1

Exhibit A

Judgment

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 1 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

COURT OF APPEALS 

Panel VII

PUERTO RICO HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY 

Petitioner 

v. 

ESTATE OF LUIS ALBERTO MERCADO 

JIMÉNEZ ET AL

Party in Interest

ADRIÁN MERCADO JIMÉNEZ, TERESA 

VIZCARRONDO TORO, and THE MARITAL 

ESTATE BETWEEN THEM

Appellees

KLCE201900284

cons. with

KLAN201900334

Certiorari from the 

Court of First 

Instance, Superior 

Chamber of San 

Juan

Case No. KEF2011-

0240

About:

CONDEMNATION

Panel composed of its chair, Judge Gómez Córdova, Judge Rivera Marchand, and Judge Adames 

Soto 

Adames Soto, Judge Rapporteur

JUDGMENT

At San Juan, Puerto Rico, on May 31, 2019.

In response to the Motion for Consolidation under Rule 80.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the 

Court of Appeals, the appeals filed by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority 

(HTA or appellee) and by Mr. Adrián Mercado Jiménez, Mrs. Teresa Vizcarrondo Toro, and the 

marital estate composed of both individuals (appellants), respectively, for challenging the 

determinations issued by the Court of First Instance, Superior Court of San Juan (CFI) on January 

23, 2019, which were notified on January 30, 2019. 1

__________________________

1 Notwithstanding the consolidation, it is necessary to point out that the writ of certiorari, 

KLCE201900284, filed before this appellate court on March 1, 2019, is premature, inasmuch as a motion 

for reconsideration filed before the trial court was pending adjudication by that date. Although said

reconsideration was resolved on March 5, 2019, this appellate court is precluded from considering the writ

IDENTIFYING NUMBER

SEN2019 ______________

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 2 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 2

I. Summary of the procedural course

On August 25, 2011, HTA instituted condemnation proceedings against several parties in 

interest, including the appellants, to acquire several parcels of land.2 As far as the appellants are 

concerned, they are owners of 25% of parcels 021-01 and 021-04, two of the parcels subject to 

condemnation.

3

After several ancillary proceedings on the corresponding amount of just compensation, on July 

13, 2017, HTA filed a Notice of Stay of Proceedings by virtue of the filing of the bankruptcy 

petition filed by the Government of Puerto Rico under Title III of the PROMESA Act, the case 

being stayed pursuant to the federal Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability 

Act, 48 USC sec. 2101 et seq. (PROMESA Act).

On August 8, 2017, the CFI issued an Administrative Ruling whereby it ordered the stay of the 

proceedings until such time as either party certified that the stay had been lifted, either by the 

conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings or by a petition to that effect pursuant to Section 362(b) 

of the Federal Bankruptcy Code.

Subsequently, HTA and the appellants reached a settlement agreement for a sum of $16,448.00 

as the fair value of the condemned property. After reporting said settlement agreement to the 

federal court, on May 29, 2018, the assigned Judge stated that she was not going to rule on it4.

However,

__________________________

of certiorari pursuant to the decision of our Supreme Court in Mun. Rincón, v. Velázquez Muñíz, 192 Puerto 

Rico Decisions 989, 1000 (2015). 

2 Appeal, Appendix I, Petition, pp. 1-11. 

3 There is no dispute that the appellants own a 25% interest in said parcels, which arises from the same 

Settlement Agreement. Appeal, Appendix III, Settlement Agreement, p. 19. Also, it is broken down in the 

Amended Exhibit A of November 2015. Writ of certiorari, Appendix, Amended Exhibit A, p. 20. 

4 "This Court mates no findings and expresses no opinion as to the terms and effect of the prepetition 

settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Settlement Amount is purportedly to be paid. Any 

dispute as to what is required to resolve the

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 3 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 3

she indicated that the stay was partially lifted with respect to the appellants so that any dispute 

concerning payment could be resolved.5

Later, on June 26, 2018, the parties submitted a Settlement Agreement to the CFI, in which 

they agreed to the sum of $26,141.326 as the fair value of 25% of parcels 021-01 and 021-04, 

which were condemned in 2011.7

In light of the foregoing, the appellants requested of the lower court the withdrawal of 

$26,141.32 that had been deposited with the court for just compensation. In response to the Request 

for Withdrawal of Funds, and after several ancillary proceedings, on June 27, 2018, the CFI issued 

an Order stating that, with respect to the Settlement Agreement filed by the parties, the case would 

remain stayed.8

After having filed a Request for Reconsideration, which was denied, the appellants appeared 

before a sister panel of the Court of Appeals by writ of certiorari, KLCE201801384, arguing that 

the trial court had erred in denying the

__________________________

Lawsuit should be taken up with the State Court." (Emphasis added.) Writ of Certiorari, Appendix, 

Order denying relief sought in notice of compliance and petition for payment of funds (docket entry no. 

345) and motion informing status of case and request of order (docket entry no. 406), p. 51. 

5 The automatic stay imposed by the filing of HTA's Title III case remains lifted to permit the resolution in 

the State Court, of any disputes as to what is required to allow HTA to pay Movant the Settlement 

Amount. (Emphasis added.) Writ of Certiorari, Appendix, Order denying relief sought in notice of 

compliance and petition for payment of funds (docket entry no. 345) and motion informing status of case 

and request of order (docket entry no. 406), p. 51.

6 After the TCA hired Mr. Esteban Núñez as appraiser, who performed a revaluation of the value of parcels 

021-01 and 021-04, the parties stipulated to a just compensation in the amount of $26,141.32. Said change 

in the contents of the stipulation was not notified to the Federal Bankruptcy Court, inasmuch as this matter 

is within the jurisdiction of the trial court. Writ of Certiorari, Motion for Compliance with Order Submitting 

Documents, Attachment D, Request for Reconsideration of Partial Judgment. Appeal, Appendix III, 

Settlement Agreement, pp. 19-20. 

7 In the Settlement Agreement, they indicated that the appellants are entitled to $20,606.00 for parcel 021-

01 and $11,035.32 for parcel 021-04 for a total of $31,641.32 as just compensation. They also indicated 

that the appellants have already withdrawn the sum of $5,500, leaving $16,448.00 on deposit with the court 

plus $9,693.32 that HTA agreed to deposit for a total of $26,141.32 not yet withdrawn by the appellants. 

Appeal, Appendix III, Settlement Agreement, pp. 19-20.

See: Writ of certiorari, Appendix, Payment, p. 58.

See: Writ of certiorari, Appendix, p. 110. 

8 Writ of certiorari, Appendix, Order, p. 99.

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 4 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 4

withdrawal of funds, despite the filing of the federal court order on the partial lifting of the stay 

and the Settlement Agreement between the parties. HTA appeared in support of the request. On 

November 13, 2018, the sister panel issued the requested remedy, reversed the appealed order, and 

remanded the case to the trial court so the trial court could issue a partial judgment based on the 

settlement agreement and order the withdrawal of funds. It stated the following: 

[I]t is clear that, although the case in question was stayed under PROMESA, by 

virtue of the settlement agreement between the Highway Authority and the 

petitioners, the Honorable Judge Taylor Swain, who presided over the proceedings,

lifted the stay. Although said Order did not cover the entire lawsuit, it has the scope 

of allowing a final judgment to be issued with respect to the petitioners, since the 

only thing pending with respect to them is to determine the amount to be received 

as just compensation, an amount that the parties have already agreed upon as part 

of the agreement above referenced, which was accepted by the federal court.

...

For the reasons set forth above, we GRANT the requested order, and REVERSE 

the challenged decision. We return the case to the lower court so the lower court 

can issue a partial judgment based on the settlement agreement between the 

petitioners and the HA and order the withdrawal of the funds, as provided in the 

stipulation in quetsion, by virtue of which the stay of the case was lifted with respect 

to the petitioners.

Accordingly, on January 9, 2019, the order was remanded to the CFI.9 The case having been 

remanded to the CFI, the appellants filed an amended motion on January 22, 2019, requesting that 

a check be issued to them in the amount of $26,141.32 in accordance with the Settlement 

Agreement and as endorsed by the appellate court.

10

In response, on January 23, 2019, the CFI issued a Partial Administrative Judgment, a Partial 

Judgment, and a Resolution ordering payment of the amount of $126,567.00 as just compensation 

for the condemned property of parcels 021-01 and 021-04 in accordance with the appraisal report 

prepared

__________________________

9 Appeal, Appendix IV, Mandate, p. 21. 10 Appeal, Appendix V, Amended motion requesting the issuance of check, pp. 22-23.

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 5 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 5

by HTA's appraiser11 and ordered the issuance of a check to the appellants in the amount of 

$10,948.0012 as payment in full of their interest in parcels 021-01 and 021-04, among other 

determinations.13

Dissatisfied, on February 14, 2019, the appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of 

Resolution, as well as a Motion for Reconsideration of Partial Judgment.

14 On that same date, 

HTA also filed a Request for Reconsideration of Partial Judgment, a Decisive Administrative 

Partial Judgment.

15

On February 20, 2019, the CFI served an Order with respect to the amended motion requesting 

an order for a check to be issued and stating that this was provided for by the Resolution dated 

January 23, 2019.16

On February 25, 2019, with notice served on February 28, 2019, the CFI denied the Motion 

for Reconsideration of Resolution. Likewise, on February 28, 2019, with notice served on March 

5, 2019, it denied the Motion for Reconsideration of Partial Judgment. Also on that latter date, the 

CFI denied the Request for Reconsideration of Partial Judgment, a Decisive Administrative Partial 

Judgment.

On March 1, 2019, appellee appeared by writ of certiorari, case no. KLCE201900284, before 

this Court of Appeals.

__________________________

11 Writ of certiorari, valuation report by Esteban Núñez, pp. 133-141. 

12 In footnote 2 of its Resolution, the CFI stated that the amount for just compensation agreed upon in 

federal court was $16,448.00, and considering that on February 23, 2015, a check in the amount of 

$5,500.00 was issued to the appellants, the only outstanding balance of the payment awarded to the 

appellants by the United States Bankruptcy Court was $10,948.00. Appeal, Appendix VIII, Resolution, pp. 

55-56. 

13 Appeal, Appendix VI, Partial Administrative Ruling, pp. 48-50. 

Appeal, Appendix VII, Partial Judgment, pp. 51-53.

Appeal, Appendix VIII, Resolution, pp. 54-58. 

14 Appeal, Appendix XI, Motion for Reconsideration of Resolution, pp. 61- 64.

Appeal, Appendix XII, Motion for Reconsideration of Partial Judgment, pp. 69-72.

15 Writ of Certiorari, Motion for Compliance with Order Submitting Documents, Attachment D, Request 

for Reconsideration of Partial Judgment. 

16 Appeal, Appendix IX, Order and Notice, p. 59.

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 6 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 6

On March 27, 2019, the appellants filed an appeal or writ of certiorari on their own behalf 

with this Court of Appeals, in which they pointed out the following errors allegedly committed by 

the trial court: 

A. The Honorable Court of First Instance acted in error in issuing a ruling and a partial 

judgment that are incompatible with the mandate of the Court of Appeals in case number 

KLCE201801384 contrary to the essence of the respect and stability of the law under the 

mandate rule.

B. The Honorable Court of First Instance acted in error in ordering the payment to the parties 

herein of an amount different from the amount determined by the Honorable Court of 

Appeals in case number KLCE201801384.

C. The Honorable Court of First Instance acted in error in disregarding the findings of the 

Honorable Court of Appeals and in totally ignoring the settlement agreement between the 

parties in case number K EF2011-0240 as endorsed by the Honorable Court of Appeals in 

case number KLCE201801384.

After some motions were resolved, on April 1, 2019, the appellee submitted its Response to 

Certiorari or Appeal.

On May 2, 2019, the appellants filed a Motion Requesting Consolidation under Rule 80.1 of 

the Rules of the Court of Appeals, whereupon we consolidated appeals KLCE20190028417 and 

KLAN201900334.

II. Statement of Law 

A. Mandate and "Law of the Case" Doctrine

With regard to the mandate, Rule 84 (E) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Appeals, 

4 LPRA App. XXII-B, provides that "[t]en (10) working days after the decision of the Court of 

Appeals has become final and enforceable, the Clerk shall send the mandate to the court of first 

instance or to the corresponding agency, together with the entire original record, when it has been 

recorded."

__________________________

17 As stated above, and as decided in Mun. Rincón v. Velázquez Muñíz, 192 Puerto Rico Decisions 989, 

1000 (2015), this Court of Appeals lacks jurisdiction to hear on its merits the petition for certiorari filed by 

appellees on March 1, 2019, inasmuch as it is premature.

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 7 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 7

A mandate is "an order from a higher court to a lower court, notifying it of having reviewed 

the case on appeal and sending it the terms of its judgment". Mejías et al. v. Carrasquillo et al., 

185 Puerto Rico Decisions 288, 300-301 (2012) citing I. Rivera García, Diccionario de Términos 

Jurídicos, New Hampshire, Ed. Equity Publishing Corporation, 1976, p. 158. In this sense, "it is 

the official means possessed by an appellate court to communicate to a lower court the provision

of the judgment under review and to order it to comply with what has been agreed". Id. p. 301. 

The purpose of the mandate is "to have the lower court act in accordance with the appellate court's 

pronouncements". Id; El Pueblo de Puerto Rico v Serrano Chang, Opinion of December 21, 2018, 

2018 TSPR 205, 201 Puerto Rico Decisions ___(2018).

On the mandate and jurisdiction of the lower court, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has 

stated as follows:

[O]nce the mandate is remitted by the clerk of the court, the case before said court is finalized for 

all intents and purposes. Thus, the lower court acquires the power to continue with the proceedings, 

as ruled by the appellate court... Once the mandate is remitted to the lower court, the lower court 

regains jurisdiction over the case for the sole purpose of issuing the judgment, just as it was issued 

on appeal, and the appellate court loses its jurisdiction.

Id. Colón et al. v. Frito Lay, 186 Puerto Rico Decisions 135, 153-154 (2012).

The Supreme Court has further stated that "the mandate has a dual function that impacts 

the jurisdiction of the lower court. First, it gives it authority over the case once again while at the 

same time allowing it to resolve the case in accordance with the guidelines provided by the 

resolution or judgment in question. Id. p. 155.

Once "the mandate is received, the decision of the appellate court constitutes the law of the 

case, and the lower court must limit itself to complying with what has been ordered." Rosso 

Descartes v. BGF, 187 Puerto Rico Decisions 184, 192 (2012). In other words, "[t]he lower court

must confine itself to what was ordered by the appellate court, which constitutes the law of the 

case between the parties." Id. According to the

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 8 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 8

law of the case doctrine, "the determinations and matters decided and considered by a court, 

particularly by an appellate court, bind both a lower court and the court that issued them and 

preclude reexamination[. Therefore,] [t]hese matters and rulings aere final and enforceable". Id. 

Their purpose is "to ensure the orderly and prompt processing of litigation and to promote the 

stability and certainty of the law". Id.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has provided the 

following detailed explanation regarding compliance with a mandate issued by the appellate court:

[W]hile it is true that lower courts are required to adhere to and faithfully comply with the 

judicial mandate of a higher court, they retain discretion to reconsider matters that were not 

expressly or implicitly decided by the court that issued the mandate... This should not be 

interpreted as a blank check for the lower courts to act outside the directive that was issued. 

Therefore, it is to be understood that the lower courts may only review those matters not 

covered by the mandate, to wit, those matters that do not arise explicitly or implicitly therefrom. 

As to the explicit matters, they are understood to be those matters that arise from the judgment 

clearly and without room for ambivalence. However, the implicit ones are those established in the 

case of Pan American v. Superior Court, [97 Puerto Rico Decisions 435 (1969)], to wit, those 

matters that, although they were not litigated, could have been litigated and were not; or those that 

arise from the mandate itself, as well as those that must be carried out in order to give effect to the 

mandate.

Mejías et al. v. Carrasquillo et al., supra, pp. 302-303. (Emphasis added.)

III. Application of the law to the facts

Regarding the writ of certiorari, case no. KLCE201900284, the appellee went before this 

appellate court on March 1, 2019, requesting the revocation of the determinations made by the trial 

court on January 23, 2019, with notice thereof having been served on January 30, 2019. However, 

after notice of the ruling, the appellee, as well as the appellants, filed their motions for 

reconsideration before the trial court on February 14, 2019. The motions for reconsideration were 

filed

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 9 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 9

fifteen (15) days after notice of the judgment was issued and in compliance with the requirement 

of specificity. The filing is therefore considered timely, as it occurred within the deadline provided 

by Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 32 LPRA App. V, R. 47.

Having filed the writ of certiorari on March 1, 2019, the appellee appealed before us at 

a time before the CFI had finally ruled on the motions for reconsideration that were filed, 

which by that date were still pending. The timely filing of a motion for reconsideration (such as 

the ones filed in this case), once the requirements of specificity were met, had the immediate effect 

of suspending the deadlines that the parties had for resorting to this appellate court until the trial 

court issued a final ruling on the motion. Mun. Rincón v. Velázquez Muñiz, 192 Puerto Rico 

Decisions 989, 1000 (2015). The clock for appealing before us began to run again from the date 

on which the CFI resolved the motion for reconsideration and entered its ruling in the record, in 

this case on March 5, 2019. Id. In other words, unlike what used to happen under Rule 47 of Civil 

Procedure of 1979, in which the deadline to appeal was understood to be suspended only if the 

court considered the motion, now the mere timely filing automatically stops the statutory clock 

for going before a higher court. The clock will begin to run again upon issuance of a final 

ruling on the request for reconsideration. Morales et al. v. The Sheraton Corp, 191 Puerto Rico 

Decisions 1 (2014). The consequence of the appellee having filed its appeal prior to the resolution 

of the petitions for reconsideration that were pending adjudication before the CFI is dismissal for 

premature action. Mun. Rincón v. Velázquez Muñiz, 192 Puerto Rico Decisions 989, 1000 (2015).

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 10 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 10

In the appeal under case number KLAN201900334, the appellants stated that the CFI erred

by issuing a Resolution and a Partial Judgment that were incompatible with the mandate of the 

appellate court in case number KLCE201801384, which was resolved on November 13, 2018. In 

particular, they stated that the CFI had erred by ordering the payment of $10,948.00 asfull payment 

of just compensation for parcels 021-01 and 021-04, which is a different amount from the amount

of $26,141.32 that was determined by the parties in the Settlement Agreement, and which was 

endorsed by the appellate court in said case. Since they are closely related, the errors in question

will be discussed together.

Upon review of judgment issued by the sister reviewing court on November 13, 2018, said 

court determined that the stay of the case in question before the federal court was partially lifted 

with respect to the appellants, thus allowing the parties' Settlement Agreement to be put into effect. 

The court also clearly stated that "the only pending matter with respect to the [appellants was] to 

determine the amount to be received as just compensation, amounts that the parties had already 

agreed upon as part of the aforementioned agreement, which was accepted by the federal court".

18 Therefore, the appellate court remanded the case to the trial court for the trial court to issue a 

partial judgment based on said settlement agreement between the parties and to order the 

withdrawal of funds, by virtue of which the stay was lifted.

Once the mandate was remitted, the trial court with jurisdiction ruled that the amount to be 

paid to the appellants as just compensation for parcels 021-01 and 021-04 was $10,948.00. As we 

can see, said action by the CFI violates the determination of the appellate court, which clearly 

ordered that the amount to be determined was the amount

__________________________

18 Appeal, Appendix XII, Judgment of November 13, 2018, pp. 76- 77.

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 11 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 11

set forth in the Settlement Agreement. It appears from the judgment, and is corroborated in the 

Settlement Agreement between the parties, that it was known to the CFI that the amount referred 

to by the appellate court was $26,141.32.19

The CFI started from the amount of $16,448.00 from the initial agreement filed in federal 

court, by virtue of which the stay had been partially lifted in favor of the appellants. From that 

sum, it subtracted $5,500.00, the amount of the check issued in favor of the appellants on February 

23, 2015, arriving at the sum of $10,948.00. The CFI acted in violation of and without regard to

the Settlement Agreement that had been subsequently submitted to the CFI, and which was not

reported to the federal court because the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the state court.

20

Likewise, it erroneously deducted the sum of $5,500.00, which had already been previously 

collected, from the sum of $16,448.00 that had been deposited.

Based on the Settlement Agreement endorsed by our appellate court in its November 13, 

2018 Judgment, the parties agreed to the sum of $31,641.32 as full payment to the appellants of 

just compensation for parcels 021-01 and 021-04. Of that amount, on February 23, 2015, the 

appellants cashed a check21 that had been issued in the amount of $5,500.00, leaving an outstanding 

amount of $26,141.32. The appellee had deposited $16,448.00 with the court; thus, on June 22, 

2018, it proceeded to deposit the difference—i.e., the sum of $9,693.32—for a total amount of 

$26,141.32.22

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the petition for certiorari for lack of jurisdiction as 

premature.

__________________________

19 Appeal, Appendix XII, Judgment of November 13, 2018, pp. 74, 76-77.

Appeal, Appendix III, Settlement Agreement, pp. 19-20.

20 Writ of Certiorari, Appendix, Order denying relief sought in notice of compliance and petition for 

payment of funds (docket entry no. 345) and motion informing status of case and request of order (docket 

entry no. 406), p. 51. 

21 Writ of certiorari, Appendix, p. 58. 

22 Writ of certiorari, Appendix, p. 110.

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 12 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KLCE201900284 cons. with KLAN201900334 12

Furthermore, in connection with the appeal, we order the amendment of the Resolution and Partial 

Judgment issued by the CFI with respect to the payment of just compensation for parcels 021-01 

and 021-04 in favor of the appellants. In accordance with the reasoning herein, we remand the case 

to the trial court to order the delivery of the amount of $15,193.3223 in full payment of just 

compensation to the appellants.

So pronounced and so ordered by the Court and certified by the Clerk.

[signature]

Lilia M. Oquendo Solís

Clerk of the Court of Appeals

__________________________

23 The appellants withdrew the sum of $10,948.00; hence, $15,193.32 remains in their favor.

[three signatures in left margin]

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 13 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JUAN

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY OF PUERTO RICO 

PETITIONER

v.

ESTATE OF LUIS ALBERTO MERCADO

JIMÉNEZ et al. 

PARTY IN INTEREST

CASE NO. KEF2011-0240

DIVISION NO. 1003

CIVIL ACTION OF:

CONDEMNATION

PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT

WHEREAS the motion entitled NOTICE OF STAY OF PROCEEDINGS BY 

VIRTUE OF FILING OF BANKRUPTCY PETITION FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF 

PUERTO RICO UNDER TITLE III OF THE PROMESA ACT, filed on July 13, 2017, by 

Anita Cortés Centeno, Esq., informing the Court that "[p]ursuant to the provisions of 

PROMESA, on May 21, 2017, the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto 

Rico filed a bankruptcy petition on behalf of HTA before the United States District Court 

for the District of Puerto Rico" in the case entitled In re: Puerto Rico Highways and 

Transportation Authority, Case No. 17-cv-l 686(LTS), we resolve as follows: 

The filing of a bankruptcy action has the effect of stopping the commencement or 

continuation of any judicial proceeding against the debtor, including a petition for 

condemnation. This is recognized by our Supreme Court in Peerless Oil v. Hnos. Torres 

Pérez, 186 Puerto Rico Decisions 239, 249-255 (2012), which stated that:

Jurisdiction is the power or authority of a court to decide cases or disputes. 

A court’s lack of jurisdiction 

Identifier number: SEN2019 __________________

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 14 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KEF2011 -0240 PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT 2

has a direct bearing on the very power to adjudicate a dispute. [...]

On countless occasions, "we have advised that courts must be zealous 

guardians of their jurisdiction and that they have no discretion to assume 

jurisdiction where they have none". This is because "questions relating to a 

court's jurisdiction are privileged and, as such, must be addressed and 

resolved in preference to any others." This is so because "[a] judgment 

issued by a court without jurisdiction is a judgment void in law and is, 

therefore, non-existent." [...] 

[...]

We recently pointed out [...] that an "[a]utomatic stay is one of the most 

basic protections that the U.S. legislature instituted in the Bankruptcy Code 

for debtors who avail themselves of the Code. An automatic stay prevents, 

"among other things, the commencement or continuation of any judicial, 

administrative, or other proceeding that was or could have been brought 

against the debtor, or to bring any action that arose prior to the 

commencement of the bankruptcy".

An automatic stay does not require formal notice; it takes effect upon 

the filing of the bankruptcy petition and lasts until the final judgment 

is issued. An automatic stay prevents the commencement or 

continuation of any judicial or administrative action against the debtor 

that is pending or could have been commenced prior to the 

commencement of the bankruptcy petition. (Citations omitted.) 

(Emphasis added.)

In light of the foregoing, partial administrative judgment is hereby entered staying 

the proceedings in the case at hand, Civil Case No. KEF2011-0240, Puerto Rico 

Highways and Transportation Authority v. Estate of Luis Alberto Mercado Jimenez et al, 

as to the parties in interest included in Exhibit A of the Petition, with the exception 

of: 1) Adrián Mercado Jiménez,1 2) Teresa Vizcarrondo

__________________

1 Party in interest Adrián Mercado Jiménez granted an agreement entitled STIPULATION

MODIFYING THE AUTOMATIC STAY AND ALLOWING PAYMENT OF FUNDS BETWEEN 

PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND ADRIÁN MERCADO 

J/MÉNEZ, which was accepted on February 5, 2018, by the Hon. Laura Taylor Swain in case 

number BK 3567-LTS. In this, the Judge of the United States District Court for the District of 

Puerto Rico determined, to the extent applicable, that: 

This stipulation (the "Stipulation") is made as of February 5, 23018 [sic], by and 

between the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority ("HTA") and 

Adrián Mercado Jiménez ("Movant"). (Emphasis added.)

[...]

1. The Title III Stay is hereby modified solely to the limited extent necessary to 

allow HTA to pay Movant the Settlement Amount due under the Prepetition 

Stipulation within 14 days of execution of this Stipulation; provided, however, 

the Title III Stay shall continue to apply in all other respects to the Prepetition 

Stipulation. (Emphasis added.) 

2. [...]

3. [...]

4. Nothing contained in this Stipulation shall operate as a waiver or 

modification of the Title III Stay so as to permit the prosecution against HTA

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 15 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KEF2011 -0240 PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT 3

Toro,2 and 3) the Mercado-Vizcarrondo marital estate composed of both the foregoing 

individuals.

3 Once the bankruptcy proceeding is concluded, the parties affected by the 

determination may request the reopening of the proceedings in this case through a final 

judgment (Final Decree) that definitively resolves the case entitled In re: Puerto Rico 

Highways and Transportation Authority, Case No. 17-cv-l 686(LTS) or, in the alternative, 

wherein the court modifies the effect of the automatic stay to allow for the continuation 

or any of the other Title III Debtors of any claim or claims by anyone other 

than Movant as provided for herein and HTA reserves all rights, 

defenses, and protections with respect to any matters pending or that may 

arise in the Title III Case, including the treatment of any claim arising from 

the Prepetition Stipulation under a plan of adjustment or otherwise in the 

Title III Case. (Emphasis added.)

5. [...]

6. [...]

7. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be deemed or construed as (a) 

creating or conferring any right upon any person or entities (other 

than Movant as expressly provided in this Stipulation), or (b) evidence 

of any willingness or obligation on HTA's part to consent to any other or

future modifications of or relief from the Title III Stay with respect to any 

persons or entities. (Emphasis added.)

2 As of this date, the party in interest, Teresa Vizcarrondo Toro, who was not named as 

a "Movant" in the agreement entitled STIPULATION MODIFYING THE AUTOMATIC 

STAY AND ALLOWING PAYMENT OF FUNDS BETWEEN PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS 

AND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND ADRIÁN MERCADO JIMÉNEZ, has failed 

to show that the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has modified 

the stay of the proceedings in the aforementioned case, which stay resulted from the filing 

of the bankruptcy petition filed by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority 

under TITLE III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act

(PROMESA) in case number BK 3567-LTS. However, pursuant to the judgment issued 

by the Court of Appeals on November 13, 2018, in case number KLCE201801384, 

jurisdiction is assumed over the party in interest, Teresa Vizcarrondo Toro.

3 As of this date, the Mercado-Vizcarrondo marital estate, which was not named 

"Movant" in the agreement entitled STIPULATION MODIFYING THE AUTOMATIC STAY 

AND ALLOWING PAYMENT OF FUNDS BETWEEN PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS AND 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY AND ADRIÁN MERCADO JIMÉNEZ, has failed to 

show that the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico has modified the 

stay of the proceedings in the aforementioned case, motivated by the filing of the 

bankruptcy petition filed by the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority under 

TITLE III of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act

(PROMESA), in case number BK 3567-LTS. However, in observance of the provisions of 

the Court of Appeals in the Judgment issued on November 13, 2018, in case number 

KLCE201801384, jurisdiction is assumed over the Mercado-Vizcarrondo marital 

estate.

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 16 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KEF2011 -0240 PARTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGMENT 4

of the case above referenced concerning the litigation in rem against the property 

included in Exhibit A of the Petition.

4

This partial judgment staying the judicial proceedings is issued for administrative 

purposes only; i.e., it does not adjudicate the merits of the parties' claims, the claims 

made, nor the disputes raised.

This partial judgment is issued without costs.

Pursuant to Rule 42.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 32 L.P.R.A. App. V, this 

partial judgment is expressly ordered to be recorded and notice served, inasmuch as

there is no reason to postpone the ruling until the final resolution of the lawsuit.

IT IS ORDERED THAT THIS BE RECORDED AND NOTICE GIVEN.

GIVEN AT SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, ON JANUARY 23, 2019.

[Signature]

LETICIA D. ORTIZ FELICIANO

SUPERIOR JUDGE

4 As a persuasive source of law, see the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico decision on June 

6, 2017, in the condemnation case Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. PFZ Properties, lnc.,

Civil Case Number CC-2017-0343, which provided that: 

Upon review of the Notice of Stay of Proceedings pursuant to the petition filed 

by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico under Title III of PROMESA, which was

filed by the appellee above referenced, it is ordered that the proceedings be 

stayed until such time as one of the parties certifies to us that the stay has been 

lifted, either by the conclusion of the bankruptcy proceeding or by a petition to 

that effect, as permitted by Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The administrative closure of this matter is hereby ordered. (Emphasis added.)

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 17 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO

GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN JUAN

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY OF PUERTO RICO 

PETITIONER

v.

ESTATE OF LUIS ALBERTO MERCADO

JIMÉNEZ et al. 

PARTY IN INTEREST

CASE NO. KEF2011-0240

DIVISION NO. 1003

CIVIL ACTION OF:

CONDEMNATION

PARTIAL JUDGMENT

The mandate of the Court of Appeals having been remitted, corresponding to the 

Judgment rendered on November 13, 2018, in case number KLCE201801384, we abide 

by the provisions of the higher court. Thus, in accordance with the guidelines issued by 

the reviewing court, partial stipulated judgment is hereby rendered as to: ADRIÁN 

MERCADO JIMÉNEZ,1 TERESA VIZCARRONDO TORO2, and the MARITAL ESTATE

_____________________

1 The party in interest, Adrián Mercado Jiménez, granted an agreement entitled 

STIPULATION MODIFYING THE AUTOMATIC STAY AND ALLOWING PAYMENT OF 

FUNDS BETWEEN PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY AND ADRIÁN MERCADO JIMÉNEZ, which was accepted on February 5, 

2018, by the Hon. Laura Taylor Swain, in case number BK 3567-LTS, wherein the Judge 

of the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico determined, to the extent 

applicable, that:

This stipulation (the "Stipulation") is made as of February 5, 23018 [sic], by and 

between the Puerto Rico Highways and Transportation Authority ("HTA") and 

Adrián Mercado Jiménez ("Movant"). (Emphasis added.) 

1. The Title III Stay is hereby modified solely to the limited extent necessary 

to allow HTA to pay Movant the Settlement Amount due under the

Prepetition Stipulation within 14 days of execution of this Stipulation; 

provided, however, the Title III Stay shall continue to apply in all other 

respects to the Prepetition Stipulation. (Emphasis added.) 

2. [...]

3. [...]

4. Nothing contained in this Stipulation shall operate as a waiver or 

modification of the Title IIl Stay so as to permit the prosecution against 

HTA or any of the other Title III Debtors of any claim or claims by anyone 

other than Movant as provided for herein and HTA reserves all rights, 

defenses, and protections with respect to any matters pending or that may 

arise in the Title III Case, including the treatment of any claim arising from the

Identifier number: SEN2019 [handwritten:] 00003931

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 18 of 20
Certified to be a correct and true translation from the source text in Spanish to the target language English.

9 / MAY / 2023 – Nikolaj D. Widenmann | ATA-certified Spanish-English translator, certification number 482804 by Targem Translations Inc.

KEF2011-0240 PARTIAL JUDGMENT 3

of the petitioner for the acquisition of parcels 021-01 and 021-04.

This partial judgment is issued without costs.

Pursuant to Rule 42.3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 32 L.P.R.A. App. V, this 

partial judgment is expressly ordered to be recorded and notice served, inasmuch as

there is no reason to postpone the ruling until the final resolution of the lawsuit.

IT IS ORDERED THAT THIS BE RECORDED AND NOTICE GIVEN.

GIVEN AT SAN JUAN, PUERTO RICO, JANUARY 23, 2019.

[Signature]

LETICIA D. ORTIZ FELICIANO

CHIEF JUDGE

[Stamp:] COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO / GENERAL 

COURT OF JUSTICE / COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE / SUPERIOR 

COURT OF SAN JUAN K047 [signature]

[Stamp:]

CERTIFICATION

I certify that this document is a true and 

faithful copy of the original on file and is 

issued at the request of:

[illegible handwriting]

 Upon payment of fees

 For official use [illegible] of fees

GRISELDA RODRIGUEZ 

COLLADO

CLERK

Amarilis Rodriguez Hani

Assistant Clerk [signature]

JAN 3 2019

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 19 of 20
TRANSLATOR’S CERTIFICATE OF TRANSLATION

Translation from: Spanish (Puerto Rico) into English (US)

TARGEM Translations Inc.

I, Nikolaj D. Widenmann, and ATA-Certified Translator #482804 (Spanish to English and Danish to English), acting as 

translator at TARGEM Translations Inc., a NEW YORK City corporation, with its principal office at 185 Clymer Street, 

Brooklyn, NY, 11211, USA, certify that:

the English translated document is a true and accurate translation of the original Spanish and has been 

translated to the best of my knowledge.

Original Document Name: sentencia y estipulacion kef2011-0240_EN

Signed this 9th day of May 2023

__________________________

 Nikolaj D. Widenmann

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:24189-1 Filed:05/10/23 Entered:05/10/23 22:23:19 Desc:

Exhibit A Page 20 of 20