# Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Bonet v. Texas Co. (PR) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386401_0236%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition for Writ of Certiorari - **Published:** January 1, 1940 - **Citation:** 308 U.S. 463 ## Text e : : ; ‘ oars IN THE ot 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 ° € s f " W ILIA. CATTRON Rasy, 2. Atlorne y for Petitioner. Ge Heeb a 4 Attorney Genfral of Pr werto Rico: %" ee Tae, Texas ComMPany P. R. ), INc., “7” Respondent. 9 4 -_ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, FIRST CIRCUIT 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, 3 _- : iy on January 23, 1930. (Texas Co. v. Workmen’ s Relief Com- - mission, 40 P. R. Rep. 456). : 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; .-.- Ms ~ 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 s . “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, , '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 - ee - -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- -_ @ Q ; 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 : 4 ; “ . . ‘ «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 s + 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, : yY ¢ ‘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,. © and should have been affirmed by the Circuit Court .s 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 A , # eerr ee. i . & ¢ 31 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 . ef wk as oe o . 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’ ct “The Commissioner of the Interior is hereby authorized 34 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 u misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine of: not © 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 _. enable it to pass judgment on the claim for the relief: of © 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 - case under investigation, and to visit and inspect 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. (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>, © on the date of the accident, and the workmen shall be en- | 4 ‘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 ss & °. cas aa . --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386401_0236%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.