

President Roosevelt referred to the public corporations 

as those with the power of Government but that 

possess the flexibility of a private entity. W. Friedman, 

The Public Corporation: A Comparative Symposium, 

Toronto, Carswell Co., 1954, page 541.

Judge Hernandez Denton inhibited himself. 

*497

FOOTNOTES:

6 The very nature of the public enterprise, in all its 

major forms, implies some degree of government 

supervision, both on the administrative and on the 

financial plane.’ W. Friedman, International 

Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Vol. XIII, Chap. 

13, page 53.

7 The objective sought through establishing public 

corporations was not freedom from all governmental

controls, but freedom from governmental restrictions

unsuited to a business operation which stifle efficient 

operations. ; P. Teeguarden and D. Thomas, A Public 

Corporation Model for Federal Forest Land 

Management, 1985, Vol. 25, No. 2, pages 373 and 

379. 

8 Different from the public corporations in England or 

other European countries, in the United States, through 

the Government Corporation Control Act of 1945, as 

amended, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 9101 and ss, a mechanism is 

provided to audit and control the financial operation of 

public corporations. See Brewer Carias, op. cit, Sec. 

55 pages 86-90 and 166.

9 This Economic Report to the Governor of 1986-1987 

reveals the excessive use of the sources of credit on the 

part of the Puerto Rican consumer and therefore, the 

imminent need that the organisms concerned elaborate 

a plan of action to create awareness about the effects 

of the indiscriminate use of sources of credit.

10 Among them are Social Security, Income Tax, 

Retirement, A.E.G., Savings, A.E.G. Loans, Life 

Insurance, Union Fees, Cancer Insurance, Retirement 

Loan, Union Loan, Cooperative Action A.A.A., 

Cooperative Deposits A.A.A., Cooperative Loan 

A.A.A., Life Insurance Cabali, Medical Insurance, 

Asoc. Empleados (trips); Loan Banco Vivienda and 

others.

 

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:3858-2 Filed:09/05/18 Entered:09/05/18 09:57:20 Desc:

Exhibit B Page 9 of 9