*3 ROBERTS, C.J., Before LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, HUTCHINSON and JJ.
OPINION ANNOUNCING THE JUDGMENT OF
THE COURT HUTCHINSON, Justice.
Appellant, the Commonwealth’s Department Ag ing, filed a notice appeal from Commonwealth Court’s December 1982 order directing it to appellee reinstate position the from which the Civil Service Commission had held he improperly furloughed. was Commonwealth Court had previously affirmed that decision Department’s on the pending action was appellee’s While
Petition Review. position. Depart- The him a lesser the offered Department the position new after Com- him from the furloughed ment position, to the old also his reinstatement mission ordered Thereafter, pending. appeal was Department’s while the order di- the Commission’s Court affirmed Commonwealth an Department paid appellee The recting reinstatement. between his the difference representing amount position, only lesser but rate for the pay pay rate and position. him from the lesser furloughed it up until the date employ him. the reinstate- pay It declined to further Enforce- order, “Petition for appellee’s on ment entered further directed ment,” appeal, subject lost appellee wages all at pay Department Aging improperly he was from which position the rate for the fur- properly lost after he was including those furloughed, accepted he position had paying from the lower loughed stipulated facts furlough. Based on challénged his after opinion correctly in its memorandum with the State complied Department never held that when it failed to reinstate Civil Service Commission’s was improperly from which he position to the appellee Moreover, Department’s held the correctly it furloughed. order was reinstatement argument that the Commission’s accepted had appellee of discretion because abuse pending was was barred his position lesser while grounds res judicata. however, merits, we case on we resolve this
Before us on properly matter is before whether the must determine *4 order was Commonwealth Court’s appeal. Because direct to a Civil to that court enforce petition on appellee’s entered order, previously court had Service Commission’s review, Department for on appellant's petition affirmed under Judicial Code to this Court right claims a to appeal us if the right appeal only to 723(a). It has a an order entered Com- is considered enforcement order commenced” “originally action monwealth Court 723(a) Code. of the Judicial under Section that court
427 We hold Commonwealth Court’s enforcement order was entered a proceeding addressed to its therefore, jurisdiction; appellant right has appeal no of us 42 723(a).1 otherwise, under Were we to hold a party disagrees who with a Commonwealth Court decision reviewing an agency’s final order could obtain the of right appeal, which our expedient statutes of deny, stub refusing decision, bornly obey appealing and then us of right as from Commonwealth en forcement. appellant right Since has no of appeal we have its treated notice of a appeal petition allocatur, granted it grant and on that affirmed Commonwealth Court’s enforcement order on the merits.2
Our holding that a
agency’s
this
appeal to
a Commonwealth Court enforcement order is of
grace,
right,
not
not only practical
but follows sound
principles
statutory construction.
It is also consonant
V,
with Article
Section 9 of our state constitution which
a right
insures
“from
court
record or from
an administrative
to a
court of record or to an
”
added).
court....
(emphasis
V,
Article
Section 9
our Constitution reflects the deeply
felt common law notion
persons
that all
are entitled to at
judicial
least one
review of original adjudications which
affect
directly
them.
It does
guarantee
not
more than one
An
review.
examination of both our current statutes
on appellate
review,
jurisdiction and agency
as well as their
predecessors, reveals that review aat
second appellate level
1.
position
is in
This
accord with the
Commonwealth Court took when
appellant’s application
it
petition
denied
to redocket the
for enforce-
separate
ment as a
aat
new number different from that
assigned
its
for review of the Civil Service Commission order.
procedure
We have followed a similar
in three other cases decided
day.
Lines,
XPress Truck
Pennsylvania Liquor
Inc. v.
Control
399,
Board,
(1983);
503 Pa.
Moreover, legislative herein reinforces our decision transferring certain the recent enactments behind purpose appellate mandatory formerly within types of cases appellate our intermediate this to of Court discretionary grant courts, only by here with further review 686, 23, 1980, P.L. September Act of allocatur. See § 1980, legis- 722. That 42 Pa.C.S. effective November into one exercis- this Court designed to convert lation was discretion, in order appellate jurisdiction largely ing its of time and our finite resources devote might that we special legal issues of in-depth study to attention that those issues should importance. statewide necessary give it felt to such attention was receive today holding docket. Our over its own control Court control. limiting that litigant a from prevents disgruntled advantage stubborn least one also removes at It in Com- proceedings on additional enforcement insistence already has decided on matters that court monwealth Court merits. on the on the today, result we reach
To that the demonstrate enforcing orders of Commonwealth Court’s appealability the mer- decisions on with its parties’ compliance and statutes on its, our constitution in accord with is examination of proceed specific jurisdiction we enforce, as well as relevant the nature of an action and their governing such statutes jurisdictional V, 9 of our Constitution. to Article relation in 42 language ambiguous we note that Initially, § “original jurisdiction” sets forth the Pa.C.S. Sec misinterpretation. subject Commonwealth Code, 761(a), gives 42 Pa.C.S. 761(a) of the Judicial tion statutory currently recognize available a matter that it is 3. We portion falling Code Section right under that Judicial those cases involving gives parties in cases Commonwealth 762 which right Pleas a subject appellate review in Common decisions 762(a)(3). Court. review in Commonwealth further “original jurisdiction” of all actions *6 involving the Commonwealth only specific with exceptions, none of which are relevant here. Actions against it or any of its acting officers officially fall under 761(a)(1). Section Those Commonwealth fall 761(a)(2). under Nowhere 761(a) in Section is Commonwealth “original Court’s juris- diction” limited to matters “originally commenced” there and in nowhere it is there an express exclusion of matters within Commonwealth Court’s appellate jurisdiction over agencies Commonwealth Thus, under Section 763. a literal 761(a) reading of Section bring would any against Commonwealth, except excluded, those specifically within original its jurisdiction. Under such an interpretation the Commonwealth Court’s original jurisdiction would overlap its Section 763 jurisdiction over direct appeals from Commonwealth agencies; indeed, and up swallow that separate appellate jurisdiction, leaving question whether to address a particular against matter the Com- monwealth originally or by appeal entirely up parties to the and that Court. We do not think such an interpretation Therefore, makes sense. we hold that those matters our legislature has placed within Commonwealth Court’s appel- late jurisdiction under Section 763 are excluded from its original jurisdiction under 761(a)(1). short, Commonwealth original Court’s jurisdiction of actions against the Commonwealth is limited to those not within its Section 763 appellate jurisdiction over appeals from Com- agencies, monwealth whether directly under Section 763(a)(1) (2), or indirectly 762(a)(3) under Section (4) or otherwise its appellate jurisdiction. within
Since the for enforcement of the Commission’s this case inis the nature mandamus, we must also consider 42 761(c) Pa.C.S. which specifically invests original Court with jurisdiction in cases of “mandamus and to courts of inferior jurisdiction government other units where such relief is ancillary to matters within its appellate jurisdiction.” While such man- damus actions are classified the Commonwealth does not such a classification jurisdiction, to this appeal to direct they subject mean are necessarily to this Court appeal directly A party may Court. any entered of the Commonwealth Court “final orders in said court originally commenced matter which was to the Commonwealth appeal not constitute an does 42 Pa.C.S. Court.” 723.4 that Section especially note
In this connection we § Code, specif and the 2 Administrative of our individual from certain rights granting ic statutes Board, Relations Labor Pennsylvania such as agencies largely eliminat Board and others have Control Liquor to review originally necessity proceeding ed the mandamus, certiorari law writs of the common actions *7 to Indeed, remedy is statutory appellate the prohibition. action in such of an and the use the norm day rules appellate our example, For exception.5 matters the mandamus, and certiorari in most cases that recognize government a review of in the nature of are prohibition provides: Pa.R.A.P. action. mandamus replevin, equity, the actions of appeal,
The warranto, declaratory judgment, for a the action quo and are abolished and of certiorari and the writs of a scope matters within relate to they insofar as for The chapter. petition this under for review shall be chapter, review, under applicable insofar 1409, 723(a) amended Section P.L. of December 4. The Act read: appeals from Supreme have exclusive Court shall The any matter entered in Commonwealth Court of the final orders originally in the Commonwealth commenced was which appeal to an matter which constitutes except entered in a an order from another court---- the Commonwealth significant present for is that technical amendment not believe We do purposes. System, However, Employees’ Retirement v. State as noted in O'Brien 5. original jurisdiction problem, jurisdictional dealing with this also increasingly addressing the for Court remains the Commonwealth agency is not review of cases in which limited class of statute, statutory be inade- review would by as to which provided quate. procedure judicial exclusive review of a determina- government tion of a unit.6 The of our sweep statutory broad remedy “final adjudications” agencies of state is made clear when we consider the “adjudication” broad definition of in Section 101 of the Agency Administrative Law which provides, inter alia: order, decree,
Any decision, final determination or rul- ing agency affecting personal or property rights, immunities, privileges, duties, liabilities or obligations of any or all of the parties proceeding to the in which the adjudication is made. Pa.C.S. Its breadth is further demonstrated Law,
Section 702 of the Administrative Agency § 702, grants standing to appeal agency determina- tions to any person “aggrieved”, not just parties Indeed, actions. there has been a parallel explanatory 6. An note to Pa.R.A.P. 1502 states: reviewing required Where the permitted court is to hear the novo, judicial proceeding go matter de review will forward in a equity manner similar to an reviewing or mandamus action. Where the required questions court is presented solely to decide the below, judicial on the proceeding go record made will forward in a manner similar to review of an order of a lower However, experience court. governmental teaches that determina- character, generate tions are many so varied in so novel situations, frequently only judicial that it is at the conclusion of the fashioned, process, remedy being review when a that one can proceeding determine whether the equity, was in the nature of *8 mandamus, prohibition, statutory appeal, petition or etc. The for review confusing practice will eliminate the filing wasteful and of mandamus, multiple "shotgun” pleadings equity, prohibition, in consolidation, statutory appeal, etc. and related motions for permit parties proceed will the directly and the court to to the abstractions____ by procedural merits unencumbered 708(e) (single action) provides See Pa.C.S. § form of as follows: (e) Single pursuant general form of action. —Where to rule review government may of a by petition determination of a unit be had a single embracing review or another form of action the mandamus, equity, prohibition, quo actions in the nature of otherwise, warranto or the of the court shall provisions not be (relating limited the of 1 to statutory remedy law), preferred provisions over common but such applicable to the extent shall limit the relief available. at law with to actions in respect common development mandamus, in nature of whenever court or the mandamus on a record.7 review is formal matter Here, the Court decided the based it. The to enforce stipulated petition on the record before in case is in to Commonwealth Court the addressed government agency, a the require of mandamus nature comply with a final order the Department Aging, statutory enforce- Commission. Unlike the Civil Service Act, 10 of the Human Relations ment provisions amended, as 27, P.L. P.S. Act of October for the Human Relations provide a mechanism 960 which orders, to en- own the to enforce its Commission the brought by party here who benefited force was However, on sought it such enforcement order. practice to review least in mandamus is often used But at modern reason of an character which for one or affirmative final statutory appeal. by certiorari Cer- cannot be another tiorari, reviewed know, brings on the basis we before the court a record as law, supposes hearing required a It which an officer has acted. Thus, solely on the of evidence. and a determination made characteristically, record court, presented in evidence can be no new practices early permit though some do addition- recent statutes and Mandamus, hand, the other can be used review al evidence. on action, investigation hearing or after action based informal Thus, may proper gratia. granted in mandamus the court ex However, as we permit additional evidence. exercise of discretion seen, occasionally though required already a used even have it is held, petitioner hearing been if the is entitled to court’s has judgment, petitioner being permitted to introduce independent today such will also allow Courts situations additional evidence. injunction Occasionally, proceeding declaratory procedure. hearing mere- is called mandamus review action taken after formal relief, e.g., job petitioner ly seeks affirmative restoration because except quashing in But for the opposed to the certiorari. as mere procedure in cases is like certiora- the relief review form Where, system, has been rendered the federal certiorari ri. mandamus, declaratory procedure injunction or must unavailable used. be (1965) (footnotes Jaffe, Action 177 Judicial Control Administrative omitted). stated, recognize Appellate that the previously Rules we our As proven mischie- law forms have between these common distinctions therefore, and, attempts them. We to eliminate Pa.R.A.P. 1502 vous effort, wholly suspicion can be success- it never applaud that but our strengthened by this case. ful is
433 formal record. Thus this case has of the a full none original brought of an action in characteristics a court record, guarantees which our constitution at least one appeal. relating finality
Restrictions or of an absence nevertheless, instances, in adjudication may require rare original action in inappro Commonwealth Court correct However, priate agency action. n. 6. supra p. See appeal where an is available and adequate, original resort to jurisdiction not available and to this is not present right, as of parties whatever the denominate may the form of review.
Moreover, orders which in pendent are to actions appellate Commonwealth Court’s jurisdiction, ancillary to it, are not “originally commenced” in Commonwealth Court within meaning Pa.C.S. 723. This is even if so is in the form of one of the extraordinary prerogative writs of mandamus they when are used to confirm or enforce orders entered the court it, pending actions before or to enforce orders in matters already it has determined. The prerogative writs of manda prohibition, mus and specifically mentioned in Section 761(c), functionally are the nature appeals to Common Court, wealth despite 761(c) their in 42 description as in “original that court’s jurisdiction” and that subsec tion’s location within the section governing original jurisdic tion. This is consistent with holding our that Common wealth Court’s textually all inclusive does not include matters within its jurisdiction. Moreover, writs, when used in aid of appellate jurisdic tion and to it are “ancillary” only available courts, which may grant them only clear cases where it is largely take unnecessary disputed evidence factual issues in order to determine the of their propriety use. See Laird, Carpentertown Coal Coke Co. v. & Pa. (1948). Indeed, A.2d 426 we did not language think the 761(c) necessary was to provide Commonwealth power. Court with this Bethlehem Mines Corp. v. Com *10 (1975).8 In 207, Pa. A.2d 435 that case monwealth, 462 340 power, to its upheld ancillary we Commonwealth Court’s prohibition and to issue mandamus appellate jurisdiction, Act of 401 of the Court Jurisdiction Appellate under Section § 211.401, 1970, 8(g) of the 17 and Subsection Common P.S. 6, 434, Act, 1970, (1969) P.L. January Act Court of wealth “all gave which Commonwealth Court 211.8(g), 17 P.S. in aid of its appellate powers necessary appropriate to man the failure mention despite expressly jurisdiction,” of the Appellate as Section 301 prohibition, damus and to power Superior Act such granting Court Jurisdiction had Court done. Code,
Thereafter,
replaced
Judicial
which
the Com-
the
Appellate
Jurisdiction
Act and the
Court
monwealth Court
in
Act,
“original jurisdiction
gave
courts of inferior
prohibition
of
and
to
cases mandamus
government
other
units where
relief
and
jurisdiction
42
its
ancillary
jurisdiction.”
matters within
to
§ 761(c).
761(c)
simply
The draftsmen
Section
Pa.C.S.
741
used
term
which
the
copied
language
the
Section
confirming Superior
long-
“original jurisdiction” in
writs where
standing
prerogative
to issue these
power
Thus,
761(c)
Section
ancillary
appellate jurisdiction.
its
to
to
Mines’ extension
Common-
simply codified Bethlehem
power
the
to issue writs
wealth Court of
mandamus, using
the same statu-
precisely
prohibition
distinguishes
from Pa. Human Relations Com-
8. This alone
the case
Districts,
(1978) which
v.
Pa.
Moreover, although the writs of and man damus when issued ancillary to appellate jurisdiction may be historically denominated “original jurisdiction,” they do not relate matters “commenced” in the appellate courts them, that issue but are directed to control the actions of inferior respect bodies with to matters or pend commenced ing there. Thus we hold that all matters statuto involving ry review adjudications final agencies state including agency adjudications finally denying aggrieved person a hearing process and all pursuant issued to that ancillary review is within Commonwealth appellate, Court’s not its original, jurisdiction and thus not directly reviewable right Court as of 723(a). under Section The Commonwealth’s notice of appeal quashed. is Treat- ed petition allocatur, as a granted it is grant Commonwealth Court’s order granting appellee’s peti- tion for enforcement is affirmed. J.,
NIX, did not participate in the consideration deci- sion of this case.
ROBERTS, ZAP- C.J., concurring opinion files a which J., PALA, joins.
McDERMOTT,J., concurring opinion. files a Justice, ROBERTS, concurring. Chief action, sought appellee merely bringing present Service Commission of an order the Civil enforcement Department employer, against appellee’s entered any determination not seek Aging; appellee did relief Commission, over which the Common- Accordingly, appellate jurisdiction. Court exercises wealth Code, 761(c), 761(c) the Judicial section prerog- issue authorizes the Commonwealth court’s within that writs to administrative tribunals ative inapposite. jurisdiction, is is clear appeal, record appellant’s As to the merits of correctly granted appellee’s that order. The Common- to enforce the Commission’s order, therefore, affirmed. properly wealth ZAPPALA, J., concurring opinion. in this joins Justice, McDERMOTT, concurring. designated the Commonwealth Court legislature
The has from orders of the Civil court appropriate appellate as the *12 that all the Commission; has accorded court Service out its necessary carry auxiliary powers ancillary for enforcement appellee’s petition this case functions. which the Commonwealth merely means was As noted powers. one of those able exercise was to actions in the Com- pendent are “orders which majority, it, ancillary jurisdiction, monwealth Court.” in Commonwealth commenced’ ‘originally are not elsewhere, aon commenced to matters orders relate Such elsewhere, were not intended within made and thus record 42 Pa.C.S. language of section the extent majority opinion, I As understand extent, I holding, join. and to that its