{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f169\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f170\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f172\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f173\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f174\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f175\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f176\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f177\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;
\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}
{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\listtable
{\list\listtemplateid0{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'00;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1
\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'01;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'02;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0
\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'03;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'04;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}
{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'05;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0
{\leveltext\'01\'06;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'01\'07;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}{\listlevel\levelnfc0\levelnfcn0\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0
\levelstartat0\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'00;}{\levelnumbers;}}{\listname Numbers 2;}\listid1}}{\*\listoverridetable}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid5393413\rsid9508377\rsid9918077\rsid10711560\rsid12808916}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info
{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min2}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy14\hr9\min47}{\version4}{\edmins3}{\nofpages11}{\nofwords3951}{\nofchars22522}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}
{\nofcharsws26421}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120
\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot9918077 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\insrsid9918077 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid9918077 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid9918077 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid9918077 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid9918077\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid9918077 Bondoc v. Worker}
{\i\fs20\insrsid12808916 '}{\i\fs20\insrsid9918077 s Compensation Commission, }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 2000 Guam 6, Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid9918077 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5393413 11}}}{
\fs20\insrsid9918077  of 16
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid9918077 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5393413 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid9918077 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid9918077 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\b\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 CRESENCIO C. BONDOC,
\par }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Petitioner-Appellant
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 vs.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 WORKER}{\b\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 S COMPENSATION COMMISSION and GERBER ENTERPRISES, INC.,}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Respondents-Appellees
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 OPINION}{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Supreme Court Case No. }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 CVA98-016}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par Superior Court Case No.}{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  SP0205-97}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Filed: January 21, 2000}{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid5393413  2000 Guam 6}{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Appeal }{\insrsid5393413 from the Superior Court of Guam}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par Argue}{\insrsid5393413 d and submitted on May 11, 1999}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trhdr\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5393413 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4500\clshdrawnil 
\cellx4500\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4950\clshdrawnil \cellx9450\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par }{\ul\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Appearing for the Petitioner-Appellant:}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par Steven A. Zamsky, Esq.
\par Zamsky Law Firm
\par Suite 501, Bank of Guam Building
\par 111 Chalan Santo Papa
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Appearing for the Respondents-Appellees:}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par Vance J.I. Guerena
\par Assistant Attorney General
\par Office of the Attorney General,
\par Civil Litigation Division
\par 2-200E Judicial Center. Building
\par 120 W. O}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Brien Dr.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trhdr\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblrsid5393413 \clvertalt
\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4500\clshdrawnil \cellx4500\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4950\clshdrawnil 
\cellx9450\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413\charrsid5393413 \cell }{\ul\insrsid5393413\charrsid5393413 Attorney for the Respondent-Appellee Gerber Enterprises, Inc.}{
\insrsid5393413\charrsid5393413 
\par Jacques G. Bronze, Esq.
\par (Jerry Tang, Esq.)
\par Law Offices of Hogan and Bronze
\par Ste. 105F, Ada's Commercial & Professional. Ctr.
\par 215 Chalan Santo Papa
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid5393413\charrsid5393413 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow 
\ts11\trgaph120\trleft0\trhdr\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4500\clshdrawnil \cellx4500\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl
\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4950\clshdrawnil \cellx9450\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 BEFORE: BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ, Chief Justice, RICHARD H. BENSON and JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justices.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 CRUZ, C.J.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 :
\par }{\b\insrsid5393413 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [1]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab This is an appeal of the lower court}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s decision to deny Appellant}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s petition for Writ of Review and/or a Writ of Mandamus to suspend or set aside the Worker}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s Compensation Commission Order.}{\insrsid5393413  
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 BACKGROUND}{\b\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [2]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab On or about May 9, 1993, Appellant Cresencio C. Bondoc (hereinafter }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Bondoc}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 ) and his brother Roy Bondoc entered into an oral agreement with Gerber Enterprises (hereinafter }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Gerber}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 ) to construct a warehouse on property leased by Gerber.}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 While working at the warehouse construction site, Bondoc was electrocuted.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Shortly thereafter, Bondoc filed a notice of claim with the Worker}{
\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s Compensation Commission (hereinafter }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Commission}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 ) for compensation.}{\insrsid5393413  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [3]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab On October 4, 1994, a hearing officer conducted a hearing on Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s claim.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 The officer then filed a }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Proposed Decision Respecting Coverage}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  (hereinafter }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
) with the Commission on March 3, 1995.}{\cs15\super\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid9918077 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 Merely for ease of reference and reading, this Court shall substitute the term }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid9918077 Proposed Decision Respecting Coverage}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077  with the term }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 Decision I.}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077   Likewise, this Court s
hall substitute the term }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 Decision and Compensation Order with }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 Decision II.}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
  When referring to both Decision I and Decision II, we shall use the collective term, }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 Decisions.}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077   Our analysis of the instant case shall bear in mind the difference between the two }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 Decisions.}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
  Accordingly, the proper legal significance shall be accorded to each.}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I provided extensive findings of fact and a detailed analysis on the issue of whether Bondoc was entitle
d to compensation.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I then held that Bondoc was covered by the Worker}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s Compensation Act and consequently, entitled to compensation.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [4]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab However, on June 11, 1997, more than two years after receiving Decision I, the Commission issued its official Decision and Compensation Order (hereinafter }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 ) regarding the Bondoc matter.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II reversed Decision I and effectively denied Bondoc any compensation.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Bondoc then filed a petition for a Writ of Review with the Superior Court of Guam.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 The Superior Court denied this petition on November 21, 1997.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In response, Bondoc filed the instant appeal.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 ANALYSIS}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [5]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 7 GCA}{\insrsid5393413 
 sections 3107 and 3108 (1994).
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [6]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab We review the lower court}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s denial of a Writ of Review for an abuse of discretion.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid9918077 \chftn }{\insrsid9918077   }{
\fs20\insrsid9918077 As a preliminary matter, we note that Bondoc properly petitioned for a Writ of Review because subsequent to the Commission}{\fs20\insrsid12808916 '}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 s Decision II, he was left with }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  7 GCA }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077  31203 (1998).  We further recognize that pursuant to 5 GCA section 9241, a Writ of Mandate was the proper vehicle for relief.}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Haeuser v. Department of Law,}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  97 F.3d 1152, 1154 (1996);}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Apusento Garden (Guam) Inc. v. Superior Court of Guam, }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 94 F.3d 1346, 1351 (1996).}{\cs15\super\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid9918077 \chftn }{\insrsid9918077   }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 7 GCA section 31201 provides that the }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
writ of mandamus may be de\_nominated a writ of review.}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077   Thus, in this case a }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 Writ of Review}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
 shall be afforded the same analysis as a }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 Writ of Mandamus.}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Two inquiries shall largely determine whether there was an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
First, we shall first determine whether Decision II was supported by substantial evidence.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 See Holmes v. Territorial Land Use Commission}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 , 1998 Guam 8, }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  6; 5 GCA }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  9240 (1994).}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 For purposes of our analysis, substantial evidence is defined as "such releva
nt evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."}{\i\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Richardson v. Perales}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
, 402 U.S. 389, 401, 91 S.Ct. 1420, 1427 (1971) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [7]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab The second prong of our analysis requires us to determine whether Decision II was in accordance with law.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 5 GCA }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  9240 (1994).}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
As a question of law, we shall review this issue }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 de novo.}{\i\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Haeuser,}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  97 F.3d at 1154.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 We note that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 if 
the facts underlying the judgment are not in dispute, this court may arrive at its own legal conclusions.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Holmes v. Territorial Land Use Commission}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 , 1998 Guam 8, }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  6. }{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [8]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab In the event that we determine that the lower court}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s denial of the Writ of Review was an abuse of discretion, this matter shall be reversed and remanded to the lower court.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 On remand, the lower court shall then issue a Writ of Review that shall effective
ly reverse the Commission}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s Decision II and afford appropriate relief.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 See Johnson v. Civil Service Board of the City of Portland}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 , 161 Or. App. 489, 1999 WL 460769 at 5 (Or. App. 1999).}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Id.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 A.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s Employment Status.}{\b\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid5393413 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [9]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Turning now to merits of the case, we note that the lower court}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s decision to deny Bondoc}{
\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s petition for Writ of Review necessarily should have addressed two inquiries: 1)}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Was Decision II in accordance with law? and 2)}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Was Decision II supported by substantial evidence?}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 See}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  5 GCA }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  9240.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Under the }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 de novo }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
standard, we focus our analysis upon the Commission}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s determination in Decision II that Bondoc was not an employee and the resulting denial of compensation to him.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid9918077 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
  From the oral argument we note that the Commission}{\fs20\insrsid12808916 '}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
s counsel drafted Decision II.  He did not draft Decision I, nor was he the original hearing officer assigned to this matter.  Furthermore, he did not attend the initial hearing nor is there a record of his attendance at any hearing with the parties. }}}{
\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [10]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Decision II was divided into four parts: 1) Findings of Fact, 2) Conclusions of Law, 3) Conclusion, and 4) Order.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In its }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Conclusion}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  the Commission stated that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Bondoc did not [adduce] sufficient evidence that a employer-employee relationship existed to trigger the statutory presumption of coverage . . . .}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II at 30-31.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 The Commission then held that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Gerber has adduced }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 substantial evidence}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  that an independent contractor relationship existed to rebut the statutory presumption.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Id.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  at 31.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Finally, in the section entitled, }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Order}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  the Commission held that Bondoc was }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 not entitled to compensation under the Worker}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s Compensation Law.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Id.}{\i\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Due to the nature and scope of our review, each of the fo
ur sections shall be addressed in turn.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [11]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab In addressing the Commission}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s findings of fact, we are mindful of our duty to consider the record as a whole.}{\i\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 See Baxter v. Sullivan}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 , 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991).}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 We note that, in addition to the briefs by the respective parties, the record before the court includes the Commission}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decisions.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 We also recognize that the Decisions contain virtually identical }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Findings of Fact}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  sections.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 The record reveals that this section of the Decisions appears to have been drafted by the original hearing officer who personally had the opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses and their demeanor.}{\insrsid5393413  }
{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Consequently, we believe that substantial evidence exists to support the Findings of Fact sections as contained in both Decisions.}{\cs15\super\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid9918077 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid9918077   Neither party disputes the facts as set forth in the Findin
gs of Fact.  Thus, the undisputed nature of the facts supports a }{\i\fs20\insrsid9918077 de novo }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 review}{\i\fs20\insrsid9918077 .}{\fs20\insrsid9918077   }{\i\fs20\insrsid9918077 See Holmes v. Territorial Land Use Commission}{
\fs20\insrsid9918077 , 1998 Guam 8, }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077  6. }}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  }{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [12]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab We now turn to the Conclusions of Law section which contained a legal analysis of Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s employment status.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In Decision II, the Commission explicitly adopted the}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Relative Nature of the Work Test}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  to determ
ine whether Bondoc was an employee.}{\cs15\super\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid9918077 
\chftn }{\insrsid9918077  }{\fs20\insrsid9918077  Rather than comment on the Commission}{\fs20\insrsid12808916 '}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 s decision to apply the }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 Relative Nature of the Work Test,}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
 for purposes of this opinion, we choose instead to review not the decision to implement the test, but the manner in which this test was applied.}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II at 14}{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 .}
{\i\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Appropriately, the Findings of Fact provided the factual background against which the fo
llowing six factors were applied: 1) The degree of skill involved; 2) The degree to which there was a separate calling or business; 3) The extent to which Bondoc could be expected to carry his own accident burden; 4) The extent to which the claimant}{
\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s work was a regular part of the employer}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s regular work; 5) The extent to which the claimant}{
\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s work was continuous or intermittent; and 6) Whether the duration of the job was sufficient to amount to the hiring of continuing services as distinguished from contra
cting for the completion of the particular job. }{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [13]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab As to the first factor pertaining to the degree of skill involved in Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s work, Decision II stated that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 the degree of skill exercised by Bondoc does contribute to the employer
}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s showing that there was substantial evidence in favor of an independent contractor relationship.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II at 17-18.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 This outcome is consistent with the analysis and conclusion also s
et forth in Decision I.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Indeed, the two documents are identical in both form and substance relative to this specific factor.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Because of this consistency, and a lack of contrary evidence, we find that the Commission}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s Decision II determination on this particular matter was proper and in accordance with the law.
}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 We also find that there is substantial evidence to support the Commission}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s conclusion.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [14]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab The Commission next considered the degree to which Bondoc conducted his work as a separate calling or business.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
A comparison of Decision I and Decision II highlights the significant similarity of the two analyses.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Both Decisions relied on the same Findings of Fact.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In addition, the Decisions engaged in identical analysis.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I, however, determined that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Bondoc did not conduct his work as a separate calling or business within the meaning of the relative work test.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I at 32.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Because Decision II utilized the same test and applied the same facts within the same analytical framework as Decision I, Decision II}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s conclusion on this particular factor should follow Decision I.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 However, it does not. Decision II omitted 
the conclusion from the text that appeared in Decision I and failed to arrive at its own conclusion.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Indeed, the omission of this conclusion was the only significant difference in the text of the analysis in the respective Decisions. }{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [15]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab The portion contained in Decision I that was omitted in Decision II stated, }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [i]t appearing that Bondoc was neither an owner of Montana Construction, nor an employee of it, we find unmeritorious Gerber}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s argument that his relationship with Bondoc was through Montana Construction, the latter acting as a separate business and independent contractor.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I at 26.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Upon review of the facts shared in the Decisions relative to this pa
rticular matter, we find no evidence that Bondoc was an employee or owner of Montana Construction.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Both Decision I and II point out that Roy C. Bondoc was a sole proprietor doing business as Montana Construction.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 The record also demonstrates that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 for a period immediately before the accident occurred, Gerber paid all the workers hired directly by him with a single check payable to cash.}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Id.}{\i\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In turn, Bondoc would cas
h the check and distribute the proceeds to the workers.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Id.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 The record also reveals that Bondoc worked on the warehouse project for 12 weeks.}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 During this time, he }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
devoted himself exclusively to the warehouse project.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II}{\i\insrsid5393413 
 }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 at 25.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 We further note that Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s agreement with Gerber was couched in terms of personal services and that during this period, there was no evidence that Bondoc held himself out to the public as furnishing his services.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Id.}{
\i\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 These facts provide substantial evidence in favor of the determination that Bondoc did not act as a separate business or independent contractor.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [16]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab The next factor considered by the Commission also relates to the issue of whether Bondoc conducted his work as a separate calling or business.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Specifically, the Commission looked to whether the ownership of the equipment used by Bondoc was consistent with him working }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 as a separate calling or business.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Because Decision II}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s conclusion on this matter directly contradicts that of Decision I, a comparison of the two Decisions proves highly informative. }{
\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [17]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab In Decision I, the relevant part of the analysis provides:}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 As described below, however. [sic] we believe that Gerber}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s construction of the warehouse was pursuant to his real property development business, not a surplus business.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Hence, his ownership and furnishing of equipment was not incidental, and the rule that the employer furnishing equipment shows an employer-employee relationship is applicable.}{\insrsid5393413  
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Inasmuch as Gerber furnished the valuable equipment in this case, we 
find that application of this rule would indicate that Bondoc was not conducting his work as a separate calling or business.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Therefore, except for the degree of skill exercised by Bondoc, the evidence relative to whether Bondoc was engaged in a separate ca
lling or business would contribute toward Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s making an initial showing that there was an employer-employee relationship.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I at 33-34.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [18]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Decision II omits the text set forth above.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Following this omission, Decision II concludes that Bond
oc was engaged in a separate calling or business.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Aside from this omission and the contradictory holding, the analysis in the Decisions is identical in every respect.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In other words, no new facts are considered in Decision II, and no new analysis is employed.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Decision II merely omitted the objective finding that was inconsistent with the notion of a }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
separate calling or business}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  and then proceeded to conclude otherwise, based on this omission.}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In view of the fact that the Commission considered no new facts, did not apply an alternative analysis or provide different reasoning, Decision II}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s conclusion is not supported by substantial evidence.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [19]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab The next factor concerns the extent to which Bondoc could be expected to carry his own accident burden.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Both Decisions I and II concluded that Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s salary of only $100.00 per day indicated that he was }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 dependent on Gerber to cover those risks attendant to performing the kind of work Bondoc performed for Gerber.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I at 35; Decision II at 27.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Because the analysis in each Decision was logical as well as identical to the other, we believe that substantial evidence exists to support this determination.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [20]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab The Commission next considered the extent to which Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s regular work was a part of Gerber}{
\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s regular work. An examination of the record reveals that Gerber regularly developed property during the period of time at issue.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
As for Bondoc, Decision I held that while the evidence also demonstrated that Bondoc worked for people other than Gerber in the past, it did not indicate that Bondoc }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 held himself out generally to perform this kind of work.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 The entire text devoted to this issue in Decision I reappears in Decision II but Decision II adds the particularly important words, }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 not in our view}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  to the concluding sentence.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 To illustrate, Decision I states: }{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Therefore, the evidence relative to the extent to which Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s work was a regular part of Gerber}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s regular work would contribute to Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s making an initial showing that there was an employer-employee relationship. }{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I at 36.}{\insrsid5393413  
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In contrast, Decision II states: }{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Therefore, the evidence relative to the extent to which Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s work 
was a regular part of Gerber}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s regular work would }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 not, in our view,}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  contribute to Bondoc}{
\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s making an initial showing that there was an employer-employee relationship.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II at 29 (emphasis added).}{\insrsid5393413  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [21]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Once again, the text and analysis of this factor in Decision I and Decision II are virtually identical.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
The only difference occurs in that concluding sentence.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 No new facts were added to the consideration.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 No new law was applied.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Precisely what }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 point of view}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  compelled the Commission to change its conclusion, without justification, remains a mystery.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Thus, Decision II}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s conclusion relative to this factor is not supported by substantial evidence, the Commission}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 view}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  notwithstanding.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [22]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab The Commission next considered whether Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s work was continuous or intermittent.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II held that Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s intermittent work indicated that an employee-employer relationship did not exist.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II based this conclusion on the fact that Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s attendance at the warehouse was irregular and less than full time.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In addition, during the twelve weeks preceding his injury, Bondoc worked }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 five days in two weeks, four days in four weeks, three-and-a-half days in two weeks, and three days in four weeks.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II at 29.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Although this appears to indicate that Bondoc did work intermittently, Decision I found otherwise.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Once again, the two Decisions contained the exact same Findings of Fact.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
However, Decision II noticeably omits certain portions of the analysis without substituting its own. }{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [23]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab In Decision I}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s analysis, the same record of Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s attendance or lack thereof is noted, to wit, }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
five days in two weeks, four days in four weeks, three-and-a-half days in two weeks, and three days in four weeks.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I at 37.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Following this, however, Decision I goes on to state:}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 However, the testimony suggested that Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s attendance was determined by the availability of materials for the job and other similar exigencies related to the warehouse job, not because he was occupied elsewhere.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
We conclude, therefore, that Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s central role in Gerber}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s business was reflected in his irregular attendance.}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Therefore, the evidence relative to whether Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s work was continuous or intermittent would contribute to his making an initial showing that there was an employer-employee relationship.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Id.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [24]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Unl
ike Decision I, Decision II makes no attempt to justify its conclusions and there is no evidence that the construction of the warehouse required more regular attendance than that already exercised by Bondoc.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In light of the foregoing explanation of the irregularity of Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s attendance contained in Decision I, the contrary finding in Decision II is not supported by substantial evidence.}{\insrsid5393413  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [25]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Lastly, the Commission considered whether the duration of the job was sufficient to amount to the }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 hiring of continuing services}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  as distinguished from }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
contracting for the completion of the particular job.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I found that }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
no conclusions may be drawn from the duration of the warehouse project which would help either party meet its burden of production.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I at 38.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 By comparison, Decision II does nothing other than change the conclusion of the text originally contained in Decision I.}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II then concluded that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Bondoc}{
\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s services were not so continuous as to give rise to an inference of an employer-employee relationship.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II at 30. Again, Decision I analyzed the same facts and applied the same law.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Indeed, the text of both Decisions was once again identical but for the conclusion. }{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [26]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab In view of the record before the Court and because the property development business is, by its nature, sporadic,}{\cs15\super\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid9918077 \chftn }{\insrsid9918077   }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
With all due respect, while the Commission used the term }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 spasmodic}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077  to describe the nature of the property development business, we prefer to use the term }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 sporadic.}{\fs20\insrsid9918077 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid9918077  }}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
 we find that there is substantial evidence in favor of the determination set forth}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 in Decision I.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [N]o conclusion may be drawn from the duration of the warehouse project which would help either party meet its burden of production.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I at 38.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Accordingly, we find that Decision II}{
\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s conclusion on this matter was not supported by substantial evidence.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [27]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab In light of the foregoing analysi
s of the six factors, we find that there is substantial evidence of the existence of an employee-employer relationship between Bondoc and Gerber.}{\insrsid5393413  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [28]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab In addition, Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s employment status may be readily assessed by looking to relevant Gu
am statutes and applying routine statutory interpretation.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 As a matter of statutory interpretation, we note that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 judicial deference is not necessarily warranted where courts have experience in the area and are fully competent to decide the issue.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Monex Int}{\i\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 l Ltd. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm}{
\i\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 n}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 , 83 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 1996) (citation omitted).}{\insrsid5393413  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [29]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Title 22 section 9103 (1995) of the Guam Code Annotated sets forth the statutory definition of an employee.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
In its entirety, it provides:}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 (i) }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Employee}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 .}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
This term, as used herein, is synonymous with }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 worker}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 , and means any person who has entered into the employment of or works under contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer.}
{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 It includes aquacultural and agricultural workers but excludes a person whose employment is purely casual and not, for the purpose of the employer's trade or business.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 As used herein the term }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 employee}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  includes any person who has
 worked forty (40) hours per week during the previous sixty (60) days, exclusive of holidays, for the same employer.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 22 GCA }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  9103 (i) (1998) (emphasis in original).}{\insrsid5393413 

\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [30]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Under this same section, the statutory definition of an employer also provides as follows:}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 (j) }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Employer}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
. This term, unless otherwise stated, includes any body of persons, corporate or unincorporated, public or private, and the legal representative of a deceased employer.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
It includes the owner or lessee of premises, or other person who is in fact the proprietor, or operator of the business carried on there but who by reason of there being an independent contractor, or for any other reason, is not the direct employer 
of the workmen there employed. If the employer is insured it includes his insurer as far as applicable.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 22 GCA }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  9103 (j) (1998) (emphasis in original).}{\insrsid5393413 

\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [31]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab The record before the court indicates that, initially, Bascom Enterprises entered into an agreement with Gerber to construct the warehouse.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Subsequently, on or about May 9, 1993, Gerber orally agreed with Bondoc and his brother Roy to construct a warehouse.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
This oral agreement was referenced in a letter sent to Gerber by Eddie C. Suarez, the president and general manager of Bascom Corporation.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In relevant part, the letter indicated that }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 the Bondoc brothers (Ro
y and Boy) of Montana Construction Company will assume responsibility of this project and structural integrity of this building.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II at 6.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In addition, the Commission found that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Bondoc and his brother, Roy, and the other workers}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 hired directly by Gerber, were paid directly by Gerber.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision II at 9.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [32]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Guam law provides that an employee is one who, }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 works under contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid5393413  }{
\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 See }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 22 GCA }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  9103 (i).}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 As indicated in the Findings of Fact Bondoc and Gerber had an oral agreement, Bondoc worked at the construction site, and Gerber paid Bondoc for services rendered.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In addition, Bondoc was working pursuant to this oral agreement at the time he was injured.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Collectively, these fa
cts provide substantial evidence that Bondoc and Gerber entered into a contract of service.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Therefore, under such a contract, Bondoc was an employee of Gerber at the time he was injured at the construction site.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [33]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Nothing in Decision II directly contradicts our finding that Bondoc was a }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 employee under contract.}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Indeed, it appears that the Commission merely decided Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s employment status on grounds that noticea
bly excluded reference to the statutory definition of an employee set forth in section 9103 (i) as well as Guam case law highly informative of the issue.}{\insrsid5393413  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [34]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Frieze v. Sandcastle, Inc, }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 CV0139-94 (Sup. Ct. Guam Aug. 1, 1994) provides an example of such case law.}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Frieze,}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
 the plaintiff suffered an injury as a result of slipping on water that had collected on the stage on which she was performing.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Claiming that she was an independent contractor, the plaintiff}{
\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 argued that she was entitled to compensation beyond that which the Guam}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s Worker}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s Compensation Act (hereinafter }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 the Act}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 ) provided.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Id. }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
at 3.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 The Superior Court disagreed.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Citing Guam Government Code section 37002 (i), the court explicitly found that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 any person who has entered into the employment of or works under contract of service . . . with an employer}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  was a statutory employee whose relief was limited to only what the Act provided.}{
\cs15\super\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid9918077 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid9918077 
 22 GCA Section 9106 presently codifies the provision relative to the exclusiveness of liability set forth previously in Guam Govt. Code section 37005 (1970).
\par }}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 The court also stated that }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
[t]he law is crystalline that under these sections, [plaintiff] is an employee for the purpose of worker}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s compensation and may not seek relief elsewhere ....}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid5393413  }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Id. }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 at 4.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 As demonstrated in the discussion above, Bondoc also worked under a contract of service.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Thus, in accordance with }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Frieze,}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  Bondoc was an employee.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 B.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s Compensation.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [35]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Title 22 of the Guam Code Annotated Section 9105 provides for Liability Compensation.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 In its entirety it states:}{
\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 (a) Every employer shall be liable for and shall secure payment to his employees of the compensation payable under }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
 9108, 9109, and 9110.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
In the case of an employer who is a subcontractor, the contractor shall be liable for and shall secure payment of such compensation to employees of the subcontractor unless the subcontractor has secured such payment.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 (b) Compensation shall be payable irrespective of fault as to the cause of the injury. }{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 22 GCA }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  9105 (a) (1998).}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [36]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab As set forth above, Bondoc and Gerber were engaged in a employer-employee relationship at the time of Bondoc}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s injury.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Consequently, pursuant to section 9105, Bondoc is entitled to compensation.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 CONCLUSION}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [37]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Upon considering the record as a whole, we hold that the Commission}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s Findings of Fact are supported by substantial evidence.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Decision I contained an analysis of the issue and ultimately concluded that Bondoc was an employee}{
\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 .}{\i\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 However, Decision II arrived at the opposite conclusion only after omitting objective points of analysis that were consistent with Bondoc}{
\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s status as an employee.}{\insrsid5393413  
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [38]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab Decision II neither considered new facts, nor applied new law.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Moreover, it did not employ an alternative means of analysis.
}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Consequently, Decision II}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s conclusion that Bondoc was not an employee was neither supported by substantial e
vidence, nor in accordance with law.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Furthermore, by law, the lower court}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s denial of the petition for a Writ of Review must have been supported by substantial evidence.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 However, the lack of substantial evidence in Decision II necessarily deprived the lo
wer court of proper support for the denial of the petition.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Although Decision II}{\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
s lack of substantial evidence, by itself, indicates that the lower court erred in denying the Writ of Review, our finding that there was substantial evidence in favor of an employee-employer relationship further justifies the lower court}{
\insrsid12808916\charrsid5393413 '}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 s reversal.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [39]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab As a statutory matter, we note that under Guam law, Bondoc was an employee pursuant to 22 GCA section 9103 (i).}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Accordingly, he was entitled to compensation pursuant to 22 GCA section 9105.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [40]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab This case is hereby }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 REVERSED}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  and }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 REMANDED}{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  in order for the lower court to issue a Writ of Review effectively reversing Decision II and for proceedings consistent with our holding.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 JOHN A. MANGLONA\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 BENJAMIN J.}{\insrsid5393413  }{
\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 F.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 CRUZ}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Designated Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Chief Justice}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid5393413 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 RICHARD H. BENSON, Concurring:}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [41]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab 
I concur with the court in its reversal of the lower court's denial of the Writ of Review, and its remand for further proceedings. I also agree with the court's analysis of Decisions I and II and its conclusion that an employee-employer relationshi
p existed.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [42]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab I do not concur with the alternative ground of the court in paragraphs 28 through 33 which introduces the "employee under contract" concept. This is }{
\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 dicta}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 . All proceedings have centered on whether an employee-employer relation or an independent contractor existed.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 [43]}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 \tab I do not join the court in its discussion in paragraph 34 and the authority it cites. I am not persuaded that the holding in }{\i\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 
Frieze v. Sandcastle}{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413  is correct.}{\insrsid5393413 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 RICHARD H.}{\insrsid5393413  }{\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 BENSON
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5393413 {\insrsid9918077\charrsid5393413 Designated Justice}{\insrsid5393413 
\par }}