31 P.R. Laws Ann. § 5303

Law changed since Law 55-2020 replaced former § 5303 on November 28, 2020 with article 1197 (31 L.P.R.A. § 9489), which also expressly permits administrative and arbitral claims to interrupt prescription.

Section 5303 provides three ways to toll a limitations period; without a claimed tolling act, the period runs uninterrupted.

Ayala v. Feliciano · filed 1990-01-02

The running of the limitations period, of course, could have been tolled by any of the three ways available under Article 1873 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303. Plaintiffs, however, have not made a claim as to any tolling acts that might have had this effect so we assume that the limitations period ran uninterrupted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 interrupts the limitations period through an extrajudicial claim, acknowledgment of the debt, or filing of a complaint.

Rodríguez-Surís v. Montesinos · filed 1996-08-19

The term is interrupted by an extrajudicial claim, acknowledgment of the debt, or filing of a complaint. P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303 (1990). ... Therefore, as of November 1989 the statute of limitations began to run and the Court finds no record of tolling.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 tolls a limitations period when an action is filed in court, but its tolling rule does not apply to a federal claim with a congressionally prescribed limitations period.

Baez v. Sears Roebuck Corp. · filed 2000-06-30

In making this argument, López invokes Article 1873 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code which provides that a statute of limitations is tolled by the filing of an action in court. P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303 (1990); ... Unfortunately for López, state or local laws on tolling are inapplicable to a claim under a federal law for which Congress has provided a statute of limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 tolls the limitations period when the action at bar is filed, but a related action arising from the same facts does not.

Matilde R. Ramirez De Arellano v. Jose A. Alvarez De Choudens, Etc. · filed 1978-05-10

In light of these factors, we are unwilling to depart from the interpretation of § 5303 announced in Graffals, viz., that to toll the statute, the action must be the case at bar, and not merely a somewhat related action arising from the same facts. Because the mandamus action brought by plaintiff in the Commonwealth courts did not toll the one year statute of limitations, her claim was time barred and should have been dismissed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 tolls the limitations period for all purported members of a class action, and the period begins anew if certification is denied for lack of numerosity.

Fernandez v. Chardon · filed 1982-06-08

We hold, therefore, that a class action asserting a § 1983 claim tolls the Puerto Rican statute of limitations during the pendency of the class action for all purported class members and that when class certification is denied for lack of numerosity, the limitations period begins to run anew.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A timely lawsuit can interrupt prescription under § 5303 despite a mistaken defendant name when the plaintiff acts diligently to identify the proper defendant.

Adorno v. Browning Ferris Industries of Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 1997-07-24

In other words, if the plaintiff manifests an intention to sue, that manifestation will generally suffice to toll the statute. ... In the ease at bar, we have no problem finding that the plaintiffs case should not be barred by the statute of limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 tolls the limitations period when a lawsuit is filed, but a later action receives that tolling only for identical claims seeking the same relief.

Rivera-Delgado v. Chardon · filed 2013-03-26

Filing an action “does not toll the statute of limitations for all claims arising out of the same facts,” however, and the statute of limitations is only tolled for actions that are identical to the ones in the original complaint. ... In addition, both the original claim and the new claim must seek the same relief. ... At this stage, therefore, the Court is unable to determine whether the Commonwealth case in fact tolled the statute of limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows a prior lawsuit to interrupt a limitations period only when the earlier and later actions seek the same relief, assert the same substantive claims, and name the same defendants in the same capacities.

Alamo-Hornedo v. Puig · filed 2014-03-17

The plaintiff attempts to parry this thrust by noting that, under Puerto Rico law, the statute of limitations can be "interrupted" by, among other things, suing on the relevant claim. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303. ... In order to have the tolling effect desired by the plaintiff, the complaint in the first action "must assert causes of action identical to" those asserted in the second action. ... Thus, it is nose-on-the-face plain that the two actions did not seek the "same form of relief."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 interrupts prescription through a lawsuit only when the suit is directed against the person in whose favor the limitations period runs.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Altomar · filed 1991-07-24

The filing of a mortgage foreclosure action in 1983 did not toll the statute of limitations that was running in favor of the owner of the property (Amoedo), or his successor in interest (Robhiz), for the simple reason that the complaint was filed solely against the mortgagor (Altomar) and did not name the person holding title to the property at the time as a defendant in the suit. In order for the filing of a lawsuit to have a tolling effect, the law dictates that the suit must be directed against the person in whose favor the limitations statute is running.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 interrupts prescription through a lawsuit only against the person benefiting from the limitations period; a former owner’s acknowledgment of the debt does not toll a mortgage lien against the current owner.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Urbanizadora Altomar, Inc. · filed 1991-07-24

In order for the filing of a lawsuit to have a tolling effect, the law dictates that the suit must be directed against the person in whose favor the limitations statute is running. ... Thus, even assuming Alto-mar’s acknowledgment was legally sufficient to toll the statute of limitations running against its own obligation to the FDIC, it could have no effect with regard to the lien existing over Parcels A and B.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 tolls the limitations period while a lawsuit is pending, including while federal courts resolve jurisdiction.

U.S.I. Properties Corp. v. M.D. Construction Co. · filed 2000-11-06

Under Puerto Rico's saving clause, the statute of limitations has been tolled during the resolution of the questions of jurisdiction in the suits in federal court, as CDC conceded at oral argument. 31 L.P.R.A. § 5303.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows a Rule 60 motion seeking to revive a dismissed complaint to toll the limitations period when it meets the notice requirements and is filed before the period expires.

Lozano v. Corona · filed 2002-02-11

Thus, we find no reason not to accord plaintiffs’ Rule 60 motion a tolling effect since it otherwise meets the necessary notice requirements for the operation of § 5303, i.e., demand of the specific obligation at issue; directed to the party liable; by suitable means, and filed prior to the expiration of the limitations period.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 tolls the limitations period when a complaint is filed, regardless of service or jurisdiction, until the judicial proceedings conclude.

Educadores Puertorriqueños v. Hernandez · filed 2007-08-28

The tolling takes effect by the mere filing of the complaint — without regard to service of process or the fact that the court may eventually be found to lack jurisdiction — and lasts until the judicial proceedings have finally concluded.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 lets a timely judicial action interrupt prescription for identical claims against solidarily liable defendants, even when those defendants are sued in a later action.

Rodriguez v. Suzuki Motor Corp. · filed 2009-06-22

Accordingly, we conclude that Rodríguez effectively tolled the statute of limitations as to his later-filed actions against Suzuki, pursuant to sections 5303 and 5304 of title 31 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code, by timely bringing before the court an identical cause of action against parties solidarily liable with Suzuki.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows a judicial action to interrupt the limitations period; after a dismissal without prejudice, a new limitations period begins.

Serrano v. Figueroa-Sancha · filed 2012-07-16

With the dismissal of the First Action, a new one year limitations period commenced; therefore, the filing of the Second Action within that period was not barred by the statute of limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows a judicial claim to interrupt the limitations period; a new one-year period begins when the claim is voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Delaney v. Puerto Rico Children's Hospital · filed 2016-05-02

By filing the original suit on December 18, 2014, the statute of limitations was tolled. And a new one-year period began on April 16, 2014, when that suit was voluntarily dismissed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 interrupts the limitations period when a plaintiff files suit against a defendant, but filing suit against other defendants does not toll claims against an omitted defendant.

Díaz v. Rivera · filed 2016-11-16

Because Plaintiff did not name Sgt. Rosario as a defendant, the federal complaint did not toll the limitations period as to Sgt. Rosario.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 does not toll the limitations period for a damages suit when an extrajudicial demand seeks reinstatement without claiming monetary compensation.

Del Valle v. Jesus Santa Aponte, Etc. · filed 1978-05-10

It is hard to see how these letters gave the defendant fair notice that he might be called upon to defend a damages suit, with different issues not applicable to a suit for injunctive relief. Because these letters did not toll the one year statute of limitations, plaintiff’s complaint was untimely and should have been dismissed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 tolls the limitations period through an extrajudicial claim only when the claim gives precise, specific notice and seeks the same relief as the later suit.

Anda v. Ralston Purina, Co., Luis Riofrio Anda v. Ralston Purina, Co. · filed 1992-03-25

Extrajudicial claims must be “precise and specific” in order to toll the statute of limitations. ... In addition, we have held that an extrajudicial claim for § 5303 tolling purposes must claim the same relief later requested in the federal suit. ... We find that neither the letters nor the proposed separation agreement were sufficient to give Ralston fair notice that a lawsuit based on breach of contract and wrongful discharge were in the offing.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 interrupts the limitations period for an extrajudicial claim only if it gives precise notice of the claim and relief later sought in court.

Juan A. Damiani Montalban, Ivelisse Vazquez De Damiani, and the Conjugal Partnership Composed by Both v. Puerto Rico Mar · filed 1993-05-19

Damiani's statement can not be deemed a precise and specific claim for relief ultimately sought in his lawsuit. His cryptic comment suggesting that his damages would be substantial because of his age did not provide PRMMI with fair notice that it would be called upon to defend a suit seeking damages resulting from age discrimination.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows a timely extrajudicial claim received by the debtor to interrupt prescription and start a new limitations period.

Baez v. Lopez · filed 1999-06-30

Consequently, the March 21st letter constituted an extrajudicial claim, tolled the statute of limitations, and restarted the one year clock anew. The new one-year period began when Dr. Bossolo received notice of the claim, which at the latest, was May 9th 1989.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 tolls a limitations period through an extrajudicial claim only when that claim presents the same cause of action as the later lawsuit.

Ortiz v. Com. of Puerto Rico · filed 2000-06-22

For an extrajudicial claim to toll a statute of limitations, however, the extrajudicial claim must present the identical cause of action as the claim later presented in court.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 tolls the limitations period through an extrajudicial claim only when the claim and the later lawsuit have a precise and specific identity.

Roman v. Townsend · filed 2000-08-23

Due to the clear absence of a precise and specific identity between the Administrative Claim and plaintiffs' lawsuit, the former cannot be characterized as an extrajudicial claim and thus did not toll the statute of limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 does not toll the limitations period when a letter merely asks for the status of a claim without stating the claim with sufficient precision and specificity.

Vargas-Ruiz v. GOLDEN ARCH DEVELOPMENT, INC. · filed 2003-06-30

The letter dated May 21, 2001, did not qualify as an extrajudicial claim and, as a result, failed to toll the statute of limitations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows an extrajudicial claim to toll the limitations period when it is addressed to the party later sued and seeks the same relief later requested in court.

Llantin-Ballester v. Negron-Irrizary · filed 2005-01-07

In order for an extrajudicial claim to effectively toll the limitations period it must be sent to the same party later sued and request the same relief later sought in court. ... Accordingly, these alleged communications did not toll the one year period.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows an extrajudicial claim to toll the limitations period for an identical cause of action seeking the same relief; tolling continues until the administrative proceeding ends.

Valentín-Almeyda v. Municipality of Aguadilla · filed 2006-05-09

Under Puerto Rico law, the statute of limitations is tolled by a plaintiffs extrajudicial claim. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303. “The tolling is effective with regard only to identical causes of action.” ... The relief sought in the extrajudicial claim must be the same as that later sought in court. ... Valentin’s cause of action under Law 17 is identical to that raised in the administrative complaint. ... This was enough to toll the statute of limitations. The tolling effect continued until the conclusion of the administrative proceeding.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 permits an extrajudicial claim to toll the limitations period for an identical discrimination claim.

Cintron-Alonso v. GSA Caribbean Corp. · filed 2009-03-18

Puerto Rico law allows for the tolling of a statute of limitations in a discrimination case through an extra judicial claim. P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 31, § 5303. However, this only tolls for identical causes of action.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An extrajudicial claim interrupts prescription only if it seeks the same relief, raises the same substantive claims, and names the same defendants in the same capacities as the later complaint.

Cintron-Luna v. Roman-Bultron · filed 2009-10-22

This identicality requirement has three components: (1) the extrajudicial claim and subsequent complaint must seek the same form of relief; (2) the causes of action asserted in the complaint must be based on the same substantive claims asserted in the extrajudicial claim; and (3) the causes of action must be asserted against the same defendants in the same capacities. ... None of these elements are here met.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows tolling through an extrajudicial claim or acknowledgment of debt; communications that constitute neither do not toll the limitations period.

Bryan v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2013-06-26

Therefore, because Plaintiffs communications with CMI subsequent to her letter of December 22nd, 2009 did not constitute extrajudicial claims, and the Defendant nor CMI ever acknowledged a debt owed to her, the statute of limitations was not tolled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 does not toll the limitations period when an extrajudicial letter names the defendants but is not addressed to them.

Rivera-Torres v. Castillo · filed 2015-06-16

Because plaintiff Rivera-Torres’s extrajudicial letter was not addressed to defendants, it did not meet the identicality requirements necessary to toll the statute of limitations for her claims.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 does not treat a request for information as an extrajudicial claim that interrupts the limitations period.

Rivera v. LifeLink Foundation, Inc. · filed 2016-09-26

Although they assert that they made telephone calls and wrote letters to LifeLink seeking an explanation for the handling of Mr. Morales’ body, the mere act of requesting information from the defendant would not amount to an extrajudicial claim.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows an extrajudicial claim to interrupt the limitations period; subsequent claims can extend that interruption.

Weisser v. Dolan · filed 2017-11-29

We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that Mr. Dolan’s initial September 11, 2012 letter to the homeowners’ insurer constituted an extrajudicial claim, thereby tolling the statute of limitations, and that the subsequent letters further tolled the statute of limitations until after the Dolan Defendants’ withdrawal from their representation of Vasallo.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows an extrajudicial claim to interrupt a prescriptive period, but a claim sent to a different entity does not interrupt the period against the intended defendant.

Rojas v. Puerto Rico CVS Pharmacy, LLC · filed 2022-03-31

That extrajudicial claim was ineffective, as it was not addressed to Puerto Rico CVS Pharmacy, the CVS entity involved with the property as a potential lessee.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 requires an extrajudicial claim to be precise and specific and to seek the relief later sought in court; a mere protest does not toll the limitations period.

Fernandez v. Chardon · filed 1982-06-08

These letters did not make a “precise and specific” claim for the relief ultimately sought. ... These letters are in the nature of a mere reminder, not a claim, ... and do not come within § 5303.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 requires an administrative charge to be personally notified to the defendant to toll the limitations period as an extrajudicial claim.

Leon-Nogueras v. University of Puerto Rico · filed 1997-03-31

Because an administrative charge operates as an extrajudicial claim, it must be personally notified to the defendant if it is to have a tolling effect.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 permits an extrajudicial claim to interrupt prescription, but a demand made after the limitations period has expired does not toll it.

Rosa v. Hospital Auxilio Mutuo De Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2009-03-31

The Court finds, however, that the letter of February 26, 2002 did not toll the one year statute of limitations under Puerto Rico law, 31 L.P.R.A. § 5298, as alleged by plaintiffs, as more than one year had elapsed since Rosa had notice of the injury on January 19, 2001.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 allows an extrajudicial claim made within the limitations period to stop that period from running.

Figueroa v. JC PENNEY PUERTO RICO · filed 2009-06-11

They could have either sued independently on those claims at any time within the one-year limitations period (regardless of whether or when the principal plaintiff sued) or stopped the ticking of the clock by filing extrajudicial claims. They did neither, and the limitations period expired.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 tolls the limitations period through an extrajudicial claim only for later claims the letter identifies with sufficient detail to give fair notice.

Santana-Castro v. Toledo-Davila · filed 2009-08-27

Thus, we conclude that because plaintiffs' extrajudicial letter fails to satisfy the second identicality requirement, the supervisory liability claim as to all defendant supervisors is time-barred.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 does not allow an EEOC filing to restart the limitations period for a political-discrimination claim under § 1983 when the EEOC lacks jurisdiction over that claim.

Martinez-Rivera v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico · filed 2016-01-29

Having uncovered no authority to the contrary, and given Puerto Rico's tolling caselaw, we conclude that Martínez's EEOC filing did not reset the ... limitations clock for her section-1983 political-discrimination claim.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 does not treat a mere request for medical records as an interruption of the limitations period.

Caraballo v. Hosp. Pavia Hato Rey, Inc. · filed 2019-02-28

Further a mere request of a medical record pursuant to Puerto Rico law does not toll the statute of limitations, as provided by 31 L.P.R.A. § 5303.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 5303 does not toll the limitations period when a debtor instructs another official to reinstate a claimant while denying the claimant’s asserted right.

Narvaez v. Ariel Nazario, Etc. · filed 1990-02-05

His instruction, as far as the “debt ac-knowledgement” provision of Article 1873 goes, does not have the effect of interrupting the period of limitations.