Court Opinion

ID: 9764316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:18:54.4952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:27:32.289935
License: Public Domain

POMEROY, Justice,
dissenting.
I am convinced that the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction dictates that the Public Utility Commission (PUC) is best equipped to resolve initially such technical issues of administrative law as are here presented involving, as they do, the relationship of the public with the public utility companies. Thus I share in general the views ex*16pressed in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice ROBERTS. Our prior cases have not had occasion, however, to delineate with much precision the respective roles of administrative tribunals and the courts where, as here, multiple issues are presented, not all of which fall neatly within the primary jurisdiction of either an administrative agency or a court of law. I therefore add this separate statement as to my reasons for dissenting.
Allen Feingold and A. L. Feingold Associates filed a complaint in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County seeking both injunctive relief and compensatory and punitive damages. No attempt to seek relief from the Public Utility Commission had been made. Applying the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction, the trial court dismissed the entire complaint with prejudice. This Court now reverses that determination and replaces total jurisdiction in the court of common pleas on the ground that the administrative remedy was not “adequate and complete.” See Philadelphia Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571, 190 A.2d 111 (1963). I believe the proper response lies somewhere between the placement of this case exclusively in the domain either of the Commission or of the court. The functional division herein outlined would, I believe, be the proper application of the doctrine of primary administrative jurisdiction which, instead of creating mutually exclusive domains, would result in a workable relationship between the courts and the PUC.
It has long been recognized in Pennsylvania that the PUC is the body with “exclusive original jurisdiction over the reasonableness, adequacy and sufficiency of public utility services, including telephone services and directories.” Behrend v. Bell Telephone Company of Pennsylvania, 431 Pa. 63, 66, 243 A.2d 346, 347 (1968). See also Duquesne Light Company v. Borough of Monroeville, 449 Pa. 573, 298 A.2d 252 (1972); Einhorn v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 410 Pa. 630, 190 A.2d 569 (1963); Lansdale Borough v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 403 Pa. 647, 170 A.2d 565 (1961). It is also true, as Mr. Justice NIX notes for the majority, that *17the doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction in the administrative tribunal will yield where the administrative remedy is inadequate. See Borough of Greentree v. Board of Property Assessments, 459 Pa. 268, 328 A.2d 819 (1974); Philadelphia Life Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth, supra. I cannot agree, however, that such a yielding is indicated where, as here, there is but a mere allegation of extra-statutory relief, and the granting of that relief is dependent upon a determination of issues which would normally fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the PUC.1
In the present case, appellant requests mandatory injunctive relief to compel the defendant to render legally adequate telephone service together with damages for failure to render adequate service in the past. Both types of relief are dependent upon a finding that service has been inadequate. A determination of whether the service and facilities rendered by a public utility is adequate, efficient, safe and reasonable is obviously within the competence of the Public *18Utility Commission; the making of such determinations is, indeed, one of the primary reasons for which the PUC was created. Act of May 28, 1937, P.L. 1053, art. IV, as amended, Act of October 7,1976, P.L. 1057, No. 215, 66 P.S. § 1171 (Supp.1977-1978). And, of course, the PUC is endowed by the Public Utility Code with authority to enforce compliance by public utility companiés with the standards of service to which legally the companies must adhere. See Act of May 28,1937, P.L. 1053, art. IX, § 901, 66 P.S. § 1341 et seq. The PUC, accordingly, is the agency which the legislature has created both to interpret the standards of service of a public utility and to enforce them. The only power which the Commission lacks in the present case is the ability to award damages for past breaches of duty by the Telephone Company, assuming such breaches have occurred and entail damages. This lack, however, is not such as to oust the PUC of its primary jurisdiction. Resort to the courts may well be necessary at a later stage to pursue the quest for damages, based on PUC findings which will then be in hand. The majority, however, would virtually strip the PUC of all jurisdiction merely because a demand for damages is contained in appellant’s complaint. Such a result is unwarranted.
The proper procedure in a case such as the instant one is, I suggest, to stay the proceeding in the court of common pleas until a determination of the questioned standards of service can be had by the PUC in accordance with Section 412 of the Public Utility Code (66 P.S. § 1182).2 This course of proce*19dure is necessary because the dispute is uniquely within the expertise of the PUC; it is only the relief sought, i. e., the allowance of damages, which is beyond the legislative grant of powers to the Commission. The proposition is succinctly put in Professor Davis’ authoritative treatment of administrative law: *20Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 19.07, p. 39 (1958). See also Davis, Administrative Law of the Seventies, § 19.07, pp. 444-45 (1976); Annotation, Doctrine of Primary Administrative Jurisdiction as Defined and Applied by the Supreme Court, 38 L.Ed.2d 796, § 8 (1974); Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action, pp. 138-39 (1965). Accord: United States v. Michigan National Corp., 419 U.S. 1, 5, 95 S.Ct. 10, 12, 42 L.Ed.2d 1, 5 (1974); Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. United States, 371 U.S. 296, 313, n. 19, 83 S.Ct. 476, 486 n. 19, 9 L.Ed.2d 325, 337, n. 19 (1963); Hewitt-Robins v. Eastern Freight-Ways, Inc., 371 U.S. 84, 83 S.Ct. 157, 9 L.Ed.2d 142 (1963);3 Elkins v. Bell Telephone Co., 247 Pa.Super. 505, 372 A.2d 1203 (1977). The position endorsed by the majority will, I fear, inevitably lead to varying and contradictory interpretations of obligations or standards of service which would not be applied uniformly or consistently throughout the regulated field. Such a result would frustrate one of the legislative purposes in creating the Public Utility Commission.4 The need for uniformity and consistency is a major objective of the primary *21jurisdiction concept, as the Supreme Court of the United States recently observed in Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, 426 U.S. 290, 303-04, 96 S.Ct. 1978, 1987, 48 L.Ed.2d 643, 655 (1976):
*19“(1) On the question whether the doctrine [of primary administrative jurisdiction] applies to problems or relief which are beyond administrative jurisdiction, the theory seems reasonably clear. The test is not whether some parts of the case are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts; the test is whether some parts of the case are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the agency. Because of the purpose of the doctrine — to assure that the agency will not be by-passed on what is especially committed to it — and because resort to the courts is still open after the agency has acted, the doctrine applies even if the agency has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought.” (Emphasis added.)
*21“Even when common-law rights and remedies survive and the agency in question lacks the power to confer immunity from common-law liability, it may be appropriate to refer specific issues to an agency for initial determination where that procedure would secure ‘[u]niformity and consistency in the regulation of business entrusted to a particular agency’ or where
‘the limited functions of review by the judiciary [would be] more rationally exercised, by preliminary resort for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances underlying legal issues to agencies that are better equipped than courts by specialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more flexible procedure.’ Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U.S. at 570, 574-575, 72 S.Ct. 492, 96 L.Ed. 576.
See also United States v. Western Pacific R. Co., supra, 352 U.S. 59 at 64, 77 S.Ct. 161, 1 L.Ed.2d 126.
“The doctrine [of primary jurisdiction] has been applied, for example, when an action otherwise within the jurisdiction of the court raises a question of the validity of a rate or practice included in a tariff filed with an agency, e. g., Danna v. Air France, 463 F.2d 407 (CA 2 1972); Southwestern Sugar & Molasses Co. v. River Terminals Corp., 360 U.S. 411, 417-418, 79 S.Ct. 1210, 1214-1215, 3 L.Ed.2d 1334, 1340-1341 (1959), particularly when the issue involves technical questions of fact uniquely within the expertise and experience of an agency — such as matters turning on an assessment of industry conditions, e. g., United States v. Western Pacific R. Co., supra, 352 U.S. at 66-67, 77 S.Ct. 161, 1 L.Ed.2d 126.”
Once the administrative tribunal has determined the issues within its jurisdiction, then the temporarily suspended civil *22litigation may continue. The direction and scope of the litigation will of course be guided and determined by the nature of the agency adjudication.5
I do not believe that such a disposition of the present case or of similar cases creates any undue hardship on any of the parties, nor do I agree with the Court that such an initial resolution at the administrative level sets up “a procedural obstacle to recovery.” Rather, the present case presents a classic illustration of an instance where a balancing of the roles of the courts and administrative tribunals is necessary to insure fairness to the parties while effectuating the public concern that utility companies be regulated in an efficient and consistent manner.
I would vacate the order of the trial court and stay further action on the complaint until such time as the PUC has had an opportunity to rule on the adequacy of service which serves as the basis of the present action. Hence, this dissent.

. As I read the cases upon which the majority principally relies, Philadelphia Life Insurance Company v. Commonwealth, 410 Pa. 571, 190 A.2d 111 (1963) and Greentree Borough v. Board of Property Assessments, 459 Pa. 268, 328 A.2d 819 (1974), they do not support the holding that administrative jurisdiction must yield in the instant case. Both of those cases involved challenges to the constitutionality of the statute which the agency was enforcing. In neither case was there any doubt that the particular agency had initial jurisdiction over the controversy (i. e., in each case, the validity of a tax assessment). It was however, clear that the tribunals were without authority to pass upon the constitutionality of the legislation and as such could not provide the relief appellants sought.
What was at issue, then, was not the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, but rather a corollary doctrine, that of exhaustion of remedies. Once jurisdiction is properly found to be with an agency, the exhaustion doctrine dictates that the administrative process be completed before resort may be had to the courts. Philadelphia Life Insurance Co. and Greentree Borough stand for the proposition that it is unnecessary to exhaust administrative remedies where it is clear that the administrative process cannot serve to resolve the issues in question. See Jaffe, Judicial Control of Administrative Action, p. 440 (1965). In contrast, the present dispute involves three claims, two of which are for injunctive relief of a nature expressly reserved to the PUC and the third of which (for damages) is dependent upon a determination of the reasonableness of service — a function for which the PUC was created. See discussion infra. Thus, the PUC is best suited to resolve the underlying dispute.

. The continuance of an action in the court of common pleas pending resolution of an underlying issue by the PUC is not novel in the area of public utility law. In Lansdale Borough v. Philadelphia Electric Company, 403 Pa. 647, 170 A.2d 565 (1961), the appellant borough sought an order of court requiring appellee electric company to terminate service to an area which the borough had recently annexed and to which area the borough had, pursuant to the Borough Code (53 P.S. § 47470), the exclusive right to supply electricity. This Court held that a determination of whether the appellee must discontinue service was dependent on an initial determination by the PUC that the appellee was permitted to terminate service. Thus, although the authority to decree termination of service lay only in the courts, the function of preliminary ascertainment of the effect of such *19termination of service, i. e., whether it would adversely affect the area, reposed in the PUC. See also Duquesne Light Company v. Borough of Monroeville, 449 Pa. 573, 298 A.2d 252 (1972). As we stated in Lilian v. Commonwealth, 467 Pa. 15, 19, 354 A.2d 250 (1976) (quoting West Homestead Borough School District v. Allegheny County Board of School Directors, 440 Pa. 113, 118, 269 A.2d 904, 907 (1970)):
“ ‘For more than 150 years, it has been the rule in Pennsylvania that: “In all cases where a remedy is provided, or duty enjoined, or anything directed to be done by any act or acts of assembly of this commonwealth, the directions of the said acts shall be strictly pursued, and no penalty shall be inflicted, or anything done agreeably to the provisions of the common law, in such cases, further than shall be necessary for carrying such act or acts into effect.” Act of 1806, March 21, P.L. 58, 4 Sm.L. 326 § 13; 46 P.S. § 156. See Calabrese v. Collier Twp. Mun. Auth., 430 Pa. 289, 294-95, 240 A.2d 544, 547 (1968).
“ ‘This statute says in unambiguous language that, if the legislature provides a specific, exclusive, constitutionally adequate method for the disposition of a particular kind of dispute, no action may be brought in any “side” of the Common Pleas to adjudicate the dispute by any kind of “common law” form of action other than the exclusive statutory method. This excludes an action for injunction, or other equitable form of relief, unless the statute provides for it or unless there is some irreparable harm that will follow if the statutory procedure is followed.’ ”

. In its Hewitt-Robins opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States noted:
“Indeed, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction is designed to apply ‘where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and . enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues . . placed within the special competence of an administrative body . .’ United States v. Western Pacific R. Co., 352 U.S. 59, 64, 77 S.Ct. 161, 1 L.Ed.2d 126, 132 (1956); see Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, § 19.01 (1958). The practice of the [Interstate Commerce] Commission in making such determination in the first instance, even though it has no power to award reparations in a given case, has long been exercised, Bell Potato Chip Co. v. Aberdeen Truck Line, 43 MCC 337, 343 (1944), and is supported by a long line of cases. See Thompson v. Texas Mexican Ry. Co., 328 U.S. 134, 66 S.Ct. 937, 90 L.Ed. 1132 (1946), and cases there cited.” 371 U.S. at 88-89, 83 S.Ct. at 160, 9 L.Ed.2d at 146.

. We have stated that purpose to be “standardizing the construction, operations and services of public utility companies throughout Pennsylvania.” (Emphasis added.) See Duquesne Light Company v. Borough of Monroeville, 449 Pa. 573, 298 A.2d 252 (1972); Chester County v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 420 Pa. 422, 218 A.2d 331 (1966); Duquesne Light Company v. Upper St. Clair, 377 Pa. 323, 105 A.2d 287 (1954).

. It may be worth noting, however, that should the claimant seek review of the PUC determination, his right to do so would not be affected by the procedure here advocated. See Section 508(e) of the Appellate Court Jurisdiction Act of 1970, July 31, P.L. 673, No. 223 (17 P.S. § 211.508(e)) which transferred to and vested in the Commonwealth Court all appeals from the PUC which were originally vested in the Superior Court pursuant to §§ 1101-1106 of the Public Utility Code, 66 P.S. §§ 1431-1437. Thus review of the PUC action should proceed through the normally existing route of review (see Ricci v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 409 U.S. 289, 93 S.Ct. 573, 34 L.Ed.2d 525 (1973)). The pending action in the court of common pleas will not, of course, be used to relitigate the question of adequacy of services, but only to litigate such questions as were not resolved through administrative channels and to grant such relief, if any, including damages, as may be appropriate in light of the administrative determination.