Case Name: L. Planas y Martí v. Marcus Bernheimer Milling and Mercantil Co.
Court: Supreme Court of Puerto Rico
Jurisdiction: Puerto Rico
Decision Date: 1904-03-26
Citations: 6 P.R. 103
Docket Number: No. 6
Parties: L. Planas y Martí v. Marcus Bernheimer Milling and Mercantil Co.
Judges: Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernandez, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.
Reporter: Puerto Rico Reports
Volume: 6
Pages: 103–107

Head Matter:
L. Planas y Martí v. Marcus Bernheimer Milling and Mercantil Co.
Appeal in complaint from the District Court of San Juan.
No. 6.
Decided March 26, 1904.
Jurisdiction — "Verbal Proceeding — Oral Trial. — Demands involving a sum exceeding four hundred dollars cannot be heard and determined in a verbal proceeding but must be decided in an oral and public trial, for the cognizance of which the district courts alone are competent.
STATEMENT OP THE CASE.
On July 27 of last year, Attorney Wenceslao Bosch, on behalf of L. Planas y Marti, established in this city, brought an action in the municipal court of the Cathedral district of San Juan, against the Marcus Bernheimer Milling and Mercantile Company, of the city of St. Louis, Missouri,. United States of America, for the recovery of the sum of four hundred dollars, amount of damages sustained by them through the nonfulfillment of a contract of sale of two hundred bags of flour, brand “Invariable,” and two hundred bags, brand .“Miramar,” that they should have shipped to him in the previous month of May. A day was set for the hearing, with citation of the parties, for which purpose lettei*s rogatory were ordered to be issued to the competent authority in the city of St. Louis. At tliis stage of the proceeding’s, José E. F. Savage, Esq., representing the defendants, appeared before the District Court of San Juan and prayed that the municipal judge of the Cathedral court he ordered to desist from taking cognizance of the matter and forward the record to the aforesaid district court, to whose jurisdiction it exclusively belonged. In conformity with said request an order was made under date of October 5 of the same year, and the plaintiff was notified to appear before said court to maintain his rights. The plaintiff thereupon sought the remedy of complaint before this Supreme Court, praying that the above-mentioned order be vacated and the record returned to the municipal court of the Cathedral district, there to be heard and disposed of, the latter being deemed the only court competent to take cognizance of the complaint, inasmuch as the sum involved did not exceed the maximum amount coming under the jurisdiction of municipal courts in civil matters.
The foregoing request having been referred to the Fiscal of this Supreme Court, he reported the same adversely, sustaining the jurisdiction of the District Court of San Juan. A day was set for the hearing, at which counsel for the appellant was present, as also the Fiscal of this court, who verbally ratified his written opinion.
Mr. Bosch, for appellant.
Mr. del Toro, Fiscal, for the People.
Under the Spanish practice a distinction was made between juicio verbal (verbal trial) and juicio oral (oral trial), municipal courts having jurisdiction in the former and district courts in the latter.

Opinion:
OPINION OP THE 'COURT.
Although in the action instituted by L. Planas y Marti the demand is only for four hundred dollars, as specified therein, however, said demand being based on the nonfulfillment of a contract of sale of four hundred bags .of flour, the value whereof evidently exceeds the sum of four hundred dollars, which is the maximum amount coming under the jurisdiction of municipal courts in civil matters, the case cannot be adjudicated in a verbal proceeding, but must be decided in an oral and public trial, for the cognizance of which only the district courts are competent.
In view of sections 26 and 47 of General Order No. 118, of August 15, 1899, articles 82 and 83 and rule 3 of article 488 of the Law of Civil Procedure, applicable by analogy to the case, we declare that the remedy of complaint availed of by L. Planas y Marti against the District Court of San Juan does not lie, with costs against petitioner. The «record forwarded by aforesaid district court to this Supreme Court is ordered to be returned to the former, that it may hear and determine the case according to law.
Chief Justice Quiñones and Justices Hernandez, Figueras, Sulzbacher and MacLeary concurred.