PUERTO RICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Ricardo F. Casellas Sánchez and Carla S. Loubriel Carrión, Casellas Alcover & Burgos
an arbitral organisation; and under Article 2.03 (c), the arbitrator resolves the contractual conditions for trig - gering arbitration. On the Court’s reading, incorpo - rating institutional rules – such as those of the AAA or JAMS – is itself an agreement to displace judicial determination of arbitrability. That reading reinforces the AAPR’s design as a supplement to institutional rules and gives drafters a straightforward route to a delegation. The observation is dictum, since the AAPR did not govern, but it is on-point dictum from the court of last resort and will be relied upon. The balance of Chapter 2 provides what parties would otherwise have to draft for themselves, or borrow from institutional rules, to govern ordinary arbitrations. It provides for injunctive relief in aid of arbitration (Arti - cle 2.06), consolidation of arbitrations (Article 2.07), appointment and neutrality of arbitrators (Article 2.08, 2.09), absolute immunity for arbitrators (Article 2.11), motions for summary disposition and pre-merits hear - ings (Article 2.12 (g)), the subpoena power of arbitra - tors (Article 2.14), judicial review of interlocutory and final awards (Article 2.15), and remedies that exclude punitive damages unless permitted by law (Article 2.17). Chapter 3 (“Abbreviated Arbitration”) Parties can agree to have an abbreviated arbitration process. This avoids many of the trappings of litiga - tion and may be suited for less complex disputes that do not require expert testimony, or where the sums in controversy do not justify the cost and fees of an ordinary arbitration. To keep it lean, abbreviated arbi - tration omits some of the procedures that make litiga - tion and ordinary arbitration more expensive, though also more conducive to finding the truth. In particular,
experts and dispositive motions are not permitted, discovery requires a showing of just cause, and any relevant evidence is admissible. The matter is heard by a single arbitrator in a one-day hearing that is held in person or by virtual means, and it is conducted either as an evidentiary hearing or on the documents. The award must be issued within 15 days after the hearing closes, and the entire proceeding must be kept private and confidential. Conclusion The AAPR should create more interest in arbitration as an ADR solution than existed under prior laws. While not all disputes are cut from the same cloth, an arbitration agreement that incorporates the ordinary or abbreviated procedures in the AAPR is capable of resolving disputes more quickly and efficiently than litigation. The careful planning and drafting of arbitra - tion agreements remains essential. Sierra Lugo shows what turns on it: a clause that expressly delegated questions of scope and applicability carried the entire dispute – including a challenge to the formation of the contract itself – out of the courts and to the arbitra - tor. That was under the repealed 1951 Act; the AAPR now supplies the same allocation by statute. With the extensive procedures in the AAPR, the practitioner should consider whether or not to arbitrate under the auspices of an administration organisation, arbitrate solely under one of the chapters in the AAPR, or incor - porate the AAPR to supplement the AAA rules, for example, in an ad hoc arbitration. Modelling the AAPR after the Uniform Revised Code and the FAA should lead to more predictability, more stability, and more acceptance of arbitration in the business and legal communities.
763 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook