Court Opinion

ID: 9744597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:09:02.923975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:00.785247
License: Public Domain

Myers, J.
I concur in the opinion rendered by Judge Pfaff. My objection to Judge Cooper’s carefully-considered opinion is that it permits an invalid and unlawful order of the Public Service Commission to remain in full force and effect.
It is practically admitted that the ex parte order dated April 3, 1958, authorizing the increase in toll rates of all telephone companies in the state to correspond with the rates granted Indiana Bell, is invalid and contrary to law.
It must be remembered that the order was not based upon a petition or request for a rate increase, and *66there was no notice or hearing, all of which is required by statute. The Public Service Commission after investigation took it upon itself to make an ex parte order in complete violation of the law. Pub. Ser. Comm. et al., etc. v. Ind. Bell Tel. Co. (1956), 235 Ind. 1, 27, 130 N. E. 2d 467, 479; Monon Railroad v. Public Service Commission (1960), 241 Ind. 142, 170 N. E. 2d 441. Such order is thus invalid and void.
The Public Service Commission must have realized this when the motions by the ratepayers of some of the companies affected were filed asking that the order be set aside. It then ordered a formal hearing, which was held on June 12, 1958. However, on August 1, 1958, it entered an order which, by its terms, specifically ratified, confirmed and approved the order of April 3, 1958. Thus, it attempted to approve a void and illegal order. This it could not do. The failure to appeal the April 3rd order does not breathe life into it. This court has the right to review all phases of a Public Service Commission order. It has been held that, in so far as the Public Service Commission is concerned, this court is not an “appeal” court, but a court of review. Sizemore v. Public Service Commission of Indiana (1960), 240 Ind. 513, 167 N. E. 2d 343. We are not limited to the extent we may go, therefore, in determining whether an administrative agency has acted within the confines of the law.
“The purpose of a judicial review of the actions of an administrative agency is to keep it within its jurisdiction so as not to violate any constitutional rights, to keep the administrator within the statute which guides him and keep him from unreasonable excesses in the exercise of his function, to determine whether substantial rights of parties are invaded, and to insure fairness of administrative action. It is designed to protect against mistaken or arbitrary orders, and its *67function is dispassionate and disinterested adjudication unmixed with any concern as to the success of either of the parties. The purpose is consonant with that of the administrative proceeding itself, which is to secure a just result with a minimum of technical requirements.” 78 C. J. S., Public Administrative Bodies and Procedure, §165, p. 507.
Judge Cooper’s opinion states that “appellants resorted to an unusual and unorthodox method of procedure by filing the foregoing petitions to vacate and/ or set aside said Ex Parte Order of April 3.” He says that there is no provision either in the Rules of the Public Service Commission or in the statutes authorizing such motions, and cites a number of Supreme Court cases supporting the doctrine that:
“Where parties voluntarily adopt and pursue an unorthodox method of procedure, or agree to some unusual manner in which their rights shall be submitted for determination, they may not be heard to complain, on appeal, that proceedings had in conformity thereto were erroneous.”
Judge Cooper claims appellants fall within that doctrine. In the first place, appellants do not claim that the procedure followed by them to set aside the order is erroneous. They are primarily claiming that the order entered August 1st is contrary to law. In the second place, the doctrine enunciated by Judge Cooper has no applicability in this type of case. The cases cited as authority all pertain to mandamus, criminal actions, divorce and other matters brought up in courts of law and equity. This cause originated before the Public Service Commission which is an administrative tribunal. The proceedings before this tribunal are not judicial in nature, Indiana Telephone Corp. v. Public Serv. Com’n of Ind. (1960), 131 Ind. *68App. 314, 171 N. E. 2d 111, and therefore are never as rigid, standardized or formal as those before the courts. In re Northwestern Indiana Tel. Co. (1930), 201 Ind. 667, 171 N. E. 65. In the third place, this was only a method of presenting to the Commission a way in which it could correct its previous invalid order. The statutes provide that, after an order of the Commission has been duly entered, a petition for rehearing may be filed by the losing party (Burns’ Ind. Stat., §54-444 [Supp.], 1951 Replacement.) This procedure could not be followed in this case for the obvious reason that there had never been a hearing in the beginning, so there could be no possibility of a rehearing.
In my opinion, the order of August 1, 1958, was not predicated upon specific findings of ultimate facts based upon evidence presented in the hearing held on June 12, 1958, but upon the investigation preceding the illegal order of April 3, 1958. It is therefore void and should be set aside.
OPINION B
Cooper, J.
This judicial review attempts to attack an order of the Public Service Commission. Although §54-443, Burns’ provides, in part:
. . An assignment of errors that the decision, ruling or order of the commission is contrary to law shall be sufficient to present both the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision, ruling or order, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts upon which it was rendered.”
the appellants have seen fit to assign twenty-one special specifications of error. In substance, the appellants’ attempted attack on the foregoing order brings into question the authority of the commission to (1) prescribe uniform rates for intrastate' toll *69service; (2) the validity of the finding of the commission as to the necessity for such uniformity; and (3) the legality of the procedure utilized by the commission in this cause in fixing uniform intrastate toll rates.
In an attempt to be brief, I will try to summarize the factual situation in this cause and the law applicable thereto. This, I believe, is a case of first impression.
The record before us reflects that on December 6, 1957, the Indiana Bell Telephone Company filed a petition with the Public Service Commission for authority to modify its schedules of intrastate telephone toll rates. It appears from the record that Indiána Bell filed notice as required by §54-415, Burns’ upon the filing of said petition and that after notice of hearing was given by the Commission, as required by the statute (§54-115), a public hearing was held on the petition. Thereafter, the Commission entered its Order on April 3, 1958, authorizing Indiana Bell to make the modifications proposed in its schedules of intrastate telephone toll rates. It appears that some of these modifications involved increases in rates and some involved decreases in rates. The aforesaid Order of the Commission as to Indiana Bell is in full force and effect and was not then and is not now in any way contested or appealed from.
The record also reveals that on the same date, to-wit: April 3, 1958, the Public Service Commission entered its Ex Parte Order #27493. I have searched the appellants’ brief herein, but have failed to find any place therein where the appellants have set forth said Ex Parte Order, or the substance thereof. Under Rule 2-17 of the Supreme Court, since the Ex Parte Order #27493 is the original order attacked, I believe it was *70incumbent upon the appellants under said Rule to set forth said Ex Parte Order in their brief, as it is the general proposition of law that neither the Supreme nor Appellate Court is bound to search the record to determine the questions which the appellants seek to raise. Coats et ux. v. Clanin et ux. (1958), 128 Ind. App. 195, 147 N. E. 2d 555. Our Supreme Court has said in substance that the failure to substantially comply with this rule waives any alleged error. Goldstine v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 388, 126 N. E. 2d 581. By searching the record, I was able to determine that said Ex Parte Order in substance authorized all other telephone companies in the state, to-wit: all companies which connect directly or indirectly with Indiana Bell’s state-wide toll facilities, to file and establish the same intrastate rates as had been authorized and approved for Indiana Bell in their proceedings so as to achieve uniformity in the intrastate telephone toll rates throughout the state, and as affirmatively found by the Commission in said Order, “to avoid unjust discrimination, practices and unreasonable preferences or advantages between telephone companies, their subscribers and patrons and between various communities and areas in the State of Indiana”.
It is apparent from the record that none of these “connecting” telephone companies filed petitions requestiong permission to take this action, and it is apparent that the basis for the April 3, 1958 Order of the Commission was based upon investigation commenced by the Commission on its own motion and upon a finding by it that such action was necessary to avoid unjust discrimination in intrastate toll rates as provided for by §54-412, Burns’, which reads as follows:
*71“Unreasonable Rates Investigation — Whenever the Commission shall believe that any rate or charge may be unreasonable or unjustly discriminatory or that any service is inadequate, or cannot be obtained, or that an investigation of any matters relating to any public utility should for any reason be made, it may, on its motion, summarily investigate the same, with or without notice.”
I am of the opinion that said Ex Parte Order was a final reviewable order and the proper procedure for the appellants to have followed at that stage of the proceedings was provided for by §§54-445 and 54-443, Burns’, which read as follows:
“54-445. Parties on appeal — Petition to be made party — Appearance — Briefs. — Any person, firm, association, corporation, city, town or public utility may file with the clerk of the court a verified petition to be made a party appellant or appellee, which petition shall allege facts showing that the petitioner has a substantial interest in the determination of the action, and such petitioner shall be made a party appellant or appellee as its interest appears. Any party applicant, intervenor or protestant in the proceedings had before the commission in the matter from which the appeal is taken shall be and have the rights of a party on appeal, upon the filing of a written appearance therein. But no party by his appearance or petition to be made a party shall acquire the right to file a brief, the time for filing of which has expired prior to his appearance.”
“54-443. Appeal to Appellate Court from final decision, ruling or order of commission — Transfer to Supreme Court — Assignment of errors. — Any person, firm, association, corporation, city, town or public utility adversely affected by any final decision, ruling, or order of the public service commission of Indiana, may, within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of such decision, ruling, or order, appeal to the Appellate Court of Indiana for errors of law under the *72same terms and conditions as govern appeals in ordinary civil actions, except as otherwise herein provided, and with the right in the losing party or parties in the Appellate Court to apply to the Supreme Court for a petition to transfer the cause to said Supreme Court as in other cases. An assignment of errors that the decision, ruling or order of the commission is contrary to law shall be sufficient to present both the sufficiency of the facts found to sustain the decision, ruling or order, and the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of facts upon which it was rendered.”
The record reveals that on April 15, 1958, June 3, 1958 and on June 9, 1958, certain residents of Indiana, who were patrons or subscribers filed three motions to set aside the order of the Commission hereinafter referred to. All averments contained therein are substantially the same except as to the indentity of location and individuals, which, omitting the formal parts and signatures, read as follows:
“1. They are residents of the territory served by the Illinois Bell Telephone Company, a public utility operating in the State of Indiana and under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission of Indiana.
“2. On April 3, 1958, the Public Service Commission of Indiana approved an order in Ex Parte No. 27660, wherein said Illinois Bell Telephone Company and numerous othere telephone utilities were granted an increase in rates and charges applicable to intrastate message toll service in the State of Indiana.
“3. That said order was entered without formal petition on behalf of any affected utilities and without any statutory or legal proceedings being commenced or pending before the Public Service Commission of Indiana.
“4. Said order was issued without notice to the patrons, customers of any of the affected utilities or to the general public and said patrons, *73customers and general public were deprived of the right of hearing.
“5. Said order was issued without hearing, determination or finding of value of property-involved or rate of return thereon or of service available to the patrons and customers of the utilities affected.
“6. That the order of said Public Service Commission of Indiana approved April 3, 1958 is improper, illegal and deprives the patrons and customers of said utility of property and rights without due process of law.
“WHEREFORE, the undersigned persons on their own behalf and on behalf of other persons similarly situated move that said order of April 3,1958 be set aside and declared null and void.”
It appears from the record that the appellants resorted to an unusual and unorthodox method of procedure by filing the foregoing petitions to vacate and/or set aside said Ex Parte Order of April 3.
In reviewing the acts relating to the public service commission, I can find no statutory provision or authority providing for petitions or motions to vacate and/or set aside, nor do I find any such provisions in the rules of the Public Service Commission. This places the appellants directly under the doctrine which has been enunciated several times by our Supreme Court, wherein the court has stated:
“Where parties voluntarily adopt and pursue an unorthodox method of procedure, or agree to some unusual manner in which their rights shall be submitted for determination, they may not be heard to complain, on appeal, that proceedings had in conformity thereto were erroneous. State ex rel. Cline v. Schricker (1950), 228 Ind. 41, 88 N. E. 2d 746, 89 N. E. 2d 547; Pokraka et al. v. Lummus Co. (1952), 230 Ind. 523, 104 N. E. 2d 669; State ex rel. Reiman v. Kimmell (1937), 212 Ind. 639, 10 N. E. 2d 911.” McKay v. Carstens (1952), 231 Ind. 252, 256, 108 N. E. 2d 249; see *74also State ex rel. Randall et al. v. Long, Spl. J., etc. et al. (1957), 237 Ind. 389, 146 N. E. 2d 243; Flowers v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 151, 139 N. E. 2d 185.
It is also elementary that when all of the appellants in this proceeding wei-e permitted to intervene and file the aforesaid motions, they did such as individuals and also on behalf of all others similarly situated, and, therefore, became parties to the proceedings for all purposes until final judgment. See State ex rel. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Boone C. C., etc. (1956), 236 Ind. 202, 138 N. E. 2d 4; Boone County REMC v. Pub. Serv. Comm. of Indiana (1959), 239 Ind. 525, 533, 159 N. E. 2d 121.
In passing on the aforesaid motion, the record reveals that the Public Service Commission entered the following order:
“The Commission, having heretofore on its own motion conducted a summary investigation of intrastate message toll rates within the State of Indiana, and as a result of such investigation, and in order to prevent improper or unlawful discrimination, authorized telephone companies in Indiana furnishing intrastate toll services^ in any way connected with the toll facilities of Indiana Bell Telephone Company to file and make effective certain uniform and conforming rates, said procedures and authorizations having been a long and well established practice of the Commission for the fixing of such uniform intrastate toll rates;
“The Commission, now upon further consideration, is satisfied that sufficient grounds exist to warrant a formal hearing of the matters so investigated.
“IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA that a formal hearing be held with respect to the matters so investigated after proper notice to the *75utilities interested and to such other interested persons as the Commission shall deem necessary.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the mailing of a copy of this order to the utilities interested and to such other persons as the Commission shall deem necessary shall constitute the statement notifying such utilities and other interested persons of the matters under investigation.”
Based upon the foregoing order, the record reflects that the Public Service Commission gave notice to the interested utilities, and the appellants herein, also published notice of the hearing in thirty-one counties of the state.
The action on the appellants’ part, by intervening, considered together with the published notice of the hearing in the thirty-one counties in the state I believe was sufficient to formally invoke the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission over all the toll-rate payers, subscribers and patrons within the state. It is the general rule of law that where notice for an increase of utility rates has been given by publication, as required by the statute, every affected patron or rate payer is bound by the proceedings after such notice, whether or not he intervenes or participates. See State ex rel. Pub. Serv. Comm. v. Boone C. C., etc., supra.
It has not been pointed out to us by the appellants, either by the record or in their briefs, nor has any showing been made that I can find where any person, or persons were not properly notified by publication or by personal appearance who was adversely affected by the decision or order, and, as the result thereof, had not received due process of law, as charged by the appellants.
*76The foregoing answers any question of the legality of the procedure utilized by the Commission in securing jurisdiction over the rate payers, subscribers or patrons.
Next, I will attempt to answer the appellants’ attack on the authority of the Commission to prescribe uniform rates for intrastate toll service.
The record reveals that at the hearing held on June 12, 1958, pursuant to the foregoing entry and the published notice and the general appearance of the appellants herein, the Illinois Bell Telephone Company and other witnesses appeared and offered evidence which was received in the record. For the most part this evidence relates to the showing of the necessity for the uniformity in intrastate toll rates throughout the state. It appears from the record that the protestants to the order offered no evidence but merely objected to the evidence offered on behalf of the connecting companies. Upon the completion of the hearing, the Public Service Commission on August 1, 1958, made the following findings of fact and order based thereon:
“1. That it has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this proceeding and all necessary parties thereto.
“2. That due notice of the hearing of this cause was given and published as set forth herein.
“3. That any lack of uniformity in message toll telephone rates for calls within this state would result in discrimination and confusion, injury to the service, unnecessary expense to all concerned, customer dissatisfaction, and interference with the dialing of such calls by customers, and would be of no advantage to the public.
“4. That the fixing of uniform rates for all telephone companies in this state for message toll telephone service within this state in a sin*77gle proceeding is a desirable and necessary step in order to protect the public against discriminatory rates for such service.
“5. That the uniform rates, tolls, charges, rules and regulations for message toll telephone service within this state which have been filed herein and which are the subject of this proceeding are fair, just, reasonable and nondiscriminatory.
“6. That the order entered in this cause on April 3, 1958, all proceedings had and taken in compliance therewith, and all rates, tolls, charges, rules and regulations filed thereunder should be in all things ratified, approved and confirmed, subject to the power of the Commission to re-r examine the matter if the reports required under the said order should show any reason to do so.
“IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF INDIANA that the orders heretofore entered in this cause be and they are hereby in all things ratified, approved and confirmed, subject to the power of the Commission to re-examine the matter if the reports required under the order of April 3, 1958, should show any reason to do so.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rates, tolls, charges, rules and regulations filed thereunder and approved by the Commission are re-approved and confirmed and that such rates, tolls, charges, rules and regulations shall continue in effect until further order of the same is required.
“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plea in Abatement and motion to set aside the order of April 3, 1958, be and the same are hereby overruled.”
It is a well-known fact that Indiana Bell owns and operates the basic intrastate telephone toll network and the facilities therefor in this state. A great many toll calls are originated, carried and terminated wholly on the Bell network, but, in many other instances, toll calls are carried, partly on the Bell net*78work and facilities, and partly on the network and facilities of connecting companies and finally terminated on the network or facilities owned by a connecting company. The reverse of this is also true. We judicially know from other cases which have been before us that where more than one company is involved in a long-distance call a revenue derived therefrom is divided between, or among them under a rate formulae contained in traffic agreements on file with and approved by the Public Service Commission of Indiana. Would not toll rates be discriminatory in a condition which would justify charging an Indiana Bell patron more or less for a long-distance call from Indianapolis to Fort Wayne, for example, than charging a patron on the General Telephone Company for a long-distance call from Fort Wayne to Indianapolis? To me, the evidence in the record clearly demonstrates that a long-distance toll call between two given points has substantially the same value and involves the same service, whether the call originates in an exchange owned by the Indiana Bell or in an exchange owned by a connecting telephone company. It is elementary that without uniform telephone toll rates throughout the state, unlawful discrimination in such rates would result, regardless of property valuation and/or operating expenses, they cannot and should not be factors in the determination of intrastate toll rates involving 185 telephone companies, many of which are small co-ops.
Generally, I believe that Public Service Commissions have the power themselves to initiate inquiry or when an authority is invoked, to control the range of investigation in ascertaining what are the requirements of public interest in relation to the needs of the citizens of this state in the enjoyment of public fa*79cilities of communications and all other essential public services under our present statutes, (see §54-412, Burns’, supra) and such was the true intent of the legislature in enacting such provisions, when “. . . the legislative intention, as collected from an examination of the whole, as well as the separate parts, of a statute, will prevail over the literal import of particular terms, and will control the strict letter of the statute where an adherence to such strict letter would lead to injustice, to absurdity, or to contradictory provisions.” Stout v. The Board of Commissioners of Grant County (1886), 107 Ind. 343, 347, 8 N. E. 222.
It is clear from §§54-408, 54-412, 54-413, 54-414, 54-415 and 54-423, Burns’, that telephone rates may be changed by the Commission on a complaint filed by a utility or against a utility, or as a result of an investigation brought about by the Commission on its own motion. It is specifically provided in the statutory references, above, that discriminatory rates are a matter for commission investigation, and that upon a finding that any rates are unjustly discriminatory, the commission shall fix just and reasonable rates. There can be no question, therefore, that the commission did and does possess jurisdiction to prescribe and fix uniform intrastate toll rates as would be just and reasonable, as provided for by the statute, upon a proper finding that unjust discrimination in rates would otherwise result, and provided, of course, that the commission otherwise proceeded properly, to achieve such uniformity.
It has long been recognized that the authority to fix rates for public utilities rests in the legislature, (City of Indianapolis v. Navin (1898), 151 Ind. 139, 47 N. E. 525, 51 N. E. 80) the administration of such regulations, under such laws as the legislature in. its *80wisdom adopts, belongs to the administrative department. Pub. Ser. Com. v. Indpls. Railways (1947), 225 Ind. 30, 72 N. E. 2d 484. The judicial branch of the government may only interfere whenever a judicial question is involved, as for instance, in cases of fraudulent, arbitrary, or capricious action by an administrative body. Peden et al. v. Board of Review of Cass County (1935), 208 Ind. 215, 195 N. E. 87; Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co. (1940), 217 Ind. 93, 26 N. E. 2d 399, and “We have no power or authority to substitute our personal judgment for what we might think is fair or reasonable in lieu of the administrative judgment of the Public Service Commission. Pub. Serv. Comm. et al. v. City of Indianapolis (1956), 235 Ind. 70, 131 N. E. 2d 308.” Boone County REMC v. Pub. Serv. Comm. of Indiana. supra, at p. 532.
In reviewing Public Utility Reports, it is apparent that other state regulatory commissions have reached the conclusion that intrastate toll rates must be uniform. See: Re Inter Mountain Telephone Company, (Tenn. P. S. C. 1957), 19 PUR 3d 109; Re Peninsular Telephone Co., (Fla. Comm. 1956), 17 PUR 3d 109; Re Intrastate Telephone Toll Rates, (N. C. Comm. 1946), 67 PUR (NS) 63; Re Rochester Telephone Corp. (Case 13489) (N. Y. P. S. C. 1949), digested in PUR Dig. Vol. F., page 184, Re Prospect G. & B. B. Telephone Co., (Case 2-U-3615) (Wis. P. S. C. 1951), digested in PUR Dig. Vol. F., page 184; Re Ogdensburg Telephone Co., (Wis. P. S. C. 1952), 95 PUR (NS) 15; Re Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Company (Calif. P. S. C. 1954), 5 PUR 3d 396, 433, 537.
Of course, the necessity for uniformity in intrastate toll rates does not mean, nor by such is it intended, that any communications company must be permitted to earn an excessive return because in*81creases in toll rates are necessary to prevent discrimination. Under our statutes, as I have heretofore pointed out, the Public Service Commission has a continuing power to adjust the rates and charges for local or toll telephone services to prevent or remedy excessive returns without disturbing uniform toll rates. Sec. 54-112, Burns’; see, also, Intrastate Telephone Toll Rates (N. C. Comm. 1946), 67 PUR (NS) 63.
Based upon the uncontradicted evidence in the record in this cause, it is my conclusion, under the foregoing cited cases that the finding of the Commission that uniformity in the intrastate toll telephone rates is a necessity and is amply supported by the evidence and the law applicable thereto. We are, therefore, confronted with the doctrine as announced by our Supreme Court in the case of Boone County REMC v. Pub. Serv. Comm. of Indiana, supra, at p. 532, wherein our Supreme Court stated:
“We start with the general principle that so long as there is any substantial evidence to support the rates as fixed by the Commission as reasonable, the judicial branch of the government will not interfere with such legislative function. We have no power or authority to subsitute our personal judgment for what we might think is fair or reasonable in lieu of the administrative judgment of the Public Service Commission. Pub. Serv. Comm. et al. v. City of Indianapolis (1956), 235 Ind. 70, 131 N. E. 2d 308.”
In conclusion, it has been argued that the foregoing findings of fact are conclusions of law rather than findings of ultimate fact. I appreciate the apparent infirmities in the foregoing findings, and realize it is difficult for a lay administrative board to determine whether a finding of fact is a mere statement of evidence, a finding of fact or a conclusion of law. However, the real test on review is: “ ‘The Public Serv*82ice Commission should find the ultimate facts specifically and not generally. The findings of fact must be specific enough to enable the court to review intelligently the Commission’s decision.’ ” (Our emphasis) See: Gen. Tel. Co., etc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm. of Ind. et al. (1958), 238 Ind. 646, 653, 150 N. E. 2d 891, 154 N. E. 2d 372; American Transp. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm. of Ind. (1958), 239 Ind. 453, 460, 154 N. E. 2d 512, and cases cited therein.
Since the foregoing- findings meet this test, the Order should be affirmed.
Gonas, J.; Kelley, J.; Ryan, P. J., concur.