P.R. Laws tit. 23, § 73d
(a) Once the certification is approved, the agency must proceed to revise and check the approved plans and documents. At no time shall the number of approvals checked be less than twenty-five percent (25%) of the total cases approved during the month corresponding to the approval.
It shall be provided by regulations that the plans and documents certified and approved for the construction of particular works or any part thereof, which in the judgment of the agency are vested with interest or preeminent public responsibility must be given priority when reviewed by officials authorized by the agency.
Provided, That the regulation of the Permit Management Office shall include provisions in order to make a visual inspection of the land which the latter shall carry out in order to verify the compliance with the procedure of certification in projects whose cost exceeds fifty million dollars ($50,000,000).
(b) When the agency becomes aware of some irregularity, deficiency, omission or fraud, after the checking and review of the plans and other certified documents, it shall notify the professional who certified them, advising him, as precisely as possible, of the alleged fault. The agency shall require the professional to appear before an authorized official of the agency to remedy or explain the alleged fault, within a period of not more than five (5) days.
(c) Once the professional appears within the term provided by the agency, an attempt shall be made to solve the matter by means of an agreement between both parties. The solution or determination which is finally adopted should be put in writing and shall be included in the file of the works or project.
If no agreement satisfactory to both parties is achieved through this informal procedure, the agency must file a complaint against the professional and/or any person supposedly responsible for the fault discovered. In these cases the agency shall proceed pursuant to the procedure provided in § 73g of this title.
(d) In those cases in which the duly notified professional does not appear within the period of time indicated by the agency to explain the alleged fault, the agency shall:
(1) Request, or require, that the Permit Management Office petition the court to summon the certifying professional, and any other person that it deems convenient and necessary to explain the controversy to a hearing, under advice of contempt. In these cases, the agency or the Permit Management Office shall include in its petition a detailed statement of the alleged fault as well as the documents that it deems necessary to that effect.
(2) Direct the summary revocation of the permit or endorsement it granted.
(3) Request the Permit Management Office to revoke or paralyze the procedures for the issuing of the construction permit.
(4) Summarily direct the total or partial paralyzation of the works, if they have been initiated. In these cases, the agency may require the Permit Management Office to issue an injunction, or issue it directly, in cases of agencies that are empowered to such effects by virtue of their organic acts.
In these cases of paralyzation for failure to appear, the agency will not be obliged to comply with the provisions of § 73g(b)(1)(C) of this title. The norms provided by the Organic Act and the right exercised by the agency or by the Permit Management Office, whichever the case may be, for procedures that follow an injunction, will be observed.
Once the agency or the Permit Management Office decides to take one of the courses of action pursuant to the provisions of the above clauses (1) to (4) of this subsection, it must notify its action to the certifying professional, to the owner and/or the developer, and/or the building contractor.
History —July 19, 1985, No. 7, p. 625, § 5; Aug. 11, 2002, No. 169, § 1.