Case Name: The Honorable Richard MAYS, Judge, et al., Relators, v. The FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1988-06-22
Citations: 755 S.W.2d 78
Docket Number: No. C-7342
Parties: The Honorable Richard MAYS, Judge, et al., Relators, v. The FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
Judges: SPEARS, J., concurs and WALLACE, ROBERTSON, KILGARLIN and MAUZY, JJ., join.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 755
Pages: 78–83

Head Matter:
The Honorable Richard MAYS, Judge, et al., Relators, v. The FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
No. C-7342.
Supreme Court of Texas.
June 22, 1988.
Rehearing Denied Sept. 14, 1988.
Kerry W. Young, Dallas County Criminal Dist. Courts, Dallas, for relators.
Earl Luna and Mary Milford, Law Offices of Earl Luna, Dallas, for respondent.

Opinion:
OPINION
RAY, Justice.
This case, involving a salary increase for court reporters, is governed by TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 52.051 (Vernon 1988). Some of the District Judges of Dallas County ordered a 5% salary increase for their court reporters pursuant to that statutory authority. However, the Dallas County Commissioners Court passed an order instituting only a 3% pay increase for the court reporters, but ordered an additional 2% increase to be paid effective October 1, 1987, if a court should determine that § 52.051 is constitutional. The Commissioners Court then filed in the district court a petition for declaratory judgment asserting that § 52.051 unconstitutionally circumscribes the authority of the Commissioners Court to set the tax rate for the county. See TEX.CONST. art. VIII, § 1-A, 9.
When the Commissioners Court refused to fund the 5% raise, the Judges ordered them to direct the County Treasurer to issue payroll checks to the court reporters reflecting the 5% salary increase. ("The October orders"). The Commissioners Court did not comply and the Judges issued show cause orders. The Commissioners Court then filed for mandamus relief with the Dallas Court of Appeals which found that: (1) the orders actually direct action and, therefore, were essentially writs of mandamus orders made without notice and hearing to the Commissioners Court; (2) the Judges contravened TEX.R.CIV.P. 694 because a mandamus cannot issue ex parte; (3) the Commissioners Court was entitled to notice and a hearing on the October orders; and (4) it appeared at oral argument that the Judges would not vacate the orders on motion as required by TEX.R.CIV.P. 694. Accordingly, the court of appeals ordered the Judges to vacate their October orders. 747 S.W.2d 842, 847 (1988).
This case is controlled by TEX.GOV'T CODE ANN. § 52.051 (Vernon 1988) which provides:
(a) An official district court reporter shall be paid a salary set by the order of the judge of the court. This salary is in addition to transcript fees, fees for a statement of facts, and other necessary expenses authorized by law.
(c) An order increasing the salary of an official district court reporter must be submitted to the commissioners court of each county in the judicial district not later than September 1 immediately before the adoption of the county budget for the next year. A commissioners court may allow an extension of this time limit.
The District Judges complied with § 52.051(a) and (c) in that they ordered a 5% pay raise within the time period prescribed by the statute.
We hold that the pay increase, which was less than the 10% increase authorized by § 52.051(d), was a ministerial act to be performed by the Commissioners Court and an act in which the Legislature left no discretion. The Commissioners Court acted in violation of the statute in not setting the salaries prescribed by the District Judges pursuant to § 52.051. The court of appeals erred in granting mandamus relief in favor of the Commissioners Court against the District Judges since the granting of the pay raise was a nondiscretionary ministerial act. See Vondy v. Commissioners Court of Uvalde County, 620 S.W.2d 104, 109 (Tex.1981). The performance of a clear statutory duty which is ministerial and nondiscretionary may be directed by the District Court without notice and hearing in the absence of a statutory requirement to the contrary. Section 52.-051 does not require the District Judges to provide notice and hearing.
The Texas Constitution has invested the Legislature with the authority to provide for and compensate the district court reporters. TEX.CONST. art. III, § 44. The Legislature has in turn delegated to the District Judges the responsibility for setting the salaries of the district court reporters paid from county funds. TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 52.051 (Vernon 1988). By virtue of its express constitutional and statutory authority, the District Judges' actions have a presumption of validity and are subject to being abrogated by the Commissioners Court only upon proof that the judiciary's actions are extravagant, arbitrary, or unwarranted. See District Judges of the 188th Judicial District v. County Judge and Commissioners Court for Gregg County, 657 S.W.2d 908, 910 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.). We are confident that the court of appeals will vacate its order issuing writ of mandamus. We note that the Commissioners Court has filed a petition for declaratory judgment that § 52.051 is unconstitu tional. The issues in that lawsuit are not before us and we express no opinion regarding the statute's constitutionality.
SPEARS, J., concurs and WALLACE, ROBERTSON, KILGARLIN and MAUZY, JJ., join.