{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}{\f1\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604020202020204}Arial;}
{\f2\fmodern\fcharset0\fprq1{\*\panose 02070309020205020404}Courier New;}{\f35\fswiss\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 020b0604030504040204}Tahoma;}{\f36\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f37\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f39\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f40\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f41\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f42\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f43\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f44\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}{\f46\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f47\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f49\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}
{\f50\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;}{\f51\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);}{\f52\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f53\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f54\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);}
{\f56\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;}{\f57\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;}{\f59\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f60\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}{\f61\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);}
{\f62\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);}{\f63\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f64\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);}{\f386\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Tahoma CE;}{\f387\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Tahoma Cyr;}
{\f389\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Tahoma Greek;}{\f390\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Tahoma Tur;}{\f391\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Tahoma (Hebrew);}{\f392\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Tahoma (Arabic);}{\f393\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Tahoma Baltic;}
{\f394\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Tahoma (Vietnamese);}{\f395\fswiss\fcharset222\fprq2 Tahoma (Thai);}}{\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\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\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\tblind0\tblindtype3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\s15\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar
\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext15 \styrsid3542756 header;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Level 1;}{
\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 Level 2;}{
\s18\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext18 Level 3;}{
\s19\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext19 Level 4;}{
\s20\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext20 Level 5;}{
\s21\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext21 Level 6;}{
\s22\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext22 Level 7;}{
\s23\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext23 Level 8;}{
\s24\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext24 Level 9;}{\s25\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext25 _17;}{
\s26\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext26 _16;}{\s27\ql \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext27 _15;}{\s28\ql \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext28 _14;}{\s29\ql \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext29 _13;}{\s30\ql \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext30 _12;}{
\s31\ql \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext31 _11;}{\s32\ql \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext32 _10;}{
\s33\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs32\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext33 WP_Heading 1;}{\s34\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext34 _level1;}{
\s35\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext35 _level2;}{\s36\ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext36 _level3;}{\s37\ql \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext37 _level4;}{\s38\ql \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext38 _level5;}{\s39\ql \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext39 _level6;}{\s40\ql \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext40 _level7;}{\s41\ql \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext41 _level8;}{\s42\ql \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext42 _level9;}{\s43\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext43 _levsl1;}{\*\cs44 \additive 
\super \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{\s45\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext45 _levsl2;}{\s46\ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext46 _levsl3;}{
\s47\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext47 \ssemihidden footnote text;}{\s48\ql \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext48 _levsl4;}{\s49\ql \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext49 _levsl5;}{\s50\ql \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext50 _levsl6;}{\s51\ql \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext51 _levsl7;}{\s52\ql \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext52 _levsl8;}{\s53\ql \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext53 _levsl9;}{\s54\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext54 _levnl1;}{
\s55\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext55 _levnl2;}{\s56\ql \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext56 _levnl3;}{\s57\ql \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext57 _levnl4;}{\s58\ql \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext58 _levnl5;}{\s59\ql \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext59 _levnl6;}{\s60\ql \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext60 _levnl7;}{\s61\ql \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext61 _levnl8;}{\s62\ql \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext62 _levnl9;}{\s63\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext63 
WP_Normal;}{\s64\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext64 Definition T;}{\s65\ql \li360\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx360\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin360\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext65 Definition L;}{\*\cs66 
\additive \i \sbasedon10 Definition;}{\s67\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs48\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext67 H1;}{
\s68\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs36\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext68 H2;}{
\s69\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext69 H3;}{
\s70\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext70 H4;}{
\s71\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext71 H5;}{
\s72\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext72 H6;}{
\s73\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \i\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext73 Address;}{\s74\ql \li360\ri360\nowidctlpar
\tx360\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin360\lin360\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext74 Blockquote;}{\*\cs75 
\additive \i \sbasedon10 CITE;}{\*\cs76 \additive \f2\fs20 \sbasedon10 CODE;}{\*\cs77 \additive \i \sbasedon10 WP_Emphasis;}{\*\cs78 \additive \ul\cf2 \sbasedon10 WP_Hyperlink;}{\*\cs79 \additive \ul\cf12 \sbasedon10 FollowedHype;}{\*\cs80 \additive 
\b\f2\fs20 \sbasedon10 Keyboard;}{\s81\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx959\tx1918\tx2876\tx3835\tx4794\tx5754\tx6713\tx7672\tx8630\tx9356\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f2\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext81 Preformatted;}{\s82\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrt\brdrdb\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f1\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext82 zBottom of;}{\s83\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrb\brdrdb\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\f1\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext83 zTop of For;}{\*\cs84 \additive \f2 \sbasedon10 Sample;}{\*\cs85 \additive \b \sbasedon10 WP_Strong;}{\*\cs86 \additive \f2\fs20 \sbasedon10 Typewriter;}{\*\cs87 \additive \i 
\sbasedon10 Variable;}{\*\cs88 \additive \v\cf6 \sbasedon10 HTML Markup;}{\*\cs89 \additive \v \sbasedon10 Comment;}{\*\cs90 \additive \sbasedon10 Footnote Ref;}{\s91\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext91 _26;}{\s92\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext92 _25;}{
\s93\ql \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext93 _24;}{
\s94\ql \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext94 _23;}{
\s95\ql \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext95 _22;}{
\s96\ql \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext96 _21;}{
\s97\ql \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext97 _20;}{\s98\ql \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext98 _19;}{\s99\ql \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext99 _18;}{\s100\ql \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext100 _9;}{\s101\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext101 _8;}{
\s102\ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext102 _7;}{\s103\ql \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext103 _6;}{\s104\ql \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext104 _5;}{\s105\ql \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 
\sbasedon0 \snext105 _4;}{\s106\ql \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext106 _3;}
{\s107\ql \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext107 _2;}{
\s108\ql \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext108 _1;}{\s109\ql \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar
\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext109 _;}{\*\cs110 \additive \sbasedon10 Default Para;}{\s111\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar
\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext111 \styrsid3542756 footer;}{\*\cs112 \additive \sbasedon10 \styrsid5915644 page number;}{
\s113\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f35\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext113 \ssemihidden \styrsid13860749 Balloon Text;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid67761\rsid73768
\rsid213261\rsid535055\rsid746897\rsid855674\rsid1114819\rsid1186451\rsid1212229\rsid1533501\rsid1580376\rsid1655772\rsid2165128\rsid2229368\rsid2257172\rsid2369959\rsid2454182\rsid2641827\rsid3031148\rsid3220429\rsid3305869\rsid3542756\rsid4094027
\rsid4209173\rsid4338672\rsid4404645\rsid4459823\rsid4534181\rsid4863741\rsid4867245\rsid4881709\rsid4935511\rsid4990668\rsid5192455\rsid5446543\rsid5507719\rsid5915644\rsid6037805\rsid6118349\rsid6377798\rsid6576235\rsid6686861\rsid6716734\rsid6822701
\rsid6827397\rsid7831411\rsid7930685\rsid8018537\rsid8075349\rsid8092815\rsid8193347\rsid8397556\rsid8407563\rsid8547230\rsid8605310\rsid8609912\rsid8661096\rsid8790487\rsid8792889\rsid8811304\rsid9191012\rsid9468640\rsid9772400\rsid9835451\rsid9843136
\rsid10446206\rsid10697227\rsid10837789\rsid11106194\rsid11163642\rsid11340494\rsid11345119\rsid11601670\rsid11689389\rsid11760620\rsid12001820\rsid12012466\rsid12263296\rsid12274696\rsid12280829\rsid12398171\rsid12410912\rsid12525677\rsid12590082
\rsid12743003\rsid12788009\rsid13319984\rsid13507736\rsid13575840\rsid13860749\rsid13904912\rsid14374821\rsid14383279\rsid14487794\rsid14500767\rsid14811564\rsid14814886\rsid14972403\rsid15010626\rsid15466521\rsid15489120\rsid15757630\rsid15796287
\rsid16121892\rsid16131981\rsid16392283\rsid16650651}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6829;}{\info{\title 2007 Guam 6}{\subject Carlson v. Perez, CVA05-012/CVA05-013}{\author  Supreme Court of Guam}{\operator Talevakarua Laniana}
{\creatim\yr2007\mo8\dy29\hr8\min16}{\revtim\yr2007\mo8\dy30\hr9\min7}{\printim\yr2007\mo8\dy28\hr16\min37}{\version11}{\edmins84}{\nofpages26}{\nofwords10346}{\nofchars58975}{\*\company Judiciary of Guam}{\nofcharsws69183}
{\vern16393}{\*\password 00000000}}{\*\xmlnstbl }\paperw12240\paperh15840\margl1440\margr1440\margt1440\margb1440\gutter0 
\widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphhotz0\grfdocevents0\notabind\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace0\dgvspace0\dghorigin0\dgvorigin0\dghshow0\dgvshow0\jexpand\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot14811564 
\donotshowmarkup1\fet0{\*\wgrffmtfilter 013f}{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4459823 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4459823 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4459823 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4459823 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \psz1\sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery432\endnhere\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid9835451\sftnbj {\headerl \pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\sl240\slmult0\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\pvpg\posy1151\absh-232\absw9360\nowrap\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\fs20\cf1\insrsid4459823 
Page \chpgn  of}{\fs20\cf1\insrsid6576235   }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\cf1\insrsid4459823  NUMPAGES \\* arabic \\* MERGEFORMAT }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\cf1\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid11106194 25}}}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {
\v\insrsid4459823 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid4459823 
\par }}{\headerr \pard\plain \qr \li0\ri0\sl240\slmult0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\pvpg\posy1151\absh-232\absw9360\nowrap\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\v\insrsid4459823 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqr\tx9360\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4863741 {\i\fs20\insrsid4459823 Carlson v. Perez}{\fs20\insrsid4459823 , Opinion\tab Page}{\fs20\insrsid4459823\charrsid4863741  }
{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs112\fs20\insrsid4459823\charrsid4863741  PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\cs112\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid12525677 26}}}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\cs112\fs20\insrsid4459823\charrsid4863741  of }
{\field{\*\fldinst {\cs112\fs20\insrsid4459823\charrsid4863741  NUMPAGES }}{\fldrslt {\cs112\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid14383279 25}}}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\cs112\fs20\insrsid4459823 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\brdrb\brdrs\brdrw10\brsp20\brdrcf1 \tqr\tx9360\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4863741 {\fs20\insrsid4459823\charrsid4863741 \tab }{\fs20\insrsid4459823 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\tqr\tx9360\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4863741 {\fs20\insrsid4459823 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid4863741 
\par }}{\footerl \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl240\slmult0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4459823 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid4459823 
\par }}{\footerr \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4459823 \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl240\slmult0\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid4459823 
\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\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12012466 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13575840\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 LESTER L. CARLSON, JR., and DAVID H. SASAI,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par Petitioners-Appellants,
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 vs.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 GERALD S.A
. PEREZ, Administrator, Guam Economic Development and Commerce Authority, TOM MICHELS, FONG WU, LAURA LYNN DACANAY, DONNA KLOPPENBURG, and JOSEPH CRISOSTOMO, in their capacities as members of the Board of Directors of the Guam Economic Development and Com
merce Authority, and the GUAM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCE AUTHORITY,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par Respondents-Appellees.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13575840\charrsid12012466 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Supreme Court Consolidated Case Nos.:}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 CVA05-012 and CVA05-013
\par Superior Court Case No.: SP0005-04
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13575840\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 OPINION}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13904912 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13904912\charrsid12012466 Filed:}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13904912\charrsid12012466 August 28, 2007
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13575840\charrsid12012466 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\widctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12525677 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Cite as:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 2007 Guam }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13904912\charrsid12012466 6}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13575840\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on July 25, 2006
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13575840\charrsid12012466 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph113\trleft-113\trftsWidth1\trpaddl113\trpaddr113\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblind0\tblindtype3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clpadt113\clpadr113\clpadft3\clpadfr3\clshdrawnil \cellx4567\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clpadt127\clpadr113\clpadft3\clpadfr3\clshdrawnil \cellx9247\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\pararsid12012466 {
\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Appearing for Petitioner-Appellant }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15489120\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Lester L. Carlson Jr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 :
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8605310\charrsid12012466 Leslie T. Travis, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8605310\charrsid12012466 Esq.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Michael Phillips, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Esq}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .
\par Phillips & Bordallo, P.C.
\par 410 W. O\rquote Brien Dr., Ste. 102
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15489120\charrsid12012466 Hag\'e5t\'f1a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , Guam 96910
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13575840\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Appearing for Petitioner-Appellant }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15489120\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 David. H. Sasai:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par F. Randall Cunliffe, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Esq}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .
\par Cunliffe & Cook, P.C.
\par 210 Archbishop Flores St.
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15489120\charrsid12012466 Hag\'e5t\'f1a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , Guam 96910\cell }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Appearing for the Respondents-Appellees}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 :
\par Arthur B. Clark, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Esq}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .
\par Janalynn C. Damian, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Esq}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .
\par Calvo & Clark, LLP
\par 655 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 202
\par Tamuning, Guam 96913
\par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph113\trleft-113\trftsWidth1\trpaddl113\trpaddr113\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblind0\tblindtype3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clpadt113\clpadr113\clpadft3\clpadfr3\clshdrawnil \cellx4567\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clpadt127\clpadr113\clpadft3\clpadfr3\clshdrawnil \cellx9247\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12012466 {
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par BEFORE:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Presiding Justice}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn 
{\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid11760620 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Associate Justice Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood, as the senior member of the panel, was designa
ted Presiding Justice and heard oral argument in this case.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
Prior to the issuance of this Opinion, she was sworn in as Chief Judge of the District Court of Guam. John A. Manglona, Associate Justice of the CNMI Supreme Court, sits as Justice }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Pro Tempore}{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 .}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ; ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice; JOHN MANGLONA,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Justice }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Pro Tempore}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15489120\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 TORRES, J}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .:
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4881709 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11760620\charrsid12012466 [1]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab 
Lester L. Carlson, Jr.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16650651\charrsid12012466  (\'93Carlson\'94)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  and David H. Sasai}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16650651\charrsid12012466  (\'93Sasai\'94)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  each appeal from the Superior Court\rquote 
s denial of the First Amended Petition for Alternate and Peremptory Writs of Mandate (\'93the Petition\'94).}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12788009 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 The appeal filed by Carlson, Supreme Court Case No. CVA 2005-012, and the appeal filed by Sasai, Supreme Court Case No. CVA 2005-013, were consolidated
 by order of this court in accordance with Guam Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b).}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 The parties had also earlier stipulated to allow Sasai \'93to join [the Superior Court] proceedings as co-petitioner.
\'94}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Appellant\rquote s Excerpts of Record (\'93ER\'94), tab 6 (Stip. and Order).}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Sasai\rquote 
s joinder filed with the Superior Court appears to be a separate petition containing Sasai\rquote s claims and a separate prayer of relief.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 For ease of reference, the term \'93Petition\'94
 collectively includes the First Amended Petition for Alternative and Peremptory Writs of Mandate filed by Carlson and the joinder filed by Sasai.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The Petition sought to compel the Guam Economic Development and Commerce Authority (\'93GEDCA\'94)}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 {\*\bkmkstart OLE_LINK1}{\*\bkmkstart OLE_LINK2}{\*\bkmkend OLE_LINK1}{\*\bkmkend OLE_LINK2}\chftn }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
 In March 2002, the Guam Economic Development Authority (\'93GEDA\'94) was reorganized as the \'93Guam Economic Development and Commerce Authority\'94 (\'93GEDCA\'94).}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
Guam Pub. L. 26-76:34 (March 12, 2002). }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  to void and dismiss adverse actions which terminated Carlson\rquote s and Sasai\rquote s employment with GEDCA.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In denying th
e Petition, the Superior Court held that Carlson and Sasai, who filed separate appeals of their termination with the Guam Civil Service Commission (\'93CSC\'94
), had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law because they appealed to the CSC and could have sought judicial review of the CSC\rquote s decisions to dismiss their claims.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The Superior Court held since Sasai and Carlson \'93
did not avail themselves of the remedy of appealing the CSC decision as a matter of law for judicial review . . . mandamus is not the appropriate relief. . . .\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12788009\charrsid12012466 Appellant\rquote s Excerpts of Record (\'93}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ER}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12788009\charrsid12012466 \'94)}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , tab 28, p. 12 (Decision and Order, June 2, 2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 We affirm.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par I.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12525677 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16650651\charrsid12012466 [2]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Carlson was hired by the Guam Economic Development Authority (\'93GEDA\'94) in August 1991 as a \'93
Special Assistant to the Administrator.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In June 1994, his title was changed to \'93Special Projects Coordinator.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 He was later promoted to \'93Financial Services Manager,\'94 and a few years thereafter, his title was changed to \'93
Special Assistant to the Administrator.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Subsequently, he was promoted to the position of \'93Business Development Manager.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 On December 15, 2003, Carlson was appointed \'93Acting Administrator\'94
 during the scheduled period of absence of then-administrator Gerald S.A. Perez.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16650651\charrsid12012466 [3]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Sasai was hired by GEDA in 1996 as \'93Economic and Public Finance Manager.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Less than one year later, he was made \'93Chief Financial Officer\'94 of GEDA.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In 2003, Sasai was transferred from GEDCA to the Department of Administration where he was the Chief Financial Officer. 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid16650651\charrsid12012466 [4]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab 
On December 19, 2003, Carlson and Sasai each received a confidential memorandum from John Dela Rosa, representing himself as the Acting GEDCA Administrator, notifying them that their employment with GEDCA was terminated effective immediately.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The memorand
um stated that Carlson and Sasai had abused the privilege and trust bestowed on a public employee authorized to use a credit card in violation of the Department of Administration\rquote s Rules and Regulations Rule 11.303(b).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 On December 26, 2003, the recently-re
turned GEDCA Administrator Perez sent a separate letter to Sasai and Carlson confirming their termination but making the termination effective as of the date of the letter from Perez. 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [5]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab On December 30, 2003, Sasai filed a petition with the CSC appealing his termination from GEDCA.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 One week later, Carlson filed a petition with the CSC likewise appealing his termination.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 A little over a week after that, but before the CSC heard the petitions, Carlson filed in the Superior Court of Guam, a Petition for Alt
ernative and Peremptory Writs of Mandate, seeking to compel the admission of Carlson to the use and enjoyment of a right and office to which he was entitled and from which he was unlawfully precluded.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson alleged in the writ petition that GEDCA acted in violation of its own personnel rules and regulations, a copy of which had been provided to Carlson by GEDCA\rquote 
s Administrative Services Officer, Loretta Villaverde.}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279  This court\rquote s examination of the rules that Loretta Villaverde gave to Carlson reveals tha
t they were not rules specific to GEDCA, but rather were the then-current Department of Administration\rquote s Personnel Rules and Regulations governing terminations and adverse actions.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
In his initial Petition for Writ of Mandamus, Carlson alleges, \'93On or about January 2, 2004, [Carlson] was informally provided with [GEDCA\rquote s] personnel rules and regulations (hereinafter the \'93Personnel Rules\'94).}{\insrsid14383279  }{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Loretta Villaverde, [GEDCA\rquote s] Administrative Services Officer, informally confirmed to [Carlson] that the personnel rule
s provided to [Carlson] were the rules that are applicable to [GEDCA]. . . . The relevant provisions of the personnel rules and regulations provided to Petitioner substantively mirror the provisions of the Department of Administration\rquote 
s personnel rules and regulations.\'94}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 ER, tab 1, pp. 4-5 \'b6}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 11.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
In fact, the regulations quoted in Carlson\rquote s Petition for Writ are directly from Chapter 11 of the \'93Department of Administration\rquote s Personnel Rules & Regulations,\'94 adopted by the Director of Administration and 
approved by the CSC, effective October 1, 1996.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 See }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Exec. Order No. 96-24 (promulgating the \'93Department of Administration Rules and Regulations.\'94).}{
\insrsid6576235   }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 There is no dispute in this appeal that GEDCA had not adopted its own personnel rules at the time GEDCA sought to terminate Carlson and Sasai.}{\insrsid14383279  }}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Carlson maintained that he was a classified employee entitled to the protections of the merit system set forth in Chapter 4, Title 4 of the Guam Code Annotated and GEDCA failed to comply with the procedural and substan
tive protections set forth in the statute.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The Superior Court granted the Alternative Writ, requiring GEDCA to show cause to the court why Carlson\rquote s writ should not be granted.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [6]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab GEDCA almost immediately filed a motion to dismiss, arguing Carlson faile
d to exhaust his administrative remedies and had a plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
GEDCA asserted that Carlson should first pursue the appeal of his dismissal with the CSC before seeking judicial review, since he alleged he was a classified employee.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Carlson opposed the motion on the basis that GEDCA was mandated to adopt personnel rules governing the selection, promotion, evaluation, suspension and other disciplinary action of its classified employees subject to the criteria established by 4 GCA \'a7
 4105, but failed to do so.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson argued that GEDCA\rquote 
s failure to adopt personnel rules, which was only communicated to Carlson after the filing of the original writ petition,}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279  In the Petition for Writ filed in the Superior Court, Carlson alleged he had been given the applicable GEDCA promulgated rules.}{\insrsid14383279  }{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 ER, tab 1, \'b6 11; }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 see also}{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279  n. 4 }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 supra}{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 .}{\insrsid14383279  }{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 However, in defending the Motion to Dismiss, Carlson changed the characterization of the rules that had been given to him by Villaverde: \'93During the ex parte hearing,
 . . . counsel for Respondents hinted that the Authority may not have adopted such personnel rules and regulations . . . .}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
Respondents subsequently informed Petitioner that no personnel rules and regulations were adopted by the Authority.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Decl. \'b6 8.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Howeve
r, as provided above, GEDCA \lquote borrowed\rquote  a few from the Department of Administration.\'94}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 ER, tab 4, p. 4. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 left him with no administrative remedy.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson further argued that GEDCA had violated the 60-day rule set forth in 4 GCA \'a7 4406}{
\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid6576235   }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Title 4 GCA \'a7 4406 (2005) states in relevant part that: 
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li720\ri720\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid9191012 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
In no event may an employee in the classified service be given notice and statement of the charges required by this Section after the sixtieth (60th) day after management knew or should have known the facts or events wh
ich form the alleged basis for such action. Any action brought by management in violation of this Section is barred and any decision based upon such action is void.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 and therefore, his dismissal was illegal and void. 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [7]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab At the initial writ hearing before Superior Court Judge Manibusan, Carlson\rquote 
s counsel acknowledged that Carlson was pursuing a simultaneous appeal of his termination before the CSC.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Transcript (\'93Tr.\'94)}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid855674\charrsid12012466 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  Vol. 1, p. 8 (Hr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4404645\charrsid12012466 \rquote }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 g on Ex Parte Application, Jan. 19, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Carlson justified his simultaneous filing of the writ petition with the logic that since the termination was void and Carlson had not been legally terminated, he was not bound to appeal the termination with the CSC.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 His CSC appeal was filed only to preserv
e his rights in the event the Superior Court agreed with GEDCA that he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; the double tracks were \'93alternative relief,\'94 according to counsel.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Tr.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid855674\charrsid12012466 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  Vol. I}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid855674\charrsid12012466 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  p. 21 (Hr}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid855674\charrsid12012466 \rquote }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 g on Ex Parte Application, Jan. 19, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 GEDCA
 argued that the double tracks should not occur.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Rather, Carlson should first pursue his action with the CSC.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 If the CSC decision was unfavorable, then he could appeal that particular decision to the Superior Court. 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [8]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Judge Manibusan, in an oral ruling from the bench, denied GEDCA\rquote s motion to dismiss}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 on the rationale that \'93in the absence of personnel rules,\'94 Carlson\rquote s ability to proceed before the CSC was in question.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Tr.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 , }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Vol. II, p. 38 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004). The judge did not issue a written Decision and Order denying the Motion to Dismiss but the transcripts reflect the judge said: \'93
If it is questionable whether or not Mr. Carlson can go to the Civil Service Commission, then it really becomes questionable whether or not he has a remedy to CSC which the Court can say he must pursue prior to bringing the action before the Court.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II, p. 38 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93The court finds that it would not dismiss the petition filed by Mr. Carlson [but}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 ] }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
. . . if the CSC decides that it desires to continue to hear this matter, the court is not going to prevent it from doing so.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II, p. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 39}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93I\rquote m not telling CSC how to decide their case before it.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II, p. 41 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93I\rquote m saying I\rquote m not going to dismiss this case because it appears there may be a question whether there\rquote 
s jurisdiction in Civil Service Commission based on this statute.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II, p. 40 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The court further stated, \'93if CSC decides it has jurisdiction and . . . makes a determination that Carlson is classified and his rights under the sixty days has been violated}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12274696\charrsid12012466 ,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  then}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12274696\charrsid12012466  . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  [GEDCA] can appea
l that and come here or [Carlson] can appeal a determination that says [CSC has] jurisdiction.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II, p. 41 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93
[T]he intent of today\rquote s ruling is not to tell Civil Service that it cannot proceed.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II, p. 44 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [9]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab 
On the same day that Judge Manibusan denied the motion to dismiss, the CSC, having already conducted a post audit of Carlson\rquote s claims, held an agency hearing on Carlson\rquote s petition before the CSC.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Nearly three weeks later, on February 10, 2004, the CSC issued a written decision holding that the CSC had no jurisdiction to hear the matter and Carlson\rquote s appeal was denied.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The CSC found that (1) Carlson had not competed for hi
s initial and subsequent positions, (2) these positions were not lawfully created by the CSC, and (3) the CSC was prohibited by section 2 of Public Law 26-121 from hearing the appeal because Carlson was not hired through the merit system.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Sasai\rquote s appeal to the CSC resulted in a nearly identical ruling.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [10]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab After the CSC\rquote 
s issuance of its Decision and Judgment, Carlson filed the amended petition in the Superior Court, and Sasai filed his joinder.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Carlson and Sasai attached their respective Decisions and Judgments from the CSC which found each of them were not hired through the merit system.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ER, tab 7}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14487794\charrsid12012466 , Ex. F (First Amended Petition for Alternative and Peremptory Writs of Mandate)}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ; ER, tab 8}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid14487794\charrsid12012466 , Ex. E (Joinder of Co-Petitioner David H. Sasai to First Amended Petition}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15796287\charrsid12012466 )}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
In their prayers for relief, Carlson and Sasai sought reinstatement and a decree that their respective terminations were void due to violation of personnel rules and regulations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The Petition did not specifically set forth that Carlson and Sasai were appealing the CSC\rquote s February 10, 2004 findings that:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
(1) they did not compete for the initial and subsequent positions each of them held with GEDCA prior to termination, (2) the positions were not lawfully created by the CSC and (3) the CSC did not hav
e jurisdiction to hear the appeals from employees who were not hired through the merit system pursuant to section 2 of Public Law 26-121.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The Petition also did not name the CSC as a party. 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [11]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Judge Manibusan later resigned from the Superior Court to ta
ke a federal magistrate position and the case was assigned to Judge Unpingco.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Judge Unpingco issued a briefing schedule and held initial hearings on the merits of the Petition, which included an examination of Carlson.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 GEDCA later filed a Motion for Recons
ideration of the decision to proceed with the hearings on the merits of the Petition, arguing that a show-cause hearing had not yet been held in accordance with 7 GCA \'a7 31204}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn 
{\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Title 7 GCA \'a7 31204 (2005) provides, in part, that:}{\insrsid14383279  }{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \'93The alternative writ must command the party to whom it is directed . . . to do the act required to be performed or to show cause before the court at a specified time and place why he has not done so.\'94}}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  and that there were disputed factual issues which required the court to designate the questions to be tried as required by 7 GCA \'a7 31207.}{
\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \'93If an answer be made, which raises a question as to a matter of fact . . . the court may, in its discretion, try t
he question or order the question to be tried, and postpone the argument until such trial can be had . . . The question to be tried must be distinctly stated in any order for trial. . . .\'94}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 7 GCA 
\'a7 31207 (2005).}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson opposed the motion for reconsideration.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 After oral argument, Judge Unpingco ordered that the previous hearings would be deemed to be the order to show cause hearings why the writ should not issue.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 He also set a date for a hearing on the merits pursuant to 7 GCA \'a7 31211}{
\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Title 7 GCA \'a7 31211 (2005)}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 requires that \'93
[i]f the answer raises only questions of law, or puts in issue immaterial statements, not affecting the substantial rights of the parties, the court must proceed to hear or fix a day for hea}{\insrsid14383279 ring the argument of the case.\'94}}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  with specif
ic directions to address whether GEDCA is subject to the civil service laws and whether Carlson and Sasai are entitled to the protections afforded to classified employees in the case of an adverse action.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Eventually the parties briefed the issues, oral argument was held, and proposed decisions and orders were submitted to Judge Unpingco.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [12]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab 
Judge Unpingco thereafter issued a Decision & Order denying the Petition on the basis that Carlson and Sasai had not exhausted their remedies because judicial review of the CSC decision dismissing their petition was available under 4 GCA \'a7 4406.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Judge Unpingco found that Judge Manibusan\rquote 
s previous ruling on the motion to dismiss the petition was not entirely dispositive on whether CSC had jurisdiction or if Carlson and Sasai had exhausted their administrative remedies.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Moreover, he concluded that Carlson and Sasai had accepted the CSC\rquote s jurisdiction when they each filed a petition for CSC\rquote s review. 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [13]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Carlson and Sasai appealed, contending that Judge Manibusan prev
iously ruled that Petitioners did not have a plain speedy and adequate remedy of law, and this ruling became the law of the case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Since it was the law of the case, Carlson and Sasai argue that Judge Unpingco could not later rule that an adequate remedy, specifically, the appeal to the CSC and judicial review of any CSC decision, was available.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Carlson further maintains that he is entitled as a matter of law to a writ because Carlson is a classified employee, and that GEDCA violated the 60-day rule when }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12274696\charrsid12012466 it}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  purportedly terminated him and GEDCA was now denying him use and enjoyment of his rights and office to which he was entitled.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Sasai meanwhile submits that filing a petition for a writ of mandamus is the appropriate manner in which to appeal a decision from 
the CSC, therefore the Superior Court should not have denied the applications for alternate and peremptory writs but instead should have reached a decision on the merits.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4881709 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 II.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12263296\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [14]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab A departure from the doctrine of law of the case is reviewed for abuse of discretion.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 United States v. Cuddy}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 147 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 1998).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13319984 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [15]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab A trial court\rquote s decision to deny a writ of mandamus will not be reviewed absent an abuse of discretion.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser v. Dep\rquote t of Law}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6576235 ,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  97 F.3d 1152, 1154 (9th Cir. 1996).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93
A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is based on clearly erroneous factual findings or an incorrect legal standard.\'94 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Fallini v. Hodel}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986).
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13319984 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [16]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser v. Department of Law}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , expressed the standard of review for a denial of mandamus as follows:}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13319984 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 We ordinarily review the denial of mandamus for an abuse of discretion. Whether [one] has met the requirements for the issuance of mandamus, however, is a question of law reviewed de novo.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In order for mandate to lie, \'93
the applicant for the writ [must have] a present interest in the remedy he seeks and the respondent [must have] a present duty to perform the acts the applicant seeks to compel.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 When a petitioner has established compliance with the requirements of a writ, he may be entitled to a writ as a matter of right. 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 97 F.3d at 1154-55 (citations omitted).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson and Sasai\rquote s Petition are based on the assertion that their termination by GEDCA was void, therefore we will review}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  the trial judge\rquote s decision that Petitioners had not met the requirements for the issuance of mandamus.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13319984 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 III.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 A.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Law of the Case}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Doctrine}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [17]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab 
Carlson and Sasai argue that denial of the Petition was in error because Judge Unpingco failed to follow the ruling made by Judge Manibusan when Judge Manibusan denied GEDCA\rquote s motion to dismiss.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 More specifically, Carlson and Sasai assert that the law of case as set forth by Judge Manibusan is that they did not have an adequate remedy based on CSC\rquote s lack of jurisdiction.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 They argue further that if Judge Unpingco failed to follow the law of the case established by Judge Manibusan, then Judge Unpingco w
ould have abused his discretion and denial of the writ would have been inappropriate.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13319984 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [18]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab GEDCA argues that Judge Manibusan never ruled that the CSC lacked jurisdiction to hear Carlson and Sasai\rquote 
s appeal to the CSC or that an appeal to the CSC was an inadequate remedy.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Instead, Judge Manibusan only ruled that he would not dismiss the writ petition because the CSC and the court proceedings were mutually proceeding.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Thus, GEDCA contends that Judge Unpingco\rquote s later decision to deny mandamus was not contrary to the law of the case.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13319984 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [19]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab \'93Under the \lquote {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b326}{\*\bkmkstart SearchTerm}{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b326}
{\*\bkmkend SearchTerm}law {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b327}{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b327}of {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b328}{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b328}the {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b329}{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b329}case\rquote  doctrine, a court is generally precluded from reconsidering an issue t
hat has already been decided by the same court, or a higher court in the identical case.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 People v. Orallo}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 2006 Guam 8 \'b6 5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
A court may, in its discretion, depart from the law of the case if:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 (1) the earlier decision is clearly erroneous; (2) an interveni
ng change in law has occurred;}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
(3) evidence on remand is substantially different; (4) other changed circumstances exist; or (5) manifest injustice would otherwise occur.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 People v. Hualde,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  1999 Guam 3 \'b6 13.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93Failure to apply the doctrine of the law of the case absent one of the requisite conditions constitutes an abuse of discretion.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
There was not a written order issued by Judge Manibusan explaining his denial of the motion to dismiss.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Therefore, we must carefully review the transcript of the hearings held before Judge Manibusan to determine exactly what decision was rendered and whether Judge Unpingco was precluded from reconsidering an issue Judge Manibusan already decided.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9191012\charrsid12012466 [20]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The hearings at which the law of the case was allegedly created involved GEDCA\rquote 
s motion to dismiss the Petition for Writ of Mandate.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
GEDCA filed the motion, arguing that Carlson and Sasai did not meet the requirements for issuance of a writ of mandamus since they had a plain, adequate and speedy remedy at law, and had not exhau
sted their administrative remedies. After the hearings on the motion, Judge Manibusan denied the motion to dismiss and retained jurisdiction of the Petition. 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1655772\charrsid12012466 [21]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Carlson characterizes Judge Manibusan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 \rquote s
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  ruling at the hearing as follows:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93[H]e was asserti
ng jurisdiction to proceed on the Petition due to Carlson\rquote s lack of adequate remedy.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Appellant Carlson\rquote s Opening Brief}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9468640\charrsid12012466 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  p. 12 (April 17, 2006).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 A closer examination of the hearing transcript, however, does not support Carlson\rquote s characterization.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Judge Manibusan stated:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93
[I]t really becomes questionable whether [Carlson] has a remedy to CSC which the Court can say he must pursue prior to bringing the action before the Court.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II, p. 38 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Contrary to Carlson\rquote s representations, Judge Manibusan did not hold that Carlson had no remedy.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In fact, he acknowledged that Carlson was pursuing a simultaneous appeal of his dismissal to the Civil Service Commission.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Judge Manibusan commented on the simultaneous appeal: \'93
[I]f the CSC decides that it desires to continue to hear this matter, the Court is not going to prevent it from doing so because you have filed a petition in that forum.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II, p. 39 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004). 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1655772\charrsid12012466 [22]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab 
From the record, it appears the trial court declined to dismiss the case because GEDCA had not adopted rules designed to protect its classified employees.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Judge Manibusan said, \'93it appears based on the fact that GEDCA has no personnel rules, that it doesn\rquote 
t require Mr. Carlson to go there in the first instance to present an appeal for his termination.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11163642\charrsid12012466 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 pp. 38-39 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Judge Manibusan never explicitly ruled, however, that Carlson did not have 
an adequate remedy at law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Instead, he apparently denied GEDCA\rquote s motion to dismiss because of his belief that without GEDCA\rquote 
s promulgation of personnel rules, Carlson may not be required to proceed first with the CSC but may be able to directly pursue his claims in the Superior Court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The reason for his denial of the motion to dismiss was clearly \'93based on the fact that GEDCA has no personnel rules\'94 such that Carlson was required by law to \'93
go there in the first instance.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11163642\charrsid12012466 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  pp. 38-39 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1655772\charrsid12012466 [23]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Carlson and Sasai }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 did, }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 however, avail themselves of an appeal to the CSC in the first instance.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The CSC initially accepted their petitions, conducted a post audit on their claims regarding termination, heard th
e appeals, and ruled they were not hired through the merit system, and therefore, pursuant to section 2 of Public Law 26-121, the CSC did not have jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson and Sasai had an available administrative remedy, and in fact the two aggrieved employees voluntarily chose to pursue this remedy by petitioning the CSC.}{
\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279  Whether the petitions to the CSC were adequate and met the due process requirements of Guam law will be further examined in subsection B, }{
\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 infra.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson and Sasai were not prevented from
 enjoying the procedural protections of the merit system, particularly the right to appeal their dismissal to an independent CSC.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
They could appeal the adverse employee action; the established mechanism for a classified employee was to file a petition with the CSC.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1580376 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1655772\charrsid12012466 [24]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1655772\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson\rquote 
s main argument on appeal relies on Judge Manibusan\rquote s statements on the bench, and Judge Unpingco\rquote s failure to follow them as \'93law of the case.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson argues Judge }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3220429\charrsid12012466 Unpingco}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 himself seems to have interpreted Judge Manibusan\rquote s ruling as holding that Petitioner had no adequate remedy at law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Judge Unpingco said:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93To my understanding Judge Manibusan made a ruling on [GEDCA\rquote 
s] motion to dismiss, from the bench, . . . den[ying] the motion . . . because GEDA had no operating rules and regulations and so therefore it was his contention . . . [that] there is no plain and adequate remedy available. . .\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 p. 3 (Peti
tion for Alternative and Peremptory Writs of Mandate, Sept. 7, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 But this statement was simply Judge Unpingco\rquote 
s understanding of Judge Manibusan\rquote s previous ruling, and a careful examination of the record reveals that Judge Manibusan never held that there was not an adequate remedy at law.}{
\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 There can also be no detrimental reliance by Sasai and Carlson on Judge Unpingco\rquote 
s understanding since the period for seeking judicial review of the CSC decision expired before Judge Unpingco even made his statement.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Judge Manibusan stated: \'93
If CSC decides it has jurisdiction and . . . makes a determination that Carlson is classified and his rights under the sixty days has not been violated then [GEDCA] can appeal that and come here or [Carlson] can appeal a determi
nation that says [CSC has] jurisdiction.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Vol. II, p. 41 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93[T]he intent of today\rquote 
s ruling is not to tell Civil Service that it cannot proceed.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Vol. II, p. 44 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Judge Unpingco himself in his Decision and Order later clarified that Judge Manibusan\rquote s ruling was not entirely dispositive of whether the CSC could assume jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Judge Unpingco\rquote s extraneous oral statement that Judge Manibusan did not dismiss the case because \'93there is no plain and adequate remedy available. . .\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr.,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 p. 3 (Petition for Alternative and Peremptory Writs of Mandate, Sept. 7, 2004), is not a holding upon which we place any weight and therefore we reject Carlson\rquote s argument that
 based on the prior ruling by Judge Manibusan, the parties agreed CSC had no jurisdiction to proceed.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [25]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
From the record before us, we cannot say it was law of the case that Carlson and Sasai had no adequate remedy at law, and their reliance on the law of the case doctrine is misplaced.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 If the court did not adopt the position of the plaintiff or the defendant, a position cannot be treated as law of the case: \'93This Court did not adopt the Plaintiff\rquote 
s position, neither did it adopt the defendant\rquote s. There is no {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b1220}{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b1220}law {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b1221}{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b1221}of {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b1222}{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b1222}the {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b1223}
{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b1223}case in this regard.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 S.J. Gargrave Syndicate at Lloyds v. Black Constr. Corp.,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  Docket No. CV-03-00009, 2006 WL 1815735, *2 (D. Guam, June 29, 2006).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The law of the case doctrine may apply only if the position was adopted by the court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
In this case, Judge Manibusan did not expressly rule that there was no adequate remedy at law or that the CSC did not have jurisdiction, so this proposition did not}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 
 become the law of this case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [26]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
In fact, on the very same day that Carlson and Sasai were arguing their lack of remedy to the Superior Court, they were availing themselves of an available remedy before the CSC.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson maintains the CSC hearing was nonetheless an inadequate remedy.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
He argues, without citation of authority, that \'93[t]he fact that an agency may desire to act outside its jurisdiction is not equivalent to providing an adequate remedy.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Appellant Carlson\rquote s Opening Brief, p. 13 (April 17, 2006).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4990668\charrsid12012466 0}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Appellant Carlson\rquote s Opening Brief, p. 13}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12001820\charrsid12012466  (April 17, 2006)}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Moreover each of them had a further legal remedy that was available, namely a judicia}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12001820\charrsid12012466 l review of the CSC decision.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12001820\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 B.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 GEDCA\rquote s Failure to Adopt Personnel Rules}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [27]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Carlson and Sasai next argue that the Superior Court erred in denying the Petition for failing to exhaust administrative remedies, pointing to the fact that GEDCA had not yet adopted personnel rules pursuant to 4 GCA \'a7 4105.}{
\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Section 4105 of Title 4 provides,
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li720\ri720\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid746897 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \tab 
Rules subject to criteria established by this Chapter governing the selection, promotion, performance, evaluation, demotion, suspension and other disciplinary action of classified employees shall be adopted by the . . . Board of Directors for the Guam Eco
nomic Development Authority . . . with respect to personnel matters. . . . 
\par \tab Such rules shall, to the extent practicable, provide standard conditions for entry into and the other matters concerning the government service. The personnel rules adopted for the
 Guam Economic Development Authority . . . shall require that all their classified employee appeals be heard by the Civil Service Commission ('Commission').
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 {\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 4 GCA \'a7 4105(a).}}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 They assert that the failure to adopt rules results in a lack of \'93guidelines to g
overn the selection, promotion, performance, evaluation, demotion, suspension and other disciplinary action of classified employees.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Appellant Carlson\rquote s Opening Brief, p. 19 (April 17, 2006).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [28]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Although GEDCA admits it had not adopted its own personnel rules at the time GEDCA sought to terminate Carlson and Sasai, this failure alone does not determine the rights of Carlson and Sasai.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The existence or non-existence of personnel rules does not define the rights of a classified employee.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Rights of a classified employee emanate not only from whatever statutory or regulatory provisions are in place, but also from the United States Constitution and the law interpreting it.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 See Board of Regents v. Roth,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  408 U.S. 564 (1972); }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 see also }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 48 U.S.C. \'a7\'a7 1421b(e) and 1421b(u);}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Peopl}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid11689389\charrsid12012466 e }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 v. Angoco}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 2006 Guam 18 \'b6 1 n.2 (stating that the Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States . . . [is] made applicable to Guam by 48 U.S.C. \'a7 1421(b)(u)).
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [29]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
There is no doubt that GEDCA attempted to use the Department of Administration\rquote s Personnel Rules and Regulations (DOA Rules) when it initially sought to terminate Carlson and Sasai.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The focus should not be on whether GEDCA adopted its own personnel rules, but whether GEDCA\rquote s use of the DOA Rules violated any of Carlson\rquote s and Sasai\rquote 
s due process rights if Carlson and Sasai were deemed to be classified employees.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The question is whether Carlson and Sasai were deprived of due process when they appealed their termination to the CSC.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [30]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 As an issue of law, we conduct a }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 review whether the use by GEDCA of the DOA Rules and appeal to the CSC by Carlson and Sasai provided the due process guarantees required for classified employees.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 97 F.3d at 1154-55 (citations omitted).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 If state law grants a claim of entitlement to continued {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b3984}{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b3984}employment absent sufficient cause for discharge, that state {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b3992}
{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b3992}employee has been granted a property interest that demands the procedural protections of due process.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Woodard v. Andrus}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 419 F.3d 348. 354 (5th Cir. 2005); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 see also Bd. of Regents v. Roth,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  408 U.S. 564 (1972) (\'93[O]ne cannot be deprived of a property right or a liberty interes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 t without due process of law\'94).

\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [31]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The Ninth Circuit has interpreted Guam\rquote 
s Organic Act right to a merit system as \'93designed to secure adequate protection to public career employees from political discrimination.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser v. Civil Serv. Comm\rquote n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 97 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 State ex rel. Murtagh v. Dep\rquote t of City Civil Serv}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 42 So. 2d 65, 70 (1949)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 case adopted a definition of the government of Guam\rquote s merit system from }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Webster\rquote s II: New Riverside University Dictionary}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  743 (1988)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 as \lquote \'93[a] system of promoting and appointing civil service personnel on the basis of merit, determined by competitive examinations.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 97 F.3d at 1155.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Therefore, the key to the government of Guam\rquote s merit system, as with most merit systems, is competitive hiring.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [32]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The Guam Legislature incorporated competitive hiring as an integral part of Guam\rquote s merit system in sections 4101 and 4106 of Title 4 Guam Code Annotated.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Section 4101(a) states: \'93All personnel actions, including appointments and promotions, shall be based, insofar as practicable, on competitive practical tests and evaluations.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 4 GCA \'a7 4101 (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Section 4106 states: \'93The personnel rules provided for in \'a7
 4105 of this Chapter shall provide procedures for their employment of persons on the basis of merit, and shall include an orderly and systematic method of recruitment and the establishment of qualified lists for employment purposes.\'94 4 GCA \'a7
 4106 (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Under Guam\rquote 
s merit system, if one is hired by competing with other eligible persons for the position, that person has been hired as a classified employee (unless hired in the excepted service as specified in 4 GCA \'a7 4102).}{
\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4094027 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Once hired into the classified service, one cannot be deprived of such status by additional conditions, such as the one imposed in the case of }{
\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Roberto v. Bordallo}{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 , 839 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1988), in which the governor of Guam atte
mpted to de-classify a government of Guam employee who competed for her position and was thus classified.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 The Ninth Circuit in that case held that 4 GCA \'a7
 4102 lists all unclassified positions for the government of Guam, and if the position is not enumerated therein, a person who competed for that position would be a classified employee.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Roberto}{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 , 839 F.2d at 574.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \'93The statute contains no further requirements for qualifying as a person in the classified service.\'94 }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Id.}}
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Hiring through a competitive process is an acknowledgment that all qualified persons should be given a right to apply for a position for which they may qualify.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [33]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4094027\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
An employee who has been hired through the competitive hiring procedures may appeal an adverse action taken to suspend, demote or dismiss the classified employee to the CSC.}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn 
{\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
Among those employees specifically excepted from appeal to CSC are judicial branch classified employees and academic personnel of the Guam Community College and the University of Guam.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 See }{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 4 GCA \'a7 4105 (b) and \'a7 4403 (h). }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 4 GCA \'a7\'a7 4105, 4403, and 4406; }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 see also}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  \'93Rules of Procedure for Adverse Action Appeals\'94(herein referred to as \'93CSC Rules\'94
), effective March 5, 2002.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Employees from the classified service retain a right to appeal their dismissal to the CSC \'93
to secure adequate protection . . . from political discrimination.\'94 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser v. Civil Serv. Comm\rquote n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
, 97 F.3d 1152, 1156 (9th Cir. 1996).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The CSC is designed as part of the merit system to ensure that there is notice an
d an opportunity to be heard, as provided by the }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12274696\charrsid12012466 Fourteen}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 th Amendment Due Process clause of the Constitution.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Due process protection is an integral part of}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 the merit system.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93
[I]f employees are exempted from the procedural protections of the merit system-particularly the right to appeal their dismissal to an independent civil service commission-the unenforceable, abstract right not to be fired without cause does little good.
\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 at 1157.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [34]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 However, as the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 court noted, \'93an employee who is exempt
ed from the classified service has no property interest to be protected and thus no right to judicial review if terminated.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 97 F.3d at 1158 n.3.}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Public Law 26-121 (August 16, 2002
), which instructs that the Civil Service Commission is not to have jurisdiction over unclassified employees, merely codifies what case law already held \endash 
 that without classification status, the employee who has not competed for his job cannot force an administrative body to provide him with the extra layer of protection provided to classified employees.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 An appeal of a demotion, dismissal or suspension to the CSC is a right vested only in classified employees.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 See }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 4 GCA \'a7 4403 (\'93the jurisdiction of [CSC] s
hall not extend . . . to any position or person, appeal or proceeding of whatever kind or description if the position is denominated \lquote unclassified\rquote  . . . \'94). 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [35]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
In order to deprive an employee of a job secured in the civil service through competition, 
the employee must be afforded some kind of hearing and his dismissal must satisfy the due process requirements that have been set out by the United States Supreme Court in such cases as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Goldberg v. Kelly}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 397 U.S. 254 (1970) and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Mathews v. Eldridge,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  424 U.S. 319 (1976). The latter case requires that a court consider three factors in determining whether requirements of due process have been invoked:
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 First, the private interest that will be affected by the {\*\bkmkstart SR\'3b6919}{\*\bkmkend SR\'3b6919}official action; second, the risk of a
n erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrat
ive burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8407563\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 [36]}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid746897\charrsid12012466 \tab }
{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Mathews}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 424 U.S. at 335.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The specific requirements of a hearing are not also set in stone; \'93[t]he formality and procedural requisites for the hearing can vary, depend
ing upon the importance of the interests involved and the nature of the subsequent proceedings.\'94 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Boddie v. Conn.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
, 401 U.S. 371, 378 (1970).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6716734\charrsid12012466 [37]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6716734\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 If we apply the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Mathews }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 test to ascertain whether the \'93borrowed\'94
 use of the DOA Rules by GEDCA meets due process requirements, an initial consideration is whether there is a risk of an erroneous deprivation of a property interest.}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote 
\pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 A property interest is present if Carlson and Sasai were hired through a competitive pr
ocess; but if they were not hired competitively, then there is \'93no property interest to be protected and thus no right to judicial review if terminated.\'94}{\insrsid14383279  }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Haeuser, }{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 97 F.3d at 1158 n.3 (citing }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 United States v. Fausto, }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 484 U.S. 439 (1988)).}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The DOA Rules contain a panoply of rights for employees who are suspended, demoted or dismissed, specifically, R}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 ule}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 s 11.000 to 11.500.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
We cannot say that there is a risk of an erroneous deprivation, given the duties and responsibilities of the CSC set forth in Title 4 and the DOA Rules and the procedural safeguards contained within the CSC Rules.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Likewise, application of any additional or substantive procedural safeguards would likely not be of significant value given the breadth and detail of the existing DOA Rules and CSC Rules. Examination of the government\rquote 
s interest in the processes allowed under the \'93borrowed\'94 rules also suggests a due process violation is not implicated.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The fiscal and administrative burden entailed with adopting substitute or additional procedures militates in favor of finding that due process was satisfied when GEDCA borrowed the DOA Rules and the CSC adhered to the CSC Rules.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Consideration of the three factors set forth in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Mathews }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 instructs that the requirements of due process have been satisfied.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [38]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 GEDCA\rquote s \'93borrowed\'94
 use of the DOA rules, while not ideal, did not provide Carlson and Sasai with less due process than they would have received were they forced to proceed under different rules.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson and Sasai were themselves permitted to utilize the \'93borrowed\'94 DOA Rules to their benefit, i.e., they were able to file their appeals with }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 the CSC based on these Rules.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [39]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
We are not persuaded by the argument that Carlson and Sasai were deprived of due process of law because even in the absence of GEDCA-adopted personnel rules, Carlson and Sasai have failed to show how they have suffered from a lack of due process.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In consid
ering the petitions filed by Carlson and Sasai appealing their terminations, the CSC utilized properly promulgated rules and regulations, which afforded Carlson and Sasai the due process protections of any other classified employee in the government of Gu
am.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Carlson and Sasai have not alleged, and the record does not show, that these regulations deprived them of any right that may have been afforded to them under the due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [40]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson\rquote s argument that, \'93
as a matter of law, the failure of GEDCA to adopt personnel rules and regulations eliminated in its entirety any finding or argument that Carlson was removed in accordance with the laws of Guam and GEDCA\rquote s enabling legislation\'94 is also rejected.
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5446543\charrsid12012466 (Appellant Carlson\rquote s Opening Brief, p. 26, April 17, 2006).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 We know of no law dictating that a GEDCA employee\rquote s removal from employment must be pursuant to GEDCA specific legislation or regulations.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The statement that the power to terminate a GEDCA employee is expressly conditional on GEDCA\rquote 
s adoption of personnel regulations pursuant to 4 GCA \'a7\'a7 4105 and 4106 is not plausible.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The plain language of 12 GCA \'a7 50104(i)}{
\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 The full text of 12 GCA \'a7 50104(i) (2005) reads:}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li810\ri810\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin810\lin810\itap0\pararsid8397556 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 (i) To employ such employees to
 provide such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary for the conduct of the business of the Corporation; to delegate to them such powers and to prescribe for them such duties as may be deemed appropriate by the Corporation; to fix and pay s
u
ch compensation to them for their services as the Corporation may determine without regard to the provisions of the personnel and compensation law; to require bonds from such of them as the Corporation may designate, the premiums therefor to be paid by th
e Corporation, and to remove and discharge such employees and other clerical and technical assistants, pursuant to the provisions of the personnel regulations adopted pursuant to the provisions of 4 GCA \'a7 4105 and \'a7 4106.
\par }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  does not require retention of employees absent the promulgation of these regulations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 See Pangelinan v. Gutierrez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 2000 Guam 11 \'b6 23 (\'93
In cases involving statutory construction, the plain language of the statute must be the starting point.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Title 12 GCA \'a7
 50104(q)(2005) further provides that GEDCA has the power \'93
[t]o take such action and carry on any other operations and do all that may be necessary or appropriate to carry out the powers and duties herein or hereafter specifically granted to or imposed upon it.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The plain language of the statute must be the starting point of any statutory construction.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 There is nothing contained within section 50104 that prevents GEDCA from terminating any employees absent the promulgation of GEDCA\rquote 
s personnel rules. Indeed it is inconceivable that a public employer who has the right to hire an employee would not have the concomitant right to terminate that employee for cause simply because the agency employer failed to adopt personnel rules.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The law requires that a public employee who enjoys merit system 
protection is entitled to due process of law before the property right of their job is taken from them.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 See Roth,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  408 U.S. 564.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The law does not require that such employee cannot be terminated in the absence of adopted rules by the employing agency.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 There 
has been no showing that Carlson and Sasai were denied due process protection. 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [41]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
If Carlson and Sasai were classified employees, then section 4105 requires that their appeals be heard by the CSC:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93
[GEDCA] shall require that all their classified employee appeals . . . be heard by the Civil Service Commission,\'94 so a hearing pursuant to the CSC\rquote 
s Rules and Procedures for adverse action appeals would have sufficed under the Supreme Court tests for due }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9835451\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 process set forth in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Boddie}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Roth.}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\keepn\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9835451 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 The CSC\rquote s post audit concluded that neither Carlson nor Sasai were classified because they had not been hired through a competitive process.}{
\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Specifically, the CSC found:}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \'93Employee [Carlson]}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
did not complete for his initial and subsequent positions that he has held with GEDCA prior to his termination.\'94}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
ER, tab 7, p. 2 (Decision and Judgement of the Civil Service Commission in Personnel Action Appeal Case No. 0401-AA01); \'93Employee [Sasai] did not compete for his initial and subsequent positions that he has held with GEDCA prior to his termination.\'94
}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 ER, tab 8, p. 2 (Decision and Judgement of the Civil Service Commission in Personnel Action Appeal Case No. 0312-AA26).}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
We have not been asked to review this finding (as will be elucidated }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 infra}{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 ), but Guam\rquote s merit system is
 clear that if a public employee does not compete for the position, classified status is not endowed upon that employee.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Adoption or non-adoption of rules by GEDCA would also not have conferred jurisdiction on the CSC if Carlson and Sasai were unclassified.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
If these employees were unclassified, the existence or non-existence of GEDCA personnel rules and regulations would be irrelevant.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Therefore, there is no support to the argument that the lack of GEDCA personnel rules and regulations prevented Carlson and Sasai from having to first appeal their dismissals to the CSC.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [42]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Judge Manibusan\rquote 
s denial of the motion to dismiss because of GEDCA\rquote s failure to adopt personnel rules was neither compelled nor prejudicial.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The fact that GEDCA personnel rules did not exist was an unnecessary basis to determine whether Carlson and Sasai \'93had a remedy to CSC which . . . [they] must pursue prior to bringing the action before the court.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II, p. 38 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 However, this court can affirm a trial court\rquote s decision if the result was correct but made on the wrong basis.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., v. United States}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
, 95 F.3d 1094, 1099 (Fed. Cir. 1996);}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Spokane County v. Air Base Housing Inc}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ., 304 F.2d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1962);}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Lum Wan v. Esperdy}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 321 F.2d 123, 125-26}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 (2d Cir. 1963). 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [43]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
There was not a compelling reason for Judge Manibusan to believe that Carlson and Sasai may not have an adequate remedy at law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
This is particularly true because Carlson and Sasai were simultaneously pursuing their remedy at law \endash  the administrative appeal of their terminations to the CSC.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Therefore, Judge Manibusan\rquote s statement regarding the questionable appeal to the CSC \endash  and whether it must be pursued first \endash  was not necessary.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Judge Manibusan\rquote 
s statement was not even conclusive, since he himself conceded that the CSC may well have jurisdiction, even while he declined to dismiss the case, saying:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93[I]f the CSC decides that it desires to continue to hear this matter, the Court is not going to prevent it from doing so because you have filed a petition in that forum.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6686861\charrsid12012466 Tr., }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Vol. II, p. 39 (Continued Ex Parte Application, Jan. 22, 2004).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson and Sasai also took advantage of the right to appeal their dismissal to an independent CSC, which undert
ook a post audit on their claims and found they did not compete for their positions.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 [44]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 \tab We acknowledge the prior Guam case of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 
Brown v. Civil Service Commission,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 
 both the opinion of the District Court of Guam Appellate Division, Docket No. CV-85-0081A, 1984 WL 48861 (D. Guam App. Div. October 22, 1984) and the Ninth Circuit opinion, 818 F.2d 706 (9th Cir. 1987).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 Brown}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 , the school board failed to adopt personnel
 regulations as required under the same law requiring GEDCA to do so, 4 GCA \'a7 4105.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 The Appellate Division case stated that an agency
\rquote s personnel rules must be \'93scrupulously adhered to,\'94 even if those rules are more generous than what the Constitution requires.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 Brown}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 , 1984 WL 48861 *3.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 
In analyzing the principle that an agency must adhere strictly to its own rules, the Appellate Division concluded that later school board regulations adopted by Executive Order were null and void, leaving the previously promulgated regulations in effect.}
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 at *2.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [4}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4935511\charrsid12012466 5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The Ninth Circuit took a different approach in its review of }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Brown}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , reaching the same result: regulations which were not properly promulgated may be disregarded.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
However, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that later-promulgated regulations (governing the appeal of termination of employment) were irrelevant as unrelated to the facts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Under the facts, the only regulations invoked were those promulgated under section 4105, governing terminating the employment in the first place.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 For these reasons, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Appellate Division.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid213261 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [4}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 We also recognize the District Court of Guam Appellate Division case }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Miles v. Borja}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , wherein the Appellate Division stated 
that it is illegal for an agency to not promulgate regulations when required by law: \'93The use of the term \lquote shall\rquote  in \'a7 4106 contains a clear legal mandate for the appellants to promulgate regulations governing resignation.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 This affirmative obligation imposes therefore an explicit duty on appellants to issue regulations and policies on this matter.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Miles v. Borja}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
, Docket No. CV-85-0081A, 1986 WL 68917 *3 (D. Guam App. Div. 1986).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The violation emanating from the failure to adopt regulations is not, however, automatically a violation of due process: \'93
It has been recognized that a permanent employee has a claim of entitlement to his employment beyond a mere expectancy and thus is entitled to due process rights upon termination.\'94 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id.
}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In order to come before a court to seek redress based on an agency\rquote 
s failure to promulgate rules, the aggrieved must allege a violation of those due process rights.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Failure of an agency to adopt regulations is not actionable absent some damage from the due process violation, and none is alleged here.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Carlson and Sasai always had the right to appeal the CSC decisions to the Superior Court of Guam.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Carlson and Sasai were not deprived of that right, and the failure of GEDCA to promulgate personnel rules had no effect on that right.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carl
son and Sasai have not alleged a lack of due process through the use of the \'93borrowed\'94 rules and regulations, only at the failure of GEDCA to have their own.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 C.}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The Petition as an Appeal of the CSC Decision}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 [47]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 \tab In denying the Petition, Judge Unpingco found that \'93
Petitioners have not yet appealed the ruling of the CSC decision, more than a year later.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 
Yet they have provided no showing as to why they were unable to do so, or why appellate review of the CSC decision here would have been inadequate.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 ER, tab 28, p. 11 (Decision and Order, June 2, 2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 
Judge Unpingco ruled that mandamus should issue only when there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy and \'93because the petitioners did not avail themselves of the
 remedy of appealing the CSC decision as a matter of law for judicial review, mandamus is not the appropriate relief.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 Id. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 p. 12.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 Quoting from our decision in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 Bondoc v. Workers\rquote  Compensation Commission}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 , 2000 Guam 6, Sasai asserts that a writ of mandate is 
the appropriate vehicle for relief from a decision rendered by the CSC and, therefore, the court\rquote s decision as a matter of law was erroneous.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 GEDCA submits that the Petition should not be considered an appeal of the CSC decision because the CSC is not a pa
rty to the writ action and the Petition does not specifically request review of the CSC Decision and Judgment.1{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid14383279 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs44\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\super\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
Rule 11.7.8 of the Rules of Procedure for Adverse Action Appeals of the Civil Service Commission of the government of Guam, effective March 5, 2002 (hereinafter \'93CSC Rules\'94) allows for \'93
[j]udicial review of the judgment of the CSC . . . by filing appropriate pleadings with the Superior Court of Guam within thirty (30 days) after the last day on which reconsideration can be granted.\'94 Rule 11.7.7 of the same Rules provides that the \'93
filing of a motion to reconsider or amend does not affect the time limit imposed by law to file a Petition for Judicial Review with the Superior Court of Guam.\'94}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
GEDCA argues that Carlson and Sasai failed to file \'93a complaint with the Superior Court within forty to sixty days\'94 after the CSC decision in accordance with Rules 11.7.7 and 11.7.8.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Appellees
\rquote  Opening Brief p. 10 (May 30, 2006).}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Clearly, if the Petition is deemed to be a Petition for Judicial Review of the CSC decision, the Petition would be timely filed.}{\insrsid14383279  }{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Carlson\rquote s and Sasai\rquote s cases were decided by the CSC on February 10, 2004, Carlson filed the Petition on March 1, 2004 and Sasai filed this joinder on March 10, 2004. ER, tab 6.}{\insrsid14383279  }{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Both of these filings occurred within thirty days of the CSC decision without regard to any period for reconsideration.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8075349\charrsid12012466 9}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466  Moreover, the classification system set forth in 4 GCA \'a7 4102 is not even applicable since Carlson and Sasai are employees of GEDCA and not the government of Guam. We mu
st therefore address whether the merit classification system applies to GEDCA employees and if Judge Unpingco erred in not treating the Petition as a petition for judicial review of the CSC decision. 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [4}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 7}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 GEDCA argues it is not legally an instrumentality
 of the government of Guam, and the classification system established by the Organic Act is inapplicable to GEDCA employees.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
GEDCA also made this argument below \endash  that since it is not a public instrumentality, the merit system was not meant to extend to them.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3220429\charrsid12012466 This court has confirmed that GEDCA is not considered an instrumentality, an agent for agency purposes, of the government of Guam, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3220429\charrsid12012466 Guam Economic Development Authority v. Island Equip. Co., Inc.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3220429\charrsid12012466 , 1998 Guam 7 \'b6 7, relying on }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3220429\charrsid12012466 Bordallo v. Reyes}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3220429\charrsid12012466 , 763 F.2d 1098, 1103 (9th Cir. 1985) and }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3220429\charrsid12012466 Laguana v. Guam Visitor\rquote s Bureau}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3220429\charrsid12012466 
, 725 F2d. 519, 521 (9th Cir. 1984), though GEDCA retains its characteristic as a public corporation (owned by the public). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [4}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 8}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The Guam Legislature is permitted by the Organic Act to dictate the terms of a merit system for government of Guam employees.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 See Haeuser v. Dep\rquote t of Law}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 97 F.3d at 1155.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Generally, any merit system is based on the recognized maxims set forth in cases such as }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Elrod v. Burns,}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  427 U.S. 347 (1976).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Elrod}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , e}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3220429\charrsid12012466 employees}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 who held a confidential or policy-making position were deemed not to be protected from the vagaries of political life, while those who performed non-confidential or non-policymaking duties could not be ousted from their jobs for political reasons.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id. at }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 367-368.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 This is how a merit system is generally established.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Civil servants are to be protected by the political winds of change in order to provide continuity, but there is a countervailing need to ensure that the elected official is able to c
arry out policy directives, and for this, the elected official is able to appoint employees at will, whose employment is not meant to be protected by a merit system.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Section 1422c(a) of the Organic Act, which directs the government of Guam to establish a merit system, has been interpreted by the Ninth Circuit in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , which stated that \'93Congress\rquote 
s command to the Guam legislature to set up a merit system for government employees is explicit:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 the legislature }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 shall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  set up a merit system and, as far as practicable, appointments }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 shall}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  be made in accordance with such merit system.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Haeuser}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 97 F.3d at 1156 (emphasis in original).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [4}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 9}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab GEDCA was created by an act of the Guam Legislature, and even though GEDCA is not an instrumentality of the government of Guam
 for purposes of agency law, the Guam Legislature has the power to legislate a merit system for employees of the non-instrumentality corporations that are owned by the people of Guam, such as GEDCA.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 One of the ways that the Guam Legislature has exercised t
hat authority is by requiring that even non-instrumentality public corporations extend merit system protection to its classified employees.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 This directive is found in 4 GCA \'a7 4105, where GEDCA is mandated to adopt rules and regulations to extend merit system protections to its classified employees.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The Guam Legislature clearly intended to extend merit system protection to GEDCA employees who are classified, that is, who competed for their job.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Therefore, we reject GEDCA\rquote s argument that the distinction between classified and unclassified employees is not applicable to GEDCA\rquote s employees.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 50}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab 
This conclusion does not, however, necessitate a finding that Carlson and Sasai were classified employees or, as Carlson and Sasai argue, that all personnel from GEDCA, other than positions set forth in 4 GCA \'a7 4102(a), are classified.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 GEDCA is not an inst
rumentality of the government of Guam and section 4102 expressly applies only to offices and employment in the government of Guam. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Guam Econ. Dev. Auth}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ., 1998 Guam 7 \'b6 7; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 see also}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bordallo v. Reyes, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 610 F. Supp. 1128, 1133 (D. Guam 1984), }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 aff\rquote d }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 763 F.2d 10
98 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding that employees of public corporations are not employees of the government of Guam).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Because GEDCA employees are not, legally speaking, \'93government of Guam employees,\'94 then the provisions of \'a7 4102}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13507736 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 20}{\super\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Section 4102 provides in relevant part that: \'93
All offices and employment in the Government of Guam . . . shall be divided into classified and unclassified services as follows:
\par }\pard\plain \qj \li1440\ri720\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin720\lin1440\itap0\pararsid13507736 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 (a) The unclassified service shall include [certain enumerated ] positions . . .
\par (b) The classified service shall include all other positions in the government of Guam. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13507736 {\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 4 GCA \'a7 4102 (2005).}{
\insrsid6576235   }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  do not apply to GEDCA.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 [5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 1}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8397556\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Nonetheless, section 4105 requires that the autonomous agencies of the government of Guam (as well as the two agen
cies which have been held as non-instrumentalities, GVB and GEDCA) adopt rules \'93governing the selection, promotion, performance, evaluation, demotion, suspension and other disciplinary action of classified employees.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid1533501\charrsid12012466 4 GCA \'a7 4105 (2005). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Section 4105 make
s clear that if a merit system is extended to GEDCA employees, it must be accompanied by rules implementing the merit system.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
We have already addressed the consequences of GEDCA\rquote s failure to adopt these rules, and concluded that the failure to adopt them, 
while not condoned, did not necessarily deprive Carlson and Sasai of due process of law as contemplated by the United States Supreme Court and Constitution.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 If GEDCA hires employees into the classified service, section 4105 requires that rules be adopted c
oncerning the selection, evaluation, promotion, demotion and suspension of other disciplinary action of such employees, at least to the extent that a classified employee\rquote s due process rights are not threatened.}{
\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid9835451 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 This conclusion is underscored by the fact 
that in Public Law 26-76, the Guam Legislature merged non-governmental Guam Economic Development Authority with an agency of the Government of Guam, the Department of Commerce.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
Certain employees who had been hired by the Department of Commerce were classified government of Guam employees before this merger because the Department of Commerce was a line agency of the government of Guam.}{\insrsid14383279  }{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 As such, they enjoyed the merit system protections afforded to them under the Organic Act and 4 GCA \'a7 4102 for the hiring of classified workers.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
When Department of Commerce employees were transferred to the reorganized, non-governmental GEDCA, they did not lose their classified status, for to do so would have violated the very rights that the merit system is meant to protect.}{\insrsid14383279  }{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 GEDCA thus absorbed classified workers, and must provide the transferred employees with due process before taking away their property interest.}{\insrsid14383279  }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 See Haeuser}{
\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 , 97 F.3d at 1158; }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 see also Roberto, }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 839 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that once classified, an e
mployee cannot lose her classification by a non-voluntary transfer into an agency that is reconstituted in any way).}{\insrsid14383279  }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
However, GEDCA\rquote s failure to adopt such regulations does not mean that any classified employees of GEDCA are not protected \endash  this would be unfair and not in compliance with the Guam Legislature\rquote 
s mandate that a merit system be adopted for classified employees.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
We simply distinguish that section 4102 does not apply to GEDCA, but section 4105 by its express terms does apply.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 2}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The CSC determined that Carlson and Sasai did not compete for their initial and subsequent positions with GEDCA and thus were not entitled to an appeal to the CSC.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In order to avoid any binding effect of the CSC\rquote s decision, Carlson and Sasai must have challenged tha
t decision pursuant to Rule 11.7.8 of the Rules of Procedure for Adverse Action Appeals of the Civil Service Commission and 4 GCA \'a7 4406 (which states that, \'93[t]he decision of the Commission . . . shall be final, but subject to judicial review\'94).
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 See State ex rel. Iowa Dep}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4338672\charrsid12012466 \rquote }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 t of Natural Res. v. Shelley,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 512 N.W.2d 579, 581 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (holding that because the aggrieved did not appeal the administrative order within thirty days, it became a final agency action, therefore the order was entitled to }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 res judicata}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  effect as if it were a judgment of the court).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Accordingly, we now address the argument that the Petition should have been treated as an appeal challenging the CSC\rquote s findings. 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 3}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Carlson and Sasai sought a writ from the Superior Court in the first instance to reverse GEDCA\rquote 
s actions on the basis that they were classified employees and GEDCA failed to comply with its personnel rules and regulations by \'93fail[ing] to comply with the Authority\rquote s specific procedures and policies governing the sepa
ration of employees by dismissal\'94 and further \'93fail[ing] to state the specific facts}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4338672\charrsid12012466  found}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  upon which Petitioner
\rquote s termination was based; fail[ing] to inform }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8790487\charrsid12012466 P}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 etition}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8790487\charrsid12012466 er}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  of his right to appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8790487\charrsid12012466  . . .}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'94 ER}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4338672\charrsid12012466 , tab}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  1 \'b6 24 (Petition for }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3220429\charrsid12012466 Alternative}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  and Peremptory Writs of Mandate.)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Prior to seeking the writ, Carlson and Sasai had petitioned the CSC to hear an appeal of their terminations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Thus, Carlson and Sasai pursued two mutually exclusive avenues for relief:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
(1) an adverse action appeal with the CSC; and (2) a direct petition to the Superior Court for reinstatement due to the failure to comply with the law and GEDCA personnel r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6827397\charrsid12012466 ule}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 s.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 4}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Subsequently GEDCA admitted it had not adopted its own personnel rules, and the CSC declined jurisdiction, f
inding that Carlson and Sasai did not compete for their positions and the CSC was prohibited from hearing appeals from employees who were not hired through the merit system.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson and Sasai chose not to challenge the CSC\rquote s findings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
They could have amended their writ petitions to add a prayer for relief that the Superior Court review the CSC decision, or they could have even re-named their petitions as being for Judicial Review and specifically named the CSC as a party.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 They did not, and instead chose to 
amend the original petition and file a joinder without specifically invoking their right to appeal the CSC decision.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The failure to name the CSC as a party in a Superior Court case challenging an employment termination has been held to be fatal to the claim that it was an appeal of the CSC decision.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Rios v. Sgambelluri}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , the aggrieved employee first appealed his adverse action with the CSC but lost.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Rios v. Sgambelluri}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , Docket No. CV-90-0037A, 1991 WL 336905 at *1 (D. Guam App. Div. June 10, 1991).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Subsequently, he \'93did not appeal the CSC decision; rather, he instituted an action for declaratory relief in the Guam Superior Court.\'94
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Since the aggrieved employee chose not to appeal the CSC decision, he \'93could not obtain the relief he sought from th
e parties he chose to sue . . . [a]lso, no claim of any sort was made against the Civil Service Commission, so it could not provide the relief appellant sought.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 at *2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Similarly, in this case, since Carlson and Sasai have not named the CSC as a party to the proceeding, we decline to construe the Petition as an appeal of the CSC decision.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The Petition did not even vaguely reference that the Superior Court should review the decision of the CSC.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The Petition did not appeal the CSC\rquote s findings: (1) t
hat Carlson and Sasai did not compete for the initial and subsequent positions each of them held with GEDCA prior to termination; (2) that the positions were not lawfully created by the CSC; and (3) that the CSC did not have jurisdiction to hear the appea
ls from employees who were not hired through the merit system pursuant to section 2 of Public Law 26-121.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The Petition does reference the CSC\rquote s ruling and also alleges harm due to GEDCA\rquote s failure to adopt personnel regulations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
However, in the prayer for relief, Carlson asks only that he be reinstated in his position on the basis that he has no adequate remedy for relief in the absence of GEDCA regulations.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Sasai did not mention in his joinder that the CSC found he did not compete for his position.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Sasai said only, \'93}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8018537\charrsid12012466 [}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 t}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8018537\charrsid12012466 ]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 he }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8018537\charrsid12012466 [}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 CSC}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8018537\charrsid12012466 ]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 issued a Decision & Judgment . . . holding that the CSC does not have jurisdiction.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8018537\charrsid12012466 ER, tab 8 \'b6
 19 (Joinder of Co-Petitioner David H. Sasai to First Amended Petition). }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 While Sasai argues that he is classif
ied, he similarly asked the Superior Court to grant the writ because GEDCA failed to adopt personnel rules and regulations, and the GEDCA Administrator failed to provide a specific statement of the charges.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Therefore, he asserted he had no remedy at law and was entitled to relief.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson and Sasai did not allege any due process violation and did not join the CSC as a party.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 There was no visible intention on the part of either Carlson or Sasai to seek Superior Court review of the decision of the CSC.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The face of the Petition does not indicate or even suggest an appeal of the CSC\rquote s decision.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 7}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Sasai nevertheless argues that under }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2454182\charrsid12012466 
 v. Worker\rquote s Comp. Comm\rquote n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 2000 Guam 6, a writ of mandate is the appropriate vehicle for relief from a decision rendered 
by the CSC; therefore, the trial court should have entertained the Petition as such an appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 We noted in}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 : \'93We . . . recognize that pursuant to 5 GCA \'a7
 9241, a Writ of Mandate was the proper vehicle for relief.\'94 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id. \'b6 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 6}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 n.2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , petitioner appealed a decision of the Worker\rquote 
s Compensation Commission by filing a Petition for Writ of Review in the Superior Court, which denied the petition.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 However, the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 court essentially equated a petition for writ of review with a petition for a writ of m
andamus, and held its standard of review to be the same.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'b6 6.}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 stated that under 7 GCA \'a7 31201, the \'93
writ of mandamus may be de-nominated a writ of review\'94 and the court reviewed the writ of review under the \'93same analysis as a \lquote Writ of Mandamus.\rquote \'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 at 6 n.3.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 8}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The decision in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
to treat the writ of review as a writ of mandamus arose from the conclusion that Worker\rquote s Compensation Commission decisions are appealed under Guam\rquote s Administrative Adjudication Law, 5 GCA \'a7
 9241, which sets forth the procedure for reviewing administrative adjudications under Guam law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 court applied the review provisions of Guam\rquote s Administrative Adjudication Law (\'93AAL\'94
) to its review of the Worker\rquote s Compensation Commission Decision and Order, because under the AAL, \'93}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 any}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 agency decision\'94 is subject to judicial review by a party adversely affected by it.}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid16650651 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Title 5 GCA \'a7 9240 (2005) provides: \'93[j]udicial review may be had of any agency decision by any party affected adversely by it. If
 the agency decision is not in accordance with law or not supported by substantial evidence, the court shall order the agency to take action according to law or the evidence.\'94}{\insrsid6576235   }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279  }}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 5 GCA \'a7 9240}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9843136\charrsid12012466  (2005)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 (emphasis added).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The judicial review procedure of Guam\rquote 
s AAL found at 5 GCA \'a7 9241 provides that \'93[j]udicial review may be had by filing a petition in the Superior Court for a writ of mandate in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure\'94 found at 7 GCA \'a7 31201 }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 et seq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 5 GCA \'a7 9241 (2005).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Sasai assumes that since review of an order of the Worker\rquote 
s Compensation Commission is triggered under the AAL by filing a petition for writ of mandate, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
requires the filing of a Petition for Writ of Mandate to appeal any other agency action.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 We decline to follow Sasai\rquote 
s interpretation of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 9}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Rather, we find that where the agency\rquote s specific legislation directs how the agency action is to be judicially reviewed, then that agency\rquote 
s law should govern how one is to seek judicial review of that agency\rquote s action.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
For instance, review of a compensation order under Worker\rquote s Compensation law is available if the order is not in accordance with law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 22 GCA \'a7 9122 (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In order to suspend 
or set aside a compensation order, the aggrieved party is directed under section 9122 to initiate a case in the Superior Court \'93through injunction proceedings, mandatory or otherwise\'94 against the Commissioner.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 See generally Fagan v. Dell\rquote Isola}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 2006 Guam 11 \'b6 12 n.5. 

\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 60}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab In similar fashion to Worker\rquote 
s Compensation Commission appeals, the law establishing the CSC governs appeals to the CSC from adverse actions and provides for judicial review of the CSC decisions.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 See }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 4 GCA \'a7\'a7 4105(b), 4403(b), and 4406}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2165128\charrsid12012466  (2005)}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Therefore resort}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8792889\charrsid12012466 ing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  to Guam\rquote s AAL for review procedures is not appropriate in this case.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Title 4 GCA \'a7 4406 (2005), entitled \'93Adverse Action Procedures and Appeals,\'94 provides that the \'93
decision of the [CSC] or appropriate entity shall be final, but subject to judicial review.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 1}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The exercise of this right of judicial review has developed on Guam in an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ad hoc}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  manner.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
When an aggrieved employee sought judicial review of a CSC decision in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 University of Guam v. Guam Civil Service Commission}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , the Appellate Division noted that section 4406 provides only guidance.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The court stated, \'93the statute is . . . silent on the procedures for obtaining review.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm
\rquote n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , Docket No. CV-94-00018A, 1995 WL 222212 at *1 (D. Guam App. Div. Feb. 10, 1995).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
In that case, since the statute was silent and CSC had not adopted regulations for review, the court held that it was appropriate to impose a judicially-created statute of limitations for appeal of a decision of the CSC.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93On appeal, we r
eadily acknowledged that the Superior Court had authority to adopt that rule, although we pointed out that it would have been preferable to do so by rule-making\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Univ. of Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 1995 WL 222212 at *3.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 2}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 University of Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  case relied on the prior CSC 
case of }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Tyndzik v. Guerrero}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
, Docket Nos. CV-92-00023A & CV-92-00031A, 1992 WL 245889 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 11, 1992), which found, in section 187 of the Guam Code of Civil Procedure (now 7 GCA \'a7 7117),}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid535055 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 Title 7 GCA \'a7 7117 (2005) provides in pertinent part, \'93
[w]hen jurisdiction is by law conferred on a court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and . . . if the course of the proceeding be not specifically pointed out by l
aw or by rules of procedure . . . any suitable process or mode of proceedings may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this [law]\'94.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 authority to judicially adopt a rule.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 On this basis, the Appellate Division imposed a judicially-c
reated rule that a CSC decision had to be appealed within 30 days of its issuance.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 at *1.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Tyndzik}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
, this 30-day deadline was not dispositive because the court refused to apply the 30-day limit retroactively for obvious reasons of due process and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ex post facto}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  laws.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id. }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 at *2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 However, }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Tyndzik }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 is significant as the first case to acknowledge that the court has the power to designate \'93
any suitable process or mode of proceedings . . . most conformable to the spirit of this Title.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 7 GCA \'a7 7117 (2005).}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 3}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The CSC later adopted the 30-day rule first promulgated by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Tyndzik}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  in CSC Rule 11.7.8 through the rule-making process of the AAL.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 See }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \'93Rules of Procedure for Adverse Action Appeals,\'94 effective March 5, 2002. The CSC Rules adopted establish that judicia
l review of the judgment of the CSC may be had by filing appropriate pleadings with the Superior Court of Guam.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The CSC Rules also refer to the vehicle that an aggrieved party is to use as a \'93Petition for Judicial Review.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 CSC Rule 11.7.7.

\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 4}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab The development of the \'93Petition for Judicial Review\'94 is another example of a procedure developed on an }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ad hoc }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 basis.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Guam Power Authority v. Civil Service Commission}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
, Docket No. CV-87-00072A, 1988 WL 242617 (D. Guam App. Div. Nov. 17, 1988), the court sanctioned the use of a judicially-created \'93Petition for Judicial Review\'94 as the appropriate vehicle for review of a CSC decision.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 at *4.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The Appellate Division found that this remedy, though not statutorily mandated, was within the court\rquote s power to design for its litigants.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 5}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab This court also confirmed that agency personnel decisions are appealed via the use of the \'93Petition for Judicial Review\'94 in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Perez v. Judicial Council of Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15757630\charrsid12012466  2002 Guam 12 \'b6 12,
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  where we determined that a petition for a writ of mandate will not lie because the aggrieved party can seek review via a \'93Petition for Judicial Review.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Perez}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , we relied on prior Appellate Division cases, including }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Guam Power Auth}{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15757630\charrsid12012466 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 1988 WL 242617, and held that \'93in order to seek jud
icial review of a Council personnel decision, a classified employee must file a petition for judicial review within thirty days of the Council's decision.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Id.}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 While the }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Perez }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 decision was directed to classified employees of the judicial branch, we endorse
 the findings contained therein, and hold herein that the proper way for classified employees of the government of Guam or any of its instrumentalities, corporations or agencies to utilize the right of judicial review of CSC decisions is by filing a \'93
Petition for Judicial Review.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 We invoke the power recognized in 7 GCA \'a7
 7117, and adopt the rule that for an appeal of a CSC decision, the aggrieved must denominate the Petition as a \'93Petition for Judicial Review.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 We so hold because this is the previously accepted form of agency review of personnel decisions, and we do so in the exercise of our power to designate \'93
any suitable process or mode of proceedings . . . most conformable to the spirit of this Title\'94 found in 7 GCA \'a7 7117.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab In this way, we }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid9468640\charrsid12012466 clarify}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  the statements made in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 2000 Guam 6 \'b6
 6 n.2, that appeals of agency decisions proceed via the Guam Administrative Adjudication Law and the Guam writ statutes.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
We hold that in cases where the agency\rquote s statutes require appeal to the CSC, the CSC and
 its implementing rules and regulations set forth procedures for judicial review of the CSC decision, and the aggrieved party must follow those specified procedures.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Further, reliance on the procedures of the writ of mandate is inappropriate because the ex
traordinary remedy of mandate is discretionary and carries a threshold of satisfying certain statutory requirements, while review of a CSC adverse action decision should be heard as a matter of right, not discretion.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 7}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab In this case, Carlson and Sasai urge us to treat their respective petitions liberally, and construe them as petitions for judicial review, because of the suggestion in }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Bondoc }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 that a petition for mandate is interchangeable with a petition for judicial review.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
However, we decline to do so, primarily because neither Carlson nor Sasai indicated in the pleadings that they were appealing the CSC decisions.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 There is no way to determine from the face of the Petition that Carlson and Sasai were seeking Superior Court review of an agency decision.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }
{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Instead of pursuing an appeal of the CSC decision, Carlson and Sasai sought a writ of mandamus ordering GEDCA to reinstate them to their positions.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The Petition was plainly addressed to the original writ jurisdiction of the 
Superior Court and complained of action taken by GEDCA outside its authority.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The Petition did not complain of action taken by the CSC within the CSC\rquote s authority}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\keepn\widctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid535055 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
\chftn }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279  Indeed if the Petition had named the CSC as a party and requested review of the CSC decision
s, we would have treated it as an appropriate Petition for Judicial Review notwithstanding its label as a Petition for a Writ of Mandate.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
 and cannot be taken as petition for judicial review because that is not what was sought.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 While the court is mindful o
f the unfortunate consequences and harsh realities of its ruling, it is fair to say that Carlson and Sasai placed themselves in this position by not naming the CSC as a party and not seeking review of the CSC decisions.}{
\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar
\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid535055 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
\chftn }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279  Although only Carlson or Sasai or their counsel know the reason(s) for not naming the CSC as a party and not seeking judicial review of the CSC\rquote 
s adverse decision, one plausible explanation may be the deference required to be given by the Superior Court to the CSC\rquote s findings that Carlson and Sasai had not competed for their initial and subsequent positions.}{\insrsid14383279  }{
\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 See Commodity Futures Trading Comm\rquote n v. Schor}{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 , 478 U.S. 833, 845 (1986) (\'93An agency\rquote 
s expertise is superior to that of a court when a dispute centers on. . . regulation[s] . . .}{\insrsid14383279  }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 [which] the agency is charged with enforcing.\'94); }{\i\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 
see also Safari Aviation Inc. v. Garvey}{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 , 300 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir. 2002).}{\insrsid14383279  }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 

\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 8}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  \tab Judge Unpingco did not commit error in denying the Petition on the basis that Carlson and Sasai had an adequate remedy at law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 A writ of mandamus may not be issued when there is \'93a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 7 GCA \'a7 31203 (2005).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
This holding reflects a judicial policy of encouraging litigants to exhaust their administrative and legal remedies before seeking a writ.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Judge Unpingco stated that \'93[t]he effect of disregarding the CSC\rquote s decision, ignoring the procedural defect Petitioners have made in failing to appeal it, and granting mandamus in this case would be to open the floodgates to immedi
ate judicial review of all civil service commission decisions in progress.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ER, tab 28, p. 11 (Decision & Orde}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid535055\charrsid12012466 r}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 ).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Judge Unpingco further reasoned, 
\par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 If deference is not given 
to enacted laws that equip government with mechanisms for the extrajudicial disposition of claims, then such laws will be rendered meaningless, and will inevitably cause the demise of the administrative adjudications that allow our system to efficiently f
unction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Consequently, the courts will be unduly burdened with hearing writ after writ. 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12012466 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par ER, tab 28, p. 11 (Decision & Order).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [6}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 9}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab There are several reasons for the exhaustion of remedies doctrine.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The basic purpose, as Judge Unpingco recognized, is to \'93lighten the burden of overworked courts in cases where administrative remedies are available.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Morton v. Sup. Ct.,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  88 Cal. Rptr. 533, 536 (1970).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 A second justification for upholding the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is revealed in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Wes
tlake Community Hospital v. Superior Court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
, 551 P.2d 410, 416 (Cal. 1976), where it was recognized that even where the administrative remedy may not provide the specific relief sought by a party or resolve all the issues, exhaustion is preferred because ag
encies have the specialized personnel, experience and expertise to unearth relevant evidence and provide a record which a court may review.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 If an employee is classified (as these litigants claim they were), then that employee should appeal any adverse acti
on taken by his employer to the CSC, and if dissatisfied with the CSC decision, the employee may seek judicial review in the Superior Court.}{\cs44\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\s47\qj \li0\ri0\sa120\nowidctlpar\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid1212229 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\super\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279 \chftn }{\insrsid4459823\charrsid14383279  If the employee is not classified, while not entitled to merit system protection, such employee has the option of seeking original relief \endash  and not writ relief 
\endash  in the Superior Court of Guam on other wrongful termination grounds that may be asserted, i.e., termination motivated by invidious or discriminatory practices.}{\insrsid6576235   }}}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 70}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab Because the right to appeal the CSC decision is an adequate legal remedy which Carlson and Sasai have not exhausted, they are not entitled to invoke the extraordinary relief of mandamus.
}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Their \'93failure to exhaust [] administrative and legal remedies . . . ha[s] proved fatal to this mandamus action.\'94}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Krivitsky v. Town of Westerly}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 , 849 A.2d 359, 363 (R.I. 2004); }{
\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 see also Trojan v. Taylor Tp.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
, 91 N.W.2d 9, 10 (Mich. 1958) (stating the general rule that judicial relief is not to be granted where the plaintiff can appeal the error).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Since Carlson and Sasai were seeking the writ, they must prove entitlement to such relief.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 The petitioner has the burden of showing that a writ should issue. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 People v. Super. Ct. (Bruneman),}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  1998 Guam 24 \'b6 3.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
They were required to show that they did not have a plain, speedy and adequate remedy, but they failed to do so.
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [7}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 1}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab We find that the failure to frame the Petition as an appeal of the CSC determination and to name the CSC as a party renders fatal their a
rgument that the Petition should be treated as a petition for judicial review.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
The Petition was directed to the original jurisdiction of the Superior Court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
We hold that the Superior Court did not err in dismissing the case for failure to exhaust administrative and legal remedies.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4459823 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 IV.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 [7}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12410912\charrsid12012466 2}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid3305869\charrsid12012466 ]}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 \tab }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid8605310\charrsid12012466 I}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
n the proceedings below, Judge Manibusan did not hold that Carlson and Sasai did not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy or that the CSC was prevented from reviewing their adverse action appeals.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Such a proposition was not established as the law of the case, therefore, it was not a departure from the law of the case doctrine or an abuse of discretion for the successor judge, Judge Unpingco, to rule that Carlson and Sasai had an adequate remedy in 
the ordinary course of law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
Although GEDCA is a public corporation and not an instrumentality of the government of Guam, Guam law requires due process before any classified employee may be dismissed. Since Carlson and Sasai have not made a case for a violat
ion of their due process rights, it is not actionable that GEDCA failed to adopt rules governing the selection, promotion, evaluation, demotion, suspension and disciplinary action of its classified employees as required by statute.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 GEDCA\rquote s failure to adopt
 such rules also does not prevent GEDCA from terminating its classified employees if such employees are afforded due process, since the plain language of the law does not require retention of employees absent the promulgation of these rules.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Finally, Carls
on and Sasai failed to properly appeal the ruling of the CSC that they were not hired through the competitive process, because they neglected to name the CSC as a party and did not seek review of the CSC decisions.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 Carlson and Sasai\rquote s petition to the CSC t
o review their termination and the ability to obtain judicial review of any CSC decision were plain, speedy and adequate remedies, therefore mandamus was not an appropriate relief.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 We }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 AFFIRM}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466  the Decision and Order of the trial court.}{
\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12012466  }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid6822701\charrsid12012466 
\par }}