FILED SUPfR! R COURT OFi ,UAM Library 3: 25 F COURT
2
3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 4 BRANDON AFLAGUE, RAYMOND ) SPECIAL PROCEEDING 5 AGUON, ALBERT ATOIGUE, KENNY ) CASE NO. SP0152-10 6 ATOIGUE, JOHN BELLESTA, WILLIAM)
CASTRO, MICHAEL CUASITO, DAVID )
7 CEPEDA, MICHAEL CHARGUALAF, ) DECISION AND ORDER 8 JOSEPH CRUZ, DELFINO GARCIA, )
EDWIN KAULIA, WILLIAM LUJAN, )
9 RAYMOND MANTANONA, JOSEPH )
MENDIOLA, MARKMERFALEN, VAN )
10 MURER, JEFFREY NEDEDOG, ) 11 FRANKIE PEREZ, ANTHONY )
QUINENE, MELVIN QUINENE, )
12 MICHAEL ROBERTO, RANDY SABLAN, )
LEWIS SANTOS, DANIEL STONE, )
13 RUDY TAIMANGLO, GEORGE TAYLOR) 14 and CIDY TOVES-CORPUZ )
)
15 Petitioners )
)
16 )
vs.
17 )
GUAM CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,)
18 )
Respondent. )
19 ) 20 )
)
21 A.B. WON PAT INTERNATIONAL ) 22 AIRPORT AUTHORITY, GUAM, by and )
through its executive Management, )
23 MARY C. TORRES )
)
24 Real Party In Interest. ) 25
26 INTRODUCTION 27 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III on March 5,
28 2012 on Real Party in Interest A.B. Won Pat International Airport Authority's ("GIAA")
Case No. SP0152-1O
Motion to Dismiss. Attorney Michael A. Pangelinan represented GlAA. Attorney 2 Jacqueline T. Terlaje represented Petitioners. Mter a hearing on the matter, the Court 3 took motion under advisement. The Court now issues its Decision and Order.
4
5 FACTUAL HISTORY
6 This case involves a grievance proceeding initiated by Petitioners, who are
7 twenty-seven firefighters employed by GlAA's Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting
8 Division. The grievance, filed in accordance with GlAA's Personnel Rules and 9 Regulations ("Personnel Rules"), alleges that GlAA's reduction of base work hours from IO one hundred-twenty hours to one hundred-six hours results in unsafe working 11
12 conditions and is a violation of the "status quo rule" under the Personnel Rules.
13 Petitioners proceeded through the first four steps of the grievance procedure as outlined 14 by the Personnel Rules: at each step, Petitioners received an adverse determination 15 regarding their grievance. At Step 5, the final step of the grievance process, Petitioner's 16 appealed the adverse decision by the Grievance Review Board to the Civil Service 17
18 Commission ("CSC"). Following a hearing before the CSC and upon consideration of the
19 information presented, the CSC issued its final judgment and ruling upholding the 20 decision by the Grievance Review Board.
21 Petitioners, having exhausted the reVIew and appeals process under GlAA's 22
23 Rules & Regulations, filed the present Petition in the Superior Court of Guam. The
24 Petitioners seek judicial review of the CSC judgment pursuant to the CSC's enabling 25 statute and also pursuant to Guam's Administrative Adjudication Law. GlAA has 26 moved this Court for an order dismissing the action for lack of subject matter 27 jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure. GlAA argues 28
that Guam law does not allow for judicial review of final CSC decisions relating to
Case No. SP0152-10
employee grievances. After due consideration of the parties' arguments and applicable 2 law, this Court finds that it has subject matter jurisdiction under Title 4 GCA § 4403(d)
3 to review a final judgment by the CSC relating to an appeal of a grievance complaint 4
5 filed pursuant to agency rules and regulations, though this review authority is limited.
6 DISCUSSION 7 Plaintiffs seek a judicial order vacating the CSC's final judgment and ordering
8 GIAA to comply with various federal regulations and Guam rules and laws. Petitioners 9 filed their petition pursuant to Title 4 GCA § 4406, which allows for judicial review of IO CSC adverse action appeals, and also pursuant to Title 5 GCA §§ 9240 and 9241, the II
12 provisions of Guam's Administrative Adjudication Law that allow for judicial review of
13 any agency decision by any party adversely affected by the decision. 14 GIAA moves for dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Guam 15 Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by a party at 16 any time and when the court finds that it lacks jurisdiction it therefore has no power to 17
18 hear or determine the case and it must dismiss the action. GRCP 12(h)(3); In re
19 Department of Agriculture v. Civil Service Comm. 2009 Guam 19 ~ 25 (citing Abelleira 20 v. Dist. Ct. App., 109 P.2d 942, 947 (Ca. 1941». Whether subject matter jurisdiction 21 exists in this case hinges on whether an employee in the classified service has a right to 22
23 seek judicial review of a final judgment by the CSC regarding a grievance appeal and
24 whether this Court can grant the relief sought in the Petition. This Court finds that 25 while judicial review is available under Title 4 GCA § 4403(d), such review is limited to 26 determining whether the CSC exceeded its jurisdiction; and as Petitioners have not 27 alleged in their petition that the CSC exceeded its jurisdiction, dismissal is proper.
Case No. SPO 152-\ 0
A. The Administrative Adjudication Law Does Not Allow for Judicial Review of CSC Decisions 2
3 GlAA first contends that Guam's Administrative Adjudication Law ("AAL"), Title
4 5, Chapter 9 of the Guam Code, does not provide a statutory basis for review of a CSC 5 final decision. The AAL grants broad review authority of agency decisions by allowing 6 for judicial review "of any agency decision by any party affected adversely by it." 5 7
8 GUAM CODE ANN. § 9240 (2005). Title 5, section 9241 of the Guam Code describes the
9 process that a party must follow in order to obtain judicial review pursuant to the 10 Administrative Adjudication Law-a process that requires filing a writ of mandate in 11 accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. 5 GCA § 9241.
12 When interpreting and applying the CSC's governing statutes, Guam courts 13
14 have treated judicial review of CSC decisions as a process that is separate and distinct
15 from the review process under the AAL. For instance in Perez v. Judicial Counsel, 2002 16 Guam 12 '1 12, and Carlson v. Perez, 2007 Guam 6 ~ 65 the Guam Supreme Court 17 confirmed the prior holding of the Guam Appellate Division in Guam Power Authority 18
19 v. Civil Service Commission, Docket No. CV-87-00072A, 1988 WL 242617 (D. Guam
20 App. Div. Nov. 17, 1988) that the proper manner in which to obtain judicial review of a 21 final CSC decision is by filing a petition for judicial review. The court-created petition 22 for judicial review and its accompanying thirty-day filing deadline are clearly distinct 23 from the statutory review process under the AAL, which allows an employee to file for 24
25 reconsideration of a decision prior to seeking judicial review, and thereafter requires
26 that an employee file a petition for writ of mandate in accordance with the Code of Civil 27 Procedure. 5 GCA § 9241. Neither the Guam Supreme Court nor the Appellate Division 28 in the above cases even considered whether application of the AAL could apply to fill
Case No. SP0152-1O
the procedural holes imbedded within the statutes governing the CSC. The fact that 2 Guam courts have proceeded in an ad hoc manner where necessary to establish 3 procedures for obtaining judicial review of CSC decisions supports GIAA's position that 4 Petitioners here cannot seek review of the CSC's judgment by filing a petition pursuant 5
6 to theAAL.
7 Legislative intent also appears to support the premise that judicial review of a 8 CSC decision is not available under the AAL. When interpreting a statute courts must 9 strive "to determine the intent of the legislature and give the statute meaning without 10
11 altering or amending the statute's scope." In re Request of Gutierrez 2002 Guam 1 ~ 17
12 (citing In re Advisory Opinion to the Governor, 504 A.2d 456, 459 (R.!. 1986». 13 Moreover, "in determining legislative intent, a statute should be read as a whole, and 14 therefore, courts should construe each section in conjunction with other sections."
15 Sumitomo Const., Co., Ltd. v. Gov't of Guam, 2001 Guam 23 ~ 17. Chapter 4 contains a 16
17 single provision relating to the applicability of the AAL with respect to the CSC. Title 4,
18 section 4009 provides: 19
20 §4409. Administrative Adjudication Law Applicable.
21 The rules of the [Civil Service] Commission are subject to the 22 Administrative Adjudication Law.
23 The plain language of this section relates only to the rules of the CSC and does not 24 expressly subject final decisions or judgments of the CSC to judicial review under the 25 AAL. However, in other sections of Chapter 4-sections 4403(d) and 4406-the 26 Legislature did expressly authorize judicial review of CSC decisions.
Case No. SPO 152-1 0
Notably, though, the Legislature was silent as to the applicable procedure for 2 obtaining such review and there is no mention of the AAL anywhere in the sections 3 relating to judicial review. Had the Legislature intended for the AAL to apply not just 4
5 to the rules promulgated by the CSC but also to final decisions issued by the CSC, the
6 Legislature could have explicitly stated as much in any of the above-described sections. 7 Alternatively, had the Legislature omitted all reference to the AAL within the CSC's 8 enabling legislation, the decisions and rules of the CSC would, undoubtedly, be subject 9 to the AAL as the CSC clearly falls within the category of those agencies to which the 10
11 AAL applies. The Legislature's enactment of section 4409 without any reference to CSC
12 decisions or judgments under that section and in conjunction with two other provisions 13 addressing judicial review suggest an intent by the Legislature that the AAL apply only 14 to the rules of the CSC and not to judicial review of CSC judgments. C.f. Guam Radio 15
16 Services, Inc. v. Guam Econ. Dev. Auth., 2000 Guam 1 ,r 19 ("Generally, courts have 17 interpreted the legislative inclusion of certain entities to the omission of others in any
18 statute as an indication of a legislative intent to omit or not include all other similarly 19 situated entities.").
20 After considering the applicable statute and case law interpreting those statutes 21
22 this Court finds that the AAL does not provide a statutory basis for seeking judicial
23 review of a CSC judgment relating to an employee grievance appeaL 24
25 B. Title 4 GCA Allows For Judicial Review of a Final Judgment by the CSC Relating to an Employee Grievance 26 Petitioners also invoke Title 4 GCA § 4406 as an alternative basis for 27
28 jurisdiction. That section specifically allows for judicial review of CSC decisions related
to adverse action appeals. Thus, section 4406 simply does not apply to the grievance
Case No. SP0152-1O
complaint at issue in the present case and no subject matter jurisdiction exists under 2 that section of the law. Petitioners do, in fact, concede that on its face section 4406 only 3 applies to adverse actions involving a dismissal, demotion, or suspension. But 4 Petitioners also claim that reading this section not in isolation, but in the context of the 5
6 entirety of Chapter 4 reveals a clear intent by the Legislature to allow for judicial
7 review of CSC decisions. 8 Petitioners seek salvation in title 4, section 4403, though this section was not 9 cited in the Petition. The relevant portions of that section provide:
10
11 § 4403. Duties of the Commission.
12 The Commission has the following duties, powers and responsibilities:
13
14 (b) It shall hear appeals from the adverse actions taken to 15 suspend, demote or dismiss an employee from the classified service if such right of appeal to the Commission is established in the personnel 16 rules governing the employee ...
17 (c) To hear appeals of furloughs, lay-offs, grievance 18 complaints, and Equal Employment Opportunity complaints of an employee from the classified service if such right of appeal to the 19 Commission is established in the personnel rules governing the 20 employee. The Commission shall adopt rules and procedures for furlough appeals 21 (d) The Commission may investigate and set aside and 22 declare null and void any personnel action of an employee in the 23 classified service if the Commission finds after conducting the necessary investigation that the personnel action was taken in violation of 24 personnel laws or rules; provided, however, that this Section shall not be 25 deemed to permit appeals by employees from adverse actions not covered in Subsection (b) above. The agency head shall cooperate and 26 assist with the Commission's investigation. Prior to declaring any personnel action null and void, the Commission shall provide written 27 notice of the alleged violation of the agency head. The agency head shall 28 respond within ten (10) calendar days after receipt of the notice to the Commission's proposed action. All actions taken by the Commission
Case No. SP0152-1O
pursuant to this Section shall be taken within one hundred eighty (180) calendar days after the personnel action or complaint is filed with the 2 Commission. The Civil Service Commission shall submit a copy of its 3 final decision to 1 Liheslatura by the next working day. The Commission shall adopt rules and regulations to effectuate this Section, including 4 the requirement of a written complaint to initiate any investigation. The 5 Commission's decision shall be [mal but subject to judicial review
6 4 GCA § 4403(d) (ital. in original) (underline added). The plain language of this section 7
8 clearly allows for judicial review of a CSC decision following an investigation by the
9 CSC of a personnel action or complaint filed by an employee. GlAA argues, however, 10 that even if the grievance complaint in this case constitutes a 'personnel action,'l II
12 Although the parties did not brief the issue of whether an 'employee grIevance I3 complaint' constitutes a personnel action under section 4403(d), in its Reply, GlAA seems to 14 question whether an employee grievance does, in fact, qualify as a "personnel action" under 15 the statute. 16 Though the phrase 'personnel action' is not defined by Guam statutes, cases, or the
17 applicable personnel rules, this Court finds support for characterizing a grievance complaint as a personnel action. For instance, title 5, section 2302(A) of the United States 18 Code, which applies to merit system employees of a federal executive agency, defines the 19 phrase 'personnel action' as, among other things:
20 (ix) a decision concerning pay, benefits, or awards, or concerning education 21 or training if the education or training may reasonably be expected to lead to an appointment, promotion, performance evaluation, or other action 22 described in this subparagraph 23 ... [or]
24 (xi) any other significant change m duties, responsibilities, or working 25 conditions.
26 5 U.S.C. § 2302(A)(ix), (xi). The Petition here relating to a reduction of work hours raises 27 issues that constitute a personnel action as defined by federal law. And given the
28 apparently broad usage of the term 'personnel action' within Chapter 4, as well as within GIAA's own Rules and Regulations, Rule 6.301(C), this Court finds no support at this time
Case No. SP0152-1O
thereby subjecting such complaints to the procedures outlined by section 4403(d), 2 Petitioners have not alleged that the process followed by the CSC in its review of the 3 Grievance Review Board's decision was carried out pursuant to that section. (GlAA's 4
5 Reply to Pet'r.'s Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss, 2.) Specifically, GlAA asserts that Petitioners
6 have not alleged that they submitted a written complaint, or that the esc conducted an 7 investigation, or that the CSC transmitted a final decision to the Legislature as 8 required by section 4403(d); therefore, GIAA asserts that Petitioners are not entitled to 9 judicial review of the CSC decision.
IO
II This Court finds that there has been substantial compliance with the required
12 procedures outlined under section 4403(d) so as to allow for judicial review in this case. I3 Subsection (d) essentially imposes two requirements that must be met before the CSC 14 issues a decision: (1) the employee must file a written complaint alleging that the 15 agency personnel action violates applicable personnel rules and regulations; and (2) the 16
17 CSC must investigate the allegations. All other requirements, such as notice to the
18 agency head and the submission of the CSC's final decision to the Legislature, are 19 effective only if the CSC declares the personnel action null and void: And as the CSC 20 did not declare the action null and void in this case, those requirements simply do not 21
22 apply. Thus, this Court need only focus on the first two pre-conditions.
23 With respect to the requirement of a written complaint, this Court finds that by 24 following GlAA's personnel rules and regulations, Petitioners have complied with this 25 condition. GlAA's rules provide that in order to initiate an appeal to the CSC under 26
27 for the premise that the employee grievance here does not constitute a 'personnel action'
28 under section 4403(d).
Case No. SP0152-10
Step 5, an employee must present the grievance "in writing on a form prescribed by the 2 Executive Manager and/or the Commission." Personnel Rules & Regulations 3 12.901(A)(8)(a). This writing must "contain sufficient details to identify and clarify the 4
5 basis of the grievance [and] include copies of the grievance forms submitted in Steps 2,
6 3, and 4." Personnel Rules & Regulations 12.901(A)(8)(b)-(c). As the CSC had not
7 adopted any formal procedures pursuant to section 4403(d) at the time of Petitioners' 8 appeal, this Court finds that the submission of a formal grievance appeal pursuant to 9 the applicable rules is sufficient to constitute the required written complaint. 2 Though 10
11 the written grievance is not in evidence before this Court, there is no allegation by
12 GlAA that Petitioners did not comply with the appeals process and thus this court 13 presumes that Petitioners filed a proper grievance with the CSC.
14
15
16 2 17 As the specific complaint and reVIew process IS not well defined under section 4403(d), and given that the CSC has not adopted any rules in accordance with this section, 18 this Court may designate appropriate procedures under title 7, section 7117, which states:
19
20 When jurisdiction is by law conferred on a court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of 21 this jurisdiction, if the course of the proceeding be not specifically pointed out by law or by rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme Court, any 22 suitable process or mode of proceedings may be adopted which may appear 23 most conformable to the spirit of this Title.
24 7 GCA § 7117; see also Carlson v. Perez, 2007 Guam 6 ~ 65 (acknowledging the courts'
25 development of ad hoc procedures relating to judicial review of CSC decisions and 26 recognizing a court's authority under 7 GCA § 7117 to designate such procedures where 27 necessary).
Case No. SP0152-1O
The second requirement-that the CSC investigate the allegations-was fulfilled 2 when the CSC conducted a hearing on the requested appeal. The term 'investigation' is 3 not defined anywhere in Chapter 4 or in the CSC's rules. However, the plain meaning 4
5 of 'investigate' is "to inquire into (a matter) systematically [or] [t]o make an official
6 inquiry." Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Ed. 902. In the present case it is clear that the 7 CSC held a hearing on Petitioners' grievance appeal at which CSC members considered 8 facts and arguments presented by the parties. As the CSC has not promulgated rules 9 defining what constitutes an investigation under section 4403 (d) , this Court finds that 10
11 the appeals hearing qualifies as such under section 4403(d), thereby allowing the CSC
12 to render a final decision. And, as the CSC did not declare the agency action null and 13 void, there is no deficiency of process with respect to the CSC's final decision and 14 judicial review is proper pursuant to section 4403(d).
15 Even if it were true that the parties did not strictly comply with the legal 16
17 procedures related to an investigation of a personnel action, this Court still construes
18 section 4403(d) to allow for judicial review under the circumstances presented herein. 19 When interpreting a statute, it is "fundamental that a construction resulting in an 20 absurd and unjust result and [sic] [which] would clearly be inconsistent with the 21
22 purposes and policies of the act in question should be avoided." Villalon v. Hawaiian
23 Rock Products, Inc., 2001 Guam 5 ~ 24. Applying this principal to the present case 24 leads this Court to conclude that § 4403(d) authorizes judicial review of final CSC 25 decisions relating to grievance appeals.
26 Applying GIAA's interpretation of the statute, which apparently treats section 27
28 4403(d) as prescribing a distinct process from that applied to the grievance complaint
Case No. SP0152-10
appeal mentioned in section 4403(c), would produce seemingly duplicative and absurd 2 results. Here, under the Personnel Rules & Regulations Petitioners were required to 3 follow a formal grievance process. That process involved, among other things, an 4
5 investigation of the grievance, a determination by the GlAA Grievance Review Board,
6 and an appeal to the CSC of the Review Board's decision. Under GlAA's interpretation 7 of section 4403(d), those employees who properly initiate a grievance under agency 8 personnel rules and complete each step up to the final adverse judgment by the CSC 9 would then be forced to file a new "complaint" requesting that the CSC conduct a 10
II second investigation into the personnel violation and issue a second decision regarding
12 the alleged violation that the CSC already determined had not occurred. To construe 13 the statute in such a way as to condone waste of government resources in furtherance 14 of superfluous process seems an absurd result not intended by the Legislature when it 15 enacted section 4403(d). In contrast, construing the final sentences of section 4403(d) to 16
17 authorize judicial review of all final decisions of appeals before the CSC when there has
18 already been an investigation by the agency and an adverse determination by the CSC 19 pursuant to applicable personnel rules and regulations gives effect to the clear intent of 20 the legislature to allow for judicial review of final CSC decisions while avoiding 21
22 unnecessary and repetitive investigations and hearings.
23 c. The Relief Sought by Petitioners is Not Available in a Petition for Judicial Review 24
25 GIAA's final argument IS that the only standard of reVIew available to an
26 employee seeking judicial review of a final CSC decision is that review proscribed by 27 Title 7 GCA §§ 31101 et seq., which establishes the writ of review. Under this writ, 28 review "cannot be extended further than to determine whether the inferior tribunal,
Case No. SPOlS2-1O
board, or officer has regularly pursued the authority of such tribunal, board, or officer.
2 7 GCA § 31108. GIAA therefore contends that because the Petition herein essentially 3 seeks de novo review of any factual and legal determinations by the CSC and GIAA, 4
5 such review is not proper in a petition for judicial review and the Petition must be
6 dismissed. Although this Court has determined that it may review a final CSC 7 determination regarding an employee grievance, the Court finds that it does not have 8 the authority to grant the relief requested by Petitioners.
9 The process governing judicial review of a decision by the CSC has developed in 10
11 an ad hoc manner on Guam. See Carlson v. Perez, 2007 Guam 6 ~~ 62-64. Where the
12 specific legislation allowing for judicial review of an agency decision is silent with 13 respect to the procedures for obtaining review, courts have invoked their authority 14 under title 7 GCA § 7117 to adopt any necessary procedures to allow the court to 15 exercise its review authority. See Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Servo Comm'n, Docket 16
17 No. CV-94-00018A, 1995 WL 222212 (D. Guam App. Div. Feb. 10, 1995); Carlson V.
18 Perez, 2007 Guam 6 ,r 65 (invoking the power under 7 GCA § 7117 to adopt the rule 19 that an appeal of a CSC decision may be had by filing a "Petition for Judicial Review").
20 Title 7 GCA § 7117 provides:
21
22 When jurisdiction is by law conferred on a court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise 23 of this jurisdiction, if the course of the proceeding be not specifically pointed out by law or by rules of procedure adopted by the Supreme 24 Court, any suitable processes or mode of proceedings may be adopted 25 which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Title.
26 In the present case, neither case law nor the relevant statutes allowing for judicial 27 review of CSC decisions explicitly proscribed the proper scope or standard of review to 28 applied by the courts on a petition for judicial review. However, as discussed above,
Case No. SP0152-10
both the Guam Legislature and Guam appellate courts expressly or impliedly rejected 2 application of the judicial review procedures under the AAL and corresponding writ of 3 mandamus, which require a court to determine whether an agency decision is in 4
5 accordance with the law or is supported by substantial evidence. See 5 GCA § 9241.
6 Therefore, it seems that adoption of a standard of review other than that provided by
7 the writ of mandamus would be proper. 8 In Farnum v. Guam Civil Servo Comm'n, Special Proceeding Case No. SP0215-
9 09, Decision and Order (Jan. 9, 2012), this Court, upon recognizing the procedural 10
11 silence relating to a petition for judicial review, determined that when presented with
12 such a petition the Court would apply the statutory process governing the writ of 13 review. At least one other Guam Superior Court Judge has adopted a similar position.
14 In Rosario V. Civil Servo Comm'n, Special Proceeding Case No. SP0148-11, Decision and 15 Order (Mar. 21, 2012) Judge Barcinas considered whether, on a petition for judicial 16
17 review, the court had authority to review the CSC's factual determinations. Judge
18 Barcinas, also noting the procedural silence within the CSC's statutes, invoked the 19 court's authority under title 7 GCA § 7117 to adopt necessary procedures. After a 20 cogent analysis contrasting and the purpose and extent of review under both a writ of 21
22 review and a writ of mandate, Judge Barcinas ultimately ruled that the procedures
23 governing the writ of review were best suited to accomplish the goals of judicial review 24 of a decision by an inferior tribunal such as the CSC. Id. p. 4, lines 12-28. And as the 25 extent of review under the writ of review is limited to determining whether the inferior 26 tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or regularly pursued its authority, the court ruled
Case No. SP0152-1O
that it had no authority to grant the petitioner's requested relief and therefore 2 dismissed the petition. Id. p.1l.
3 This Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from its treatment of the 4
5 petition for judicial review in Farnum, and reaffirms its ruling in that case that the
6 procedures governing the writ of review apply to a petition for judicial review of a final 7 CSC decision.
8 Having determined that procedures governing the writ of review apply to the 9 present Petition, the Court must now address whether it may appropriately entertain 10
11 the Petition. Title 7 GCA § 31108 establishes the scope of review that is available
12 pursuant to the writ of review. That section states: 13 § 31108. Extent of Review.
14 The review upon this writ cannot be extended further than to determine whether 15 the inferior tribunal, board, or officer has regularly pursued the authority of such tribunal, board, or officer.
16
17 7 GCA § 31108. The Petition here alleges that the CSC's decision is not in accordance
18 with the law and is not supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, based on these 19 allegations, Petitioners request that this court vacate the CSC's decision, order GlAA to 20 comply with various laws, and order payment of back-wages and compensation to 21
22 Petitioners. (pet. for Judicial Rev., p. 3-4) Thus, Petitioners essentially request a de
23 novo determination of law and fact, a reversal of the decisions by the CSC and GlAA 24 Grievance Board, and legal damages. While such relief is consistent with 25 administrative mandamus under the AAL, this relief is simply not available under a 26 writ of review. See DCK Pacific Guam, LLC v. Morrison, 2010 Guam 16 ~ 14 (stating 27
28 that a petition should be characterized by the relief requested within a petition rather
Case No. SP0152-10
than the title assigned to the petition). As this Court cannot grant relief requested by 2 Petitioners pursuant to the present writ, the Petition must be dismissed.
3 CONCLUSION 4 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that while it may judicially review a 5
6 grievance complaint under Title 4 GCA § 4403(d), the Court lacks jurisdiction to grant
7 the relief requested by Petitioners. The Court ORDERS the following: 8 1. That the Petition be DISMISSED without prejudice.
9 2. As it may be possible for Petitioners to amend their petition to request proper 10
relief, Petitioners are granted leave to amend. Should Petitioners choose to II
12 amend the Petition, the amended Petition must be fIled within thirty days of
13 issuance of this Decision and Order.
14 3. Petitioner's alternative request that the Court treat the Petition as a 15 complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief is denied. Such relief is 16
17 properly requested by fIling a civil complaint against the government and
18 this Court declines to entertain such requests in relation to the present 19 Petition.
20 It is SO ORDERED this 1st day of August, 2012.
21
22
23
24 Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam