The specificity requirement of the Motion for Reconsideration and Motion to Make Additional Factual Findings: What triggers the interrupting effect of the time to file an appeal?

In the case of Morales Hernandez vs The Sheraton Corporation, 2014 TSPR 70, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court decided whether a motion for reconsideration and a motion to make additional factual findings which do not include any new legal theories or facts  are sufficient under Rule 43.2 and Rule 47 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedures to trigger the interrupting effect of the time to file an appeal.

A group of employees filed a lawsuit to collect owed salaries from defendants. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. Later, the trial court issued a summary judgment in favor of the defendants which was notified September 27, 2010. In time, plaintiffs presented a motion for reconsideration and a motion to make additional factual findings on October 13, 2010. On this motion, plaintiffs insisted on the same arguments already stated in their initial claims. The defendants opposed this motion alleging it did not satisfy the requirements in Rule 47 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure. Essentially, defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ motion just repeated the theory and arguments already adjudicated by the trial court and that it did not state any new fact or legal theory. The trial court considered both motions and found against plaintiffs, dismissing the motion for reconsideration and to make additional factual findings on December 6, 2010.

On January 5, 2011, plaintiffs filed a notice to appeal before the Court of Appeals. Appellees answered with a motion to dismiss because of lack of jurisdiction. Appellees argued that the motion for reconsideration presented by appellants at the trial court did not interrupt the time to file the appeal. On June 27 2012, the Court of Appeals dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals determined that the motion for reconsideration and the motion to make additional findings did not adhere with the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure. The court reasoned that a mere repetition of the legal theories that were already entertained and adjudicated in the court’s judgment is insufficient to fulfill the requirements of Rules 43 and 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedures. Furthermore, the court of appeals stated the plaintiffs should have presented new evidence or bring new arguments in the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, the court of appeals concluded the motion for reconsideration and to make additional factual findings did not interrupt the time to appeal, thus appellants were late in their action and the court of appeals was without jurisdiction.

Unsatisfied with this outcome, appellants filed a certiorari in the Puerto Rico Supreme Court alleging the court of appeals erred by dismissing the appeal because of lack of jurisdiction. They argued that the motion for reconsideration and the motion to make additional factual findings, in fact, interrupted the time to file an appeal. In opposition, appellees reiterated that the motion for reconsideration and to make additional factual findings did not adhere to the rules, were frivolous and did not interrupt the time to appeal.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court reasoned that the purpose of the change to Rule 47 in 2009 was to require the motion for reconsideration, besides being filed on time, be more specific. This new requirement was to avoid frivolous motions which are generally intended to slow the judicial process. This specificity requirement operates similarly to Rule 43.2, which demands that the motion to make additional factual findings should expose with sufficient particularity and specificity the factual findings the moving party beliefs substantiated or proven. In other words, both motions, under Rule 43.2 and under Rule 47, works the same in regards of the interrupting effect of the time to file a notice of appeal, as long as the other requirements of the Rule are met.

The Court concludes in its decision that the motion for reconsideration was sufficiently specific as to interrupt the time to file an appeal. To require the presentation of new theories of law or fact, as the Court of Appeals attempts to suggest, runs against the intent that brought Rule 47 of the Civil Procedure in 2009. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the court of appeals.