Hamm v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 23412

• Decision Date: 06 May 1991
• Docket Number: No. 23412,23412
• Citation: 406 S.E.2d 157,305 S.C. 1
• Parties: , Util. L. Rep. P 26,078 Steven W. HAMM, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, and The South Carolina Public Service Commission, of whom Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Respondents, and The South Carolina Public Service Commission, Appellant. Appeal of SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION. . Heard
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

Page 157

406 S.E.2d 157

305 S.C. 1, Util. L. Rep. P 26,078

Steven W. HAMM, Consumer Advocate for the State of South Carolina, Appellant, v. SOUTHERN BELL TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY, and The South Carolina Public Service Commission, of whom Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company, Respondents and The South Carolina Public Service Commission, Appellant Appeal of SOUTH CAROLINA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.

No. 23412.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Heard May 6, 1991.

Decided June 10, 1991.

Steven W. Hamm, Raymon E. Lark, Jr., Nancy J. Vaughn, Elliott F. Elam, Jr., S.C. Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Columbia, for Consumer Advocate.

Marsha A. Ward, S.C. Public Service Com'n, Columbia, for S.C. Public Service Com'n.

Fred A. Walters, Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., A. Camden Lewis, Costa M. Pleicones and Mary G. Lewis, Lewis, Babcock, Pleicones & Hawkins, Columbia, for Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.

HARWELL, Justice.

This case involves a question regarding the enforcement of this Court's prior opinion in Hamm v. Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph, Co., --- S.C. ---, 394 S.E.2d 311 (1990), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1018, 112 L.Ed.2d 1099 (1991) (Hamm I ). In Hamm I, we "reversed" a previously approved rate increase requested by respondent Southern Bell Telephone and Telegraph Company (Southern Bell) and remitted the case to the circuit court, the court below, as required by S.C.Code Ann. § 18-9-270 (1985). Southern Bell contended below that since this Court failed to explicitly remand the case to appellant Public Service Commission (Commission) with instructions to order Southern Bell to refund with interest the monies collected pursuant to the illegally approved order, no such relief was granted by this Court and that the circuit court was without authority to return the case to the Commission to enforce our opinion. The circuit court agreed and refused to return the case to the Commission. We disagree and hereby reverse the circuit court's order and remand the case to the Commission to determine the amount of refunds owed. The Commission shall take into consideration the appropriate interest rate to be applied and the amount, if any, that has already been refunded.

I. FACTS

Southern Bell filed an application with the Commission for a rate increase for Touch-Tone calling service. Southern Bell asserted that the increase was necessary to offset alleged losses that would result from a previous order of the Commission that involved WATS lines. Appellant Steven W. Hamm, the Consumer Advocate, intervened and was made a party of record in the proceeding before the Commission. The Commission granted Southern Bell the increase and the circuit court affirmed the order of the Commission.

On appeal, this Court "reversed" the order of the circuit court which had affirmed the Commission's order granting Southern Bell the increase in rates. As an initial matter, we noted that the "findings" of the Commission ran afoul of our decision in Able Communications, Inc. v. South Carolina Public Service Comm'n, 290 S.C. 409, 351 S.E.2d 151 (1986), which held that "[t]he findings of fact of an administrative body must be sufficiently detailed to enable the reviewing court to determine whether the findings are supported by the evidence and whether the law has been properly applied to those findings." Able Communications, Inc., 290 S.C. at 411, 351 S.E.2d at 152. Here, the Commission's order merely recited conflicting and unsubstantiated opinion testimony. Rather than remanding the case to the Commission in order that it point to the specific factual basis of record for its findings of fact so as to comport with our holding in Able Communications, Inc., we simply "reversed" the case finding that a remand for this purpose was unnecessary as there was no factual basis in the record to which the Commission could point in support of its findings.

Pursuant to Section 18-9-270, we remitted the case to the court below, in this case, the circuit court, to enforce our judgment in the Hamm I opinion. Subsequent to the remittitur, and after this Court denied Southern Bell's petition for rehearing, Southern Bell filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court which was denied. Based upon our opinion in this case, the circuit court issued an order returning the case to the Commission for it to take action in a manner consistent with that decision. Subsequent to this order, Southern Bell filed a motion to vacate the circuit court order returning the case to the Commission; this motion was granted.

At the hearing on Southern Bell's motion to vacate the circuit court order returning the case to the Commission, the Consumer Advocate made an oral motion to have the case returned to the Commission. In a separate order, the circuit court denied the Consumer Advocate's motion stating that it was without authority to remand a case to the Commission in the absence of an explicit directive of this Court. In concluding, the circuit court stated that only this Court could clarify its own opinion. This appeal follows.

II. DISCUSSION

This case involves a question as to the enforcement of our prior opinion in this case. In Hamm I, we held that the Commission had erred in granting Southern Bell a rate increase for Touch-Tone calling services because it...