Court Opinion

ID: 9634432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:12:03.760615+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:08.560786
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by
Mr. Chief Justice Bell:
There is nothing in the record or in the facts and circumstances of this case which could even remotely justify the failure of the lower Court to promptly dispose of this petition.* That Court’s delay in disposing *602of this petition undoubtedly tends to impair the confidence and respect of the bar and of the public for our Courts.
By long established tradition which has been recognized by decisions of this Court, attorneys who have been admitted to practice in a Pennsylvania Court are Officers of that Court.* The purpose of the petition filed by these attorneys was to uphold and vindicate the honor, the public’s confidence in, and the prestige of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, and evén more importantly, to insure the rendition of justice unhampered and uncontaminated by any outside influence. The Supreme Court is the ultimate Protector and Preserver of Justice. If a Court is collusive or if a Judge, in the face of mob hysteria or of unjustifiable attacks by powerful interests, is so timor*603ous that justice is jeopardized, this Court must take appropriate action. Even a citizen who pays a tax of $1.00 or less has a right and a legal standing to challenge any alleged unlawful expenditure of public money by a public official. A fortiori, these petitioners had a right and a legal standing to present this petition.
Furthermore, under our King's Bench power of general supervision over all inferior Courts, this Court has jurisdiction and power to affirm or reverse or modify the Order of the lower Court with appropriate directions for further proceedings in that Court. While it is unnecessary to cite additional authority for such an obvious proposition, it is further supported by the Act of May 20, 1891, P.L. 101, § 2, 12 P.S. § 1164, and by a score of decisions which hold that this Court has power to review appeals in the nature of certiorari even when an Act of the Legislature is silent upon the right of appeal or provides that no appeal will lie from a decision of the lower Court: Keystone Raceway Corporation v. State Harness Racing Commission, 405 Pa. 1, 5, 6, 173 A. 2d 97; Bell Appeal, 396 Pa. 592, 597, 598, 152 A. 2d 731; First Bellefonte Bank and Trust Company v. Myers, 410 Pa. 298, 188 A. 2d 726; Dauphin Deposit Trust Co. v. Myers, 388 Pa. 444, 460, 462, 130 A.2d 686.
I would hold (1) that these petitioners had a legal standing (a) to file their petition and (b) to appeal; and (2) the lower Court committed a clear abuse of discretion in denying their petition without a hearing.
I would, therefore, reverse the Order of the lower Court, and direct the lower Court to issue a rule to show cause, and thereafter to very promptly hold a hearing, and very promptly decide all the pertinent issues which are raised.

 Moreover Rule 78 of the Buies of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has been flagrantly, although we assume unintentionally violated. Rule 78 provides: “B. Every President Judge . . . shall report to the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court ... on forms furnished by that officer . . . all cases and other matters which have been submitted to any judge or judges for decision and which have remained undisposed of for sixty (60) days or more *602after having been submitted, and explain briefly the cause of the delay as to those matters.
“O. Each monthly report shall show aU cases and other matters so undisposed of even though previously listed. It shaU also show all cases and matters listed in the last preceding report which were decided subsequently.”
In accordance with this rule it is the duty of the President Judge of the Court in each Judicial District to report each month to the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court all cases and other matters which have been submitted to any Judge or Judges for decision and which have remained undisposed of for 60 days or more thereafter.
Furthermore, the forms submitted by the Prothonotary to each President Judge require a brief listing of all matters pending as aforesaid and the “Nature of Case, Petition, Rule or Motion”, “Date Submitted to Court”, “Name of Judge”, and finally, “Reason Matter Remains Undecided For Sixty (60) Days or More.”
This Rule of Court and the aforesaid Form, could not be clearer. Nevertheless, they have been misunderstood or deliberately violated by some Judges in the Commonwealth. There will no longer be any justification for any failure to comply with the above mentioned Rule and Form.

 Schofield Discipline Case, 362 Pa. 201, 66 A. 2d 675.