Municipality of Manatí v. Garrido Morales

50 P.R. 789
CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico
DecidedJanuary 19, 1937
DocketNo. 6962
StatusPublished

This text of 50 P.R. 789 (Municipality of Manatí v. Garrido Morales) 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
Municipality of Manatí v. Garrido Morales, 50 P.R. 789 (prsupreme 1937).

Opinion

Mr. Chief Justice Del Toro

delivered tlie opinion of tlie Court.

This case involves the constitutionality of Act No. 56, directing the Treasurer of Puerto Rico on request of the Commissioner of Health and on warrant of the Insular Auditor, to withhold certain sums from the regular funds of the municipalities of Puerto Rico for delivery to the Commissioner of Health to aid in the maintenance of public health units established in those municipalities, and which may, in the future, be established in the municipalities, and for other purposes, approved on May 13, 1934. (Laws, p. 404).

Through its Mayor, J. R. Davila, the Municipality of Manatí filed a hill for injunction in the District Court of San Juan against the Commissioner of Health and the Treasurer of Puerto Rico, Garrido Morales and Domenech, respectively, alleging that the former proposed, at the request of the latter, to retain, and that the latter intended to retain [790]*790from the regular funds belonging to the plaintiff municipality, the sum of $1,500, annually, to be used in aiding to maintain a public health unit in that municipality, in the same form as other funds belonging to The People of Puerto Rico were used and disbursed. It was further alleged that such acts were intended to be done under color of the authority conferred upon the defendants by the above-mentioned Act "No. 56 of 1934, which, being unconstitutional and void, did not confer such authority.

Upon the ground that it would suffer irreparable damages and grave injuries, and had no ordinary, rapid and adequate remedy, plaintiff prayed for a permanent injunction restricting the defendants from withholding the aforesaid funds, asking for a preliminary injunction pending final determination.

An order was issued to the defendants to show cause why the injunction prayed for should not be issued. The defendants appeared and moved that certain portions of the complaint be stricken out, filed a demurrer for failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action and answered the complaint on its merits. Both parties were heard at one hearing. By stipulation they agreed to file briefs. The defendants filed their brief. The plaintiff did nothing. On November 5, 1934, the court entered judgment dismissing the complaint, without special pronouncement of costs.

The municipality appealed. In its brief it maintains that the trial court erred “in deciding that the legislature of Puerto Rico had the power to approve Act No. 56 of May 13, 1934.”

In argument, the appellant cites Chapter 10 of Title 48 of the United States Code, Section 1471, of which provides in part as follows:

“The legislatures of the Territories of the United States now or hereafter to be organized shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, that is to say:
[791]*791.“Regulating county and township affairs.
“For the assessment and collection of taxes for Territorial, county, township, or road purposes.
“In all other cases where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted in any of the Territories of the United States by the Territorial legislatures thereof.”

If these were the only provisions of law to he considered, the appellant would perhaps be correct, but subsequent to this general law with respect to territories, Congress approved the Acts of 1900 and 1917 organizing the territory of Puerto Rico, and conferring upon its legislature the power necessary in our judgment to adopt the act which the appellant attacks.

In the case of Ponce v. Roman Catholic, Church, 210 U. S. 296, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that: “The general prohibition in the Act of July 30, 1886, 24 Stat. 170, against territorial legislatures passing special laws does not apply where specific permission is granted by the organic act of a particular territory.” See also 28 Op. Atty. Gen. 491.

Section 37 of the Organic Act provides that:

“Section 37. — That the legislative authority herein provided shall extend to all matters of a legislative character not locally inapplicable, including power to create, consolidate, and reorganize the municipalities so far as may be necessary, and to provide and repeal laws and ordinances therefor; also the power to alter, amend, modify, or repeal any or all laws and ordinances of every character now in force in Porto Rico or municipality or district thereof in so far as such alteration, amendment, modification, or repeal may be consistent with the provisions of this Act.”

The law here attacked provides that:

“Section 1. — The Treasurer of Puerto Rico is hereby authorized and directed to withhold, on request of the Commissioner of Health and on a warrant of the Insular Auditor, from the regular funds [792]*792corresponding to the municipalities of Adjuntas, Aguadilla, Aguas Buenas, Arecibo, Arroyo, Barceloneta, Bayamón, Cabo Rojo, Cayey, Guayama, Guaynabo, Hormigueros, Humaeao, Juncos, Manatí, Ma-ricao, Maunabo, Mayagüez, Moca, Naguabo, Patillas, Río Piedras, Salinas, San Germán, San Lorenzo, Santa Isabel, San Sebastián, Toa Baja, Utuado, Yabucoa, and Yauco, respectively, the following sums «of money: $500, $500, $300, $2,800, $500, $300, $1,860, f1,000, $1,500, $1,000, $300, $300, $1,000, $800, $1,500, $500, $240, $5,000, $250, $500, $300, $5,600, $3,500, $1,500, $300, $3,000, $500, $500, $360, $600, $1,000 every year, to aid in the maintenance of public health units established in the aforesaid municipalities. When said sums, or any of them, have been withheld and received, or placed at the disposition of the Commissioner of Health, the latter shall proceed to expend same to aid in the maintenance of said public health units, in the same manner as other funds of The People of Puerto Rico are expended. The Department of Health shall comply, at all times, with the conditions established precedent to the creation of a public health unit and when it is shown that they were agreed upon between the Department of Health and the respective municipality.
“Section 2. — The sums so withheld for the municipalities mentioned in the foregoing section shall be used solely and exclusively as a contribution of the respective municipality for the maintenance of its public health unit, and the Insular Government, through the Department of Health, shall continue contributing to the maintenance of said public health units in the same manner and with the same amounts as it has done up to the present time.
“Section 3.

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

Related

Barnes v. District of Columbia
91 U.S. 540 (Supreme Court, 1876)
City of Trenton v. New Jersey
262 U.S. 182 (Supreme Court, 1923)
Davock v. Moore
28 L.R.A. 783 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
50 P.R. 789, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/municipality-of-manati-v-garrido-morales-prsupreme-1937.