Litigation 2026 Comparisons

Puerto Rico has a mixed legal system shaped by its history and constitutional development. Its private law tradition, particularly in areas such as contracts, property, obligations, and family law, is grounded in the civil law inherited from Spain and its long-standing civil tradition. This system emphasises legal codification and interpretation by treatise writers. At the same time, more than a century of US governance has introduced common-law concepts, especially in constitutional law, public law, and procedural matters.

The Constitution of Puerto Rico, adopted in 1952, provides the framework for the island’s legal system and establishes an independent judiciary. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico serves as the court of last resort on matters of local law. Although Puerto Rico is not a state, federal courts treat it as a sovereign within the federal system, so that the Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s decisions are reviewable only by the US Supreme Court, and only under the same circumstances in which a state supreme court’s ruling would be reviewable.

Judicial proceedings follow an adversarial model governed by rules of procedure inspired by the federal rules of civil and criminal procedure. Accordingly, parties are responsible for presenting the facts and legal arguments, while judges are neutral decision-makers. Judges manage proceedings and rule on evidentiary and legal issues, but they do not conduct independent factual investigations. This approach applies across civil and criminal cases, as well as in review of administrative actions.

The legal process relies on both written submissions and oral advocacy. Written motions and briefs are central to litigation, particularly in complex or dispositive matters. Oral argument, while common at the trial court level but not on appeal, allows judges to engage directly with counsel and clarify the issues at hand.

Puerto Rico has a unified court system established under its Constitution, with judicial power vested in the courts as a whole. At the local level, the courts are organised hierarchically, with the Court of First Instance serving as the trial court, the Court of Appeals as the intermediate appellate court, and the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico as the court of last resort on matters of local law.

The Court of First Instance is divided into specialised courts based on subject matter. These include civil, criminal, family, probate, juvenile, and municipal divisions. Administrative decisions issued by government agencies are generally subject to judicial review by the Court of Appeals.

In addition to the local judiciary, Puerto Rico is part of the United States federal judicial system. Federal matters are heard by the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico, with appeals taken to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and, where applicable, the US Supreme Court. Federal and local courts operate independently, each exercising jurisdiction within its respective constitutional and statutory limits. Like state courts, Puerto Rico courts also have authority to hear matters involving federal law (unless the case is removed to federal court).

The time from filing a case to reaching trial varies greatly, depending on the nature and complexity of the dispute. Straightforward civil or commercial cases may reach trial within a year or two, while more complex matters can take significantly longer. Pretrial motion practice, discovery, interlocutory appeals, and docket congestion are the primary factors influencing timing.

Court filings and judicial proceedings in Puerto Rico are generally open to the public. Public access is grounded in due process principles and the public’s interest in the proper administration of justice. In practice, most filings and docket activity can be accessed electronically through the Unified Case Management System (“SUMAC”, for its Spanish acronym), the judiciary’s case management and electronic filing system, which allows parties and the public to access the court’s docket.

However, courts may limit access to filings or proceedings when confidentiality is necessary, such as in cases involving minors, family disputes, gender-based violence, mental health, and certain criminal investigations. Protective orders, sealing of records, and redaction of personal information are commonly used by courts to balance transparency with the rights of the parties.

In very limited circumstances, entire proceedings may be closed or records restricted by statute or court order. Even when cases remain public, specific information such as personal identifiers, medical records, or protected testimony may be withheld from public disclosure.

Legal representation before courts is subject to formal admission and professional licensing requirements. Attorneys must be admitted to the practice of law by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, which requires completion of a law degree, passage of the local bar examination, and compliance with character and fitness standards. Admission grants full rights to appear before all local courts, including trial and appellate courts.

Only licensed Puerto Rico attorneys may appear as counsel of record and actively conduct cases in the local judiciary. This includes filing pleadings, examining witnesses, and presenting oral argument. The Puerto Rico Supreme Court maintains strict oversight of professional conduct, and attorneys are subject to continuing legal education and disciplinary rules.

Lawyers not admitted to practise in Puerto Rico cannot practise before Puerto Rico courts, with the exception that lawyers admitted to practise in other states or the District of Columbia may be granted admission pro hac vice upon request. This requires payment of an administrative fee and sponsorship by a locally admitted attorney. Local counsel must remain counsel of record,participate jointly in the proceedings, and ensure compliance with Puerto Rico’s procedural and ethical requirements. In cases before the federal district court, pro hac vice admission is governed by that court’s local rules.

Litigation funding by third-party funders is not expressly prohibited under Puerto Rico law, nor is there binding case law prohibiting the practice. Contingent fee arrangements between attorneys and clients have long been recognised as valid when they comply with ethical standards set forth in the applicable rules of professional conduct.

Puerto Rico law does not limit third-party litigation funding to specific categories of cases. In practice, funding may be used in a wide range of civil matters, provided the arrangement complies with ethical rules and does not interfere with the attorney-client relationship.

There is no rule or statute that limits funding arrangements to one side of a civil dispute. The threshold consideration is whether the arrangement complies with ethical standards and preserves the integrity of the proceedings, and thus this type of arrangement remains available to any party to a dispute.

Puerto Rico law does not establish statutory minimum or maximum amounts for third-party litigation funding, provided that such an arrangement preserves the integrity of the proceedings and does not otherwise violate applicable ethical standards.

Puerto Rico lacks any legislation or regulation that applies specifically to third-party funding. In practice, third-party funders typically consider covering only litigation-related costs rather than personal or unrelated expenses.

Contingency fee arrangements are permitted in Puerto Rico and are commonly used in civil litigation, particularly in tort, insurance, and commercial matters. The Rules of Professional Conduct require that all attorney fees be reasonable, and contingency agreements must be set forth in writing. These agreements must explain clearly how the fee is calculated, including the applicable percentage, the handling of litigation expenses, and whether those expenses are deducted before or after the fee is determined.

As a matter of public policy, contingency fees are not allowed in certain types of cases, most notably criminal defence matters and most domestic relations proceedings. Puerto Rico courts retain authority to review contingency fee agreements and to reduce fees that are excessive or disproportionate in light of the work performed. Even when permitted, the maximum contingency is 33%.

Puerto Rico law does not impose a specific statutory deadline by which a party must obtain third-party litigation funding.

In general, and unlike some civil law or common law jurisdictions, Puerto Rico does not require most plaintiffs to send a demand letter or engage in formal pre-litigation exchanges as a condition precedent to filing a complaint. In the majority of cases, Plaintiffs may initiate judicial proceedings directly by filing a complaint.

Nevertheless, in certain contexts, pre-action conduct may be required or strongly encouraged by statute, contract, or court rules. For example, some consumer, insurance, employment, and administrative matters require prior notice, exhaustion of administrative remedies, or a demand for performance before judicial relief is available. Failure to comply with these requirements, where applicable, may adversely affect the plaintiff’s procedural or substantive rights.

Separately, while potential defendants are not generally required to respond to pre-action letters, unreasonable refusal to engage in pre-litigation resolution may be a factor considered by courts when awarding costs or attorney’s fees in cases where bad-faith or obstinate conduct is proven.

Statutes of limitations for civil claims are primarily governed by the Civil Code of 2020, pursuant to which, as a general rule, a one-year term applies to actions seeking redress for non-contractual liability (that is, tort claims, including actions for damages arising from negligence or fault), with the period typically beginning to run when the injured party knew or should have known of the injury and the identity of the person who caused it.

Actions arising from breach of contract or contractual fault are generally subject to a four-year limitation period, unless a specific statute provides otherwise. In this context, the limitation period accrues at the moment the obligation becomes enforceable, rather than from the occurrence of damages. Puerto Rico law also recognises tolling of limitations periods through not only through the filing of complaints, but also via extrajudicial demands or acknowledgment of debts.

The courts of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico exercise general jurisdiction over all causes of action, although venue principles may sometimes require the internal transfer of cases between different parts of the judicial system. In contrast, federal courts in Puerto Rico are courts of limited jurisdiction, subject to the same limitations as all other federal courts in the United States. In both court systems, Commonwealth and federal, courts are subject to personal jurisdiction principles derived from constitutional due process and Puerto Rico law. Personal jurisdiction is generally acquired either through proper service of process under the Rules of Civil Procedure or by the defendant’s voluntary submission to the court’s authority, whether expressly or by conduct. Courts are authorised by statute to exercise jurisdiction both over domiciliaries and over non-domiciliaries who have sufficient contacts with Puerto Rico to satisfy constitutional requirements, namely:

• that the defendant engaged in an affirmative act purposefully directed toward Puerto Rico, such that it availed itself of the benefits and protections of Puerto Rico law;
• that the cause of action arise out of or be related to those contacts; and
• that the exercise of jurisdiction comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

Civil actions are initiated by filing a complaint with the Court of First Instance. The complaint must set forth the factual allegations supporting the claim, the legal grounds for relief, the parties’ capacity, and the specific remedies sought.

Amendments to the complaint are generally permitted under the applicable procedural rules. A party may amend the pleading once as of right before a responsive pleading is served, and thereafter with leave of court or written consent of the opposing party. Courts apply a liberal standard in allowing amendments, particularly when they promote adjudication on the merits and do not cause undue prejudice or delay.

Service of process is governed by the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure and is a prerequisite to the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over a defendant. A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint, after which a summons must be issued and served, together with the complaint to notify the defendant formally of the lawsuit. Service is generally the responsibility of the plaintiff, not the court, and must be completed within the time limits set by the rules, subject to extensions for good cause. Personal service is the preferred method and is typically made by delivering the summons and complaint directly to the defendant or to an authorised agent. The rules also allow for alternative mechanisms, including waiver of service, service by publication when the defendant cannot be located despite diligent efforts, and service by mail in certain circumstances.

A party residing outside Puerto Rico may be sued if the courts have personal jurisdiction under the long-arm doctrine, and service may then be effected outside the jurisdiction in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable constitutional due process standards, and applicable international conventions.

If a defendant does not respond to a lawsuit after being properly served, the plaintiff may ask the court to enter default (locally referred to as rebeldía), which formally notes the defendant’s failure to appear or plead. Once default is entered, the plaintiff may then ask the court to enter a default judgment, based either on the pleadings when the claim involves a sum certain or after a hearing to determine damages or other relief when necessary. Courts retain discretion to set aside a default upon a showing of good cause.

Puerto Rico permits representative or collective actions in the form of class actions. These actions are governed by Rule 20 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure, which closely tracks Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The elements required to certify a class in Puerto Rico include:

• numerosity;
• commonality of legal or factual issues;
• typicality of the representative parties’ claims; and
• adequacy of representation.

Courts retain ongoing authority to manage the case, approve settlements, and protect the interests of absent class members. Class actions operate under an opt-out model. Once a class is certified, all members who fall within the class definition are bound by the judgment unless they exclude themselves before the certification takes place.

Neither the Rules of Civil Procedure nor substantive law expressly requires attorneys to project anticipated fees or expenses before proceedings begin. Nevertheless, the Rules of Professional Conduct impose clear duties of communication and transparency on attorneys with their clients. Thus, attorneys must explain the basis of their fees and provide information reasonably necessary for clients to make informed decisions about the representation. This can often include information about foreseeable costs and expenses as they arise.

Motion practice is a central feature of civil litigation in Puerto Rico. The Rules of Civil Procedure expressly contemplate pretrial motions concerning pleadings, discovery and evidentiary disputes, case management, and dispositive issues. Parties routinely file motions to dismiss, motions for a more definite statement, motions to strike, and summary judgment motions prior to trial, allowing courts to narrow issues or resolve cases without a full evidentiary hearing.

Moreover, motion practice can extend beyond procedural matters to substantive remedies on an interim basis, including provisional remedies such as attachments, injunctions, and orders to preserve the status quo or prevent irreparable harm.

The Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure are largely modelled on the federal rules, and they provide many of the same tools for resolving claims before trial.

For example, a party may move to dismiss or seek judgment on the pleadings, or move to strike legally insufficient claims based on defects apparent on the face of the pleadings. Motions to dismiss normally raise threshold issues such as lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, failure to state a claim, prescription, res judicata, or the absence of indispensable parties. In practice, most of these defences should be raised at the outset, because they can be deemed waived if not asserted in a timely manner. Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction, in contrast, are not waivable and may be raised at any stage of the case. It must be noted that, while there is some debate as to whether Puerto Rico has adopted the federal “plausibility” standard articulated by the US Supreme Court in Iqbal and Twombly, when testing the sufficiency of a complaint, Puerto Rico courts generally accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party.

Another tool for pre-trial disposition is the motion for summary judgment, which allows the court to dispose of claims or defences where there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Although a party may seek summary judgment once at least twenty days have elapsed from service on the defendant, these motions are typically filed after discovery has closed.

Interested parties who are not originally named as plaintiffs or defendants may join a lawsuit when they have a legally protectable interest that may be affected by the outcome of the case. This may occur through the joinder of indispensable or permissive parties, or more commonly through intervention. Intervention may be granted as of right when the party’s interest could be impaired by the disposition of the action, or permissively when the proposed claim or defence shares common issues of law or fact with the main case. In all instances, joinder or intervention requires a timely motion and is subject to the court’s discretion to prevent undue delay or prejudice to the existing parties.

A defendant may apply for an order that the plaintiff/claimant must pay a sum of money as security for the defendant's costs, which would be subject to the provisions of Rule 69 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule gives courts the authority to require the plaintiff to post a bond under certain circumstances, such as in connection with provisional remedies or in cases brought by non-resident individuals or foreign corporations.

In general, each party bears its own costs while the case is pending, but courts have discretion to impose interlocutory costs or attorneys' fees as a sanction when a motion is frivolous, dilatory, or reflects bad-faith conduct, particularly in discovery-related disputes.

Interim motions must comply with the procedural rules governing pleadings and motion practice and be grounded in law and fact. Judges may defer the final allocation of costs until the conclusion of the case or deny cost-shifting altogether when equity so requires, using this discretion to discourage abusive motion practice and promote efficient case management. In any case, injunctions and other interim forms of relief may require posting of bonds.

Once a motion is fully briefed, the timing of the court’s ruling varies and is largely within the court’s discretion, depending on the judge’s docket and the nature of the issues raised. Some motions are resolved promptly on the papers, while others may remain pending until the court schedules argument or a hearing. In exigent circumstances, a party may request that a particular motion be resolved on an urgent basis.

Discovery is available in civil cases. Allowable discovery mechanisms include interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admission, depositions, and subpoenas for documents or testimony from parties and non-parties. In certain cases, courts may also permit physical or mental examinations and inspections of property.

Discovery in Puerto Rico is broad. Subject to limited exceptions, parties are allowed to discover non-privileged information that is relevant to the matters in controversy and reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and proportional to the needs of the case. However, courts have discretion to restrain discovery to limit undue burden, cost, or abuse. Parties may also ask the court to resolve discovery disputes by motion – such as motions to compel or for a protective order.

Discovery can be obtained from third parties using subpoenas for the production of documents or witnesses for a deposition. Any person or entity served with a subpoena may object and seek a protective order where the subpoena seeks privileged or confidential information, imposes an undue burden, is overly broad, or otherwise exceeds the permissible scope of discovery.

The Rules of Civil Procedure are designed so that courts are required to intervene sparingly. They require that parties attempt to resolve discovery disputes between themselves before raising discovery issues before the court. Any such issue not resolved between the parties may be brought to the court’s attention by motion – such as motions to compel or for a protective order.

Unlike in federal court, Puerto Rico law does not require parties to provide automatic initial disclosures. Discovery proceeds through the typical discovery mechanisms, which include interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admission, depositions, and subpoenas for documents or testimony from parties and non-parties. However, once a party has responded to a discovery request, it is under a continuing obligation to supplement, correct, or amend its responses if the circumstances so require, such as when the party becomes aware that a prior answer is incorrect or incomplete, or that there are additional responsive documents or responses available.

Not applicable.

The Puerto Rico Rules of Evidence recognise the attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential communications made for the purpose of seeking or providing legal advice. The privilege belongs to the client and may be waived only by the client. The Rules of Civil Procedure also protect work-product protection, which shields materials prepared in anticipation of litigation, such as an attorney’s mental impressions, legal theories, and litigation strategy made on behalf of the client. These privileges may be waived through voluntary or inadvertent disclosure, depending on the circumstances.

Puerto Rico does not differentiate between outside counsel and in-house counsel for the attorney-client or work-product privilege analysis. What matters is that the communication is between a client and a person authorised or reasonably believed to be authorised to practise law and that it was made in confidence for the purpose of legal advice.

It should be noted that Puerto Rico also recognises other privileges, such as accountant-client privilege, physician-patient privilege and spousal privilege.

Discovery in Puerto Rico discovery is broad but not unlimited. Discovery is limited to non-privileged matter that is relevant to the controversy, and parties can request protective orders to narrow or prevent disclosure. Courts have discretion to restrict discovery to avoid undue burden, oppression, or expense, including ordering that discovery not occur, that it be conducted in a certain way, or that specific information be produced only under seal.

In Puerto Rico civil cases, injunctive relief may be granted to preserve the status quo and to prevent harm that cannot otherwise be adequately repaired through a later money judgment. Courts require a concrete risk of imminent harm and a showing that ordinary legal remedies (typically, damages) would be insufficient in the time available.

There are several types of injunction variants available to courts under the Rules of Civil Procedure. A temporary restraining order (TRO) is designed for immediate threats and is usually short in duration, serving as a bridge until the court can hold a prompt hearing. A preliminary injunction is issued after notice and an opportunity to be heard; it governs the parties’ conduct while the case proceeds to final resolution. There is also a permanent injunction that is granted after adjudication on the merits and operates as part of the final judgment, typically prohibiting the continuation or repetition of unlawful conduct. Although the procedure for seeking injunctive relief is governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, the remedy itself is equitable in nature and courts have broad discretion when determining whether injunctive relief is warranted.

In addition to the classic injunction just described, there is also a handful of statutes (eg, those governing statutes or construction permits) that provide for “statutory” injunctions, so-called because they do not always require proof of the traditional four elements for equitable injunctive relief.

Finally, the Rules of Civil Procedure provide for other forms of provisional relief that, while not injunctions as such, serve related protective functions and are governed by their own standards. These include orders of attachment, garnishment, receivership, and restraining the transfer or alienation of specific property. In commercial disputes, these measures are often the primary tools for preventing dissipation of assets and preserving collectibility.

Issues arising from parallel proceedings in another jurisdiction are generally addressed through procedural motions and case-management mechanisms, including challenges to jurisdiction or venue and objections based on duplicative litigation.

Where urgency is credibly shown, injunctive relief can be provided quickly. A TRO is the tool most commonly used to bridge the gap between an immediate threat and a prompt hearing on whether broader interim relief should remain in place. Courts prioritise these matters over routine motion practice.

Puerto Rico addresses after-hours emergencies through a duty-judge system that operates mainly through municipal courtrooms. These courtrooms offer extended hours on nights, weekends, and holidays to handle matters requiring immediate attention. Moreover, in the San Juan Superior Court, there are two judges whose entire caseload is made up of cases in which injunctions have been requested.

For civil injunctive applications, speed is typically achieved through expedited scheduling and prompt consideration by the assigned court, supported by a focused evidentiary presentation that explains why ordinary timelines would cause irreparable harm.

Injunctive relief can be obtained on an ex parte basis, but it must be followed up promptly (usually within ten days) by a hearing to determine whether the TRO should be either dissolved or substituted by a preliminary injunction. A TRO is treated as an extraordinary measure, and the applicant must present detailed facts in a verified filing or affidavit showing that immediate and irreparable injury will occur before the respondent can be heard. The applicant must also address notice efforts and, when applicable, explain why notice should not be required. Because of due process considerations, TROs are designed to be short-lived and to transition quickly to an adversarial preliminary injunction hearing, at which time the respondent has an early opportunity to seek dissolution or modification.

In Puerto Rico, an applicant seeking a  TRO or a preliminary injunction is generally required to post security in an amount the court deems appropriate. The court sets the amount of the bond based on the potential harm the injunction may cause. If the injunction is later found to have been wrongfully granted, the respondent may recover proven costs and damages caused by the injunction, typically limited to the amount of the bond.

In principle, when Puerto Rico courts have personal jurisdiction over particular respondents and subject-matter jurisdiction over a dispute, they can issue orders that regulate respondents’ conduct.

This includes orders prohibiting or restraining the transfer or dissipation of assets, even if those assets are located outside of Puerto Rico. It should be noted, however, that Puerto Rico courts typically exercise comity when the practical effect of their orders may extend beyond the boundaries of the jurisdiction. Even when such an order is issued, enforcement rests on the court’s contempt power over the respondent, not on direct control of the assets themselves. The order operates against the person subject to the court’s jurisdiction, rather than against property located outside the court’s jurisdictional reach.

In Puerto Rico, injunctions are not directed at persons or entities that are not named parties to a suit. Of course, in exigent circumstances, courts may issue ex parte TROs against persons or entities that are named as parties but have not yet been served, but they must be at least named parties. However, if a third party knowingly aids and abets a party in the violation of an injunction, the third party may be held jointly liable for contempt.

Non-compliance with an injunction or other provisional remedy can trigger the court’s coercive powers, including contempt. The court may compel compliance with an order granting a provisional remedy or injunction through its civil contempt authority. The purpose of civil contempt is a practical compliance rather than punishment for its own sake. Courts retain broad discretion to fashion measures reasonably tailored to that purpose.

Trial practice in Puerto Rico is very similar to that in federal court, except for the language of the proceedings and the lack of civil juries. Cases are tried before a judge in Spanish, and parties present their proof through witness testimony and documentary exhibits. The Puerto Rico Rules of Evidence regulate the order and method of examining witnesses (direct, cross, redirect, recross) and give the judge broad discretion to control how such evidence is presented.

Before and during trial, parties may elect to file motions to define and narrow the issues to be tried. Courts typically resolve these matters through written interim rulings, known as resoluciones. During trial, the court will hear fact and expert witnesses, examine documentary evidence, and hear oral argument from the attorneys. Trials in Puerto Rico civil cases are bench trials. The court hears fact and expert testimony, receives documentary evidence, and hears oral argument in live hearings. Following trial, Puerto Rico courts generally issue a written opinion and final judgment, referred to as a sentencia.

Puerto Rico courts conduct several types of hearings, depending on the stage and needs of the case. Certain hearings are mandated by the Rules of Civil Procedure and are used to address scheduling and case management, such as the Initial Scheduling Conference and the Pretrial Conference. Through case-management reports, scheduling conferences and orders, and pretrial conferences, courts set litigation timetables, narrow issues for trial, and address discovery planning, stipulations, settlement prospects, and trial dates.

While courts in Puerto Rico usually resolve interim or pretrial motions on written submissions alone, they occasionally convene hearings to discuss them.

In Puerto Rico Commonwealth courts, jury trials are not available in civil cases, only in criminal cases. In contrast, civil juries are available in federal courts in Puerto Rico, as elsewhere.

Puerto Rico has adopted a set of rules of evidence that are based in large part on the Federal Rules of Evidence. They establish a framework for determining what evidence may be received, how it is evaluated, and how evidentiary rulings are reviewed. At a high level, the Rules address general principles of admissibility, judicial notice and presumptions, relevance and related exclusions, evidentiary privileges, witness competency and credibility, opinion and expert testimony, hearsay and its exceptions, authentication and identification, and the treatment of documents, recordings, and summaries. Within this set of rules, the trial judge serves as the ultimate arbiter of admissibility and exercises broad discretion over the presentation of proof.

In both Puerto Rico and federal courts, expert testimony is permitted at trial whenever the expert’s specialised knowledge will help the judge understand the evidence or decide a disputed fact. The applicable Rules of Evidence govern the qualification of experts and set forth rules regarding the admissibility of expert opinions. In some instances, expert testimony is required for a party to sustain certain claims (for example, to prove damages arising from medical malpractice). Disputes over expert opinions are typically resolved through motions in limine, pretrial rulings, or focused evidentiary hearings.

Under both the Puerto Rico and the Federal Rules of Evidence, trial judges are allowed to appoint expert witnesses on their own initiative, but they rarely do so. In exceptional cases, the Rules of Civil Procedure also allow the court to appoint a special master to assist with the resolution of particularly complex or technical matters.

Court filings and judicial proceedings in Puerto Rico are almost always open to the public. Public access is grounded in due process principles and the public’s interest in the proper administration of justice. In practice, most filings and docket activity can be accessed electronically through the Unified Case Management System (SUMAC, for its Spanish acronym), the judiciary’s case management and electronic filing system, which allows parties and the public to access the court’s docket. This includes transcripts of hearings held by the court. However, Puerto Rico law recognises important exceptions to protect privacy and sensitive interests. Courts may limit access to filings or proceedings when confidentiality is necessary, including in matters involving minors, family law disputes, gender-based violence cases, mental health proceedings, and certain criminal investigations.

Transcripts are not automatically prepared for every hearing. When needed, they must be requested from the court reporter, and the requesting party is responsible for paying the applicable administrative fee. In the absence of a confidentiality order, transcripts may also be requested by non-parties.

Since Puerto Rico civil trials are always bench trials, judges play an active role in managing proceedings, deciding disputed facts, evaluating witness credibility, and resolving legal issues. The Rules of Evidence expressly authorise judicial control over the presentation of evidence and permit the judge to ask questions to clarify testimony and the record, while requiring neutrality and prohibiting advocacy for any party. In practice, judges facilitate orderly proceedings by encouraging stipulations where appropriate, and narrowing the issues through pretrial practice.

At evidentiary hearings, some rulings may be made from the bench, particularly those involving procedural issues and evidentiary determinations that must be decided in real time. Dispositive or merits rulings, and final determinations after trial, are more commonly issued through written orders or judgments.

Puerto Rico does not operate on a single, uniform timeline for civil disputes. Timing largely depends on the complexity of the case, the number of parties, how extensive motion practice becomes, and the scope of discovery. Nevertheless, the rules do impose structure through scheduling orders and pretrial management, and courts often strive to enforce compliance with those deadlines.

In a typical commercial case, litigation begins with the pleading stage, during which the parties set out their claims and defences and may file motions to dismiss. Depending on the complexity of the dispute, this phase may last from several months to a year or more. If the case is not fully dismissed, discovery comes next. Courts rely heavily on the parties to define the scope of discovery and set schedules accordingly and, while adjustments are sometimes necessary, discovery is usually completed within a defined period, commonly ranging from six to eighteen months.

Once discovery closes, the parties consolidate their evidentiary record and legal theories and often file dispositive motions, most commonly motions for summary judgment. Rulings on such motions may take several months. If the case is not fully resolved, the court will hold a pretrial conference at least 30 days before trial. In advance of that conference, the parties must submit a comprehensive pretrial memorandum outlining their factual positions, legal theories, witnesses, and exhibits. At the conference, the court typically addresses motions in limine, resolves evidentiary and procedural issues, and manages the logistics and scope of the trial.

Trials themselves may last from a single day to several weeks, depending on the nature and complexity of the case.

In Puerto Rico civil courts, parties do not usually need the court's approval to settle the dispute, because settlement agreements (or contratos de transacción, in Spanish) are treated as private agreements between the parties. Courts still need to give procedural effect to the settlement by entering an order or judgment that formally ends the case.

Court approval is required in special contexts, however. For example, in cases in which a class has been certified, a proposed dismissal or settlement may not proceed without court approval and notice to class members. Similarly, settlements involving minors or legally incapacitated persons cannot be finalised privately and are subject to judicial authorisation, the scope of which depends on the rights or interests being compromised.

Court filings and judicial proceedings in Puerto Rico are generally open to the public. Public access is grounded in due process principles and the public’s interest in the proper administration of justice. As a result, in the absence of a sealing order or other statutory exception, court dockets and filed documents are accessible to the public.

Accordingly, if the parties attach a settlement agreement to a motion or stipulation filed with the court, the terms of that agreement will ordinarily become part of the public record. In practice, however, parties often preserve confidentiality by settling privately and advising the court only that the matter has been resolved. Most commonly, the parties file a stipulation of dismissal, or alternatively, the plaintiff moves for voluntary dismissal as a condition of the settlement itself. In those circumstances, the settlement remains a private contract between the parties, and the public record reflects only the procedural disposition of the case.

Under Puerto Rico law, settlement agreements are treated as private and enforceable contracts. Importantly, the Civil Code requires, as a condition of validity, that a settlement be memorialised in a signed writing or reflected in a court resolution or judgment.

When a settlement is incorporated into a court resolution or judgment, enforcement may proceed through the court’s ordinary post-judgment enforcement mechanisms. Alternatively, where the settlement is not judicially incorporated, an aggrieved party will have to bring a separate action to enforce the agreement (which may require a proceeding in a different forum, such as arbitration, depending on the terms of the settlement).

Under Puerto Rico law, settlement agreements are treated as private and enforceable contracts. As a contract, a settlement may be set aside on the same grounds that invalidate contracts in general, including defects in consent such as error, fraud or bad faith (known as “dolo” or “dolus”), violence, or intimidation, as well as the absence of a lawful cause or defects in the object of the agreement.

In addition, a settlement agreement must satisfy the Puerto Rico Civil Code’s form requirements, which generally require a signed writing or incorporation into a court resolution or judgment, and, where applicable, execution in a public deed. Failure to comply with these requirements may render the settlement void.

Puerto Rico law also places substantive limits on the substantive scope of settlement agreements. A settlement may not address matters governed by mandatory law or non-waivable rights, may not compromise future support obligations, including child support, and may not extend to personal or family-status matters that are not purely economic in nature. In addition, the Civil Code limits settlements to genuine disputes. A settlement may be invalid where it rests on a fundamentally mistaken factual premise, purports to resolve non-existent rights, mistakenly encompasses matters already decided by a final judgment, or depends on performance that is inherently uncertain.

If the settlement is converted into a court judgment or order (for example, via a consent judgment or dismissal with prejudice that the court enters), the challenge is typically framed as a request for post-judgment relief. The Rules of the Civil Procedure authorise relief from a judgment or order for reasons that include mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud or misconduct, voidness, satisfaction, or other justifying reasons, subject to strict timing rules and procedural limits.

In Puerto Rico, the remedies available to a successful litigant are those granted in the court’s judgment and are grounded primarily in the Civil Code or applicable substantive law, with enforcement and ancillary relief governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Courts are authorised to award monetary relief, including compensatory damages to redress proven damages. In tort cases, the 2020 Civil Code also authorises punitive damages, but only in exceptional circumstances involving criminal, intentional, or gravely reckless conduct, and subject to a statutory cap equal to the amount of compensatory damages. In contract cases, remedies are tailored to the breach and may include specific performance, rescission with restitution, or damages designed to place the parties in the position required by law.

Courts may also grant equitable relief. This includes injunctions compelling or prohibiting conduct, mandamus to enforce ministerial legal duties, and declaratory judgments clarifying parties’ rights and obligations. As a procedural matter, Puerto Rico courts are authorised to grant the relief to which the prevailing party is entitled based on the facts proven, even if that relief was not specifically requested in the pleadings, subject to the limitation that default judgments may not exceed or differ in kind from the relief sought.

Courts are also authorised to include ancillary awards. For instance, a court may tax costs against the losing party. Attorneys' fees may be awarded when authorised by statute or contract, or where the losing party’s vexatious litigation conduct warrants a fee shift. Monetary judgments accrue legal interest at the statutory rate, calculated as simple interest unless otherwise provided by law or agreement.

Finally, enforcement is addressed through post-judgment procedures. Monetary judgments are enforced through writs of execution against assets. Judgments requiring specific acts may be enforced through court orders and, where applicable, foreclosure of liens or security interests. The Rules also authorise post-judgment discovery in aid of execution to identify assets, and courts may issue provisional or injunctive relief to prevent dissipation and ensure effective collection.

Puerto Rico law does not impose a general cap on compensatory damages in ordinary civil cases. In tort cases, courts award damages based on proof of loss and causation. Puerto Rico’s Supreme Court has indicated that, in assessing the reasonableness of an award, trial courts may consider comparable awards in similar cases as a reference point, while still tailoring the award to the specific facts and harms in the case at hand. In contract cases, relief is driven primarily by the terms of the agreement itself, including any provisions for liquidated damages or specific performance. Further, where damages are sought for breach of contract, they are assessed in much the same manner as tort damages (based on proof of loss and causation), but within the boundaries set by the contract.

A significant development under the 2020 Civil Code is the introduction of punitive damages in tort cases, where they were previously unavailable. Courts now have discretion to award punitive damages, but only in exceptional circumstances. Specifically, punitive awards are authorised where the defendant’s conduct is criminal, intentional and bad faith, or reflects a grave disregard for life, safety, or property. Even when those conditions are met, punitive damages are statutorily capped and may not exceed the amount of compensatory damages awarded, effectively limiting punitive exposure to a 100% multiplier.

Finally, interest, costs, and attorneys' fees are treated separately from damages. Legal interest accrues on monetary obligations in default at the statutory rate, calculated on a simple basis unless otherwise agreed. Attorneys' fees may be awarded only where authorised by statute, contract, or procedural rules (such as for vexatious litigation), and are not considered damages.

Puerto Rico law recognises both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, but each is governed by distinct rules and serves different functions. There are no general statutory caps on pre- or post-judgment interest beyond the application of the statutory legal rate, which accrues as simple interest unless the parties have validly agreed otherwise.

Post-judgment interest accrues automatically on monetary judgments from the date judgment is entered until it is satisfied. It is mandatory, applies regardless of the parties’ litigation conduct, and accrues at the statutory legal rate from the date of judgment, even if not expressly mentioned therein.

Pre-judgment interest may be available in two different circumstances:

• substantively, as a consequence of non-payment of a debt, where the claim involves a liquid, due, and owing monetary obligation and the debtor is in default; and
• procedurally, as a discretionary sanction where the losing party has litigated obstinately or in bad faith.

Monetary judgments are enforced through writs of execution against assets. Judgments requiring specific acts may be enforced through court orders and, where applicable, foreclosure of liens or security interests. The Rules also authorise post-judgment discovery in aid of execution to identify assets, and courts may issue provisional or injunctive relief to prevent dissipation and ensure collection.

To enforce in Puerto Rico a judgment issued by a foreign country, the prevailing party must first have the judgment validated and recognised locally through an exequatur proceeding filed either as an ordinary action against the persons affected by the judgment or, where all affected parties consent, as an ex parte petition signed under oath. The application must meet certain technical requirements (language, notice requirements, etc).

Puerto Rico law applies different recognition criteria depending on the origin of the judgment. Judgments from US states or territories (which benefit from the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution) are tested against a limited set of requirements: whether the issuing court had jurisdiction over the person and the subject-matter, whether due process was observed, and whether the judgment was not obtained by fraud. In contrast, judgments from foreign countries are also recognised through the exequatur process, but are subject to additional criteria: whether the issuing tribunal had jurisdiction, whether the legal system under which the judgment was rendered is impartial, and whether enforcement would be consistent with Puerto Rico public policy and basic principles of justice.

Once a judgment is recognised through exequatur, it is enforced in Puerto Rico in the same manner as a local judgment, using the ordinary post-judgment enforcement mechanisms available under Puerto Rico procedural law.

Puerto Rico’s legal system is composed of three tiers. The first tier is occupied by the Court of First Instance, a general jurisdiction trial court.

The Court of Appeals, a general jurisdiction appeals court that occupies the second tier, reviews interlocutory and final rulings of the trial courts, as well as final decisions of administrative agencies. Interlocutory trial court rulings are reviewable by filing petitions for the discretionary issuance of writs of certiorari, while final judgments are reviewable by filing appeals, which must be heard. It should be noted that, unlike federal courts and most state courts in the US, the Court of Appeals frequently grants certiorari to review interlocutory trial court rulings on a wide range of matters, including privileges, denials of motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and class certification. This interlocutory certiorari practice, with its concomitant delays, is a significant explanatory factor for the slow pace of civil litigation in Puerto Rico.

The third and final tier of the Puerto Rico judicial system is occupied by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, the court of last resort, and one whose jurisdiction is almost entirely discretionary. In addition to reviewing by way of certiorari the judgments of the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court may also assume jurisdiction over pending cases at any level by issuing an intra-jurisdictional certification order, either on its own initiative or at a party’s request. Certification is typically used where there is a conflict in appellate precedent, a novel question of law, or an issue of significant public interest, including substantial constitutional questions.

Puerto Rico has a two-tier appellate system. Appeals from the Court of First Instance are heard by the intermediate Court of Appeals, and final review rests with the Puerto Rico Supreme Court. While the basic distinction between appeals as of right and discretionary review applies at both levels, the governing rules and standards differ.

First, final judgments of the Court of First Instance are appealable as of right to the Court of Appeals. The appeal must be filed within a jurisdictional period of thirty days from notice of the judgment. In contrast, interlocutory orders are generally not appealable as of right, but may instead be reviewed by means of petition for certiorari, which is discretionary.

Review by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court is more limited. Appeal as of right is available, in essence, when the Court of Appeals has entered judgment declaring a statute, regulation, municipal ordinance, or similar governmental enactment unconstitutional. Almost all other cases are reviewable only upon the discretionary grant of the writ of certiorari. Where an appellant invokes appeal-as-of-right jurisdiction and the Supreme Court determines that the case does not meet the applicable criteria, it may treat the filing as a petition for certiorari and apply discretionary review.

The procedure for taking an appeal in Puerto Rico depends on whether the ruling to be reviewed is final or interlocutory and on the court that issued the ruling. Generally, the time to appeal is triggered by the filing in the record (or court docket) of the notice of the judgment or order issued by the lower court. If a timely motion for reconsideration is filed, the appeal period runs from notice of the order resolving that motion.

Final judgments of the Court of First Instance are appealed as of right by filing a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals within thirty days from notice of the judgment. Interlocutory orders are generally reviewed by petition for certiorari, which must also be filed within thirty days from notice of the challenged order. Appeals or petitions for certiorari to the Puerto Rico Supreme Court must be filed within thirty days from notice of the Court of Appeals’ judgment.

Appellate review in Puerto Rico is confined to the record developed in the Court of First Instance. The appellate courts decide the case based on the trial record and the parties’ briefs. Appellate courts review legal questions de novo, factual findings deferentially, and discretionary rulings for abuse of discretion, while generally limiting review to issues properly raised and preserved at first instance. In very limited circumstances, appellate courts may take judicial notice of matters that meet the requirements of the Rules of Evidence, or consider post-judgment developments that may affect jurisdiction or justiciability (such as mootness). However, this is not the norm.

In Puerto Rico, courts do not impose ad hoc conditions as a prerequisite to granting an appeal as of right. The ability to appeal (either through an appeal or a petition for certiorari), and the conditions for perfecting such an appellate mechanism, are defined by statute and by the procedural rules adopted by the judiciary. That said, appellate courts do exercise control over whether an appeal or petition for certiorari may proceed by enforcing those rule-based requirements – including form and substantive requirements (such as briefing rules and jurisdictional deadlines).

Both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals can confirm, modify, vacate or reverse the lower court’s determination.

Puerto Rico litigation proceeds under the “American Rule”; that is, each party pays its own attorney’s fees by default. However, there are various exceptions, and fee-shifting may be justified if the losing party has acted obstinately or frivolously, if a statute authorises fee-shifting, such as consumer and employment laws, or if a contract clause stipulates it.

Unlike attorneys' fees, ordinary court costs are normally assessed against the losing party upon timely application by the prevailing party. The costs that may be awarded by the court are those necessarily incurred in the conduct of a lawsuit or proceeding that the law requires or that the court, in its discretion, deems that one litigating party should reimburse to another. The losing party may challenge the petition for reimbursement, and the trial court’s decision is appealable to the Court of Appeals.

Litigation costs do not cover all the expenses incurred in the proceedings, as they are not synonymous with litigation expenses and have a restrictive interpretation that is traditionally justified in the interest of ensuring greater access to litigants in an economical manner. Only those expenses considered necessary for the litigation are awarded – and there is ample case law concerning which expenses are reimbursable and which are not. It is also up to the court, within the scope of its discretion, to assess the reasonableness of these expenses.

Once costs are taxed and incorporated into a final judgment or post-judgment order, they become part of the monetary judgment. From that point forward, post-judgment interest accrues on the total judgment amount, including costs, until payment. Post-judgment interest is calculated at the legal rate applicable to judgments, as set by statute and published by the Office of the Commissioner of Financial Institutions, and it accrues as simple interest from the date the judgment is entered.

Alternative dispute resolution is favoured in Puerto Rico as a matter of public policy. Courts regularly encourage the use of ADR to promote efficiency, reduce costs, and facilitate resolution outside traditional litigation.

Arbitration and mediation are the most commonly used ADR mechanisms, each serving a distinct function. Arbitration is widely used in commercial and contractual disputes and is typically driven by agreement of the parties. In August 2024, Puerto Rico enacted the Puerto Rico Arbitration Act of 2024 (Act 147-2024), a comprehensive modernisation of its arbitration framework that aligns local law with the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act and prevailing US practice. Mediation is also widely used, both voluntarily and through court-annexed programmes.

The Judiciary operates a system of ADR through its administrative offices (OAT) that is composed of certified mediators and facilitators and requires mandatory mediation in certain family and community cases. In this regard it encourages the use of mechanisms that complement the traditional adjudicative system in order to deliver justice more quickly, efficiently, and economically. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico created the Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution to implement this public policy. Conflict Mediation Centres are part of the alternative dispute resolution services offered by the Judiciary for conflict resolution. Judges must consider referring cases to mediation at initial scheduling. While there is no obligation to settle a case, even refusing to participate meaningfully in court-ordered ADR can constitute obstinacy and result in the imposition of attorneys' fees, costs, and other sanctions.

ADR within the Puerto Rico Judiciary is formally structured, centrally administered, and widely available. The Office of Alternative Dispute Resolution designs and administers the judiciary’s ADR programmes, certifies mediators, regulates ADR procedures, runs community mediation centres, maintains statistics and quality-control programmes and trains judges and court staff. ADR is fully integrated into civil and family court proceedings.

Additionally, a number of private institutions offer ADR services in Puerto Rico. By way of example, the American Arbitration Association has a strong local presence and administers commercial, construction, and employment arbitrations, as well as mediation, supported by case-management services and rosters of bilingual arbitrators and mediators. Other well-known providers, such as Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS), are also regularly used in Puerto Rico by agreement of the parties, particularly in complex commercial and cross-border disputes.

Arbitration in Puerto Rico is governed by the Puerto Rico Arbitration Act of 2024 (Act 147-2024). The Act grants arbitrators broad authority to conduct hearings, receive evidence, and manage procedure. Parties may adopt institutional or ad hoc arbitration rules, and where the agreement or rules are silent, arbitrators control discovery and procedure, subject to basic due process requirements.

Court involvement is limited. Courts may compel or stay arbitration, appoint arbitrators if the agreed method fails, enforce interim measures, and confirm or vacate awards on the statutory grounds. Confirmed awards are enforced in the same manner as courts' judgments. It is an open question whether a court may vacate an award because it was not issued in accordance with law.

Certain subject-matters are not arbitrable in Puerto Rico due to statutory and public policy constraints. These include criminal cases, disputes involving government authority (such as regulatory enforcement, administrative appeals, or tax assessments), and family-status issues including divorce and parental rights.

Arbitral awards may be challenged in Puerto Rico under either the Puerto Rico Arbitration Act or the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), depending on which law governs. Both statutes generally permit vacatur only on limited grounds, such as corruption, fraud, evident partiality, serious procedural misconduct, the absence of a valid arbitration agreement, or arbitrators exceeding their authority. A motion to vacate must be filed within three months of receiving or issuing the award, depending on the applicable statute. Courts do not review the merits of the arbitrator’s decision, and legal or factual errors alone are not grounds for setting aside an award.

Arbitral awards must be confirmed by a court to become enforceable in Puerto Rico. For domestic awards, a party may petition the Court of First Instance to confirm the award after a short waiting period, while the opposing party has up to three months to seek vacatur, modification, or correction. If no valid challenge is raised, the court must confirm the award, which then has the same force as a civil judgment.

Foreign arbitral awards are governed by the New York Convention and the FAA, and may be enforced in either the Puerto Rico courts or the US District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (if there is federal jurisdiction on the underlying claim). The prevailing party must submit the award, the arbitration agreement, and any required translations. The burden then shifts to the opposing party to prove one of the Convention’s limited defences. If no such defence is established, the court must recognise the award and enter judgment accordingly.

Puerto Rico has recently implemented major dispute resolution reforms and continues to advance others. The new Arbitration Act (Act 147-2024), in force since February 2025, modernised local arbitration law and aligned it with international standards. Act 147 also consolidates Puerto Rico’s domestic and international arbitration statutes by repealing both the 1951 Act and the 2012 international arbitration statute, and replacing them with a single, integrated framework. As this overhaul is still in its early stages, its practical effects are unfolding, and further judicial and legislative developments are likely as the new law is interpreted and applied.

In recent years, growth in commercial disputes has been driven primarily by insurance coverage litigation and complex contract disputes. Insurance claims expanded sharply following Hurricanes Maria and Irma in 2017, generating sustained litigation over property damage, business interruption, and coverage defences. In parallel, construction disputes have seen increased activity, reflecting the cost, delay, and performance issues typically seen in large-scale public and private projects. Financial distress and restructuring have also fuelled commercial litigation, alongside a steady baseline of contract enforcement and corporate disputes.