Court Opinion

ID: 9762305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:19:20.242702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:33.027421
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice,
dissenting.
The Commonwealth Court’s consideration of the legality of the suspension of Commissioner Peter J. Camiel, by order of the Governor, was necessary to determine whether Fidelity’s Action for Declaratory Judgment should be entertained. The majority’s failure to recognize the significance of that question and its relationship to the problem raised in the instant appeal, caused them to reach a result with which I cannot agree. I therefore dissent.
The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act of June 18,1923, P.L. 840, empowered courts to grant relief by declaratory judgment in all civil cases where “an actual controversy exists between contending parties . . .. ” Section 6 of the Act of 1923.1 In the Act of July 9, 1976, P.L. 586, No. 142, § 2 entitled Declaratory Judgments Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7531 et seq., which replaced the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act of 1923 provides in pertinent part:
Remedy discretionary
The court may refuse to render or enter a declaratory judgment or decree where such judgment or decree, if rendered or entered, would not terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding, but as provided in Section 7541(b) (relating to effect of alternative remedy) the existence of an alternative remedy shall not be a ground for the refusal to proceed under this sub-chapter.
42 Pa.C.S. § 7537 (Emphasis added).2
*97The inclusion of the clause “the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding” clearly indicates that the existence of such a controversy or uncertainty is a primary and dominant factor, and as such a threshold question, in a courts “discretionary determination of whether a declaratory judgment will lie. ...”3 Thus, under the new Declaratory Judgments Act as well as under the former Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, an actual controversy or an uncertainty (synonymous with “ripening seeds of controversy”) is required for the action to lie.
The enactment of the present Declaratory Judgments Act did not authorize courts to render advisory opinions, to decide future rights in anticipation of an event which may not happen, or to consider moot cases. Moreover, this Court has been firm in its disapproval of the practice of rendering advisory opinions. Mt. Lebanon v. County Board of Elections of the County of Allegheny, 470 Pa. 317, 368 A.2d 648 (1977); Packel v. Takiff, 457 Pa. 14, 321 A.2d 649, (1974); Raezer v. Raezer, 428 Pa. 163, 236 A.2d 513 (1968); Bliss Excavating Company v. Luzerne County, 418 Pa. 446, 211 A.2d 532 (1965); Stahl v. Insurance Co. of N. A., 408 Pa. 483, 184 A.2d 568 (1962); Phila. v. P.T.C., 404 Pa. 282, 171 A.2d 768 (1961); Pa. R.R. v. P.U.C., 396 Pa. 34, 152 A.2d 422 (1959); Knup v. Phila., 386 Pa. 350, 126 A.2d 399 (1956); Schoenbrun v. Nettrour, 360 Pa. 474, 61 A.2d 868 (1948); Kariher’s Petition (No. 1), 284 Pa. 455, 131 A. 265 (1925).
In the instant case, when Fidelity Bank filed its Action for Declaratory Judgment, only the impending effectiveness of Commissioner Bollinger’s resignation together with the inactivity of Commissioner Camiel because of a lawful suspension from the position by the Governor could produce the ripening seeds of controversy needed to sustain an action for declaratory judgment. Both factual circumstances must be lawfully as well as actually present in order for the Fidelity *98Bank to establish the type of uncertainty or controversy contemplated by the Act.
After the final resignation of Commissioner Bollinger, three Commissioners remained members of the Turnpike Commission: Chairman Jack I. Greenblatt, Secretary of Transportation Thomas D. Larson and Commissioner Peter J. Camiel. There are no impediments to the activities of the Commission’s Chairman and the Secretary of Transportation. The issue of whether there exists a lawful impediment to the activities of Commissioner Camiel is a sine qua non to the resolution of the threshold question of the existence of an actual controversy or uncertainty. Unless Commissioner Camiel is presently in a lawfully suspended status, the Turnpike Commission has the statutorily mandated quorum and the complaint of Fidelity Bank is moot. It is the critical question which the majority seeks to avoid.
The Commonwealth Court correctly recognized that the status of Commissioner Camiel had to be determined before a judgment could be made whether there was such a controversy or uncertainty to warrant entertaining the petition for declaratory judgment. Had the suspension of Commissioner Camiel remained uncontested there may have been justification for assuming its effectiveness based upon the presumption of the lawfulness of the action of the Governor. Cf., Stroup v. Kapleau, 455 Pa. 171, 177, 313 A.2d 237, 240 (1973). However, the legitimacy of that suspension was challenged in the Commonwealth Court and that challenge could not be ignored.
The Commonwealth Court correctly raised that issue, concluded that Mr. Camiel was entitled to be a member in good standing on the Commission and reached its ultimate conclusion that the issue was not ripe for declaratory judgment. It is improper for this Court to challenge the ultimate decision of the Commonwealth Court without first examining the validity of its determination as to Mr. Camiel’s status. This the majority declined to do. On the contrary, they ignored the issue which was critical in determining whether the Commonwealth could properly exercise its jurisdiction in reaching the merits of the controversy.
*99In an attempt to justify the avoidance of the question presented, it is argued that the Governor was an indispensible party. This argument cleverly equates a determination of the ripeness of the cause for a declaratory judgment with a proceeding in the nature of a request for reinstatement of Mr. Camiel. The issue is not whether the Commonwealth Court had the power in that action to reinstate Mr. Camiel, but rather a determination of his status for purposes of deciding whether in fact the controversy was ripe. The majority’s attempt to implicitly insist upon a formal reinstatement proceeding before the question of the status of Mr. Camiel could properly be considered is a thin facade to cover the absence of the critical fact required before a court should entertain an action for declaratory judgment.
I am totally at a loss to understand the majority’s statement that the consideration of Mr. Camiel’s status created uncertainty and, therefore, should not have been addressed. It is undeniable that if at the time the lawsuit was before the court there were three members of the Commission legally entitled to participate in the Commission’s business, then the question sought to be clarified had no existence in reality. Restated, there would have been no controversy or uncertainty to be resolved. To presume the uncertainty as the majority seeks to do on the pretext of avoiding uncertainty is not only absurd but it also nullifies the clear purpose of § 7537.
I also do not understand the jurisprudential underpinnings for the majority’s imprimatur to the legitimacy of the action of two members of the Commission, while the merits of that very question are to be initially considered in the Commonwealth Court. If the majority is of the view that the issue was so clear that it does not require further study and consideration, then valuable judicial time is being squandered by allowing the Commonwealth Court to wrestle with an issue that the majority now sees so clearly. On the other hand, if there is a serious question as to the statutory authority for two members to bind the Commission, I am at *100a lost to determine the source of this Court’s authority to grant that power even on an interim basis.4
Thus, I cannot agree with the majority’s initial failure to decide the status of Mr. Camiel. Nor can I comprehend the basis for this Court’s authorization of two members acting for the Commission pending the determination as to whether or not the legislature has provided such authority.
In summary, we should have first considered the merits of the Commonwealth Court’s conclusion that Mr. Camiel was at this point and time entitled to serve as a member of the Commission. If after such consideration we concurred in that judgment, then we would have been required to accept the conclusion that the issue sought to be decided by way of declaratory judgment was not ripe for consideration. If we had reached the conclusion that Mr. Camiel was still in a suspended status, we would under the circumstances have had two alternatives. We could, as the majority does today, remand the question as to whether or not two members can bind the Commission where there are not three or more members capable of functioning. However, by deferring that decision, we would be precluded from authorizing the two members to act until the issue was ultimately resolved. The other alternative, which I believe would then have been more appropriate, would have been for us to reach the merits of that question and to have provided a definitive answer.

. The requirement of an actual controversy was relaxed to include “the ripening seeds” of controversy by Mr. Chief Justice Moschzisker in Kariher’s Petition (No. 1), 284 Pa. 455, 471, 131 A. 265, (1925) (wherein the Act of 1923 was held to be constitutional).

. See, Official Source Note of Pa.C.S. § 7537 indicating the section is “derived from Act of June 18, 1923 (P.L. 840) § 6 as originally enacted.”

. Friestad v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 452 Pa. 417, 306 A.2d 295 (1973), incorporated into section 7537, suggests the consideration of factors in the “discretionary determination of whether a declaratory judgment will lie.”

. The majority rips a platitude (“The law will not be found powerless ...”) from McSorley v. Pa. Turnpike Commission, 390 Pa. 81, 89, 134 A.2d 201, 205 (1957) to vest in this Court the power to restructure a statutory creature in disregard of the statutory mandate for the operation and management of that body. That platitude referred to in McSorley was derived from our decision in Danzell v. Kane, et al., 321 Pa. 120, 123, 183 A. 782, 784 (1936) wherein it was clear that it did not apply to conditions precedent to the exercise of a jurisdiction, which is exactly what is involved here.