Case Name: Rodriguez, Rector of the Community of Reverend Paulist Fathers, v. The People of Porto Rico
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1903-01-22
Citations: 3 P.R. 203
Docket Number: No. 1
Parties: Rodriguez, Rector of the Community of Reverend Paulist Fathers, v. The People of Porto Rico.
Judges: Mr. Chief Justice Quiñones, and Associate Justices Her-nández, Sulzbacher and MacLeary, concurring.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 3
Pages: 203–213

Head Matter:
Rodriguez, Rector of the Community of Reverend Paulist Fathers, v. The People of Porto Rico.
Review of a decision of the District Court of San Juan.
No. 1.
Decided January 22, 1903.
Appeal fob bbview. — An appeal for review is an extraordinary recourse available only in the strict and limited manner prescribed by law.
Id.- — No appeal for review lies from a judgment in which all the issues raised by both parties have been passed upon, and where Article 79 of Section 1 of the law governing administrative contentions (lo contencioso adminis-trativo) have been complied with.
SATEMENT OE THE CASE.
This case is an appeal taken by the People of Porto Rico for the review of a judgment rendered by the District Court of San Juan, which reads as follows:
“In tlie City of San Joan, Porto Rico, August 1, 1902. — This is a “litigative-administrative” action brought by Juan Hernandez Lopez, Esq., on behalf of Joaquín P. Rodriguez, Rector of the Community of Reverend Paulist Fathers, against the Administration, represented by the Fiscal, for the recovery of certain sums of money, due from the former “Diputación Provincial”. Joaquín P. Rodriguez, Rector of the Community of Paulists, addressed a communication to the Chairman of the commission in charge of the liquidation of the assets and liabilities of the “Diputación Provincial” to which was attached a certificate issued by the Right Reverend Bishop of this Diocese, testifying to his identity as Rector of said Community, and another from the Alcalde of Ponce to the effect that he knew positively that the aforesaid Community had maintained in Ponce, a College for primary and secondary instruction from 1897 to 1898, and based upon these certificates he proceeded to set forth: That upon the abolition of said “Diputa-ción Provincial”; it was indebted to the Community for the subsidy appertaining to the months of December to June, 1897-1898, at the rate of five thousand pesos per annum ; that the liquidator of the “Diputación Provincial” had, on May 18, 1899, paid the subsidy corresponding to December 1897, January, and ten days of February, 1898, the balance up to June of the latter year, amounting to one thousand nine hundred and forty-four pesos and forty-four centavos, or one thousand one hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-six cents, as per sworn statement filed, being still unpaid. The Commission in charge of the liquidation, by a majority vote, refused to consider the claim, -alleging that it was a question of a voluntary contribution which the Government could at any time withdraw, and not a contract binding the “Diputación”, though one of the Commissioners was of the opinion that the claim was a just one, that the “Diputación”, was bound to pay it, and that it was a legal demand. Thereupon Joaquín P. Rodriguez, as Rector of the Community of Paulist Fathers, through his attorney, brought an action against the Administration, praying that it be adjudged to pay said Community the amount of aforesaid subsidy, after deducting the payments made according to record on file in the office of the Treasury, that the Court make such other declarations as might be pertinent, with costs against the Administration. The facts stated were as follows: That the “Diputación” had granted an annual subsidy of five thousand pesos to the Community for the purpose of establishing a college in Ponce; that after the foundation of the School, various payments were made, said payments being subsequently discontinued owing to the lack of funds; that after the abolishment of the “Diputación”, the liquidator thereof had paid part of the subsidy; and that the Commission in charge of the liquidation had since refused to pay the outstanding balance, without giving any satisfactory reason for such action. The law is that the property of the Province of Porto Rico had been taken over by the Insular Government, subject to the condition of meeting all the legitimate obligations contracted by the former, among which is the debt due the Community; that the “Diputación” constituted a legal personality upon whose property all its liabilities existing at the time it was abolished constituted an encumbrance; that the possessions of the Province constitute a special property so recognized and declared by the Treaty of Peace between Spain and the United States, and the costs should be taxed against the litigant. The Administration, through its representative the Attorney General, in answering the complaint, prayed that the exception alleged of legal defect in the manner of presenting the complaint be sustained, and in case this exception should not be sustained, that the complaint be dismissed with costs, the answer being based on the alleged fact that the former “Diputación” had voted a subsidy in favor of a college established by the Paulist Fathers at Ponce, amounting to five thous- and pesos, for the fiscal year ending June, 1898, which it had paid as long as the state of its finances had permitted ; that the liquidator of said Corporation -had subsequently paid another portion of said subsidy, and at the present date it is impossible to specify in the complaint the amount of the payments made, and therefore it is impossible to ascertain the amount of the money claimed; that the Paulist Fathers had in due time endeavored to recover from the Liquidating Commission of the “Diputación” the balance due them to complete the five thousand pesos, but their'efforts did not meet with success, and they now bring this suit without fixing the amount of their claim, the exception of legal defect being based on the manner of presenting the complaint, which will be noticed upon a perusal of plaintiff’s petition, wherein the amount claimed is not clearly and specifically stated; that this claim cannot succeed, because the “Diputación” was abolished, its properties being transferred to the Government, and the provision that the latter should pay all its debts, does not mean that it should continue to pay sums that have been almost entirely covered, and were not in the nature of a debt, and that did not arise from a contract between the Paulist Fathers and the “Diputación”, but from a mere act of liberality which the latter could revoke at its own pleasure; that when the “Diputación” ceased to exist and its property was assigned to the Government for the purpose of paying its debts, the amount of liabilities should not and could not exceed the amount of the assets received; that the amount received by the Government from the “Diputación”, free from encumbrance, had been distributed in payment of preferential debts, there remaining only a balance of two hundred and seventy-one pesos, and fourteen centavos, and the Treasury can not be held responsible for the payment of gifts which in a great measure have been settled upon the extinction of the “Diputación”; that the principal assets of said Corporation consisted of realty, subject to special uses that were assigned for charitable and educational purposes and to pay the expenses of destitute persons ; that said property cannot be diverted from the special uses to which it has been devoted in order to apply it to objects of the nature of the claim brought herein; that dilatory exceptions presented at the wrong time may be availed of as peremptory exceptions. Evidence having been ordered to be taken, there was placed on file at the instance of plaintiff, a copy of the resolution at the “Diputación”, dated April 21, 1896, granting an annual subsidy of five thousand pesos for the college which it was proposed to establish in Ponce, under the management of the Paulist Fathers, and ordering that the papers be forwarded to the Finance Committee, so that the proper appropriation- might be included in the next budget. Three witnesses were summoned at the request of plaintiff, one of them testifying: That he was Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary of Civil affairs of the Island during the Military Government; that the liquidation submitted by the Paulist Fathers is correct, and that in both the above-mentioned capacities he had had to do with the assets and liabilities of the “Diputación”; another witness testified that he was the last Vice-President of the “Diputación Provincial”, a Provincial Delegate for over six years, and for four years a member of the permanent Commission; that the communication shown him and the liquidation signed and sworn to which was presented to the liquidating Commission by the Director of the order of Paulist Fathers, is true and correct, according to the records of the subsidy allowed them; and the third witness testified that the signature affixed to tlie dissenting opinion is genuine, and the contents thereof true, and that the liquidation presented by plaintiff must be correct because it was passed without objection by the official charged with the duty of comparing the items with the records on file in the liquidating office of the “Diputa-ción”, and that the refusal of the majority of the liquidating Commission to admit the propriety of the claim of the Paulist Fathers was because they held that the “Diputación” was not obliged to pay it without verifying the amounts, which was- a question of figures. The defendant did not offer any evidence whatever.
The extract having been made, and a day having been set for the hearing, the same took place in due time the parties both appearing, and the legal requirements having been complied with in the proceeding, Mr. Chief Justice Morera Martinez prepared the decision of the Court:
“The plea of legal defect in the manner of presenting the complaint, confined during the period for discussion to the lack of clearness and precision in stating the amount claimed, cannot be subsequently alterated, because it would alter the terms of the debate, and much less so when at the hearing, defendant liad maintained the point that plaintiff had failed to specify the facts and laws relating thereto, bearing upon the jurisdiction of the Court, for if he thinks that this Court had no jurisdiction, he could have raised the question of competency, which according to the doctrine of the Council of State, may be done at any stage of the proceedings, and even in the second instance. Pursuant to Section 6 of General Orders No. 84, Series of 1900, in case any award of the Commission shall be disapproved by the Governor, or where the claimant declines to accept the award of the Commission, this Court, at the request of either party, shall proceed to consider and determine the claims against the liquidating Commission of the “Diputación”, and, therefore, it is not necessary in this case to set forth the facts and law as to competency, as in other administrative matters, for there is no need of deciding whether the question comes under the regulated powers of the Administration, the ordinary Courts of Justice, or, briefly, whether, it is a “litigative-administrative” matter or not, since the aforesaid General Order has determined the jurisdiction. The.amount as stated and taken account of by the Commission, is the one mentioned in the first finding of fact, the amount of the subsidy claimed, being- set forth in the petition, after deducting such payments as have been made and are entered at the office of the Treasurer, and plaintiff stating in his administrative claim that the sum of one thousand nine hundred and forty-four pesos and thirty-four centavos, or one thousand one hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-six cents, is due him, this balance, and no other, is the amount claimed. It being provided in Section V of aforesaid General Order No. 84, that every award of the Commission, evidenced by a certificate signed by the members thereof, if approv-. ed. by the Governor, shall be referred to the Auditor of the Island for settlement and payment by the Treasurer to the claimant, out of any insular revenues not otherwise appropriated, which are made applicable to the -payment of such claims in consideration of the transfer of real and personal property formerly belonging to the said “Diputación Provincial”, nothing can be alleged in conflict with this provision, inasmuch as the subsidy approved by said Corporation has not been repealed, and the amount claimed is the balance of the subsidy which was included in a budget passed by said Corporation before its extinction or abolishment. There having been no temerity, no special imposition of costs is”made. ”
We adjudge that we should declare, and we do declare, that the complaint filed by the Rector of the Community of Paulists against the Administration is sustained, and we adjudge the latter to pay the plaintiff the sum of one thousand nine hundred and forty-four pesos and forty-four centavos, or the equivalent thereof, that is to say, one thousand one hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-six cents, being the balance of the subsidy included in the budget of 1897-8, voted by the late “Diputación Provincial”, for said fiscal year, without any special imposition of costs; the Administration being at liberty to make the liquidation and deduct from aforesaid sum all the payments that may have been made subsequently to those acknowledged by plaintiff, and thereby diminish the amount claimed”.
Thus by this our final judgment, we do pronounce, order and sign.— Juan Morera Martinez, Henry F. Hord, Juan J. Perea. ”
On motion of plaintiff the foregoing judment was declared final by a decree of August 20, 1902, whereupon an appeal was taken therefrom by the Acting Attorney General which was overruled by the court. On September 6,1902, the Acting Attorney General made application to this court for a writ of review, based on paragraph 1 of Article 79, of the law governing claims against the Administration (Contencioso-Administra-tivo) inasmuch as in answering the complaint he had taken the exception of legal defect in the manner of presenting same, said defect consisting in that in the complaint .the amount of the claim was not stated with clearness and precision, which point, raised in the answer to the complaint, was not passed upon in the judgment. By an order dated October 10th of the same year, the appeal was allowed, the records of the case were ordered to be forwarded by the lower Court, and the parties summoned to appear within the time fixed by law to sustain their contentions. Upon receipt of the record the appearance of the plaintiff was entered, and he was given six days notice of the appeal which he contested; and the record, having been submitted to the parties for the prescribed period, no request was made by either that a day be set for the hearing.
Mr. Feuille, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.
Mr. Hernández López, for respondent.

Opinion:
Mr. Associate Justice José María Figueras Chiques,
after making the above statement of facts, rendered the following opinion of the Court.
The appeal for review is an extra,ordinary recourse, available only in the strict and limited manner prescribed by law. In the judgment'rendered the exception of legal defect in the manner of presenting the complaint, taken by defendant was decided with great clearness and precision, since the Administration is adjudged to pay a specified sum, namely, one thousand nine hundred and forty-four pesos, and forty-four cents, equal to one thousand one hundred and sixty-six dollars and sixty-six cents, being the balance of the subsidy claimed, and even goes further by providing that from said sum may be deducted all payments made after the approval of the budget of 1897-8. Thus, then, it cannot be questioned, that all the issues raised, both in the complaint and in the answer thereto, have been decidéd, and therefore the appeal taken cannot succeed, inasmuch as paragraph 1 of Article 79, of the law governing "Administrative-Contentions", (Contencioso-Administrativo), has been complied with.
We should declare, and do declare, that the application for writ of review filed by the Acting Attorney General on behalf of The .People of Porto Rico, from the above judgment, rendered by the Court of San Juan on August 1, 1902, does not lie. This decision is ordered to be communicated to said Court and the record returned to it for compliance herewith.
Mr. Chief Justice Quiñones, and Associate Justices Her-nández, Sulzbacher and MacLeary, concurring.