Porto Rico Tel. Co. v. PUERTO RICO COMMUNICATIONS AU.
| Decision Date | 22 April 1950 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 4635. |
| Citation | 89 F. Supp. 922 |
| Parties | PORTO RICO TEL. CO. v. PUERTO RICO COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Puerto Rico |
Jaime Sifre, Esq. and E. T. Fiddler, San Juan, Puerto Rico, for plaintiff.
James E. Curry, San Juan, Puerto Rico and the Attorney General of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico, for defendants.
I. Plaintiff Porto Rico Telephone Company, hereinafter referred to as "the Telephone Company", is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware, domiciled therein, and qualified to do, and doing, business in the Island of Puerto Rico.
The Telephone Company owns and operates over 22,000 telephones or "stations" in the Island of Puerto Rico, which are interconnected by over 7,000 miles of wire and the switching service of over 60 central office exchanges, the largest of which is the "automatic" (i. e.) "dial" system, exchange in San Juan, serving more than 12,000 telephones.
All of the properties of the Telephone Company are operated pursuant to a franchise (Franchise No. 322), granted by the Executive Council of Puerto Rico on August 25, 1914.
The defendant Puerto Rico Communications Authority is a public corporation created by Act of May 12, 1942 of the Legislature of Puerto Rico, empowered to acquire by eminent domain "any undertaking or part thereof" (Sec. 6(h)) of the Act of May 12, 1942. During May 1946 the Communications Authority made preparations for condemnation of all or part of the Telephone Company's properties, the purpose being to incorporate the same into the relatively small system then being operated by the Authority. It was to prevent such action that the present suit was filed.
This is a suit for issuance of an injunction against defendants to restrain an alleged proposed condemnation of plaintiff's properties. The case was referred to a special master and a temporary restraining order was issued. The case is now before the court on exceptions to the Master's report.
II. The Attorney General of Puerto Rico, on behalf of the individual defendants, has raised the question of want of jurisdiction, and in this connection it is well to summarize the Plaintiff's contentions, as set forth in the complaint.
1. Plaintiff is a citizen of, and domiciled in, Delaware.
2. In addition to the statutory amount and diversity of citizenship, the alleged jurisdiction is bottomed on the ground that this is a suit arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, specifically the 5th and 14th amendments and the Organic Act, 31 Stat. 77 et seq.
3. Defendant proposes to file a condemnation proceeding and proposes to seize a portion of plaintiff's telephone system.
4. That defendants have no authority, right or power to seize aforesaid properties of the plaintiff; that the contemplated condemnation is not for the the public use; that the proposed taking is illegal and deprives plaintiffs of their property without due process of law; that the taking amounts to an impairment of a contract of the People of Puerto Rico (the franchise); that the General Expropriation Act of 1903 does not provide any means for the ascertainment of compensation and the payment thereof and damages, the seizure deprives plaintiff of its properties without just compensation; that the power sought to be exercised is an undue and unlawful delegation of legislative power; that the declaration of taking procedure of Act No. 216 violates Sec. 2 of the Organic Act, 31 Stat. 77.
That defendants propose to file different actions in the different District Courts of the Island, subjecting plaintiffs to a multiplicity of suits.
That Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law and will suffer irreparable injury if defendants are permitted to file condemnation suits against plaintiff.
Before discussing the cases with respect to injunctions to stay condemnation proceedings in the state courts, it would be well to point out that, although the ancient differences in procedure between law and equity have been abolished, and there is now no "Law side" or "Equity side" of the court, it is still necessary, in order to invoke the exercise of the extraordinary remedies of equity, such as injunctive relief, that the essential elements of equitable jurisdiction must be shown to exist, as the difference in substance in federal judicial power between law and equity is imbedded in the constitution and remains unaltered. Commercial National Bank in Shreveport v. Parsons, 5 Cir., 144 F.2d 231, certiorari denied 323 U.S. 796, 65 S.Ct. 440, 89 L.Ed. 635; Coca Cola Co. v. Dixi-Cola Laboratories, 4 Cir., 155 F.2d 59.
"The merging of legal and equitable procedure in the New Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. had no effect upon substantive legal rights, and the courts must still apply equitable principles to equitable rights and legal principles to legal rights." Sun Oil Co. v. Burford, 5 Cir., 130 F.2d 10, 17, reversed on other grounds in 319 U.S. 315, 63 S.Ct. 1098, 87 L.Ed. 1424.
"Under the federal Constitution, art. 3, § 2, the distinction between law and equity is to be observed". Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 155 F.2d 185, 190, cert. denied 329 U.S. 730, 67 S.Ct. 87, 91 L.Ed. 632. See Bereslavsky v. Caffey, 2 Cir., 161 F.2d 499.
Plaintiff has here alleged three grounds for equitable relief; multiplicity of suits, no adequate remedy at law and irreparable injury.
1. Multiplicity of suits. Plaintiff's theory of its position is that the proposed condemnor would file a series of condemnation proceedings, that is, a separate suit in each district Court according to the judicial district where the particular portion of plaintiff's property may be located. The answer to this is that all condemnations in Puerto Rico, after July 1, 1948, must be filed in the Eminent Domain Court of Puerto Rico. (Act No. 223, approved, 15 May 1948).
2. Inadequate remedy at law. Section 3 of the law creating the Eminent Domain Court reads as follows: (Par. (2)):
The italicized words mean that, as in the district courts of Puerto Rico, plaintiff,...
To continue reading
Request your trial