Case Name: The Municipal Council of Manatí v. the Administration of Porto Rico
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1904-03-18
Citations: 6 P.R. 63
Docket Number: No. 10
Parties: The Municipal Council of Manatí v. the Administration of Porto Rico.
Judges: Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 63–69

Head Matter:
The Municipal Council of Manatí v. the Administration of Porto Rico.
Appeal from the District Court of San Juan.
No. 10.
Decided March 18, 1904.
Administbative Complaint — Pebiod Eor Perfecting Same. — The period for perfecting an administrative complaint cannot exceed thirty days, and if not perfected within that period, the court on its own motion must declare the complaint abandoned.
STATEMENT OE THE CASE.
This is an administrative proceeding pending before ns on appeal, between the General Administration, represented by the Assistant Attorney General, Emilio del Toro, and the municipal conncil of Manatí, represented by Attorney Jnan R. Ramos, for the reversal of a rnling made by the District Conrt of San Jnan, Jnne 26, 1903, in an action prosecuted by said municipal council against a decision of the Treasurer of Porto Rico in respect to the revocation of a fine imposed upon Wenceslao Borda for failure to exhibit matrículas (vouchers) of cattle. Said rnling reads as follows:
"Porto Rico, June 26, 1903. In the matter of administrative proceedings instituted by the municipal council of Manatí, appealing from a decision of the Treasurer of Porto Rico.
"The appeal having been taken in due time and manner by Attorney Juan Ramón Ramos, on behalf of said municipal council, the papers relating thereto were directed to be sent up by an order of August 30, 1902, which was done on the 10th of September following.
‘ ‘ Said record, which since the 11th day of September had been forwarded to this court by the Attorney General, to whom it had been sent by the Treasurer on the same date, had remained on the files of the clerk’s office until March 19, 1903, when, having been found in that condition there by the new clerk, whose signature is attached hereto, it was by him reported to the court, which, in an order made on the 20th of the same month, directed that it be submitted to the plaintiff during a period of twenty days, in order that he might perfect his complaint.
"This order having been complied with, Attorney Ramos immediately requested that a translation be made of the writings and vouchers appearing in English, that no period be fixed for perfecting his complaint, and that the record be handed over' to him for said purpose. The court, on the same day, made an order granting said request, the interpreter being directed to make the desired translation within four days, the period for perfecting the complaint to begin from the date of the delivery of said translation.
"The translation was completed on March 31, and filed with the court on April 6, 1903, and on the following day an order issued directing that the order of March 27 be complied with, as to the portion thereof that was still pending. This was done on April 13, and the record having been again submitted to Attorney Ramos, on the 22d of the same month he requested that the period be extended to the full limit allowed by the law, and that the record be delivered to him for the purpose of perfecting the complaint. This request was granted on the following day, and a further extension of ten days being allowed, the record was ordered to be handed over to him against his receipt, and the clerk instructed to recover it and report at the expiration of said period. *
"The preceding instrument perfecting the complaint, although bearing the elate of the 15th instant, was not filed by Attorney Bamos until May 15.
“Pursuant to article 40 of the law governing administrative proceedings the period allowed for perfecting a complaint can in no ease exceed thirty days, and if not filed within said period the court on its own motion must declare that the complaint has been abandoned, according to the express provision of aforesaid article 40.
“Attorney Eamos had been allowed the full extent of said period to prepare his complaint, counting from April 13, when the record and translation were again submitted to him, and at the time he filed said complaint, June 15, a longer period than that allowed had elapsed. The aforesaid remedy of complaint is therefore declared to have been abandoned, and after communicating this decision to the parties, the record of the administrative proceedings transmitted by the Attorney General is ordered to be returned to him, together with a certified copy of the record hereof. Thus was it decided and signed by the judges of the court, to which I certify. Juan Morera Martínez, Frank H. Eichmond, José Tous Soto._Luis Méndez Vas.”
Notice of the above ruling having been served upon the attorney for the municipal council of Manatí, he moved for a rehearing, and at the same time entered an appeal to be availed of in ease the court should decide that a rehearing did not lie. By an order made July 17, following, the court, on the ground that the ruling appealed from was final, inasmuch as it put an end to the proceedings, thus preventing their continuation, and being therefore appealable and not reformable by the court which made it, allowed the appeal to the Supreme Court. The original records having been forwarded after citation of the parties, the representative of the municipality of Manatí appeared before this Supreme Court. The proper memorandum was drawn up and submitted to the •parties, together with the record and papers relating to the administrative proceedings, no allegation having been presented by either party. A day was set for the hearing on appeal, which took place on the 16th instant, when the appel lant and the Fiscal of the Supreme Court respectively presented their arguments.
Mr. Ramos (Juan R.), for appellant.
Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for respondent.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Quiñohes,
after making the above statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court.
The findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the decision appealed from are accepted.
We adjudge that we should affirm and do affirm the ruling made by the District Goúrt of San Juan, June 26, 1903, with costs against appellant.
Justices Hernández, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.