Gandía v. Marín

63 P.R. 496
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedMay 1, 1944
DocketNo. 8866
StatusPublished

This text of 63 P.R. 496 (Gandía v. Marín) 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.

Bluebook
Gandía v. Marín, 63 P.R. 496 (prsupreme 1944).

Opinion

Mb. Chief Justice Travieso

delivered the opinion of the court.

On September 6, 1942, Oscar A. Gandía, manager of the baseball team “Pirates”, instituted an injunction proceeding; in the District Court of San Juan wherein he alleged in brief as follows:

That the “Pirates” team is a member and founder of the “Circuito de Baseball Aficionado de Puerto Rico, Inc.”*, a nonprofitable corporation, of which defendant Heribexto-Marin is president; that on August 31, 1943, defendant Marin sent a communication to plaintiff disqualifying him for a period of four weeks — from September 6 to 26,' 1943— and forbidding him to stay at or visit the dugout of the players of the “Pirates” team during game days or in any manner coach said team.

Plaintiff alleged that the disqualification and penalty imposed by the defendant constituted a violation of the proceeding expressly provided for in the constitution of the Circuito de Baseball Aficionado de Puerto Rico, Inc., inasmuch as plaintiff was never notified of any complaint brought against him and neither was he given an opportunity to be heard and defend himself; and further that the President of the Association lacks jurisdiction, authority, or power to> impose on his own account said penalties, unless he complies first with the requirements provided by the Constitution of [498]*498said Association which have not been complied with in the present'case.

After alleging the damages which this order of suspension would cause him, plaintiff sought a permanent writ of injunction against the defendant, enjoining him from enforcing the order of suspension. On the same day that the complaint was filed, the lower court issued a restraining order and to show cause why an injunction pendente lite should not be issued. The plaintiff furnished bond for $300.00.

On September 7, 1943, plaintiff filed a motion praying that the court summon the defendant and punish him as for contempt. In said motion he alleged that the restraining order was notified to defendant Marin on September 6, at 1:00 P.M., i>y the marshal of the court; that said order was expressly made to include defendant and his agents, servants, employees, and attorneys or officers; that on September 6, at 2:00 P. M., a baseball game began in which the “Pirates” team was going to play, Mr. Adolfo Salazár acting as umpire, designated by the defendant, with written instructions from the defendant to prevent the plaintiff from acting as manager of his team and to compel him to leave the field, and in the .event that plaintiff should refuse to obey said orders, to forfeit the game in favor of the team playing opposite plaintiff’s; that notwithstanding said Salazar had been notified ‘by Marin not to carry out the written instructions and ;a certified copy of the restraining order' was shown to him, 'he refused to comply with said order and forfeited the two games which were to be played that afternoon, in favor of the opposing team. Plaintiff further alleged that Marin also violated the restraining order in not setting aside in ;an effective manner the written instructions given to Salazar, for he only telephoned a convict and asked him to see the sargeant on guard and request the latter to tell Salazar that the instructions which he had given to him had been •set aside.

[499]*499' After Salazar and Marin had been summoned to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt, they appeared before the lower court on September 13, 1943. The evidence adduced by both parties was heard, and' the court rendered judgment exonerating both defendants on the ground that “it was convinced that the defendants had not disregarded the order of the court in any manner whatsoever.” Feeling aggrieved by that judgment, the plaintiff has taken the present appeal.

The appellant contends that the lower court erred in exonerating the defendant, because in his opinion the evidence introduced showed that they had committed contempt. Therefore, we feel bound to make a careful study of the evidence.

The fact that the restraining order was served on Marin,' was proved by the testimony of the marshal and by Marin’s own admission that he had received copies of the petition and of the order.

Plaintiff Gandía testified that on September 6, 1942, the “Pirates” team, of which he is the manager, had to play two baseball games. On that day he could not act as manager of said team because Mr. Salazar, who was acting as umpire, forbade it. At the commencement of the game, when he was reaching the coaching plate in order to coach his team from there, Salazar told him that he had to withdraw because he had written instructions from President Marin not to allow him in the field. He then showed Salo-zar a certified copy of the restraining order rendered two hours previously by Judge Romany; and Salazar after reading the restraining order told him that he had a written order from the President of the Circuito “that that was the the one he was going to carry out.” Gandía informed Salazar that if he did not comply with the' order of the court he would be held responsible and Salazar answered “that he was willing to suffer the consequences and- that he was [500]*500going to carry out the orders given to him by Mr. Heriberto Marin. ’ ’ When they were waiting for Salazar to begin the game in the field adjacent to the Insular Penitentiary, a convict arrived with a note saying that Marin had telephoned to inform Salazar that he could allow Gandía to coach his team on that day; that Salazar after reading the message said that he would not carry out those instructions because he had a written order which he was not going to substitute by a telephone message. Gandía was not allowed to act as manager and when he insisted to do so Salazar, complying with Marin’s instructions, forfeited both games, thereby causing Gandía to lose $60 which he had spent. Marin did not show up at the penitentiary league. When Salazar had finished reading the restraining order he said to Gandía: “this is only against this gentleman”, that is, against Marín. Gandía then stated that the order included the agents, employees, and servants, to which Salazar replied that he was not a “servant” of Marín. Gandía then said that he, Salazar, was an “employee” of the Circuito because he was being paid for acting as arbiter of the games.

Mr. Pedro Vázquez, radio commentator, testified that on said date he spoke to Mr. Salazar about the matter of disqualifying Gandía. Salazar informed him that he had received a telephone message but not directly from Marin, that it had been delivered to him by the telephone operator at the Penitentiary and that Marin had given him instructions to allow Gandía to coach his team. Salazar told him that he vould not give credit to that telephone message because he had not received it directly from Marin. After the game had begun, and Salazar told Gandía that he could not permit him to stay on the field, Gandía took out from his pocket a copy of the order from Judge Komany and showed it to Salazar and the latter said that he could not comply with that order because it was not against him but against the President of the Circuito, and that so far as he was con[501]*501cerned, the only official document was the one written by the president. ■

The defendant Heriberto Marin testifying in his own defense said: That about 1:15 P. M. he received the restraining order, read it, and immediately went out to a telephone because he did not have one at his home.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 P.R. 496, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gandia-v-marin-prsupreme-1944.