Case Title: Giovagnoli v. State Civil Service Commission (Monroe Cty. C.Y.S.) (Dissenting Opinion)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: pennsylvania

Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Date: 2005-02-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[J-182-2004] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT DIANA GIOVAGNOLI, Appellant v. STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (MONROE COUNTY CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES), Appellee : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Nos. 28 & 29 MAP 2004 Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on 5/1/03 at No. 1110 CD 2002 which affirmed the Order of the State Civil Service Commission entered on 4/3/02 at No. 20193 & appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court entered on 5/1/03 at No. 1677 CD 2002 which quashed the Order of the State Civil Service Commission entered on 6/19/03 at No. 20193. ARGUED: November 30, 2004 DISSENTING OPINION MADAME JUSTICE NEWMAN DECIDED: February 23, 2005 The Majority states that Section 708 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 708, this Court’s holding in Commonwealth, Auditor General v. Borough of East Washington, 378 A.2d 301 (Pa. 1977), and various provisions of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, are relevant to the instant matter. Because I do not believe that they are dispositive, I must dissent from the decision to reverse the Order of the Commonwealth Court. As the Majority notes, Section 202 of the Internal Operating Procedures of the Commonwealth Court provides in relevant part: [J-182-2004] - 2 Each . . . petition [for permission to appeal an administrative agency’s denial of an application for counsel fees and costs, arising from litigation before such agency] shall indicate on its face: (1) [t]hat a final decision on the merits has been made[ ] [and] (2) [t]hat the petitioner has presented a similar petition to the administrative agency and that the petition has been denied. 210 Pa. Code § 67.12. In Dept. of Envtl. Res. v. Oermann, 632 A.2d 603, 606 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993), the Commonwealth Court correctly noted: The required contents for a petition for permission to appeal are markedly different from those for a petition for review. A petition for review requires little more than a general statement of objections and a short statement of the relief sought, whereas a petition for permission to appeal requires, inter alia, the text of the order in question; the questions presented for review; a concise statement of the case and the reasons relied upon for allowance of an appeal; and appended copies of related cases, statutes, and regulations. (Citations omitted). The Petition for Review filed by Appellant in the instant matter did not provide the Commonwealth Court with the information required by a Petition for Permission to Appeal. This is not simply a case of a wrongly titled pleading, but of an inadequate one. Furthermore, as the Majority recognizes, Section 3(e) of the Costs Act, 71 P.S. § 2033, states that the appropriate method by which to seek review of a fee determination is a Petition for Leave to Appeal. The Costs Act is by no means a complicated statutory scheme riddled with pitfalls for the unwary. Rather, it consists of only a few sections and clearly advises parties who wish to appeal an unfavorable decision exactly what they must do to protect their interests. Because of these circumstances, I do not [J-182-2004] - 3 believe that the decision of the Commonwealth Court to quash the Petition for Review was either an abuse of discretion or an error of law. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.