Ponsa Parés v. Winship

Supreme Court of Puerto Rico

Ponsa Parés v. Winship

51 P.R. 156

CourtSupreme Court of Puerto Rico

DecidedMarch 19, 1937

DocketNo. 7491

StatusPublished

This text of 51 P.R. 156 (Ponsa Parés v. Winship) 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

Ponsa Parés v. Winship, 51 P.R. 156 (prsupreme 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Wole

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case in its main .lines must follow the principle expressed in the case of Durand v. Sancho Bonet, civil case No. 7441, decided February 16, 1937. In other words, when the salary of an official is fixed by a special act for a given term, the amount of the salary so fixed can not be altered during his incumbency.

Ponsa Pares, the appellee, was appointed Prosecuting Attorney (Fiscal) of the District Court of Bayamón on the 29th of July 1930, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 57 of the same year. Said act fixed his salary at $3,850 a year and his term of office at four years. In 1932 he suffered a reduction in his salary of $385, and in 1934 he suffered an additional reduction of $173.25,. He was reappointed for a new term on the 13th of July 1935. On the 5th of September 1936, he filed a petition with the District Court of San Juan for a judgment declaring the above reductions null and [157]*157void. Under principles similar to those of the Durand case, supra, the lower court held that said district attorney was entitled to such declaratory judgment and we agree.

The district court, as we have seen, held that all of the reductions, including those made before and continuing in force after his reappointment and acceptance at the reduced salary, .were unlawful. On this point we have a serious doubt and the motion of the appellee to dismiss as frivolous can not prevail.

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

Mr. Justice Wole

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case in its main .lines must follow the principle expressed in the case of Durand v. Sancho Bonet, civil case No. 7441, decided February 16, 1937. In other words, when the salary of an official is fixed by a special act for a given term, the amount of the salary so fixed can not be altered during his incumbency.

Ponsa Pares, the appellee, was appointed Prosecuting Attorney (Fiscal) of the District Court of Bayamón on the 29th of July 1930, pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 57 of the same year. Said act fixed his salary at $3,850 a year and his term of office at four years. In 1932 he suffered a reduction in his salary of $385, and in 1934 he suffered an additional reduction of $173.25,. He was reappointed for a new term on the 13th of July 1935. On the 5th of September 1936, he filed a petition with the District Court of San Juan for a judgment declaring the above reductions null and [157]*157void. Under principles similar to those of the Durand case, supra, the lower court held that said district attorney was entitled to such declaratory judgment and we agree.

The district court, as we have seen, held that all of the reductions, including those made before and continuing in force after his reappointment and acceptance at the reduced salary, .were unlawful. On this point we have a serious doubt and the motion of the appellee to dismiss as frivolous can not prevail.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 P.R. 156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ponsa-pares-v-winship-prsupreme-1937.