Calderón v. Puerto Rico Milk Industry Regulation Administration
This text of 95 P.R. 24 (Calderón v. Puerto Rico Milk Industry Regulation Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
JUDGMENT
The Superior Court, San Juan Part, relying on the ground that the function of the Administrator of the Milk Industry Regulation with respect to the determination of the reasonable price of fresh milk at the level of the producer is one of adjudication and not of investigation, concluded that the Administrator erred in éstablishing as a rule for public hearings held in the present case that “cross-examination of the witnesses who testify therein shall not be allowed, provided, however, that cross-examination of those persons testifying for the Office of the Administrator shall be permitted, the Administrator reserving the right to cross1 examine any deponent presented.”
[26]*26Act No. 34 of June 11, 1957, 5 L.P.R.A. § 1092 et seq., is an embracing piece of legislation which regulates the functions of the Milk Industry Administrator. By means of this Act the Legislative Assembly delegates the function of regulating the production and distribution of milk. In order to discharge these functions the Legislative Assembly authorized the Administrator to carry out investigations. To accomplish this, it is necessary.to hold hearings. It is his duty to gather all the information necessary to regulate the milk industry. The regulation authorized is most ample. It practically covers all the aspects of the industry, among others, “fix minimum and maximum prices for milk, including milk surplus and milk by-products, in all or any of the channels and levels of distribution.” In these hearings the Administrator shall receive all the necessary information to accomplish his mission. The statute provides that “in the discharge of the duties imposed by this Act and in the exercise of the powers hereby conferred upon him, the Administrator may subpoena witnesses and compel the presentment of economic data or information deemed by him necessary for the administration of this act.” It is clear that his function is not one of adjudication but quasi-legislative.
.The rule adopted by the Administrator has the obvious purpose of accelerating the investigation, since the hearings could be prolonged indefinitely if each and every witness would have the right to cross-examine each and every person appearing to testify. The rule guarantees to the producers their right to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the Administrator with the data that he has gathered from the study which the law provides should be carried out by him.1 [27]*27In any event the producers have the opportunity, through the introduction of evidence, to rebut any information which may be furnished by persons appearing to testify. See, Abbots Dairies v. Armstrong, 102 A.2d 372 (N.J. 1954); Fuchs, Administrative Rule-Making, 52 Harv. L. Rev. 259 (1938); Davis, Administrative Law Treatise 382, § 606 (1958).
The judgment rendered by the Superior Court, San Juan Part, on November 7, 1966 is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.
It was so decreed and ordered by the Court as witnesses the signature of the Chief Justice.
(s) Luis Negrón Fernández
Chief Justice
I attest:
(s) Joaquín Berríos
Clerk
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
95 P.R. 24, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calderon-v-puerto-rico-milk-industry-regulation-administration-prsupreme-1967.