Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bonet v. Texas Co. (PR)

Supreme Court brief1940

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

e : : ; ‘ oars

IN THE

Supreme Court of the ‘United States

‘a

OCTOBER TERM, 1939

A ' | No. 132 7 a

Raraet Sancno Bonet, Treasurer,

the Petitioner,

: ys. ;

: : ?

i THe Texas’ ‘ComMPANy ip. R. -), Inc.

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

' __OF APPEALS, FIRST CIRCUIT, AND SUPPORTING BRIEF

€

" W ILIA. CATTRON Rasy,

2. Atlorne y for Petitioner.

Ge Heeb a 4

Attorney Genfral of Pr werto Rico:

< . ——

Natttan R. Sh iia:

Solicitor for the De partine nt of the Interior,

. Of Counsel. 3 ora 5 aie : 7

3 a ‘

“. , @ *

- ; « . ie ;

. ” - - x

b ,

H °

[

° i A

“ - Oe hd

Le !

- \ é

. A! ae

\ . : ‘ ‘

Z i ee ° . “ rh

j oJ

’ =<

a | =

ee | oa

j E oe

o :

f - | . en

’ 7%

; ,

{

{ E e .

ee ‘

. . | ot

| Jeovirs

: caer ;

. : 7

SUBJECT.INDEX 7

? fr Pace

I enc vain ges BAO e han eee LA.

—- , eee Weriee Laas eee ir: re era

’ Question Presented lereesins as Ke Shes pee oe

Petitiéner’s Position AP SEG eet draee meas * 2

Statutes... IE eee a and Appendix 33-43

| Statement of the,Case ...2.............. wecaeh Shake he

7 Reasons ‘for Granting the Writ ...... eas we 45

| Brief i in Support of Petition a WoT oes ack. 6-31

Opinions.below.............. ee es 36

‘Jurisdiction (Seas Erte owas ark eek: Sat, curiae

Question Presented ......... RATER: puke See eT

Statutes Involved . os ea pares - 6and Appendix 33-43

- Statement of the Case Ores e 1 PRESET y bec ee 6-10

Petifioner’s Position eee wen | eee ny Troe

Specification of Errors to Be Urged ae er ae 2 : 15

Summary of ES SB ae SAE o A516

| Argument i. ape eb Pee ts a 17-31 |

Point I—The Circuit Court of Appeals. was °

- wrong in.overruling the decision of — |

‘— the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico as _-

to the scope of the appeal given to em-

= ~ ployers by section 9 of the. Puerto

_ Rican Workmen’s Compensation Act .

as amended by the ‘Act of 1925.

‘The decision of the insular Supreme

Court was clearly right ............. 17-23

¢y

Appendix,

SUBJECT INDEX (Continued ) |

7 PaGE

Point. ‘II—The decision of the Cireuit Court of

Appeals overruling the insular Su-

preme Court’s interpretation of this.

- Joeal insular statute is in conflict with ~————— :

_ the applicable decisions of this court

‘as to the respect to be paid to the deci-.

* sion of a Territorial court of last re-

' sort interpreting a local Territorial

statute -:...... See YH

Point I1I—The Texas ‘Gees ‘plaintiff- ic

- spondent, had a plain, adequate avd

complete remedy :at law by appeal

from the order of the Workmen’s Re-

. lief Commission of April 24, 1928;

’ _ and; therefore, cannot now maintain

this collateral attack upoy the order

by this injunction suit’

- Point IV—There was no possible lack of j juris- *

Xe diction i in the findings or orders of the’

Workmen’s Relief eae ie No

possible question of ‘‘nullify’’ is here

involved .

Point V—Since the Comiliesion’ s devision was -

upon a question within its jurisdiction,

it may not be assailed by collateral at-

tack, ‘such as this injunction suit -

Point VI—The Treasurer’s procedure to en-

ed force payment ‘by the Texas Company -

- in accordance with the order. of the

ge Workmen’s Relief Commission™ and

the supplementa! order of its succes-:

, sor, the present Industrial Commis- .

‘© sion, by attachment, is in accordance

'. withthe provisions "of. the local » stat-

oo ee and i is correct ........... oe

Conclusion — pte _,. 30:31

eee gata 33-43

?. « @

23-24

24-25.

25-27 -

27-28

28-30

a v. ‘Sahin’ 227 U.S. 375

i TABLE OF CASES

Diaz v. Gonzalez, 261 U.S. 102 .

Ex Parte Reed, 100U:S.13... =. —iss~t~<CS sist

Inter-Island Co. vs. Hawaii, 305 U. S. a paler 5,24

Nadal v. May, 233 U.S. 447 . : tae eh

Phoenix Ry. Co. v. Landis, 931 U. 8.578"... = .:.:... .

Rafael Sancho Bonet, Treasurer v. Yabucoa Sugar

Co., No. 498,. present term, Supreme Court, de-

cided March 27, 1939

Santa Fe Ry. v. Friday, , Bie | re 7

Texas Co. v. Workmen’s Relief Commission,

ke OS eee eee a2, O19.

‘Villaneuva v. Villanenva, 239 U.S. 293 -.5...... . .4-5,24

Waialua Co. v. Christian, 305 U. 8. ba eee ee mae

De STATUTES | oe

FEDERAL |

Judicial Code, Sec. 240(a), as ¢ amended by Act of |

February 13, 1925 -.... 0... 3... Pee orb e 3 i re a

, Puerto Rico

Workmen’s Cisepdaation Acts

Act, No. 61 of 1921, Sec.13 ........ q 12, and .

Footnote % i, 38-39

G4 Act No. 102 of September 1, 1925

Sees 2, Y%, 19, and Appendix 33-34 *

et aaa ci ME ee ae 1313

a Appendix 34-35 «

2, 18, 20,

Ses crt 1 12, 13, and Appendix 36-88

“SER aReeaee 2, 18-19, 20, 26 and A

Sees. 27 and 28 ive oes 17, and Appendix

ME oh eka oe 13, and Appendix a

"et No. 85, as May 14, 1928

Sees. 25,48, and47-..°.. ‘Appendix 41 |.

vy y

Act No. 45,approved April 18, 1935

‘Sees. 15 and 34

See. 5r

_ ie 3 17, 19, et seq., and Appendix 35-36 ~

pendix oe weg

- 42

erie Pao SSN Res ae Appendix 43

Sin.

aay As ‘ r)

zs ’ if o

) 4 INTHE’ ae cs

Supreme Court of. the Unite States

Pu ; OCTOBER. TERM, 1 1939

eke Bek ests No132 =.”

: Rarift, Sancuo Sawee: Treasurer, - ° Q

; ere, & Sings 7 regener”,

% _ , bat : *% VS.

> %" ee

Tae, Texas ComMPany P. R. ), INc.,

“7” Respondent.

9 4

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF APPEALS, FIRST CIRCUIT

e e - ‘ ° ~

To the. Honorable, The Chief: Justice and the Associate

Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States:

Petitioner, Rafael Sancho Bonet, Treasurer of Puerto -

Rico, prays a writ of certiorari to review the judgment of

. the Cireuit Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, entered |

inthis cause On March 25, 1939, reversing and vacating °

the judgment of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico and

‘remanding the case.to that court With directions to. remand

it to the District Court of San Juan, and to order the latter

court to vacate its judgment or decree and to issue an :

injunction restraining the Treasurer of Puerto Rico from +

collecting Workmen’s Compensation awards of April eS ewe:

1928, by — upon the Texas wrest 8 rere:

a iS z : : 2 |

The single question presented is whether’ the Circuit -

Court of Appeals was right in-holding that the judgment *

of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico interpreting the

local Puerto Rican statute, the Workmen’s Compensation .

Act of its Legislature, was so ‘‘clearly erroneous’’ as to

require reversal by the, Circuit Court of Appeals, because ©

of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico’s holding that the

provision of the local statute [Sec. 9, as amended by Act

| No. 102, September 1, 1925] that |

“the employer n may apppal from any. decide of, the.

Commission when such decision’ is to the effect that —

the accident is one for which cepenantos is granted ot

a this. Act,’ _ :

: Al . 4

_ gave the right of appeal broadly to ‘‘the ‘cinta 7

any case where the Workmen’s Relief Commission had

held ‘‘that the accident is one for which compensation is

- granted under. this Act’’, regardless of whether the com-

pensation assessed by the Commission was “‘ paygble from

the government trust fund’’ (Sec. 2, Par. 3 of the Act;

- “Insured employer’’] or was assessed by the Commission __

against the employer-[See. 7, last Par., and Sec. 20, ‘‘ Un-

insured employér’’], as’ in the present case. '

* The Circuit Court of Appeals, overruling the Supreme

Court of Puerto Rico, holds: (R. 62-64) that the provision

of section 9 of the Act giving the employer the right of ap-

~° peal, as above quoted, must be read as being limited solely

to the case where the compensation awafded is ‘‘payable .—

. from the.government trust fund’’, and not as extending to

the case, where the compensation awarded is assessed

. against ‘the ‘‘uninsured employer”’, to be: paid by him

[Sec. 7 aud Seg. 20, supra]; and that the insular Supreme

». Court’s interpretation of the

appeal likewise'to the ‘uninsured employer’? i in.the latter.

. case is so ‘tclearly erroneous’’ as to require reversal, de-

‘

bein i Ve ee

e 5 .

spite the established rule of the respect to be paid to the.

decision of a Territorial court: of last resort imterpesting :-

a local Territorial statute.

So holding, the Circuit Court. of Appeals decided that

the Texas Company, appellant there, respondent here,

; which had not taken any appeal from.the Workmen’s .

‘ Relief Commission’s order assessing against it, as an ‘‘un-

. insured employer’’, the compensation awarded upon the

_ death of three of the company’s employees, was entitled

to maintain this collateral attack upon the Commission’s

award by this injunction suit, on the ground that the com-

pany had never had any right of appeal under the statute,

and, therefore, no adequate remedy at law.

The other conclusions of the Circuit Court of Appeals :

follow upon this basic holding. :

* PETITIONER'S POSIT) ION

Petitioner believes that the Circuit Court. of Aapeila

was wrong in this; that the construction placed by the

insular Supreme Court upon this local statute, allowing

. the right of appeal to the employ: er in: any case where the

Commission’ 7 decision i is to the effect that the accident is

one for whicli compensation i is granted under the Act,— °

[regardless of whether the compensation is to be paid out. - +

of the government.trust fund, as for an ‘‘insured em- |

ployer”’, or by the employer himself in the case where, as

here, the Commission holds him to Be an ‘‘uninsured em-

ployer’’],—was not so ‘‘clearly erroneous” as to require

reversal by the Circuit Court of Appeals in the face of

the rule of the respect to“be- paid to decisions of local

Territorial supreme courts construing local Territorial

statutes; but, on the contrary, was nof:at all an-unreason-

able interpretatior of the statute, but. was right’#nd rea-

sonable, and should have been upheld; and that, conse-_. -_

———quently, the judgment of the insular Supreme Court that

the Texas Company, not liaving availed itself of the right

of appeal in this case, could not afterwards maintain this .

=: 4

collateral attack upon’ the ‘Caniaiecion’ s award, ” this

injunction suit, was right and should be affirmed, and the

contrary judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals re-

versed. ae

"STATUTES | , |

Pertinent statutes: are in- the ‘Appendix na, PP.

33-43),

ey indicated i in’the ‘‘ Question Presented”’ shove Seni.

ee 2-3) this was an injunction suit by the Texay Com-

sae in the insular District Court of San Juan against the

‘Freasurer of Puerto Rico to enjoin collection-by distraint,

of an award- of the Workmen’s Relief Commission of

. Puerto Rico {former Commission under the old 1918 Act

as amended by Act No. 102 of 1925, with earlier amend-

ments]. A-fuller statement is.in the accompanying Brief

: infra, pp. ies

REASONS "FOR GRANTING THE WRIT i ‘

. The decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals envtding:

the’ insular .Supreme Court's interpretation of a local .

insular statute of Puerto Rico ig believed to be in’

conflict with the applicable decisions. of this court ©

establishing the rule ‘as to the ‘respect ‘to be paid»

to stich decisions of local Territorial courts of last

resort. interpreting local statutes, particularly, with the

_ recent decision. of this court, March 27, 1939, in No.

498 at the present term, Rafael Sancho Bonet, Treasurer

| of Puerto Rico vs. Yabucoa Sugar Co., as well as with the —

earlier decisions there cited: Nadat-v. May, 233 U.S. 447,

7 454; Santa Fe Ry. v. Friday, 232 U. S. 694, 700; Phoeniz

Ry. Co. v. Eandis, 231 bs S. 578, 579; roenes v. villa:

| STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pee

‘in Support: of this Petition: ‘(Statement of the Case”’, | a q

———

ei Sep Bes,

-. neuva, 239 U. 8. 293, 299; Waialua Co.-v. Christian, 305

UL S. 11,109; ncaa Co. v. goers U. S. 306,

: hepiien R, Manes,

311; Diaz. Gondalez, 261 U;’S. 192, 105, 1

vere v.

-Folgucras, 297 U. 8. 375, 378,379.

That rule embodies an important principle of federal ie

~ law with relation to the administration of the Territories. —

- It is ‘of publi¢ importance that its spirit be not disre- -

garded, nor minimized, as is done. by this decision of the,

Circuit Court of Appeals. <

- Wherefore, it is respectfully requested. that this petition

fora writ of certiorari be egpnted. \

. *e

arene for Petitioner’

B. Frnnanpeé Gaxrcia, ,

Attorney General of Puerto Rito, .

_ Solicitor for the Department of the Interior,

bs Counsel, ~

WWhiaaans vena Ricsy, af

; R

o 6 mate

_ BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION

; . OPINIONS BELOW A

: a New gn

ic The" opinion of the insular District Couit ( R. 14-19, and

"order denying rehearing, R. 25) is not officially reported.

. The opinions of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, Feb-

ruary 11, 1938, ‘affirming the judgment of ‘4 District

Court denying the injunction - 26-34), July 13,

1938, denying reconsideration (RS 48-53), are hot yet re- |

‘ported in the English.edition of the Puerto Rico Reports,

j= are reported in the Spanish edition, ‘‘Decisiones de.

* * Puerto, Rico’ (52 P. R: Dec. 658; and [Advance Sheets]

53 P. R. Dee. 475). The opinion 6f the Circuit Court of -

* Appeals siete aie in 102 F. ee 710.

| ° |

JURISDICTION. “

‘The jatiidiction of this court is inv oked under Section |

240{ a) of the Judicial Code of .the United States, as

amended by the Act. of a 13, 192%, e. 229, 43 Stat.

The judgment of the Cc breuit Court of Appeals was ent

otered on March 25, 1939.

9 See QUESTION PRESENTED

This j is mated 1 in the Petitions(ante, pp. 2 ald

STATUTES INVOLVED os

> Asi is indicated i in the Petition (ante, p. 4), pertinent

statutes are in ‘the Appendix (infra, pp. 33- 43). afoul

g f

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ie °

The vieneniiet here, the Texas Company, plaintiff i in

_ the District Court and unsuecessful-appellant in the Su- ss |

preme Court of Puerto Rico, ‘appealed to the Circuit’ © - ©

Court of Appeals from the judgment of the insular. Su- :

: 7

preme- eu affirming that of the District. Court of San .

Juai, which had dismissed the plaintiff’s bill for injunc-

tiori against. the Treasurer of Puerto Rico, defendant

there and petitioner here. The Circuit Court of Appeals

reversed the insular courts, and directed that the injunc-.

tion be gganted. The bill sought to enjoin the Treasurer

from enforcing,by distraint ah order of the Workmen’s

Relief Commission of Puerto Rico entéred eight years:

previously, requiring the Texas Company to pay com-

pensation assessed against it by the Commission on ac- .

’. count of the deaths of three laborers accidentally killed on

February 12, 1926,,while working ‘‘in a concrete platform

by the side of..a warehouse and wharf belonging to plain- |

tiff in the Harbor of Guayanilla, Puerto Rico’’ (Com-

plaint, Par. 4; R.’2), cleaning, the. platform from earth

and stones that had fallen upon it by the side of a natural

wall formed by earth, ‘when

ete:

‘*the upper part of said wall land- slided causing said

'. workmen injuries of such a nature that they were

Tetrieved dead.”’

Ati is alleged that the Comsshisaion directed ab the

amounts assessed as compensation be paid by the Texas

Company, the employer; on the ground (Complaint, Par.

_ 5; R. 2) that it “‘was not am insured employer’’ under the

_ Workmen’s Compensation Act. /

The.Company did not appeal from the Commission’s

_ order; but, instead,. undertook to attack “it collaterally ;.

’ first by certiorari, and then, secondly, by this injunction

Suit. The. certiorari proceedings begun in the District

Court of San Juan, on June 2,-1928 (Complaint, Par. 7;

‘R. 3) about six weeks after the date of the Commissioh’ 8

order of April 24, 1928, were dismissed by the District .

Court for want of jurisdiction; and its judgment was:

‘ ‘affirmed. by the, insular Supreme Court, on the same

ground of Jack of: jurisdiction in certiorari proceedings,

: iy

on January 23, 1930. (Texas Co. v. Workmen’ s Relief Com- -

mission, 40 P. R. Rep. 456). <

The Company fiot having paid, the Indust rial Commis- |

sion of Puerto Rico, the successor to the former ‘Work-

men's Relief: Commission, entered an order on September

14, 1936 (Complaint, Par. 9;.R..4), directing the Treas-

-urer to levy attachments on the Company’s property, in |

order to collect the amount of the compensation. The —

Treasurer attached a. truck; and the Company again

sought to attack the Workmen’s Relief Commission’s

order collaterally, this time, as above stated, by this in-

junction suit to enjoin the attachment proceedings.

The District Court granted a temporary injunction (R.

8-11), but dissolved it at the hearing, dismissed the Bill

(R. 14-19), and denied reconsideration (R. } 25); and the

District Court’s judgment was “unanimously affirmed by

the ‘insular Supreme Court. (R. 26-34). [Mr. Jv ISTICE |

Corpova Davia took no part, because of the illness from

which. he .subsequently died]. The, Court. allowed a re-

‘argument (R. 48) ; but, in a second opinion, July 13, 1938,.

adhered to its former decision, and formally denied’ the »

motion for reconsideration (R..48-53).

The complaint alleges as facts (R. 2-3) : Fs

“| $3. That: on or before July 15, 1925, plaintiff, in

pursuance of. Section 13 of the Workmen’s Accident

_ Compensation Act, as amended by Act No. 61 of 1921

Sp. 491)", that was then in force, filed.with the Work-

men’s Relief Commission a: statement in duplicate

_ under oath showing the number of - workmen, the

_ nature of’ the occupation of said workmen and the

total amount of-wages paid to said workmen during.

the preceding fiscal year, and the Treasurer of Puerto _.

Rico, under said law, assessed, taxed and collected ~ -

from. Nestea? the corresponding premium,”’

and c

\ ‘*4. That on February 12,. 1926, Rodulfo Suarez,

_ Isidro * illoch and Isidro Peres, laborers ere

by Appendix, Footnote 3, infra, pp. 38-39.

é .

ag Parad,

by plaintiff, died as a result of an accident incident °

to their work which occurred while they were work-

ing together with other, laborers, as employees of.

plaintiff, in a concrete platform by the side of « ware-

house and wharf belonging to plaintiff in the harbor

of Guayanilla, Puerto Rico, the usual employment

of deceased being to help in the embarkment and dis-

embarkment of gasoline drums, the filling of same, —

placing them in order, and cleaning the warehouse |

‘and platform, receiving from plaintiff for said work

daily wages fluctuating from $1.50 to $1.75. Said acci-

dent occurred’ in the © following manner: About 8

o’clock in the morning of said day, as deceased were

cleaning the said platform from earth and stones that ~

had fallen upon it by the side of a natural wall formed

' by earth, the upper part of said wall land-slided caus-

ing said ‘workmen i injuries of such a nature that they

were retrieved dead. ed oe

‘5. That the Workmen’s Relief Commission inves- —

tigated said accident and after holding public hear-’

ings in the three cases, on April 24, 1928, * * * (R..

2-3), handed doWn orders declaring that plaintiff was ©

not an insured employer, * * * ; and- by said orders

awarded compensations of $2,000 to the dependents

of each of the deceased and ordained its administra-

_ tive secretary to prepare the corresponding liquida-

tions and to send to the Attorney General of Puerto

_ Rico a copy of each one of the“orders so that said

officer proceed, under Section 7 of the law then in

force (Act No. 102 of 1925), to collect. bere plaintiff -

payment of the resulting amounts.’ |

It ‘tin alleges the pleader’s conclusiotts that : ;

_A. Asa result of the facts alleged in Paragraph 3 of

‘the — as above qatar, the! leader concludes

(Par. 3; R. 2). \

‘*for which reason wad by.express disposition of said

Section 13, plaintiff was an insured employer since

the date in which it filed the above mentioned record

_or statement, until the 15th of July, 1926;’’ and |

a °

B. Thé pleader concludes that the Westies’ 's Relief

Commission’s orders of April 24, 1928, described in Para-

graph 5 of the Cémplaint as. above — were handed

_ down (Par. 5; R. ans ae; : .

“arbitrarily and illegally wie + eon ee a

matter of record ir the said Commission that plaintiff

was insured, having complied with all the requisites -

of the law as above alleged and having, paid. the

premium corresponding to the year within which said

accident occurred. fs

The case was pibeited to fhe District Court for trial

upon a ‘Stipulation of Faets and Submittal of the a

(R. 12-13), by which it was agreed that —

‘* Defendant confesses s the iitimate facts ef the bill,

except the.conclusions of fact or of law that it might

contain’’ (Italics supplied),

ond, submitted questions of law for the ‘Court’ 8 determina

tion. °

- The insular Supreme’Court (R. 29-30) upheld the con-

struction put upon this stipulation in the defendant Treas-_

*“urer’s brief in Set Court, that -

‘Tt is undispibtable that what was admitted i. de-

fendaat by said. stipulation were the facts whjch oc-

curred and which ga ave origin to all this proceeding

» ~ Since its inception.

_ the Workmen’s Relief Commission is or is not valid

is not a question of fact but of law exclusively.”’

- (Italtcs supplied) . “\

: PETITIONER'S POSITION

Petitioner’ ’s primary position here has been stated i in

‘the Petition (“Question Presented”’ and ‘Petitioner’ 8

- Position’, ante, pp. 2-4). *-

As to other questions discussed in the Circuit Court of:

‘Appeals and i in the insulae. courts, it is the position of .

this Sasa the Treasurer of Puerto Rico, that:

he uestion whether the Order of |

;

, ; oo)

1. The allegations of facts (as distinguished from the

pleader’s conclusions). contained ‘in the plaintiff com-

* pany’s bill of complaint, wholly fail to demonstrate that

the order of the Workmen’s Relief Commission was

without jurisdiction, or ‘éven that (as the plaintiff com-

pany claims) it was necessarily erroneous on its face; be- ©

& cause (a) the aHegations of the Bill of Complaint wholly

ignore ‘the proviso which was contained in Section 13 of :

the Workmen’s Compensation Act in force at the time,—

“both as it stood on July 15, 1925, the date on which plain-

tiff alleges (Complaint, Par. 3; R. 2) that it filed its state-

ment ynder the Act. with the Workmen’s Relief Commis- .

sion, under the law as amended by Act’ No. 61 of 1921

_ (Laws of 1921, p. 490; Appendix, infra, Footnote 3, pp.

. 38-39), and also as it stood on the date ‘of the accident,

February 12, 1926, under the Jater amendatory Act of -

“September 1, 1925, which had meantime taken effect

_ (Laws of 1925, pp. 938-940 (Appendix, infra, pp. 36-38) ),

—prescribing :* } ee, Be Pe! Pee

s- Provided, That every employer*émploying work-.

men covered by this Act for any term or part of a

E, semester, shall file the aforesaid statement in dupli-

' cate and under oath, showing. the number of workmen

employed, the class of occupation and the estimated

wages to be paid Such workmen, and on suclr sum the

premigm payable by said employer .shall be com-

puted; and upon the termination of the work of said

workmen the employer shall file a sworn statement

Similar to the one above stated, showing the total

& . amount of wages paid, on whigh sum the correspond-

ing, liquidation shall be made, and should this payroll

prove greater than the previous one, the Treasurer

shall assess, levy #nd collect additional premiums on

the difference’’; (Italics ‘supplied)

and also. because (b) the allegations of plaintiff’s Com- -

plaint likewise wholly ignore the further provision of Sec-

tion.13 gf the Workmen’s Compensation Act, as amended | ,

- by the amendatory Act of September 1, 1925, supra; .-.-

eee ene ae

which, under. the emergency clause, of that Act (Sec-

tion 5; Laws of 1925, p. 946; Appendix, infra, p. 41),

had gone into. effect on September 1, 1925, immediately

upon its approval, and which did away with the former

more lenient provision ‘for the. employer (upon avhich

plaintiff’s. bill of complaint. is: apparently bottomed):

_ whereby his insurance had become effective immediately

- upon filing the statement with the Commission under Sec-

tion 13 of the Act;-as it stood under the amendments of

1921 (Laws of 1921, p. 490; Aympendix, Footnote 3,

infra, pp. 38-39) ; and substituted for it the more drastic

provision that the insurance should not become effective until the _

employer had actually paid the premiums,—the amended provi- A

sion r@ading (Laws of 195, p. 940; Niconer ad infra, p

wpY

. “The insurance of ev ery employ er shall betone

effective immediately after his payroll or statement

. is filed in duplicate in the affice, of the commission, ,

<% accompanied by the amount of the assessment corre-

_ sponding to the percentage of wages declared in said

. statement in accordance with the rates fixed by the

Commission. ”” (Italics supplied) o-

In view of the. presumption of omnia rite acta which

, hecessarily attaches to the official proceedings of a quasi-

- judicial body such as the Workmen’s Relief Commission, |

especially as against a collateral attack such as ‘the pres- -

ent. injungtion suit, it is plain that the plaintiff-respondent

here, before it can claim error,—and far less, nullity,—in

.the Commission’s order, is bound to foreclose the exist-

ence of every circumstance which might support the Com-

mission’s order. 5

The present bill of complaint fails to measure up to shat require

ment. . Non constat but that: ie

A. "These ‘‘laborers’ employed by| plaintiff’’ (Par. 4;.

R. 2), ‘treceiving. ** * daily wages fluctuating from $1 50

to $1.75", who were killed. on Februaty 12,°1926; by-thix—-—.

, Ee ae ¢

Re 13

- &

landslide while cleaning the platform ‘from earth and

stones that had fallen upon it’’, may well have been em-

ployed by the plaintiff ¢omp: within the meanifig of

“the above-quoted proviso of Section 13 of the Act, ©

‘‘for any. term or. part of a*semester’’,

. - he 7

and the plaintiff. company may have failed to file the sup-

plemental sworn statement required by that proviso cov-

ering their Wages, or may have failed actually to pay. the

_ .extra premium payment required by the proviso upon

that supplemental statement. ‘

[Such failure On the plaintiff company’s part may

easily have been due either simply ‘to negligence; or else

’ on the other hand to.a mistaken belief on the part of the ~

plaintiff company’s officials, with which the Workmen’s ;

' Relief Commission may have disagreed, that these labor- |

ers cleaning that platform on that day may have been in

the category of.

“those whgse labor i is of a merely: accidental char-

acter" eee |

and who are, therefore, “expressly excluded” from the —

benefits of the Act (Sec. 30; p. 946, Laws of 1925; Appen-

dix, infra, p41); ;—and hence the plaintiff may have

thought it unnecessary, to report them to the Commission

in a sworn statement, or to pay-the premium on, their.

wages. Eithér supposition is sufficient to support the Com- -

Mission’s order finding that,—at least as to those labor- ~

ers,—the Company was not an ‘‘insured employer’”’.] .

* B. The Company may not actually have paid the premi-. |

. um assessments prior to February 12, 1926, the date of the

accident,—either on its original statement which. it al-

- léges it had filed on July 15, 1925, or ‘on the supplemental : °

: statement covering these laborers on the dock who were

killed that day. Lied my such supplementary statement had

es 4°

3 ess

been filed at all, under the proviso o of Section 13.9f the Act

for those laborers for a short ‘‘term or part of a semes-

_ter’’.) The bill of complaint faits to allege any date upon

which (or before which), the premiums were actually paid. .

Upon either of these possible hypotheses, either ‘4A”

or ‘*B”*, the plaintiff company would not have been an ‘‘in-

- sured employer” on February. 12, 1926, within the mean-

ing of the Act; but, to the exact contrary, an uninsured

emploger (at least im relation fo. those laborers who were

’ killed), ‘just as the Commission found it to be; since the

Act as amendéd.on September 1,1925; and in force at the

date of the accident, expressly’ fequired that the employer, |

in order to have the status of an’ ‘‘insured employer.”

eshould have done .all three of these things, viz:.(1) Filed

its annual statement on or before the preceding July 15;

(2) Filed a supplemental statement (or statements) cov-

ering the employnfent of additional laborers for any short

‘‘term or part of a semester); and (3) have actually paid

_the premiums assessed, both (a) upon, the annual'‘state--

ment of July 15, and also (b) upon the supplementary

statement (or statements) covering the short- term labor-.

ers for ‘‘any term or part of a semester’’

U ntil, or unless, it had done all of those 2 things, it was a

not ain ‘‘insured employer’’ under the Act.

As above pointed out, this plaintiff-respondent company, in this fe

collateral attack upon the Commission’s order, is bound, i in order to i

. succeed, to negative all possible hypotheses upon which the order

might be sustained. It has not done so. The Bill of Comiplaint

is wholly silent on all these matters. On its face, therefore, °

the bill'fails to sustain the plaintiff’s claim that the Com-

mission’s order was necessarilyserroneous; far less, that

it was a ‘‘nullity’’ that mag#be simply disregarded upon

a collateral attack, such as*by this injunction suit. |

2. In relation to other ot discussed in the lower.‘

“courts, eppellee’s position is stated i in the ‘‘Summary of ie

“Argument” (infra, pp. ea. : : ae =

4 = ates | ‘a! ay

SPECIFICATION OF ERRORS TO BE URGED s

Thesé are indicated under the headings ‘‘Question Pre-

sented’’ and ‘‘Petitioner’s Position’’ in the Petition

. (ante,,pp. 2-4). As there indicated, the primary error of

the Cireuit Court.of Appeals was in overruling the insular

Supreme Court’s interpretation of the local Territorial

statute. RCA nt

Mr: \

—

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The msular Supreme’ Court’s interpretation of section

9-of the Puerto Rican Workmen’s Compensation Act as —

amended by the Act of September 1, 1925; as to the scope ©

’- of the appeal allowed to the employer from the Commis- |

_ sion’s awards of compensation for death or injuries to

- employees, Was not unreasonable, nor ‘‘clearly wrong’’.

On the contrary it was réasonable and right, and should

not have been disturbed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.

The allegations of facts (as contra-distinguished from |

the pleader’s conclusions) contained in the plaintiff-re-

spondent company’s Bill of Complaint wholly fail to dem-

onstrate that the Commission’s order was without juris-

diction, or even teat it avas necessarily errgneoys on its

face, and are therefore wholty insufficient to support this

collateral attack upén it by this injunction suit; since, in . ~

view of the presumption of omnia rite acta which neces- .

sarily ‘attaches to the official proceedings of a quasi- —

judicial body such as the Workmen’s Relief Commission, | *

_ » as against such aveollateral attack upon it, it is plain that

_ the plaintiff-respendent here, before it ¥an claim error,—

and far.less, nullity,—in the Commission’s order, is bound.

to foreclose the existence of every circumstance which_, °

might reasonably support the Commission’ s.order ; which -

the Bill gf Complaint here fails to do. —

. Hence, since the Commission’s. decision was upon a

~ question within its jurisdiction, it may not be assailed ny

: collateral attack, by this meee suit. x

, .

law by appeal from the Commissi

by the insular Supreme Court.

Plaintiff, had a iii. adequate and ‘eh cenit SGmedy at

n’s order, aS was —

The Treasurer’s procedure to enforce siviacuie by the

Texas Company in accordance with the orders. of the

* Workmen’s Relief Commission and_ the supplemental

orders of its successor, the present Industrial Commis-

sion, is in accordance with the provisions of the local .

_ Statutes, and is correct, as was heldgby the insular Su. -

preme Court. The decision of the Circui® Court of Ap- Z

peals to the contrary, overruling the insular Supreme .

’ Court, is based upon and follows the Circuit Court’s erro-

neous ‘holding-fifirelation to the primary question of the

scope,of -the employér’s right of appeal under section 9 .

of the 1925 Act, as to which the Circuit Court wrongly

— overruled the Territorial Supreme Court.

¢ -

x é

;

. \

x °

wens ;

‘ARGUMENT . hae

POINT I

The Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong in overruling the deci-

, sion of the, Supreme Court of Puerto Rico as to the sgope ‘of the

_ ° appeal given to employers by ‘section 9 of the Puerto Rican Work-

men’s Compensation Act as amended by the Act‘of 1925.

j The decision of the insular Supreme Court was clearly right.

A. Section 9 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of.

Puerto Rico, as amendéd by Act No.'102 of September 1,

.1925 ‘(Laws of 1925, p. 930; Appendix, infra, p. se

provided :

“SectionS9. neaiiale ft rom the decisions of the :

Workmen’s Relief Commission. to any district court

_ shall be allowed to the claimant, his beneficiaries * * *.

Likewise the employer may. appeal from any decision of

the commission when such ‘detision is to the effect that

the acciderit is one for which compensation is granted under

this act.” Crmpnaets sunEnor) ey oak.

The third paragraph of section 2 of the same lew, like

wese as amended by the same Act No..102 of September 1,.

1925, provided (Laws of 1925, pp. .996-908 ; Appendix,

infra, p. 33): ws °

‘‘This Act shall apply to every. eunplover who em-.,

ploys any laborer or employee whose wages do not

exceed * * *; Provided, That pursuant'to the provi- ,

sions. of this Act, compensation shall be paid to in-

~ jured laborers who become disabled or who lose their .

. lives Merten accidents originating from any. act or

function inherent in their work or employment and

occurring during the course of their employment * * °,;

“payable from the government trust. fund.’’ [Fund

created from contributions of insured employers,

under Sections 27 and 28 of the Law, as amended by

the Act of September.1, 1925; Laws of 1925, pp. me

as. ‘Appendix, st i Pp. 40].

: aS : ehaind <2

: Mr “~.

18 Baa ieee |

Sections 7 and 20 of the law, likewise as amended by |

the same Act No. 102 of September 1, 1925 provided

(Laws of 1925; PP. 924-926, 942-944 ; Appendix, tnfra, pp.

34-35, 39-40):

: ‘Section 7. Every employer subject to the pro-

_ Visions of this Act * * * shall report to the Workmen’s

Relief Commission * * * all injuries stffered by his

employees in the course of their employment.

‘Such reports shall be upon printed blanks *

/ _and shall contain * * *. :

“The Workmen’s Relief: Commission ‘shall have

' power to direct investigation of accidents." *-* shall

make a thorough invéstigation of accidents and shall. «

establish the cause or causes thereof, the character;

nature, and extent of the injuries sustained, * * *

including * * * sach other facts and circumstances as

in the opinion of the Commission may enable it to,

‘pass judgment on the claim for the relief of the in-

» jured workmen when the said claim shall be presented

to, the’ Commission as herein prov ided.

**The Workmen’s Relief ommission shall have

« the power to make such. further investigations * *.*

‘*In the case of an aceident to a laborer while work- :

ing for an employer who i in violation of the law is un- .

insured, the Workmen’s Relief Commission shall de-

termine proper compensation, plus expenses incurred

by it, and shall report the.same to the Attorney Gen-

eral for institution of proper action in a court of com-

‘petent jurisdiction, against said employér to recover

the aforesaid sum; Provided, however, That the .

_ Commission shall grant the employer as well as the

» laborer in the case an opportunity to be heard and to

defend themselves, and shall conform, as far as pos-

‘sible to the practices observed by the courts of jus-,

tice.’’ (Italics supplied)

‘*Section 20. If any accident occurs to any work-

man employed by an employer subject to the provi-

sions of this Act, who has failed to co mply with said

provisions relative to the submigsion of. reports and

the payment of premiums on the dates hereinbefore,

' specified, the Workmen’s Relief Commission is here-

by authorized to charge said. employer with the

amount: ‘of such compensation to be paid injured .

workman plus expenses in the case. * * * *’ (Italics

' supplied)

B. In the present case, after the deaths of three of the

Texas Company’s employees,olaborers cleaniifg a plat-. ;

. form by the side of a warehouse and wharf, oy. verwhelmed

by a landslide (R. 2), the Commission held a hearing’ in

_ aecordance with section 7 of the Act; supra, found that

the Texas Company ‘‘was not an insured employer’’,

determined the proper compensation for eich of the. three

deaths, and directed the Attorney General to-eollect the |

respective amounts from the company,—all in accordance

with sections 7 and 20: ofthe Act — of Complaint, Pars,

5, 6; R. 2-3).

The Texas ‘Company, plaintiff- piuiaiiaade the em-

ployer, did not appeal; but, instead, after waiting until

afterythe expiration of the time for appeal fixed by the

. statute, undertook to attack the Commission’s order col-

a first by, certiorari, unsuccessfully (Complaint,

Par. 7; R. 3); and then, secondly, by this ph esate suit

(ante, Statement, pp. 7-8).

C. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico said i in the cer-

‘

tiorari case, upon the company’s appeal, in affirming the .

_ judgment of the District Court dismissing those proceed-

ings for waiit of jurisdiction (Texas Co. vs. wr ernment s

_ Relief Commission, 40 P. R. Rep. 456, $58):

7 S

‘Furthermore the appellant does :

an appeal to review the decision com

under section 9 of the Act of 19%

. page 930. It provides: * *.,

ante, p. 17].

oh general appeal, it would seem, could. raise the

incidental question.* ** -

ined of did not lie

, laws of that year,

[quoting it as above,

t convince us that .

‘We find nothing in the lawa - of Porto Rico to

authorize the certiorari solicited44nd: the nen

“sewill be affirmed.” (Emphasis supplied)

D. In the present case the Supreme Court of Puerto

, Rico, after pointing out that this company had already at-

ad ™

‘4 tacked the Commission’s order by those certiorari. pro-

F ceedings on the ground ‘of supposed ullity, and: after —

quoting with approval what it had said ‘n that case, As

above quoted, added (R. "32 352 P. R. Dec. v98, 666):

“No other resoutne was taken by plaintiff and the

order remained standing, nogeffort being necessary -

to conclude that after the years passed, plaintiff is

not in position to do now. by injunction what in due

time it could have done. by the means placed at its

disposal af ” law.’

E. The effect of Tasos two decisions of thé Supreme

‘Court of Puerto. Rico was to hold squarely that the em-

plover ‘was entitled to recourse by appeal from. the

~ Commission’s decision in an\ case where, in the language .

of section 9 of the Act, supra, -

tguch decisipn is to the effect that the accident is one ‘

“for which eco pensation is granted under this Act”’,

regardless of whether the compensation. thus “granted”?

by the Commission is payable out of the government trust

fund. [Sec. 2, ‘‘Insured employer’’] or, as in the present.

_, case, where. the Commission has- ‘‘determined”’ the

_ ‘proper compensation’’, and has: “charge[d] said em-

ployer with the amount of such compensation’’ under sec-:

‘tions 7 and 20 of the Act to be paid by the employer itself

as ‘‘an employer who" in violation of the law -is unin-

sured’’.

F. It is submitted that that inidieretation of the statute |

__ by the insular Supreme Court, as allowing an appeal to the’

| employ er in éither ease, is ‘wholly réasonable, and is en-

tirely in accord with the lonamene of section 9 of the Act.? °

. Respondent company itself, int its brief a as appellant in in’ 4

this case in the Cireuit Court of Appeals, did not question

this interpretation of the Act by the: insular Supreme

RC art; but, to the contrary, Saeceenly <td (Appe lant’ s

‘

° ‘ : res ee , ‘ ; - a

_ that court, pp. 10-11):

. Te

There is certainly nothing on the face of the language

of section 9 in any way expressly limiting the employer’s ©

right of appeal to’the single situation where the compen-

‘ sation adjudged by the Commission j is to be, paid, out of |

Brief, Circuit Court of Appeals, in this case, No. 3380 in.

‘However, the statute referred to provides that

the employer may appeal from a decision. of the

Workmen’s Relief Commission only.‘when such deci-

sion is to the effect! ‘that the accident is one for which

compensation is gtanted under this Act’ (Laws of

Puerto Rico, 1925-26, p. 930). It has never been disgpted —

in this proceeding that the accident is one for which com-

, pensation is granted. * * *

_ ‘** * * Furthermore, the’ only ground upon which

‘a general appeal’ could be taken, in which to raise

——the ‘incidental quwgtion? referred to; was that.the |

acciderit was not one for which compensation could

' be granted and plaintiff has never disputed that this was

an. accident for which pikes should be granted. 7

(Emphasis supplied)

__ Respondent’s argument, as. appellant - in the Circuit °

Court of Appeals, ran along different: lines, not followed

by that court, viz., that although the employer was’ actu-

ally etititled to have its appeal, yet that [for some unez-.

plained reason] the appeal could not reach the “sole ques-

__ tion at issue’’ of ‘‘whether the Workmen’s Relief Commis-.

sion could legally direct that the award should be paid

by the employer, rather than out of the State Fund’’

[Appellant’s Brief; C. C. A., No. 3380, ‘‘ Point II’’, p. 10;

italics those of respondent, appellant there}.

_ Neither the Circuit Court of Appeals nor the insular

Supreme Court agreed with respondent ‘in that position:

The idea that no appeal lay at all for the ‘‘uninsured’’

employer (R. 62-64), apparently originated with the Cir-

cutt Court of Appeals itself.

A certified copy is presented herewith of paipeuiient’ .

| iit a appellant in the Circuit Court of Appeals Xo.

there}. Attention is particularly invited to its

= (pp. 10-12). ‘

i¢ ae ae be ; pete

29 : 3

6 “ +: . *

' the government trust fund, or in-any way expressly ex-.

| cluding the other situation where the compensation as-_ .

sessed is to be paid by the employer himself because of ©

being ‘‘uninsured’’; and no reason is suggested in the

Circuit “Court of Appeals’ opiniok why the Legislature, ~

‘should have intended to’ limit the employer’s right of |

appeal_to the one situation, and to exclude the ta in!

’ the other sittfation. a ogee

To the contrary it seems more reasonable to be- |

lieve that if _ the “Legislature had intended to draw —

” any distinction at all between the. two situations, it

| would rather have presefved the right of appeal in the

_ latter situation where the award assessed by the Com-.

mission is payable by the employer himself, because that

is the only situation, where, financially, the employ er.is |

directly interested in the fact of the award, or in. its

amount; since, Yi. the first situation where the award is:

‘pay able out of the goyernment trust fund, the employer

is not directly affected. It does not come out of his pocket.

And yet the ruling of the Circuit Court of Appeals (R.

62-64, supra):i is that’ the Legislature intended to deny him

* the appeal in the only-case where he is financially inter- .

ested, and to grant it to him only where he is not direetly

financially interésted at all.

--G. On the face of it, it would seem to require yery posi-

‘tive language on the Legislature’s part inorder to’support

such a one-sided interpretation of the statute. It seems

_ unreasonable on its face. It is submitted that the insular

Supreme Court’s.contrary interpretation construing ‘sec-

tion 9 as broadly granting the right of appeal to the em-

. ploy er in either situation,—and thus preserving to him

‘the zight of appeal in the only situation in which he is

really directly financially interested, — viz., where the

“award would have to be paid out-of his own pocket, ‘ue

very situation in which the Circuit Court of Appeals

Would deny it.to him,—is the only reasonable interpreta-

o f

ny PLAS OR Pearce tae

23 ee

“tion of the statute, and should have been sustained. The

Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong in overruling it.

4 POINT II .

- The dedision of the Circuit Court of Appeals overruling the

- Ynsular Supreme Court’s interpretation of this local insular statute

is in conflict with the applicable decisions of this court as to the

respect to be paid to the decisign of a Territorial court of last .

» tesort interpreting a local TerritoriaP statute. 4. -

The rule has been established for three quarters ofa

century. This court applied it with reference to decisions -

ot the Territorial supreme courts of the Territories with- _

in: the egntinental United States, long before there were

' any off-shore Territories, [Sweeney vs. Lomme, 22 Wall.

208, ] a@@ has consistently applied it during’ the last’ a

forty years with reference to decisions of the Suprem

Courts -of Awan, the Philippine. — and Faitle

[ae : .

With reference to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico,

the rule has very recently been re-stated in this court’s

. Opinion in the case of Rafael*Sancho Bonet, Treasurer. of

Puerto Rico vs. Yabucoa Sugar Co., decided March 27,

1939 [No. 498 at the present. Term of this court] where,

- im reversing the Circuit Court of Appeals, First Circuit, -

and ‘reinstating the decision of the Supreme Court of

Puerto Rico which the Circuit Court of: A Is had re-

versed in that case, this court said [at pp. 3-4 of the

‘Opinion ; 306 U.S. ; 83 L. Ed. 607 ; 609-10, Advance Sheets] :

‘*And this Court has declared its uffwillfngness to ~

overrule Porto Rican tribunals upon mattersof pure-

- ly loeal concern or to decide against the local under- .

- standing of a local matter, not believed by this

Court to be clearly wrong; and a disposition to ac-

cept the construction placed by a local court upon a

local statute and to sustain such a construction in the

absence of clear or _ manifest error.

“Taxing acts of Puerto Rico are “purely. local’’

‘Tas is likewise the Workmen’s Compensation Act

- eo:

° \

here involved) ‘‘and the tzailiiiena reluctance of

this Court to overturn constructions of such local

statutes by local courts is particularly applicable to.

interpretations of Puerto Ricani statutes by Puerto

~ _ Rican tribunals. Orderly development of a -govern-

.* ment of Puerto ad as an integral part of our gov-’

ernmenial system’ is well served by a careful and

consistent adherence to the legislative and judicial

policy of deferring to. the .local procedure and tri-

bunals of the Island.’’’ ;

re the earlier hialana there cited and relied upon :

by this court are substantially to the same effect. Nadal .

'y. May, 233 U: S..447, 454; Sante Fe Ry. v. Friday, 232

US. 694, 700; Phoenix Ry. Co. v. Lafig@is, 231 U. S. 578,

979; Villanueva v. Villanueva, 239 U. S. 293, 299; Waialua .

“o. v. Christian, 305 U. S. 91, 109; Inter- Jelond Co. v..

Hawaii, 305 U. S.. 306, 311; Diaz v. Gonzalez, 261 U. S.

102, 105, 106; Cordova v. Folgueras, 227 U. 8. 375, 378,

379.

Under this rule the Circuit Court of pou should

have deferred to the insular Supreme Court’s interpreta-

“tion of this local statute.

As we have said (Petition, ‘Reasons for’ Granting the

\Writ’’, ante, p. 5), this rule embodies an important prin-

ciple of federal law with relation te the administration of

the Territories. It should not be disregarded. wor mini- -

mized by. the Circuit Court of Appeals.

: 2 POINT III

‘The Tones Comparty, plaintiff- cospendent, had 4 plain; adequate

and complete remedy at law by appeal from the order of the Work-

men’s Relief Commission of April 24, 1928; and, therefore,

cannot now. maintain this colfavaral attack upon the order by ©

this injunction out, - =. .

‘A.—>'That was the decision ét the insular Supreme

Court (R. 32) quoted above (ante, p. 20). 6 ,

» B.—It is the result that necessarily follows from the

o -

-holding of the ae Supreme Court that section 9 of.

the locaf Act extended the right of appeal to this ‘‘unin-

sured’’ employer ; which, as we have said above (ante, pp.

17-24, Points I and IT),’should not have been disturbed by ”

the Circuit Court of Appeals. |

‘

POINT IV

‘There was no possible lack of jurisdiction in the “indings or

orders of the Workmen’s Relief Commission. No possible question

of “nullity” is here involved. Seu

- If the Commission’s. findings were incorrect. or

mistaken in any way, then it was at.the most simply a case

of er®or;—of erroneous decision of a matter which the -

Commission was called. upon to decide, within the scope

' g of its statutory powers. _—_.

It was not in any way a ‘ease of stepping outside of its

statutory powers, or of attempting to decide a matter »

that it was not called upon to decide, or which lay be-

yond the range of its. powers and duties.

Therefore, no question of lack of jurisdiction —or of

_ “nullity’’,—is hére iavolved, upon which to sustain this

collateral attack, by this injunétion suit, sbi the Com-

-mission’s findings and orders.

>B: Manifestly the Commission wag called upon to in-,

‘voatiili and to hold public hearings, and to find and

to decide ‘‘the cause’’ of the accident, the ‘‘character, _

‘nature and extent of the injuries sustained’’, and wheth- ;

er or not the accident occurred ‘‘to a laborer while works

ing for an employer who i in violation of the law is unin-

sured™, and in that case to ‘‘determine proper compensa-

tion’? and report it to the Attorney General for institu- —

tion of proper action ‘‘against said employer to recover

the aforesaid sum’’. All of that was the Commission’s

_ express.-statutory duty under Section 7 of the Act, as

_~ amended September‘1, 1925 (Laws of Puerto-Rico, 1925,

pp. 924-926; Appendix infra, pp. 34-35). And the Com-

-_ @

;

26 2

» a j : . A

mission was further expressly ‘‘authorized to charge said

—..--employer with the amount of such compensation to be

~ paid injured workmen plus expenses in the case’’, by

Section 20 of the same Act as amended the same date,

“September 1, 1925 (Laws of 1925, pp. 942-944; Appendix

infra,’ pp. 39-40). Plaintiff’s allegations show (Bill of

Complaint, Par. 5; R. 2-3) that the Commission proceeded, _

to do its duty under these statutory provisions, and that

it ‘*inv estigated said accident and after holding public

- hearings in the three cases’ > nanded down i its findings

and its orders. ° :

C. No criticism is made of the Commission’ s proce- .

‘dure. It i is not ev esuggested that it was doing anything

outside ofits statutory duty; the only criticism is that

_ the plaiptiff thinks that its conclusion was wrong:

ID. That is simply to claim that it committed simple

error in i¥& findings- upon the evidence before it. But

error does not affect jurisdiction. To say that an order

or judgment is erroneous does not mean that it is void,

or that it may be disregarded as a \ nullity upon collateral

“attaek® :

E. Plainly, if this Aeieadien, suit hed ‘been brought o

_ during those hearings before the Commission, and prior

to the time when the Commission arrived at its -conclu-

sions, an@ an attempt had thus been made to halt the

Commission’s proceedings’ by such a collateral attack -

before it had arrived at its decison, on the ground that it i

had no jurisdiction or that its proceedings were a ‘‘nulli-

‘ty’’,-the-suit would have been laughed out of court. No

pretense could have been made that the Commission did

‘not have the power, or that it was not its statutory. duty,

to proceed to hedr the evidence and to determine the

questions involved,g-including the question of fact;—(or. _

' of mixed law and fact),—as to whether or not the Texas

- Company, the employer of these laborérs who were killed,

was or was not (at feast im relation to them) an ‘‘unin-

1: x...

“i

ay ee

MO Sele — J Y 5 4

: v

sured employer’’. That was a part of the Commission’s

duty. Soe el ° 7

F. Then, how ean the fact that the Osuibitesian ac- .

tually decided this question,—which it was a part of ‘its

duty to decide,—one ‘way, rather than the other way, be

_ said to affect its jurisdiction in any way? How can it

‘affect the Commission’s jurisdictiqn that its decision was

_ that the plaintiff actually was an uninsured employer;

rather than that it was an insured enero: as to these

‘workmen? - ; ‘ :

G. It is plain that it cannot affect it in ariy way; that

it is not a question of jurisdiction that is here involved. |

~ It is, at the most; only a question of alleged error on the

Commission’s part in arriving at its decision on a matter

within its jurisdiction, and which it was ite express statu-

' tory duty to decide. pewaire cs ee, ,

If the. employer thought the decision wrong, it should

have challenged it by appeal [Points I, TI and TI, ante,

PP. os 25]. f {

a POINT oi Bande ed iia nee

“Sines Gel Gotmmitatedte ie sas din eins ie its

ee ee ee ee oe

injunction suit.

A. The usual rule is applicable here, whieh -appligs to

collateral attacks upon the decisions of all statutory or

-administrative tribunals or inferior ‘courts of limited

_ jurisdiction, viz., that while their jurisdiction will not be-

presumed, but must affirmatively appear; yet, within the .

scope of theft jurisdiction, their judgments are as final

, and binding as. those of any superior, ourt or other tri-

‘ bunal,‘and are just as unassailable upon collateral at-

tack. Compare, for example, the court martial: Fz. Parte

Reed, 100 U. 8. 13, 23. The rule_is the same as that ap-

- plicable to justices of the pesge. It needs no citation of

ae authority. up t c

* - eee

B. It follows, therefore, that the findings and order

‘of the Commission in this case, unassailed by direct ap-

- peal;. became res adjudicata when the statutory period

- for appeal had elapsed; and thereafter were not subject

to collateral attack; and, hence, are not ‘subject to col-.

— attack by this injunction suit.. ;

This ptaintiff-respondent did not appeal from the

Pasi ah s order. No appeal was taken. . Mi” Rusty

: A re ae ne a ts :

; “ . . ‘ «Wf ba * * a .

_ The Treasurer’s procedure to enforce payment by the Texas

Company in accordance with the order of the Workmen’s Relief

--. (Commission and the supplemental order. of its successor, the pres-

wat Reiter Comstienton, fy quactenens, 16 fs qeaedanse with

_ the provisions of the local stevutes, esid is correct.» ‘

That was the decision of the insular Supreme

Cc boot interpreting the locakstatutes involved, after care- .

fully reviewing them (Opinion, R. 22-34), to which ait ad-

_hered .upoy reargament (Opinion, R. 49-53). ‘Both of

“those opinions were unanimous.’ [Except that mr. JUS--

TICE CORDOVA DAVILA, who was seriously ill, took no part. Mice

either “of{them. |} .

B. Both of these opinions appear tobe il and con-

vineing. Like the interpretation given by that'Court to—

the provision coneerning appeals, in section 9 of the

statuté, supra, they are:within the rule that a local Terti-

torial Supreme Court’s interpretation of local Territorial

statutes will not be disturbed, unless “clearly erroneous’’. |

The insular-Supreme Coyrt's interpretation of the local

statutes here involved, which if analyzes in these opinions,

and which it concludes uphold ‘the power of the Treasurer

‘to proceed by attachment in this case, is certainly’ not

‘*clearly erroneous’’. On the cantrary, like its interpreta?

tion.of section 9 of the Act, supra, its interpretation here: -

0 appears tt be reasonable and right. It should not have °

jon disturbed by the Cireuit Court of ‘Appeals. aeee

C. That saat of the opinion (R. 64-68) of the Cireuit SEs

« Court of Appealg overruling this parf*.of the opinion of

the Territorial Supreme Court of Puerto Rico is bot-_

- tomed chiefly upon the primary decision of the Circuit

Court of Appeals (R. 62-64) above discussed in Points I

and II (ante, pp. 17-4) overruling the decision of the

insular Supreme Court as to the ‘employers right of ap-

peal from thé Commission’s order in this case and hold-

‘ing, contrary.to the Territorial Supreme Court’s decision, -

that the Texas-Company here, as an ‘‘uninsured’’ em-

ployer, had no such right of appeal.

Bettomed upon that primary [erroneous], holding, the :

Cirgnit Court of Appeals-then further holds that the Tex-

as Company had, therefore, no plain, adequate or. com-.

: plete remedy at law against the Commission’s order; and

accordingly that, unless this collateral attack by injune- ‘

tion suit were sustained, the Texas C, y would never _

have had any fair opportunity to présent its defensés of

its claims of erroneous action on the part of the Com-

‘mission, and would thus be deprived of all substantial

medy and of any opportunity of any kind for a judicial ‘

adjudication, of its ease, and that thus. yi raud”’ would, in

effect, be practiced upon it.

The Cireuit Court of’ — says (R., 64): . Log :

‘We therefore cnniet that the isang Court’’.

fof a ps Rico], ‘‘if it-intended to rule that the

- plaintiff hada remedy by appeal under. Section ‘9

and that the remedy thus afforded was as complete

and adequate as the one sought by the bill (which

‘it did not“hold unless by inference), it was clearly —

- wrong in so holding..* * *.. Under these circum-™

' stances, if the plaintiff ’s bill is not retained and

. the Treasurer restraiged from collecting the orders

by distraint ‘the plaiffiff will be deprived of its

‘remedy by defense and fraud will be practiced ——

it. This TT will not a i

S » . +

De But, as above pointed out; that is all bottomed

upon, the Circuit Court of Appgals’ primary erroneous

" action in overruling the local Supreme Court’s interpré-

‘tation of sectloy 9 of the local Act as actually extending

the right of appeal to this ‘‘uninsured’’ employer. (Points

I and II, ante, pp. 17-24). The Texas Company really did have

the right of appeal, and made no attempt to avail itself of ‘it

Hence, as the insular Supreme Courf® said, as above

-quoted (R. 32; ante, p p. 20), S a, :

‘plaintiff is pot in position’ to. do now by injunct@n

what in due time.it could have done by the— means

placed at*its crapenel wid the law. - ae 4

» ; . a

fs, Here again the rule ‘applies of the respect to be |

accorded to a decision ofthe local Térritorial Supreme

- Court interpreting local bestia fe (Point Hl,

ante, pp. 23- -24).

This patt of the insular dies Court’ s decision cen-

- sists likewise of interpretation: of various’ local Terri-

\ * torial statutes, and of the ‘discussion and application - of

ws - local judicial and administrative. procedure: It is’ matter

\. manifestly peculiarly within the scope of the rule. If should ..

‘\\ not’ have been disturbed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.

A ——— y ‘

a | ~

\ " * «CONCLUSION

The judgment ef the Supreme Court of Puerto, Rico :

afirming that of the District Court of San Juan dismiss-

b ing the plaintiff-respondent’ s bill of complaint was right,.

Appeals. It rested upon the Territorial Supreme Court’ .

interpretation of various local statutes, primarily upon

its interpretation of séction 9 of the local Workmen’s

Compensation Act as to the segpe of the right of erres!

_ granted to the ‘‘employer’’.

The Territorial — Court’s interpretation was

eerr ee. i . &

right and reasonable in itself; and the decision’ of’ the eae :

-Cireuit Gourt of Appeals reversing it is in conflict with .

the applicable decisions of this court as to the deference’ -

_ to be avcorded to such decisions of: Territorial supreme

- courts interpreting local Territorial statutes.

The judgment of the Otrcuit Court. of Appeals should ha ;

be reversed, and that of the. — Court of Puerto

—- Rieo affirmed. : *

: “Reapadtfiliy submitted a _

? aS

. ; os Wittum Carrron Riasy, ele 3

* e . etalon for Petitioner.

B. Fennanien Garbii, ‘ es

Attorney General of Puerto "Rico, ‘

Nati R. Mareop, ,

» Solicitor for the Department of the Interior;

a ae

% - : »

s © ~s .

. 33

_ Pertinent sections of the Workmen’s Compensation Law of

~ Puerto Rico, as amended by Act No. 1 approved. September 1,

"1925 Hawa of Puerto 1925, pp. amar

iia ee aaa

“Section 2.—That the provisions of the Act shall apply

to laborers injured or disabled or who lose their lives from -

accidents occurring because of any act or function inher-

ent in their work or employment and while engaged there-

‘in and as a consequence thereof, or from occupational.

diseases or death due to such occupation, as hereinafter

specified; Provided, That the provisions of this ‘Act shall

be applicable to members of ‘municipal fire corps, for

which purpose each municipality ‘shall include salaried —

firemen i in its report on employees, made as an employ er.

‘‘Domestic servants and employees engaged 1 in clerical

work, in offices of any kind and commercial establishments

where machinery is not used, are excepted. ;

“This Act shall apply to every employer who employs _

any laborer or employee whose wages do not: exceed the

sum of fifteen hundred (1,500) dollars computed annually ;

Provided, That pursuant to the provisions of this Act,

compensation shall be paid to injured laborers who be-

- come disabled or who.lose their lives. through accidents

originating from.any act or function inherent in their

work or employment and occurring during the course of

their employment as a consequence thereof or from occu-

pational diseases or death due to such occupation con-

tracted in any work performed by administration under

the direction of the Insular Government, payers from the |

government trust fund.

‘*The sums so paid need not to be reimbursed to- The

Po fas of’ Puerto Rico out of the fund created by this’

“The Commissioner of the Interior is hereby authorized

to mak advances on account of their compensation, to.

workmen injured on public works, which advances shall

be reimbursed to said official, if justified, out of the com-

| pensation to workmen injured on public works. (Laws of

1925, pp. 906-908).

Section 7 —Every employ er subject to the provisions /

of this Act, or the person representing him in business,

shal] report to the Workmen’s Relief Commission as soon

_ as possible, within a riod of five days from the date of

the accident, all injuries suffered by his employ ees in the

course of their employment. | ¢

‘**Such reports shall be upon printed blanks tarnished

_ upon request by the commission, and shall contain the

- name and nature of the business of the employer, the loca-

tion of the establishment or place of business, the name,

age, sex and occupation of each injured employee, and

shall state ‘the date. and hour of the accident, the nature

and cause of the i injuries sustained and such other ‘infor- é

mation as the: Workmen’s Relief Commission may deem

pertinent to request. ae

‘*The report made by the employ er under the provisions

of this section shall‘not be ev idence against the employer’

in any proceeding under thi¢ or any other act.

- **The’refusal or neglect’ of any employer or his agent to

make the report required by this section, shall constitute

less than twenty-five (25) nor more has fifty ( 50), dollars

for each offense.

‘*The Workmen’s Relief: Céiuaiinabet shall have power

to direct the investigation of accidents by. such investi-

gators or agents as shall have been or shall hereafter be

_appcinted by it for such purposes. The said investigators _

or agents shall make a thorough investigation of accidents

and shall establish the cause. or causes thereof, the char-

acter, natute and extent of the injuries sustained, and

sha]! file a fulk report of the said facts with the Commis-.

sien, including in.the said report such other facts and

> ‘ oe. !

circumstances as in the pinion of the Cor i ission may

the injured workman when the said claim shall be pre-

~. sented to the commission as herein provided:

‘The Workmen’s. Relief Commission shall have the

pewer to make such further investigations as it may deem

necessary for the purposes of this Act.

- “The Workmen?’s Relief Commission or any of its mem-

bers, and its investigators or agents, are hereby expressly

authorized to subpoena witnesses, under warning of pun-.

ishment for ‘contempt, to take oaths and declarations, to”

examine books and documentary evidence material to the -

buildings, machinery and other property where any. acci-

dent to a workman may have occurred.

_. ‘In the case of an accident to a laborer while working

for an employer who in violation of the law is uninsured,

the Workmen’s Relief Commission shall determine proper

compensation, plus expenses: incurred by it, and shall

report the same e Attorney General for institution of

proper action, in a courkof competent jurisdiction, against ~~

_said employer to recover the aforesaid sum; Provided,

howeyer, That the commission shall grant the employer

as well as tht laborer in the case an opportnnity to be

heard and to defend -themselves, and ‘shall conform, as

far as possible, to the practices observed by the courts of

justive.”’ (Laws of 1925, pp. 924-926).

‘Section 9.—Appeals from the decisions of the Work-

men’s Relief Commission to any district court shall be .

allowed to the ¢laimant, his beneficiaries or heirs in all

cases of permanent partial disability, permanent total |

' disability or death. Likewise ‘the employer qnay appeal

from any decision of the commission when such decision

is to the effect that the accident is one for which vamp:

sation i is granted under this Act. < ~ xf

‘‘Said appeals shall be taken by ‘fling i in the office of the .

secretary of the district court, within thirty days after

Len. 36 ;

° REA AGT |

‘service of dotice of the decision of the commission, a writ-

ten statement of the ground fr the claim and a statement —

of the facts on which the ee is based. * * *”’ (Lawe of.

1 925, fa 930). |

0 /

. ‘Duties or Empioyers”’ ce

‘Section 13.—It shall be the duty of every employer of

workmen entitled to the benefits of this Act, to file with

‘the Workmen’s Relief Commission on’ or before the fif-

teenth day of July in each year a “duplicate statement -. .

under oath showing the number ef workmen employed by ——

said employer, the class of occupation of sdid workmen

and the total amount of wages’ paid to said workmen

— ®during the preceding fiscal year. On the total amount of ~

wages declared in said ‘statement the premium prescribed

in sections 11 and-t2 of this Act shall be computed; Pro- ” .

~ vided, That every employer employing workmen covered, —

by this Act for ‘any term.or part of a semester, shall file —

the Soe | statement in duplicate and under oath,

. showi ing the number of workmen: employed, the class ot

occupation and the estimated wages to be paid: such work- -

‘mer, and on such sum the premium payable by said ‘em- ~ ‘

' ployer shall be computed, and upon the termination of the

.work of said workmen the employer shall fil a sworn

statement similar to the-one above stated, showing the

total amount of wages paid, on which sum the correspond- °

ing liquidation shall be made, and should: this payroll

prove greater than the previous one, the Treasurer shall

tussess, devy and Callect additional premiums on the dif-

ference.

" «Collection of ‘thse premiums shall have preference

over any other obligation of the employet and such pre-

- miums shall. constitute a lien.on the property of the.

employer as soon as the same shall‘be’ left’ _unpaid upon

‘service of notice to pay. —

Bad the employer fails to file such statement on or

at 37 | Sine

before the date above-specified, ‘the commission shall

grant him twenty days more in which to do so; Provided,

That if upon the expiration of said period the employer

-* fails-to file said statement, he shall be guilty of misde-

‘meanor, punishable by a fine.of not less than fifty (50)

nor more than five hundred (500) dollars, in the discre-

tion of the court. : Ss ;

“The insurance of eve y esiples er shall become ‘effec-

tive immediately after his payroll or statement is filed in

. duplicate in the office -of the commission, accompanied by

the amount of the assessment corresponding to the per-

centage of wages declared in.said statement im accord- -

‘That this shall in no way affect the right of the laborer -

to’ the corresponding compensation. m..

“It shall be the duty: of every employer entitled

to the benefits of this Act to keep a complete register, in’

accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed —

by the Workmen’s Relief Commission, showing the name.

of every such laborer, the age and sex of such laborer, the

nature of the work performed by, and the wages paid to,

every one of the said ‘laborers;’ Provided, That if- any

employer fails to comply with this requisite, he shall be

- guilty of misdemeanor nee by a ) fine not to —

- fifty (50)<dollars.

‘‘The Workmen’s Relief Commission may order.an in-

spection to be made of all the payrolls and other books or’

. records of such employers relating to the, payment of

wages, by any representative duly authorized by it; and

it shall be the duty of such employer to permit such an ,

inspection. *

‘‘ Any employer who knowingly falsifies the information

required by this sectionéhall be subject to the same pen- ~

_alty herein: provided for a failure to file the statement

required -by this section: and shall also be liable to. the

workmen’ 8 Relief Commission for three times the differ-

».

ence’ between‘ the premium paid and the amount that

should have been paid, which sum shall be cellected-in the -

same mantier as provided for the collection of the regular °

premiums under. this Act.’’ (Laws of 1925, pp. 938-942).

- * Section 13 of the Act, as amended in, 1921 by Act No.

61, approved July 14, 1921 (Laws of Puerto Rico, 1921,

472, 490-492), and as it stood on July 15, 1925, the date

when, as the plaintitf-respondent’s bill of complaint al-

leges [Par. 3; R. 2], the Company filed its ‘‘Statement' in

’ Duplicate’’ under the Act [six weeks before. the amend-

ment of September 1, 1925, Act No. 102, supra, took effect

under its emergency clause J, read as follows :

t we

Section 13.—It shall bethe duty of every employer

of workmen entitled to the benefits of this Act; to file

with the Workmen's Relief Commission on or before

the fifteenth day of July in each vear a duplicate -

statement under oath showing the number of wotk-

_ men employed by said employer, the class of occupa-

- tion of said workmen and the total amount of wages 3

paid to said workmén dgring the’ preceding fiscml

year. On the total amount*of wages declared in said

statement the premium prescribed in Sections 11 and

12 of this Act shall be computed; Provided, That

every employer employing workmen covered by this

Actor any term or part of a semester, Shall file the

aforesaid statement in duplicate and under oath,’

showing the number of workmen employed, the class

of occupation-arid the estimated wages to be paid suche

workmen, and on‘such sum the premiym payable by .

said employer shall be computed, and upon the termi- ‘

nation of the work of said workmen the employer .

shall file.a sworn statement similar to the one above

. Stated, showing the total amount of wages paid, on

which sum the corresponding liquidation shall be’

made, and should this payroll prove greater than the

previous one, the Treasurer shall assess,-levy and

coHéct additional premiums on the difference. Collec-

tion of these premiums shall have preference over

any other obligation of the employer and such, pre-

‘miums shall constitute a lien on the property of the

employer just as soon as the same shall be left unpaid

“Section 20.—If any accident occurs to any workman:

employed by an employer subject to the provisions of this ’

. Act, who has failed to comply with, said provisions rela-

tive to the submission “ reports and the payment of

—z

upon service of notice to effect ‘The i insurance of every

employer shall become effective on the date ‘on whic ir

- -his payroll or statement is filed in duplicate in the

office of the commission; and Provided, That this shall -

in no way affect the right of the injured laborer to the

corresponding compensation.

The-failure to file such statement on or, hefore the

date above specified. shall constitute a misdemeanor,

‘punishable by a.fine of- ot less than fifty (50) nor ~

mwre,than five hundred (500) dollars, in i: disere-

tion of the court. Blanks for such statements shall be

(‘ommission.

entitled to the benefits of this Act to keep a complete

, be preseribed by the Workmen’s Relief Commission,

showing the name of every sueh laborer, the age and

‘sex of such laborer, the nature of the work performed |

by, and the wages paid to everyone of the said labor- .

ers. a

The Workmén’ s Relief Coinmission may order an,

inspection to be made ofall. the payrolls and other

books or records of such employers rélating to the.

payment of wages, by any representative duly auv- |

thorized by it; and it shall bethe duty of such em-

ployer to permit such an ingpection. |

_ Any‘employer whe knowingly falsifies the infor-

mation required by this section shall be subject to the

‘same penalty ae rovided for a failure to file,

the statement by this section and shall also

be liable to the Peciemat’ s Relief Commission for

three times the difference between the prethium paid |

: and the amount that should have been paid, which

sum shall be collected in the same mariner as pro-—

vided for the gollection of the regular premiums

under ‘this Act.

note

‘oR

| ar”)

premiums ‘on the dates hereinbefore specified, the Work- -

men’s Relief Commission hereby authorized to charge-

said employer with the amount of such compensation to-

be paid injured workman plus expenses in the ease. The. |

commission shall report to the Attorney General the total

amount of s&id compensation, plus the expenses in the:

case, in order that he, by proper action in a court of com-

" ~petent jurisdiction, may gbtain payment of said sum.’

san > (Laws of 1925, pp. $42- 944)._ ; ze

uc REATION OF A Taver Fuxp”

“Section 2j. —That the ‘amounts existing inthe Work-

men’s Relief Trust Fund created by séction 1 ‘of an act

entitled ‘An Act providing for the relief of such workmen

as may be injured, or of the dependent.families of those -

who may lose their lives while engaged in trades or occu-

_pations and for other purposes’, approved April 18, 1916,

are hereby reappropriated to carry out the provisions of

this Aet and shall constifute the Workmen's Relicf Trust

‘Fund hereby created together with such other sums as

‘ar¢hereinafter specified. Laws of 1925, p. 944.

‘* Section 28.—That all employers ‘employing workmén

subject to the terms.of this Act, shall be bound to con-

‘tribute to the * Workmen's Relie£.T rust Fund’ in the form

and manner prov ided herejn ; Provided, That any em-

plover may file with any distriét court an application for.

- a writ of cértiorari in order that said court may. review

- any decision of the commission on the levying of assess-

ments, provided said application is ‘made within thirty

. (30) days after the date of the service of yptice, of the

et ying of such assessment ; And provided, further, ‘That

e legality of any premium fixed by.the commission may

td reviewed by means of certiorari proceedings in same

" manner and form hereinbefore specified, provided the

application is made within the same term of thirty (30)

days above established. "* Laws of 192§, pp. 944- “O46.

Dn as \ Pee . te he ee

| e Goes

“Derintiioxs”

«Section 30:—For the purposes of this Act sinpece’

or ‘employee’ shall be understood to be any. person at the .

service of any’ individual,. partnership or’ corporation

regularly’ employing one or more persons under ‘any ex-

press or implied service contract, whether verbal or writ-

ten-and*whether such person is man, woman or child;

Provided, That such laborers or ‘employ ees working for

employers not included in the insurance esta lished in

this Act, and those whose labor, isof a merely accidental

character are expressly excluded. , ° Oy ein Cite

‘The word ‘laborer’ or ‘employee includes all work-:

men employed in any manufacturing or agricultural es-

tablishment or occupation by any natural or artificial

person,for compensation ; and by the Insular Governmént |

or.any of its dependencies, according to tite purposes of

this Act. (Laws of 1925, p. 946).

Section 5.—This Aet, being of am urgent tiature, shall

take effect umeinetey, after its approv al. (Laws oy 1926,

* p. 946). |

Act No. 85, opelionet May 14, 1928; Laws of 1928, PP. 630-690. -

Section 25.—In case of an accideiit te a laborer while:

working for an employer who in violation of the law is

uniisured, the Industrial aC ommission shall determine -

‘proper compensation, pliis expenses incurred by. it, and

shall certify its decision to the Treasurer. of. Porto Rico

‘who shall assess said compensation, plus expenses, on tlie

employer and collect them from him; and both*such com-

pensation and such expenses shall. constitute a lien oy all

‘the property of said employer, with the same legal feat

afd priority it were a tax levied on such iy tata

‘ee (Laxs'of Puerto Rico, 1928, p. 662).

"Section cece ‘provisions of this Act shall in no

* )9.. Way affect ing litigation relative to workimen’s com- -

pensation ‘under previous laws. (Laws of Puerto Rico,

- 1928, p. 690). ee ae fy

) ; 42 eee

‘Section 57.—All laws or parts of laws in @nflict here- »

with are hereby repealed. Cam of Puerto Rico, 1928,

p. 690).

‘Act No. 45) approved’ April 18, 1935; Laws of 1935, Pp- 250-330.

Section 15 ——In case-of an accident to a workman or

- employee while working for an employer: who, in viola-

° tion 6f law, is not insured, the Manager of the State

_ Fund shall determine the proper compensation plus the

expenses in the case, and shall certify its. decision to the

‘Treasurer of Puerto Rico who shall collect from the ém-_

ployer such fompensation and expenses, both of which —

shall constitute a lien on. all the property of the employ-

_er; Pfovided, That said compensation nnd bxpen ses, are

- hereby declared to de’ liens preferred over any other

charge or lien for taxes or any other cause, with the ex-.

c¢ption of the mortgage ‘credits, crop loans, and prop\ , -*

erty taxes on the encumbered “property for tliree years |

and the current year, burdening the property of ithe

‘employer when it is attached to secure the said compen

sation and: expenses ; ‘Provided, further, That the Com-,

mission shall grant the employer as wellvas the work- -

man or empires i in the case an opportunity to be heard

and to defend themselvesy conforming as far as possi-

ble to the practice observed in the district courts; And

provided, also, That after the parties have been sum- =

moned by such means as the Commission ‘may. adept,

should they, or either of them, fail to appear for hear-

ing and defense, it shall be understood that such party

or parties waive their rights, and the Commission may

decide the case in default, without further, delay. ° °°

(Laws of 1935, p. 292). :

Section’ 34.—The provisions of this Act shall i in no-

* way affect pending litigations or ‘claims relative to

workmen’s compensation under prev igus laws. The pro-

cedure followed in such litigations or claims, until ‘their

termination, a be in accordance with the laws in force

e>,

‘titled to stich sum of money as may be prescribed by said

laws. (Laws of 1935, .pp- 318-320).

Section 51.-Act No. '85, approved May 14, 1928, as.

. subsequently amended, ‘is hereby expressly repealed,

\ « with the ‘exception of the provisions i in Sections 40 and)

47, both inclusive, of this Act, in regard to the decBion

and liquidation of cases pending under, aid Act ( Laws"

. of — p. — a

°. cas aa .

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.