OPINION
Aрpellant Bernard J. Dolenz appeals the trial court’s decision to dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. This cause originated in November 1982 when appellee Southwestern Bell Telephone Cоmpany allegedly wrongfully interrupted appellant’s phone service. The trial court granted ap-pellee’s plea in abatement 1 and dismissed appellant’s suit against the Company for lаck of jurisdiction. The issue on appeal is whether the court has jurisdiction over the case. Bеcause we find that it does, we sustain appellant’s points of error, reverse the trial court аnd remand this cause for further proceedings.
In his petition, appellant alleges that he has a cause of action against appellee arising from the interruption of his telephonе service. Appellee argues that the legislature has granted exclusive jurisdiction to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) under the Public Utilities Regulatory Act, (PURA) and therefore, the trial court does not have jurisdiction tо hear this case until appellant has exhausted his administrative remedies.
Generally, an administration agency such as the PUC has no inherent power. Its jurisdiction and the nature and extent
*45
of its powers must be found within the constitutional and statutory provisions, which are applicable to the agency.
Sоuthwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Public Utilities Commission,
Section 16 article 1446c of the PURA provides the commission with:
the genеral power to regulate and supervise the business of every public utility within its jurisdiction and to do all things, whethеr specifically designated in this Act or implied herein, necessary and convenient to the exеrcise of this power and jurisdiction.
Section 18 discusses telecommunications utilities specificаlly. Subsection (a) of this section delineates the policy of the state— the policy being:
to рrotect the public interest in having adequate and efficient telecommunications service available to all citizens of the state at just, fair, and reasonable rates_ It is the purposе of this section to grant to the commission the authority and the power under this Act to carry out the рublic policy herein stated.
Section (b) provides that the commission,
[sjubject to the limitations imposed in this Act, and for the purpose of сarrying out the public policy above stated and of regulatory rates, operations, and services so that such rates may be just, fair, and reasonable, and the services adequate and efficient, the Commission shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over the business and property of all tеlecommunications utilities in this state.
Section 37 vests the commission with all authority and power of the state of Texas to insure compliance with the obligations of public utilities in this Act. Finally, section 83(a) provides:
“[A]ny affected person may complain to the regulatory authority in writing setting forth any act оr thing done or omitted to be done by any public utility in violation or claimed violation of any law which the regulatory authority has jurisdiction to administer or of any order, ordinance, rule or regulation of thе regulatory authority.”
Our attention has not been directed to any statutory provision in PURA that expressly givеs the PUC authority to adjudicate claims of tortious conduct. Appellees contend that section 18(b) impliedly grants such authority to the PUC. We disagree.
While the legislature has conferred exclusive оriginal jurisdiction upon the PUC over the business and property of all telecommunications utilities in this state for the purpose of regulating “rates, operations, and services”, we hold that jurisdiction over tort claims against a telephone company has not been removed from the courts.
Southwestern Bell Telephone Company v. Reeves,
The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for furthеr proceedings.
Notes
. As the appellee notes in its brief, it mislabeled its motion as a plea in abatement. The motion is correctly labeled a plea to jurisdiction.