{\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;}{\f177\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f178\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f180\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;} {\f181\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f182\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f183\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f184\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;} {\f185\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}{\f187\fswiss\fcharset238\fprq2 Arial CE;}{\f188\fswiss\fcharset204\fprq2 Arial Cyr;}{\f190\fswiss\fcharset161\fprq2 Arial Greek;}{\f191\fswiss\fcharset162\fprq2 Arial Tur;} {\f192\fswiss\fcharset177\fprq2 Arial (Hebrew);}{\f193\fswiss\fcharset178\fprq2 Arial (Arabic);}{\f194\fswiss\fcharset186\fprq2 Arial Baltic;}{\f195\fswiss\fcharset163\fprq2 Arial (Vietnamese);}{\f197\fmodern\fcharset238\fprq1 Courier New CE;} {\f198\fmodern\fcharset204\fprq1 Courier New Cyr;}{\f200\fmodern\fcharset161\fprq1 Courier New Greek;}{\f201\fmodern\fcharset162\fprq1 Courier New Tur;}{\f202\fmodern\fcharset177\fprq1 Courier New (Hebrew);} {\f203\fmodern\fcharset178\fprq1 Courier New (Arabic);}{\f204\fmodern\fcharset186\fprq1 Courier New Baltic;}{\f205\fmodern\fcharset163\fprq1 Courier New (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255; \red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0; \red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{ \s1\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\outlinelevel0\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 1;}{\s2\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\outlinelevel1\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 2;}{\s3\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\outlinelevel2\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext0 heading 3;}{\* \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\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext15 Level 1;}{\s16\qj \li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext16 Level 2;}{ \s17\qj \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext17 Level 3;}{\s18\qj \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext18 Level 4;}{\s19\qj \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext19 Level 5;}{ \s20\qj \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext20 Level 6;}{\s21\qj \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext21 Level 7;}{\s22\qj \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext22 Level 8;}{ \s23\qj \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext23 Level 9;}{\s24\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext24 _17;}{\s25\qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext25 _16;}{\s26\qj \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext26 _15;}{\s27\qj \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext27 _14;}{\s28\qj \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext28 _13;}{\s29\qj \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext29 _12;}{\s30\qj \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext30 _11;}{\s31\qj \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext31 _10;}{\*\cs32 \additive Default Para;}{\s33\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext33 Body Text;} {\*\cs34 \additive \ul\cf2 \sbasedon10 Hyperlink;}{\s35\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext35 _level1;}{\s36\qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext36 _level2;}{\s37\qj \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext37 _level3;}{\s38\qj \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext38 _level4;}{\s39\qj \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext39 _level5;}{\s40\qj \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext40 _level6;}{\s41\qj \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext41 _level7;}{\s42\qj \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext42 _level8;}{\s43\qj \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext43 _level9;}{\s44\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext44 _levsl1;}{\s45\qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext45 _levsl2;}{\s46\qj \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext46 _levsl3;}{\s47\qj \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext47 _levsl4;}{\s48\qj \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext48 _levsl5;}{\s49\qj \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext49 _levsl6;}{\s50\qj \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext50 _levsl7;}{\s51\qj \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext51 _levsl8;}{\s52\qj \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext52 _levsl9;}{\s53\qj \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext53 _levnl1;}{\s54\qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext54 _levnl2;}{\s55\qj \fi-720\li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext55 _levnl3;}{\s56\qj \fi-720\li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext56 _levnl4;}{\s57\qj \fi-720\li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext57 _levnl5;}{\s58\qj \fi-720\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext58 _levnl6;}{\s59\qj \fi-720\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext59 _levnl7;}{\s60\qj \fi-720\li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext60 _levnl8;}{\s61\qj \fi-720\li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext61 _levnl9;}{\s62\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext62 Definition T;}{\s63\qj \li360\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx360\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin360\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext63 Definition L;}{\*\cs64 \additive \i Definition;}{\s65\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs48\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext65 H1;}{ \s66\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs36\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext66 H2;}{\s67\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs28\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext67 H3;}{\s68\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext68 H4;}{ \s69\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext69 H5;}{\s70\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \b\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext70 H6;}{\s71\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \i\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext71 Address;}{\s72\qj \li360\ri360\nowidctlpar \tx360\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin360\lin360\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext72 Blockquote;}{\*\cs73 \additive \i CITE;}{\*\cs74 \additive \f2\fs20 CODE;}{\*\cs75 \additive \i \sbasedon10 Emphasis;}{\*\cs76 \additive \ul\cf12 FollowedHype;}{\*\cs77 \additive \b\f2\fs20 Keyboard;}{\s78\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx0\tx958\tx1917\tx2876\tx3835\tx4794\tx5754\tx6712\tx7671\tx8630\tx9356\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f2\fs20\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext78 Preformatted;}{\s79\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrt\brdrdb\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext79 zBottom of;}{\s80\qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\brdrb\brdrdb\brdrw5\brdrcf1 \wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \f1\fs16\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext80 zTop of For;}{\*\cs81 \additive \f2 Sample;}{\*\cs82 \additive \b \sbasedon10 Strong;}{\*\cs83 \additive \f2\fs20 Typewriter;}{\*\cs84 \additive \i Variable;}{\*\cs85 \additive \v\cf6 HTML Markup;}{\*\cs86 \additive Comment;}{\s87\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext87 _26;}{\s88\qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext88 _25;}{\s89\qj \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext89 _24;}{\s90\qj \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext90 _23;}{\s91\qj \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext91 _22;}{\s92\qj \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext92 _21;}{\s93\qj \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext93 _20;}{\s94\qj \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext94 _19;}{\s95\qj \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext95 _18;}{ \s96\qj \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext96 _9;}{\s97\qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext97 _8;}{\s98\qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx1440\tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext98 _7;}{\s99\qj \li2160\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx2160\tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2160\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext99 _6;}{\s100\qj \li2880\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx2880\tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin2880\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext100 _5;}{\s101\qj \li3600\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx3600\tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin3600\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext101 _4;}{\s102\qj \li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx4320\tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext102 _3;}{\s103\qj \li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar \tx5040\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext103 _2;}{\s104\qj \li5760\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx5760\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin5760\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext104 _1;}{\s105\qj \li6480\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx6480\tx7200\tx7920\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin6480\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext105 _;}{ \s106\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext106 \styrsid12347136 header;}{\s107\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar \tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext107 \styrsid12347136 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid926751\rsid4744437\rsid5382921\rsid8326609\rsid8611748\rsid10377870 \rsid10945910\rsid12347136\rsid13382926\rsid13633955\rsid13636664\rsid14032455\rsid15684014}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6818;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author gcepeda}{\doccomm TO: All Justices }{\operator Kym Freriks} {\creatim\yr2008\mo1\dy17\hr11\min30}{\revtim\yr2008\mo1\dy17\hr16\min45}{\version4}{\edmins6}{\nofpages17}{\nofwords6984}{\nofchars39810}{\nofcharsws46701}{\vern16393}{\*\password 00000000}}{\*\xmlnstbl {\xmlns1 urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags}}\paperw12240\paperh15840\margl1440\margr1440\margt1440\margb1008\gutter0 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\hyphhotz936\notabind\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\subfontbysize\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot12347136 \fet0{\*\wgrffmtfilter 013f}{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12347136 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12347136 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12347136 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid12347136 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \psz1\sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1008\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid4744437\sftnbj {\headerr \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8326609 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid8326609\charrsid12347136 In re Department of Agriculture v. Civil Service Commission (Rojas)}{\fs20\insrsid8326609\charrsid12347136 , Opinion\tab Page \chpgn of }{\field{\*\fldinst { \fs20\insrsid8326609\charrsid12347136 NUMPAGES \\* ARABIC }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid5382921 27}}}\sectd \linex0\endnhere\sectdefaultcl\sftnbj {\fs20\insrsid8326609\charrsid12347136 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8326609 {\fs20\insrsid8326609\charrsid12347136 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid8611748 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid13633955 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft0\shptop0\shpright0\shpbottom0\shpfhdr0\shpbxmargin\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz0\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn lineColor}{\sv 2}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 19050}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxmargin\dobypara\dodhgt8192\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx0\dppty0 \dpx0\dpy0\dpxsize0\dpysize0\dplinew30\dplinecor2\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft0\shptop7\shpright9360\shpbottom7\shpfhdr0\shpbxmargin\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt0\shpz1\shplid2050 {\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 20}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn lineColor}{\sv 2}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 12192}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxmargin\dobypara\dodhgt8193\dpline\dpptx0\dppty0\dpptx9360\dppty0\dpx0\dpy7\dpxsize9360\dpysize0\dplinew19\dplinecor2\dplinecog0\dplinecob0}}}}{ \fs20\insrsid8326609\charrsid8611748 \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\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\field\flddirty{\*\fldinst {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 SEQ CHAPTER \\h \\r 1}}{\fldrslt }}\sectd \psz1\sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1008\titlepg\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid4744437\sftnbj {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 IN THE MATTER OF}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13633955\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Petitioner-Appellant,}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 vs. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Respondent-Appellee,}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 PATRICIA ROJAS, \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Real Party in Interest-Appellee. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Supreme Court Case No.:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 CVA05-008 \par Superior Court Case No.:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 SP0168-03 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 OPINION}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Filed: December 31, 2007}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Cite as:}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 2007 Guam 21}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par Argued and submitted on February 20, 2006 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\ts11\trgaph120\trleft1800\trkeep\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblind1920\tblindtype3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3600\clshdrawnil \cellx5400\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3960\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid15684014 {\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 For Petitioner-Appellant:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par James T. Mitchell, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 (briefed) \par Joseph A. Guthrie, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 (argued) \par Office of the Attorney General \par 287 W. O\rquote Brien Dr. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910 \par \cell }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 For Respondent-Appellee:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par Robert H. Kono, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par Civil Service Commission \par 2nd Floor, Hakubotan Bldg. \par Tamuning, GU 96911 \par \par \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \trowd \irow0\irowband0 \ts11\trgaph120\trleft1800\trkeep\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblind1920\tblindtype3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3600\clshdrawnil \cellx5400\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3960\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \cell }{\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 For Real Party in Interest-Appellee: }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par Anthony C. Perez, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 (briefed) \par Delia S. Lujan, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Esq.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 (argued) \par Lujan Aguigui & Perez, LLP \par Pacific News Bldg. Suite 300 \par 238 Archbishop Flores St. \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, GU 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\wrapdefault\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \trowd \irow1\irowband1\lastrow \ts11\trgaph120\trleft1800\trkeep\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trftsWidthA3\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3\tblind1920\tblindtype3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3600\clshdrawnil \cellx5400\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth3960\clshdrawnil \cellx9360\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par BEFORE:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice, FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice1{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4744437 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 1}{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 Associate Justice Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood heard oral argument in this case. Prior to issuance of this Opinion, she was sworn in as Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court of Guam.}}, ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice. \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 TORRES, J.:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [1]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab This appeal arises from the termination of Real Party in Interest-Appellee Patricia Rojas by Petitioner-Appellant Department of Agriculture (\'93DOA\'94), for insubordination and for failure of good behavior.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas appealed the adverse action to Respondent-Appellee Civil Service Commission (\'93CSC\'94), which dismissed Rojas\rquote case for her failure to timely file the appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas subsequently sought reconsideration of the dismissal, and the Commission ruled in her favor in a judgment stating that DOA had failed to demonstrate that Rojas was insubordinate and that she did not show good behavior.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DOA then filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Superior Court, requesting that the CSC decision be vacated.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The Petition was denied, and DOA appealed to this court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [2]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab We hold that the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying mandamus relief.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC properly dismissed Rojas\rquote appeal for failure to meet the statutory deadline of 4 GCA \'a7 4406.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Applying the three-prong test in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas v. Guam Customs & Quarantin e Agency}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2000 Guam 12, reveals that the CSC did not show good cause for reconsideration or the reasonable exercise of reconsideration, and Rojas did not show reasonable diligence in bringing the request for reconsideration.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We hold that the CSC erred in reconsidering its initial dismissal, and therefore, its subsequent judgment in Rojas\rquote favor must be vacated.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Accordingly, we reverse and remand. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 I.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [3]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Patricia Rojas, a DOA employee, experienced a work-related injury on or about February 28, 1995.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 She did not inform her supervisor of her injury until April 11, 1995.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 At the time she received the injury, Rojas was two to three months pregnant, and after the February 28, 1995 incident, she experienced pain in her shoulders.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 She received treatment for the pai n at the Guam Memorial Hospital emergency room and saw Dr. Soriano and another doctor sometime in April to May 1995.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 No x-rays were taken because she was pregnant.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 When Rojas informed Dr. Soriano that she was coughing up blood, he advised her to obtain a tuberculosis test, which she took on July 22, 1995.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 She returned to work on July 24, 1995 with a work leave form signed by Dr. Parent. That same day, DOA ordered her to see Dr. Holland to verify her illness.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas did not see Dr. Holland; she saw Dr. Parent to obtain the results of her tuberculosis test, which were negative. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [4]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab On August 4, 1995, DOA served upon Rojas a Proposed Notice of Adverse Action.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas was served with a Notice of Final Adverse Action on August 25, 1995, which terminated her for ins ubordination, for failure to comply with the order to see Dr. Holland on July 24, 1995; and for failure of good behavior in refusing to accept or acknowledge letters scheduling her appointment with Dr. Holland.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas submitted her resignation from DOA on October 17, 1995.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 She then filed an appeal with the CSC on December 21, 1995. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [5]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab More than three years later, on February 11, 1999, the CSC issued a Decision and Order (\'93the CSC Order\'94 ) dismissing Rojas\rquote appeal due to her failure to timely file the appeal pursuant to 4 GCA \'a7 4406.2{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\keep\keepn\widctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4744437 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 2}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 According to 4 GCA \'a7 4406 (2005), a classified employee subject to an adverse action has the right to appeal to the CSC, as follows: \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa240\keep\keepn\widctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid4744437 {\fs20\insrsid12347136 The employee within twenty (20) days of effective date of the action, may appeal to the Commi ssion or appropriate entity by filing that person\rquote s written answer to the charges against the employee, regardless whether the employee has tendered any resignations, which shall have no effect upon the employee\rquote s appeal rights.}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas maintains that she n ever received notice from the CSC that it had dismissed her appeal, and on August 9, 2001, she filed her Appellant\rquote s Motion for Reconsideration to Appeal (\'93Motion for Reconsideration\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC granted her motion,3{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4744437 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 3}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 Apparently, the CSC granted Rojas\rquote Moti on for Reconsideration at a hearing on September 20, 2001, during which Rojas, her counsel and a DOA representative were present. }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 See }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 Mot. for Jud. Notice, or in the Alternative, to Supplement Supplemental Excerpts of Record, Ex. 4 (Dec. 21, 2006). }} and conducted hearings on April 30, 2002 and May 2, 2002.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC ultimately ruled in her favor, stating in its Decision and Judgment (\'93the CSC Judgment\'94) that:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014\charrsid15684014 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 a.\tab That Patricia Rojas had a legitimate reason for not going to see the Department of Agriculture\rquote s ordered Doctor before seeing Public Health and Social Services Doctors, to determine the possibility if she had T.B. and that such testing a}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 nd results are important .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014\charrsid15684014 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 b.\tab That an employee in good standing for years when ordered to do two (2) things at once as one can only do one at a time by starting with the most serious of her medical concerns.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014\charrsid15684014 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 c.\tab That based on the foregoing, Department of Agriculture failed to meet its burden in their [sic] termination of Patricia Rojas.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136 \par }\pard \ql \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Appellant\rquote s Excerpts of Record (\'93ER\'94), Tab 3 (CSC Decision & Judgment).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC Judgment also ordered that Rojas, \'93Management,\'94 presumably of DOA, and CSC legal counsel meet after the hearings, on May 9 , 2002 to discuss the issue of damages.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Apparently, the parties met but did not reach an agreement on the damages issue.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC Judgment was not filed until March 18, 2003. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [6]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Four months later, DOA filed the instant Petition at the Superior Court, req uesting that the Superior Court order the CSC to vacate the CSC Judgment.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The Petition was denied, and DOA sought reconsideration pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Guam Rules of Civil Procedure, which was also denied.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DOA then timely appealed to this court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 II.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [7]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab This court has jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 48 U.S.C. \'a7 1424-1(a)(2) (West, Westlaw through Pub.L. 110-133 (2007)); 7 GCA \'a7\'a7 3107, 3108(a) (2005); }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Lizama v. Dep\rquote t of Pub. Works}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2005 Guam 12 \'b6 11; }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Pac. Rock Corp. v. Perez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2005 Guam 15 \'b6 14.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In addition, this court \'93ha[s] jurisdiction to review a petition for writ of mandate.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Bank of Guam v. Reidy}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2001 Guam 14 \'b6 10 (citing 7 GCA \'a7 3107 (1994)). \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 III.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [8]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab A trial court\rquote s decision to deny a writ of mandamus is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Carlson v. Perez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2007 Guam 6 \'b6 15 (citing }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Haeuser v. Dep\rquote t of Law}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 97 F.3d 1152, 1154 (9th Cir. 1996)).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 However, the trial court\rquote s decision regarding whether the requirements of mandamus relief have been met is a question of law, which this court reviews }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 de novo}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See Carlson}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2007 Guam 6 \'b6 16; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Reidy}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2001 Guam 14 \'b6 12 (\'93Whether [a party] has satisfied the elements for }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 mandamus }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 is a question of law reviewed }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 de novo.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'94).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Moreover, DOA contends that the CSC lacked jurisdiction to hear the Motion for Reconsideration, and \'93 [t]he issue of whether the CSC has jurisdiction is a matter of statutory interpretation, and, therefore, our review is }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 de novo}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 .\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mesngon v. Gov\rquote t of Guam}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2003 Guam 3 \'b6 8 (citing }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Univ. of Guam v. Civil Serv. Comm\rquote n (Foley)}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2002 Guam 4 \'b6 5). \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 IV.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [9]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab DOA challenges the trial court\rquote s determination that the CSC Judgment was final and reviewable, arguing that the CSC lacked jurisdiction to hear Rojas\rquote Motion for Reconsideration.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DOA also contends that the trial court erred in denying the Petition, because the facts of the case satisfied the requirements for issuance of this writ.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In a joint brief, the CSC and Rojas disagree in both respects and argue the trial court should be affirmed. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 A.\tab The CSC\rquote s Reconsideration of its Order }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [10]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab In concluding that the CSC Judgment was final and therefore subject to judicial review, the trial court implicitly found that the CSC had jurisdiction to rule on Rojas\rquote Motion for Reconsideration.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 } {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 On appeal, DOA contends the CSC did not have jurisdiction to hear the reconsideration motion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC and Rojas maintain the trial court was correct. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [11]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab We have recognized that \'93 [a]fter a survey of Guam statutes, ordinances, or rules, no such authority exists that either permits or restricts the CSC to rehear its final decision.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas v. Guam Customs & Quarantine Agency}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2000 Guam 12 \'b6 32.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC, however, \'93has the inherent or implied authority to rehear its final decisions\'94 although \'93such power is by no means unlimited.\'94}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Guam Dep\rquote t of Pub. Safety v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm\rquote n (\'93DPS\'94)}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , D.C. Civ. App. No. 810033A, 1982 WL 30789 at *2 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 8, 1982).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 To determine when, and under what circumstances, the CSC may reconsider a prior decision, we use a three-part test initially articulated by the Appellate Division in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DPS}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , and later adopted by this court in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 .}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2000 Guam 12 \'b6 33 (\'93We herewith adopt the three-part inquiry and rationale as articulated by the Appellate Division as the test for whether the CSC should grant a motion to reconsider a final decision . . . .\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We stated that \'93 before the power of administrative reconsideration can be exercised . . . (1) there must be good cause shown; (2) it must be reasonably exercised; and (3) the petition seeking its exercise must be made with reasonable diligence.\'94}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'b6 32 (citing }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DPS}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 1982 WL 30789 at *2).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See also Duvin v. State, Dep\rquote t of Treas.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 386 A.2d 842, 844 (N.J. 1978) (\'93 Of course the power [of reconsideration] should be invoked only for good cause shown.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Also, it must be ex ercised reasonably, and application seeking its exercise must be made with reasonable diligence.\'94). \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [12]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab It is not abundantly clear whether courts require that all three prongs be satisfied.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In one case, the court remanded a case for the specific purpose of reconsidering its prior decision, and with instructions to determine whether there was good cause for a retiree to reopen his original pension application to allow him to claim accidental disability retirement instead of early retirement, and whether his request was made with reasonable diligence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'93 If the Board determines that good cause has been shown and that respondent has acted with reasonable diligence, it should permit respondent to file his application for accidental disability retirement benefits and consider it on the merits.\'94}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Duvin}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 386 A.2d at 844.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Duvin}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 court, however, did not articulate the outcome if, for example, the board determined there was good cause but a lack of reasonable diligence.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , we analyzed all three requirements; similarly, here, we will use a balancing test to analyze and weigh the considerations presented by all three prongs. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [13]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Before applying the three-part test under }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 to determine whether the CSC should have granted Rojas\rquote Motion for Reconsideration, it is helpful to review the decision that was reconsidered by the CSC, their order that dismissed Rojas\rquote appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [14]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Rojas was required to appeal her termination by \'93filing [a] written answer to the charges\'94 with the CSC \'93within twenty (20) days of effective date of the action.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 4 GCA \'a7 4406 (2005). DOA served Rojas with a Notice of Final Adverse Action on August 25, 1995.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Record on Appeal (\'93RA\'94), Tab 3, Ex. 2.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas, however, did not file her Notice of Appeal with the CSC until December 21, 1995 \endash undisputedly beyond the twenty-day deadline set forth in section}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4744437\charrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 4406.4{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\keep\keepn\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid4744437 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 4}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 The service of the Notice of Final Adverse Action on August 25, 1995 triggers the twenty-day period fo r filing an appeal; thus Rojas should have filed her appeal with the CSC by September 14, 1995, twenty calendar days after receiving the notice. Although 4 GCA \'a7 4406 does not specify that calendar days be used, prior administrative rules and regulations state: \'93An appeal must be submitted within twenty (20) calendar days after receipt of the department\rquote s final notice of adverse action.\'94 2 {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}Guam{\*\xmlclose} Admin. R. and Regs. \'a7 1110.6(c) (1975). }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In the CSC Order, Rojas\rquote violation of this twenty-day filing date was cited as the reason for dismissal:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'93}{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 the above-entitled matter be }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 for failure of Appellant to file her Notice of Appeal within the time prescribed by 4}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 G.C.A. Section 4406.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 RA, Tab 3, Ex. 4 (CSC Decision and Order). \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [15]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab The CSC correctly concluded that, based on Rojas\rquote failure to meet the statutory filing deadline of 4 GCA \'a7 4406, it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed Rojas\rquote appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See, e.g.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rowe v. Dep\rquote t of Employment & Econ. Dev.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 704 N.W.2d 191, 195-96 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005) (strictly construing the statutes governing an agency\rquote s authority to review its decisions, and holding that \'93 [t]he 30-day statutory time period [to appeal] is \lquote absolute and unambiguous\rquote and must be strictly construed.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Whe n a decision becomes final, the department is deprived of jurisdiction to conduct further review.\'94) (citations omitted).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We now apply the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 test to determine if reconsideration by the CSC was warranted. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 1.\tab Good cause and request for judicial notice}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [16]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab The first prong in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 requires this court to examine whether there was \'93good cause shown\'94 for the CSC to reconsider its initial and legally sound dismissal of Rojas\rquote appeal.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2000 Guam 12 \'b6 32.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas argues here that reconsideration of the dismissal was proper, despite her failure to comply with 4 GCA \'a7 4406, because there were compelling reasons for her failure to timely appeal to the CSC.5{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\keepn\widctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid926751 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 5}{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 While neither directly cited by the parties nor specifically argued here, Rojas\rquote efforts to introduce \'93co mpelling reasons\'94 in her Motion for Reconsideration likely arises from an attempt to trigger Rule 5.2.1 of the CSC Rules of Procedure for Adverse Actions Appeals, which allows the CSC to \'93 excuse the filing of a Notice of Appeal beyond the twenty (20) day period if the Employee proves a compelling reason for his failure to timely file.\'94 However, Rule 5.2.1 does not apply to Rojas\rquote case, as it was not in effect in 1995 when Rojas filed her appeal with the CSC on December 21, 1995. Moreover, the CSC rules which were in effect in 1995 did not include a similar provision to excuse late filings. }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 See infra}{ \fs20\insrsid12347136 , part IV.A.2 (discussing CSC rules in effect in 1995).}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In order for Rojas to introduce evidence of these compelling reasons, however, this court must grant her request to take judicial notice of certain documents,6{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid12347136 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 6}{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 Although not articulated in Rojas \rquote motion, we recognize that her request invokes discretionary judicial notice pursuant to Rule 201(c) of the Guam Rules of Evidence.}} or alternatively, her request to supplement prior filings in this appeal.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DOA filed a motion in opposition, requesting that the court strike her motion for judicial notice and the att ached exhibits, and further, impose the sanction of granting the relief DOA requested in the appeal. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [17]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Rojas\rquote request for judicial notice relates to four documents:}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 (1) Appellant\rquote s Opposition to Appellee\rquote s Motion to dismiss filed by Rojas on July 24, 1998 (\'93the Opposition\'94 ); (2) the CSC Order dismissing her appeal; (3) the Motion for Reconsideration; and (4) a CSC Decision and Order dated October 25, 2001 which granted the Motion for Reconsideration.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 note 3, }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 supra.}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mot. for Judicial Notice, or in the Alternative, to Supplement Supplemental Excerpts of Record, p. 1 (Dec. 21, 2006).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [18]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Judicial notice is governed by Rule 201 of the Guam Rules of Evidence (GRE), and may be taken during appeal.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 GRE 201(f) (\'93Judicial notice may be taken at any stage of the proceeding.\'94); }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 People v. Diaz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2007 Guam 3 \'b6 60 (recognizing that judicial notice may be taken during appeal).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'93 We must first determine whether or not the kinds of facts [Rojas] would like this court to take judicial notice of are appropriate under Rule 201.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Diaz}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2007 Guam 3 \'b6 61.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The \'93 judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 GRE 201(b). \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [19]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab As to the CSC orders (documents #2 and #4), taking judicial notice is not necessary.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 These orders were exhibits to a memorandum filed by DOA in the Superior Court; the refore, they are already included in the Record on Appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Judicial Notice of the Motion for Reconsideration (document #3) is also unnecessary.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 This motion, like the CSC orders, was an exhibit to the DOA memorandum, and is already part of the Record on Appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Moreover, Rojas had included this motion in the Supplemental Excerpts of Record filed with her appellate brief.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas\rquote request for judicial notice as to these three documents is moot, and therefore, denied.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The request for judicial notice as to the Op position (document #4), however, requires further examination.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [20]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Rojas does not contend, and we do not believe, that the facts of the Opposition are \'93 generally known within the territorial jurisdiction\'94 of the Superior Court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 GRE 201(b)(1).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 There are any number of adverse action cases filed by classified Government of Guam employees at the CSC, and Rojas does not argue that her case gained any publicity or notoriety that would make the facts contained in the Opposition \'93generally known \'94 on Guam.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Moreover, although the Opposition was apparently submitted during CSC proceedings and was made a part of the CSC\rquote s records, this document was never made part of the Superior Court\rquote s mandamus proceeding.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Furthermore, the facts contained within the Opposition are not \'93capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned\'94 as required by GRE 201(b)(2).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas argues that the Opposition is a public record as it is part of the CSC records, and the CSC is a governmental administrative agency.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Yet, even if the Opposition was available from the CSCs\rquote records, nothing in Rojas\rquote motion to this court or the }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10945910\charrsid15684014 O}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 pposition itself, shows that the Opposition was, in fact, acquired directly from the CSC\rquote s records.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Applying GRE 201(b), we do not believe that the facts contained within the Opposition are either \'93 generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court\'94 or \'93capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See In re Marquam Inv. Corp.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 942 F.2d 1462, 1467 (9th Cir. 1991) (\'93 We may not take judicial notice of facts which are not \lquote capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.\rquote \'94) (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2)).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The facts contained within the Opposition are not the type of facts of which we would take judicial notice.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [21]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Several other factors counsel against taking judicial notice of the Opposition.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 This document is not merely a document relevant to the litigation; it purportedly contains the reason for Rojas\rquote failure to timely file her Motion for Reconsideration, \'93the failure of which is construed by Petitioner-Appellant as a defect in jurisdiction.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mot. for Judicial Notice, or in the Alternative, to Supplement Supplemental Excerpts of Record, p. 4 (Dec. 21, 2006).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Introducing the Opposition, via the request for judicial notice, necessarily introduces a factual dispute at the appellate stage.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Even more troubling is that the Opposition was not a part of the trial court\rquote s proceedings, and thus, is not included as part of the Record on Appeal. We acknowledge that \'93 appellate courts are reluctant to take judicial notice of evidence when the trial court was not afforded the opportunity to examine and take into consideration that evidence.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Tran v. Fiorenza}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 934 S.W.2d 740,742 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Clearly, the trial court should have been given the opportunity to examine and consider the reason, purportedly contained within the Opposition, that Rojas did not timely appeal to the CSC.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Yet, the absence of the Opposition from the Record on Appeal raises doubt whether the Opposition was presented to and considered by the trial court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'93Courts have tended to apply Rule 201(b) stringently \endash and well they might, for accepting disputed evidence not tested in the crucible of trial is a sharp departure from standard practice.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Lussier v. Runyon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 50 F.3d 1103, 1114 (1st Cir. 1995).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Cf. White v. La. Pub. Serv. Comm\rquote n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 250 So. 2d 368, 374 (La. 1971) (\'93 [N]ew facts are not ordinarily received by courts for an independent determination on purely administrative adjudications.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Accordingly, we decline to exercise our jurisdiction to take judicial notice of the Opposition.7{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13382926 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 7 }{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 Rojas does not specify whether she is requesting that the court take either discretionary or mandatory judicial notice pursuant to GRE 201, but she makes no argument that this court }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 must}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 take judicial notice. Furthermore, Rojas has not satisfied the requirements of mandatory judicial notice, as she has not \'93supplied [the court] with the necessary information.\'94 GRE 201(d); }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 see also Diaz}{ \fs20\insrsid12347136 , 2007 {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}Guam{\*\xmlclose} 3 \'b6\'b6 62-63.}} \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [22]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , we rejected the argument that there was good cause based on a misapprehension of facts and law because this contention was not supported by the record. }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2000 Guam 12 \'b6 35.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Here, the record is also devoid of any good cause for reconsideration, and neither Rojas nor the CSC present any justification for the CSC\rquote s decision to revisit its initial dismissal of the case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Good cause has been found by other courts where \'93 fraud or other overreaching is suspected\'94 in the decision of the agency, and reconsideration has been permitted on the basis of such grounds.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Aronson v. Brookline Rent Control Bd.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 477 N.E.2d 182, 185 (Mass. App. Ct. 1985) (holding that an agency could reopen its adjudicatory proceedings to reconsider its prior decisions, \'93in order to determine whether the [plaintiff had] procured those decisions by misrepresentation or fraud \'94); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 see also}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Baggett Transp. Co. v. United States}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 206 F. Supp. 835, 842 (D.C. Ala. 1962) (\'93[W]e agree that the Commission has inherent power to amend any order infected b y or to change any certificate procured by fraud . . . .\'94); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Knestis v. Unemployment Comp. & Placement Div.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 134 P.2d 76, 78 (Wash. 1943) (stating that \'93the department can not set aside its own judgment after time for appeal therefrom has expired . . . except upon the broad equitable principle of vitiating fraud\'94). \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [23]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Good cause also \'93 derive[d] from the fact that when [a teacher had] applied for a disability pension, she was unable to make an informed choice among her retirement options.\'948{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13382926 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 8}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 Steinmann v. Dep\rquote t of Treas.}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 , 562 A.2d 791, 797 (N.J. 1989) involved a teacher who was eligible for early retirement based on her years in service, as well as for disability retirement due to a job-related injury. }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname State}}{\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}Id.}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 {\*\xmlclose}{\*\xmlclose} at 791. The teacher chose disability re tirement, but had not been informed of the possibility that her disability pension benefits, reduced by her worker\rquote s compensation award, could be less than her early retirement pension. }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname State}}{\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}Id.}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 {\*\xmlclose}{\*\xmlclose} Her request to change her pension designation (from disability retirement to early retirement) was denied by the board governing teacher pensions. }{ \i\fs20\insrsid12347136 {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname State}}{\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}Id.}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 {\*\xmlclose}{\*\xmlclose} }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Steinmann v. Dep\rquote t of Treas.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 562 A.2d 791, 797 (N.J. 1989).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The New Jersey Supreme Court found that \'93the facts of this record demonstrate \lquote good cause\rquote to permit Mrs. Steinmann to change her pension designation . . . .\'94}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 at 797.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In another case, although not expressly described as good cause, the Rhode Island Supreme Court held a hearings committee had \'93the inherent power, and in fact the obliga tion, in the performance of its duty, to reconvene for the purpose of considering the recently available testimony.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In re Denisewich, }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 643 A.2d 1194, 1198 (R.I. 1994).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Denisewich}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , a hearings committee found a state trooper not guilty of departmental charges.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 at 1195-96.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The trooper\rquote s grand jury testimony, given under grant of immunity, was not considered as it was not available at the time the committee had deliberated.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The court held that \'93[a]t such a reconvening, the committee, subject to its discretion, would be in a position to evaluate whether its original determination was proper or was flawed in light of the evidence now made available for its consideration. \'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 at 1198. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [24]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Unlike these cases, there is no indication in the record of this case to explain the CSC\rquote s reconsideration of its initial dismissal \endash no fraud, lack of informed consent, or newly available evidence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See Anchor Cas. Co. v. Bongards Co-op. Creamery Ass\rquote n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 91 N.W.2d 122, 126 (Minn. 1958) (\'93Where through fraud, mistake, o r misconception of facts the commissioner enters an order which he promptly recognizes may be in error, there is no good reason why, on discovering the error, he should not, after due and prompt notice to the interested parties, correct it.\'94).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 What the record clearly reflects is that the CSC dismissed the appeal because, by Rojas\rquote failure to comply with the statutory deadline set forth in 4 GCA \'a7 4406, the CSC lacked jurisdiction to hear her appeal. Under these circumstances, we hold that there was no good cause for the CSC to reconsider its decision, and thus, next examine the second prong of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 test.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Although Petitioner has not shown good cause, the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 test is a balancing test and we therefore proceed to examine the second and third prongs. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 2. \tab Reasonable exercise of administrative reconsideration}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [25]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Next, we must consider whether the power of reconsideration was \'93reasonably exercised\'94 by the CSC.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2000 Guam 12 \'b6 32.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , we concluded that it was not reasonable for the CSC to reconsider its initial decision, which was based on its \'93detailed findings after evidentiary hearings were conducted.\'94}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'b6 35.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We rejected the contention that there was \'93a misapprehension of the facts and law\'94 as to the initial decision, because the record indicated \'93 that a great deal of time had been spent discussing the situation . . . .\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'93In stark contrast . . . the CSC\rquote s Amended Decision and Order . . . provides no justification other than the conclusory statement that it found [the eligible candidate com peting against Blas] was unfairly denied the right to be interviewed and that he was deprived of an equal employment opportunity.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In sum, we found it unreasonable to exercise reconsideration when doing so contradicted the record.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Similarly in the case at bar, the CSC Judgment provides no justification for reconsidering its initial \endash and legally supported \endash dismissal of Rojas\rquote appeal. The CSC reiterated the reasons offered by DOA in terminating Rojas in the first place, finding:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'93That Patricia Rojas had a legitimate reason for not going to see the [DOA\rquote s] ordered Doctor\'94 and \'93 [T]hat an employee in good standing for years when ordered to do two (2) things at once as one can only do one at a time by starting with the most serious of her medical concerns.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Appellant\rquote s ER, Tab 3 (CSC Judgment).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC Judgment does not address the failure of Rojas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 to timely file her appeal, or the fact that the her appeal had been dismissed pursuant to 4 GCA \'a7 4406.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [26]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab We could, relying on }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , similarly find here that due to the lack of justification, the exercise of reconsideration was unreasonable.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 But, in order to assist in future applications of the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 test, we look to other jurisdictions to determine how other courts have interpreted when agencies have \'93reasonably exercised\'94 the power of reconsideration.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Authority from other}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid4744437\charrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 jurisdictions have focused on the timing of the agency\rquote s reconsideration when examining the reasonableness of the agency\rquote s decision to reconsider.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Courts have held that reconsideration was unreasonable if the time in which to appeal the agency decision had expired.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 For example, the exercise of reconsideration was not reasonable in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Prieto v. United States}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 655 F. Supp. 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1987), where the court articulated several reasons to reject reconsideration, including the fact that the \'93 time for filing an appeal of the decision . . . had long since run out.\'94 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 at 1192.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 A Minnesota appellate court found that the \'93implied power to correct an erroneous decision arguably exists\'94 for the time per iod that a party would have to appeal such decision.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rowe}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 ,}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 704 N.W.2d at 195; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 see also}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Knestis}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 134 P.2d at 78 (stating that \'93 the department can not set aside its own judgment after time for appeal therefrom has expired . . . except upon the broad equitable principle of vitiating fraud\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The Oklahoma Supreme Court held that an agency could \'93rehear the matter and make a new order upon evidence proper to a consideration of the matter at that time and enter a corrected order \'94 if such rehearing occurred \'93within a reasonable length of time\'94 and did not \'93prejudice any party in his right of appeal.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. State}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 71 P.2d 747, 750 (Okla. 1937).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 One court held that reconsideration must be exercised before an appeal f rom the original order has been filed, or before the original order has become final by lapse of time to file a timely notice of appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Reich v. Dep\rquote t of Health}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 868 So. 2d 1275, 1276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004). \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [27]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab From these cases, we conclude that th e exercise of reconsideration is reasonable if it occurs during the time period that an appeal of the initial decision may be filed, and clearly, if it occurs before an appeal of the decision is actually filed.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 It would be unreasonable to reconsider the CSC Order dismissing Rojas\rquote appeal if the time for appealing the CSC Order expired.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We must decide, therefore, when the time for appealing CSC Order expired.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 This inquiry requires that we apply Civil Service Commission Rules of Procedure for Adverse Action Appeals that were in effect at the time the CSC Order was issued, on February 11, 1999.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The parties and the trial court refer to and discuss specific versions of Rules 11.7.6 and 11.7.7 of the Civil Service Commission Rules of Procedure for Adverse Action Appeals, which were approved by the CSC and became effective only on March 5, 2002.9 {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13636664 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 9}{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 The 2002 version of the CSC Rules provided: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12347136 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa120\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid14032455 {\b\fs20\ul\insrsid12347136 Rule 11.7.7 RECONSIDERATION OR AMENDMENT (Time to seek Judicial Review)}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 \par A party may move the Commission to reconsider or amend its judgment by filing a motion with the Commission within ten (10) days of entry of the judgment. \par The filing of a motion to reconsider or amend does not effect [sic] the time limit imposed by law to file a Petition for Judicial Review with the Superior Court of Guam. \par If a motion to reconsider is not decided within thirty (30) days of the entry of a judgment, the motion is denied. \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12347136 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa120\keep\keepn\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid14032455 {\b\fs20\insrsid12347136 Rule 11.7.8 }{\b\fs20\ul\insrsid12347136 JUDICIAL REVIEW}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\tx720\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid14032455 {\fs20\insrsid12347136 Judicial review of the judgment of the C SC may be had by filing appropriate pleadings with the Superior Court of Guam within thirty (30) days after the last day on which reconsideration can be granted.\tab \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12347136 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12347136 Appellant\rquote s Brief, Addendum. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Appellant\rquote s Brief, Addendum (Memorandum of 11/9/04).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The version preceding the 2002 rules went into effect on November 4, 1999.10 {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa120\keep\keepn\widctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5382921 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 10}{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 The 1999 version of the CSC Rules provided: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\keep\keepn\widctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5382921 {\fs20\insrsid12347136 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\keep\keepn\widctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5382921 {\b\fs20\ul\insrsid12347136 Rule 11.7.7 RECONSIDERATION}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid12347136 The CSC may reconsider its judgment on its own motion or petition of any party. The authority of the CSC to re consider expires thirty (30) days after its judgment is signed by a majority of the Commissioners. \par \par }{\b\fs20\ul\insrsid12347136 Rule 11.7.8 JUDICIAL REVIEW}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\sa240\nowidctlpar\tx720\tx1440\wrapdefault\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5382921 {\fs20\insrsid12347136 Judicial review of the judgment of the CSC may be had by filing appropriate pleadings with the Superior Court of Guam within thirty (30) days after the last day on which reconsideration can be granted.\tab }}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Neither the 2002 version or the predecessor version were in effect at the time the CSC Order was issued on February 11, 1999.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We believe it was error for the trial court to rely on the thirty-day deadline, found in both the 2002 rules and predecessor versions, and apply this deadline retroactively to Rojas\rquote motion.11{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5382921 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 11}{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 Rule 1 of the 2002 version of the CSC Rules of Procedure for Adverse Action Appeals states: \'93These rules are effective March 05, 2002[.]\'94 Appellant\rquote s Brief, Addendum. The preceding version of the CSC rules went into effect on November 4, 1999. Based on the trial court\rquote s finding that \'93the DOA waited until after the applicable time limitations for both reconsideration and }{ \i\fs20\insrsid12347136 judicial review}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 had expired before filing its Petition for Writ of Mandamus,\'94 Appellant\rquote s ER, Tab 18 (Decision and Order, Feb. 13, 2004) (emphasis added), it seems clear that the court relied on either the 2002 version or the predecessor version of the CSC Rules. In doing so, the trial court applied the rules retroactively to Rojas\rquote motion. }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp.}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 , 488 {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}{\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname country-region}}U.S.{\*\xmlclose}{\*\xmlclose} 204, 208 (1988) (\'93 Retroactivity is not favored in the law. Thus, congressional enactments and administrative rules will not be construed to have retroactive effect unless their language requires this result.\'94 ). Nothing in the 2002 CSC rules lead us to believe that they were to be construed as having retroactive effect. Furthermore, \'93a strong presumption exists against the retroactive application of regulations.\'94 }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 Sweet v. Sheahan}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 , 235 F.3d 80, 88 (2d Cir. 2000). }} \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [28]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab The CSC rules which were in effect at the time Rojas filed for reconsideration, and which apply to this case, state as follows:12{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5382921 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 12}{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 This version of the Civil Service Commission Hearing Procedures for Adverse Action Appeals (Covering Suspensions, Demotions, Dismissals) was in effect after 1996 and before 1999, and it is included as Appendix A to the Department of Administration Rule s, which were adopted by Executive Order No. 96-24 on October 1, 1996. Exec. Order No. 96-24 (Oct. 1, 1996).}} \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 CSC-500\tab }{\b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 COMPLIANCE}{ \b\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014\charrsid15684014 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The decision of the Commission is final, but subject to judicial review.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Compliance with any order specified in the decisio n is required by law. The department or agency head to whom an order is directed, must report, within 10 working days after receipt of the decision, that he has carried the order into effect, or he has taken action to have the decision reviewed by the Sup erior Court.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Civil Serv. Comm\rquote n Rules of Procedure for Adverse Action Appeals Rule CSC-500.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rule CSC-500, in essence, allowed DOA ten working days to seek review of the CSC Order of dismissal of February 11, 1999.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Notably, CSC-500 does not provide a deadline for an employee to seek review.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We have acknowledged the \'93judicially-created rule that a CSC decision had to be appealed within 30 days of its issuance.\'9413{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5382921 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 13}{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 The thirty-day deadline was articulated by the Appellate Division in }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 Tyndzik v. Guerrero}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 , CV-92-00023A & CV-92-00031A, 1992 WL 245889 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 11, 1992) and reaffirmed in }{ \i\fs20\insrsid12347136 University of Guam v. Guam Civil Service Commission (Matheny)}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 , CV-94-00018A, 1995 WL 222212 (D. Guam App. Div. Feb. 10, 1995). This thirty-day deadline was later officially promulgated by the CSC as Rule 11.7.8. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Carlson}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2007 Guam 6 \'b6 62; }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 accord Perez v. Judicial Council}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2002 Guam 12 \'b6\'b6 11-12.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC, however, apparently granted Rojas\rquote Motion for Reconsideration at a hearing on September 20, 2001, more than tw o years after the dismissal of Rojas\rquote appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mot. for Judicial Notice, or in the Alternative, to Supplement Supplemental Excerpts of Record, Ex. 4 (Dec. 21, 2006).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Hearings on the motion were conducted on April 30, 2002 and May 2, 2002; however, the CSC Judgment was not issued until March 18, 2003.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 It cannot be disputed that reconsideration by the CSC in this case occurred far beyond the ten days provided by CSC-500, or the thirty days established by the Appellate Division.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See Tyndzik v. Guerrero}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , CV-92-00023A & CV-92-00031A, 1992 WL 245889 (D. Guam App. Div. Sept. 11, 1992) (holding that the court had authority to adopt a judicially created rule that a CSC decision had to be appealed within 30 days of its issuance, but refusing to retroactively apply such deadline to the case); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civil Serv. Comm\rquote n (Matheny)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , CV-94-00018A, 1995 WL 222212, at *3 (D. Guam App. Div. Feb. 10, 1995) (holding that because 4 GCA \'a7 4406 was \'93silent on the procedures for obtaining review\'94 that the court could impose a judicially created statute of limitations for appeal of a CSC decision).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Furthermore, even recognizing that CSC-500 does not specify the time period for an employee to file an appeal, it was not reasonable for the CSC to reconsider, more than two years later, a decision that was correctly made and in accordance with Guam law.} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 This is especially so when good cause has not been shown to justify reconsideration.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We find no authority, statutory or otherwise, that allows an agency to reassert jurisdiction over a properly dismissed case in the guise of granting a motion for reconsideration.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We hold that it was not reasonable for the CSC to exercise reconsideration in this case.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 3.\tab Reasonable diligence in making the petition}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [29]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab The final }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 inquiry requires that we examine whether Rojas\rquote Motion for Reconsideration was \'93made with reasonable diligence.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 2000 Guam 12 \'b6 32.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Reasonableness may be measured by compliance with the applicable CSC rules that establish a specific time period for requesting reconsideration.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 A petitioner\rquote s failure to comply with the deadline would show lack of diligence; compliance with the deadline would show diligence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 } {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We have not articulated a specific time that would show diligence, or lack of diligence, although we acknowledged in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 that}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'93 that the nearly sixty day delay in filing [the] Motion for Reconsideration is indicative that the motion was not diligently made.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 2000 Guam 12 \'b6 36.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 However, we did not in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , and do not in this case, establish sixty days as the bright line rule regarding reasonable diligence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 There has been some reluctance to define \'93reasonable diligence\'94 that would support reconsideration.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 One court stated simply that \'93sound public policy in support of finality in administrative decisions requires that a request for reconvening or reconsideration of a committee\rquote s decision must be made within a reasonable time after the issuance of the committee\rquote s decision.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In re Denisewich}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 643 A.2d at 1198.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We agree that \'93 it may be desirable to prescribe reasonable time limits for reopening\'94 and thus reconsideration of decisions.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Aronson}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 477 N.E.2d at 187.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See also}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Handlon v. Town of Belleville}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 71 A.2d 624, 627 (N.J. 1950) (\'93[T]he power [of reconsideration] may be invoked by administrative agencies to serve the ends of essential justice and the policy of the law. But there must be reasonable diligence.\'94).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Courts, however, have been reluctant to specify the length of time that could, or should, be considered reasonable.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The New Jersey Supreme Court concluded that merely looking at the time period was insufficient to determine reasonableness: \par }\pard \ql \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 There is emphasis in the cases on the requirement that such [request for reconsideration] must be taken within a reasonable time or with reasonable diligence. }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 But what is a reasonable time must perforce depend on the interplay with the time element of a number of other attendant factors}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , such as the particular occasion for administrative reexamination of the matter, the fraud or illegality in the original action and any contr ibution thereto or participation therein by the beneficiary of the original action, as well as the extent of any reliance or justified change of position by parties affected by the action. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Ruvoldt v. Nolan}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 305 A.2d 434, 441 (N.J. 1973) (emphasis added).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Here, Rojas maintains that she acted with reasonable diligence in seeking reconsideration, explaining that she was unsuccessful in obtaining information from the CSC about her appeal and furthermore, that the CSC never notified her that it had dismissed h er appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Yet even considering these \'93attendant factors,\'94 Rojas was not prevented from filing a motion for reconsideration even without having heard from the CSC regarding her appeal, based on the presumption that her appeal had been dismissed.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Eventually, this is exactly what Rojas did. Rojas did not show reasonable diligence in seeking reconsideration. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [30]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab After applying the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 factors, we hold that the CSC erred in reconsidering its dismissal of Rojas\rquote appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 First, the record contains no showing of good cause, such as fraud, misconcep}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5382921\charrsid15684014 tion of facts or law or mistake,}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 that would support reconsideration.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Second, the CSC reconsidered its dismissal four years after its initial decision, undisputedly beyond any time period allowable for appeal.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The exer cise of reconsideration was not reasonable under the circumstances. Third, Rojas did not show reasonable diligence in seeking reconsideration, as she waited more than two years after her appeal was dismissed before she filed her reconsideration motion.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Since Petitioner did not satisfy any of the prongs in the }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 test, we need not address under which circumstances the balancing of the three elements will weigh in favor of reconsideration. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [31]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Our conclusion that the CSC erred in reconsidering its dismiss al is further supported by the fundamental policy reasons supporting an administrative agency\rquote s authority to reconsider its past decisions, which are \'93to serve the ends of essential justice and the policy of law.\'94}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Handlon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 71 A.2d at 627.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'93The power of correction and revision [is meant] to serve the statutory policy . . . . \'94}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 at 627-28. Our holding that the CSC lacked jurisdiction to hear her motion to reconsider does not constitute a \'93denial . . . of the authority [of an agency] to correct error and in justice [sic] and to revise its judgments for good and sufficient cause . . . .\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 at 627.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The error in the CSC\rquote s reconsideration is, however, compounded by the fact that the CSC\rquote s initial decision to dismiss was in accordance with Guam law, since Rojas undisputedly missed the deadline when she filed her appeal on December 21, 1995.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [32]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab The public policy supporting the finality of administrative adjudication is also important.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Federal courts have recognized that \'93[t]he policy considerations which underlie res judicata \endash finality to litigation, prevention of needless litigation, avoidance of unnecessary burdens of time and expense \endash are as relevant to the administrative process as to the judicial.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Painters Dist. Council No. 38 v. Edgewood Contracting Co.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 416 F.2d 1081, 1084 (5th Cir. 1969); }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 accord Castillo v. RR Ret. Bd.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 725 F.2d 1012, 1014 (5th Cir. 1984); }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 see also United States v. Penn. Env\rquote tl. H\rquote rg Bd.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 584 F.2d 1273, 1276 n.15 (3rd Cir. 1978).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We acknowledge the important policy of the finality of a judgment, even as to an agency\rquote s reconsideration of its own decision.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Accordingly the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to recognize the CSC\rquote s improper reconsideration of the dismissal of Rojas\rquote appeal and denied DOA\rquote s Petition for a Writ of Mandamus. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 B.\tab Letter of resignation}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [33]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab DOA alternatively argues that the CSC had no jurisdiction to hear Rojas\rquote Motion for Reconsideration because she had submitted a letter of resignation on October 17, 1995.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DOA relies on }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mesngon v. Government of Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2003 Guam 3, to assert that Rojas\rquote letter of resignation essentially divested the CSC of its jurisdiction to reconsider.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Although we conclude above that the CSC did not h ave jurisdiction, we wish to clarify that our holding is not controlled by }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mesngon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [34]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab In }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mesngon, }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 a University of Guam (\'93UOG\'94) employee submitted a letter purporting to retire, rather than face adverse action proceedings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'b6 3. The employee later c hanged his mind and decided not to retire, and UOG initiated adverse action proceedings and ultimately dismissed him. }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'b6\'b6 4-5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The employee appealed to the CSC.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'b6 5.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC found that the employee\rquote s letter was essentially a resignation letter and dismissed his appeal for lack of jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'b6 6.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The employee then obtained judicial review in the Superior Court, which reversed the CSC\rquote s finding and held that the CSC had jurisdiction.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'b6 7.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 UOG appealed.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 This court held that the employee\rquote s letter was a valid resignation that could be enforced, and therefore, the CSC did not have jurisdiction to hear his appeal.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \'b6 28. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [35]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Unlike }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mesngon}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , where the issue was whether the employee\rquote s letter effected his resignation, the issue here is not whether Rojas\rquote October 17, 1995 letter was an effective resignation.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 That Rojas had submitted such a letter is irrelevant to our holding, because it is undisputed that Rojas\rquote termination was initiated by DOA through adverse action proceedings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The record reflects that Rojas\rquote purported letter of resignation was submitted on October 17, 1995, two months }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 after}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DOA had already terminated her by serving her with a Final Notice of Adverse Action.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Rojas\rquote letter of resignation did not effectuate her separation from DOA.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In contrast, the employee\rquote s letter in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mesngon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 was determined to be a valid resignation letter that could be enforced against the employee; therefore, the letter in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mesngon }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 did effectuate his separation from UOG.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 For these reasons, our holding that the CSC lacked jurisdiction to hear Rojas\rquote motion is not based on }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mesngon}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 C.\tab DOA\rquote s use of mandamus \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [36]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab DOA defends its request for mandamus relief, arguing that such relief was proper and the Superior Court should have compelled the CSC to vacate the CSC Judgment issued pursuant to Rojas\rquote Motion for Reconsideration, because the CSC lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Both Rojas and the CSC assert, on the other hand, that DOA should have filed a Petition for Judicial Review within thirty days from the CSC Judgment.14{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5382921 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 14}{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 In }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 Carlson v. Perez}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 , 2007 Guam 6, we held that \'93the proper way for classified employees of the government of {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}Guam{\*\xmlclose} or any of its instrumentalities, corporations or agencies to utilize the right of judicial review of CSC decisions is by filing a \lquote Petition for Judicial Review.\rquote \'94 }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}} {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname State}}Id.}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 {\*\xmlclose}{\*\xmlclose} \'b6 65. The instant case is distinguishable from }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 Carlson}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 . In }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 Carlson}{ \fs20\insrsid12347136 , we addressed the procedure by which the petitioners could obtain review of the CSC\rquote s determination that they were not classified Government of Guam employees. We held that the CSC\rquote s decision was to be heard, as a matter of right and not discretion, by filing a Petition for Judicial Review. }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 See id.}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 In contrast, the issue here is not the procedure for reviewing the merits of a CSC decision, but rather the jurisdiction of the CSC to grant Rojas\rquote request for reconsideration in order to hear Rojas\rquote appeal. Because D OA contends that the CSC lacked jurisdiction due to Rojas\rquote failure to timely file her appeal, DOA requested the Superior Court issue a writ of mandamus that would order the CSC to vacate its judgment. }}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 They further contend that DOA\rquote s decision not to do so constitutes a failure to exhaust administrative remedies; therefore, the \'93 trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying [DOA\rquote s] request for the extraordinary relief of mandamus.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Appellee\rquote s Brief, p. 9.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We hold that in the instant case, mandamus rel ief was the proper method of obtaining review of the CSC Judgment, because the CSC acted in excess of its jurisdiction in reconsidering its initial dismissal of Rojas\rquote appeal. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [37]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab DOA carries the burden of proving that the statutory requirements for mandamus have been satisfied.15 {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5382921 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid12347136 15}{\insrsid12347136 }{\fs20\insrsid12347136 In arguing that a writ of mandamus should have been issued, DOA primarily relied on five factors set forth by this court in }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 People v. Superior Court (Bruneman)}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 , 1998 {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}} Guam{\*\xmlclose} 24 \'b6 8. We have recognized, however, that while this test, developed in }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 Bauman v. United States}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 , 557 F.2d 650, 654-55 (9th Cir. 1977), \'93remain[s] relevant to a court\rquote s determination of mandamus . . . the two controlling factors [of a beneficially interested party and the lack of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the course of law] are clearly dictated by statute.\'94 }{\i\fs20\insrsid12347136 People v. Super. {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}Ct.{\*\xmlclose} (Laxamana)}{\fs20\insrsid12347136 , 2001 {\*\xmlopen\xmlns1{\factoidname place}}Guam{\*\xmlclose} 26 \'b6 23 n.3. Accordingly, we focus on the statutory requirements for mandamus set forth in 7 GCA \'a7 31203.}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 People v. Super. Ct. (Quint)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 1997 Guam 7 \'b6 7 (\'93 We require the petitioning party to bear the burden of justifying the issuance of a writ.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The relevant statutory provisions are that \'93[t]he writ must be issued in all cases where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 It must be issued on the verified petition of the party beneficially interested.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 7 GCA \'a7 31203 (2005); }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 see also }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 7 GCA \'a7 31202 (2005) (stating that mandamus \'93may be issued . . . to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins, as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station . . . .\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Generally, a writ of mandamus \'93is ordered where the respondent has a clear, present and ministerial duty to act, and the petitioner has a clear, present and beneficial rig ht to performance of that duty.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Holmes v. Territorial Land Use Comm\rquote n}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 1998 Guam 8 \'b6 11.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [38]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab DOA filed a verified petition in the Superior Court, and is a beneficially interested party because it \'93 has some special interest to be served or some particular right to be preserved or protected over and above the interest held in common with the public at large.\'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 People v. Super. Ct. (Laxamana)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2001 Guam 26 \'b6 24 (quoting }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Cartsen v. Psychology Examining Comm.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 614 P.2d 276, 278 (Cal. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted)).}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 DOA\rquote s interest or right in the proceeding}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 is rooted in the CSC Judgment, which concluded that DOA had failed to justify its termination of Rojas and further ordered DOA to meet with Rojas and CSC representatives to discuss damages suffered by Rojas. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [39]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab We acknowledge that DOA could have requested judicial review in accordance with CSC Rule CSC-500, but did not do so within the thirty-day \'93judicially-created rule\'94 announced in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Perez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2002 Guam 12 \'b6\'b6 11-12.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 supra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , Part IV.A.2, pp. 13-17.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Furthermore, the time for appealing the CSC Judgment has expired, and courts have held that a party may not resort to extraordinary relief after having failed to timely appeal an otherwise appealable judgment.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In re Marriage of Patscheck}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 180 Cal. App. 3d 800, 804 (Ct. App. 1986) (\'93[A] writ petition should be entertained only where there is no adequate remedy by appeal and the remedy by appeal is not made inadequate by a party\rquote s having neglected to submit his notice of appeal for filing within the time allowed.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 supra}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , Part IV.A.3, pp. 17-19.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [40]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab Yet we have held that mandamus may also be issued when a court acts in excess of its jurisdiction.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Laxamana}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2001 Guam 26 \'b6 15 n.2;}{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 see also People v. Super. Ct. (Bruneman)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 1998 Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 24 \'b6 5 (\'93[C]ase law supports the issuance of a writ of mandamus in those situations where \lquote the trial court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction . . . .\rquote \'94) (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 People v. Super. Ct.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 596 P.2d 691, 693 (Cal. 1979).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 We have stated that \'93[w]e will employ the writ in order to \lquote confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.\rquote \'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Quint}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 1997 Guam 7 \'b6 7 (quoting }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Guam Publ\rquote n, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (Bruneman)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 1996 Guam 6 \'b6 10). \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [41]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab The issue herein is the CSC\rquote s jurisdiction \endash or lack thereof \endash to reconsider its initial dismissal of Rojas\rquote appeal, due to Rojas\rquote failure to timely appeal in accordance with 4 GCA \'a7 4406.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The \'93[l]ack of jurisdiction in its most f undamental or strict sense means an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties.\'94 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Abelleira v. Dist. Ct. of Appeal}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 109 P.2d 942, 947 (Cal. 1941).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Any subsequent action by the CSC \endash including its reconsideration of its initial dismissal \endash amounted to an act in excess of its jurisdiction.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In such a situation, extraordinary writ relief may be sought, as a party may \'93employ a writ after the time for an appeal expired where the lower cour t acted in excess of its jurisdiction . . . . \'94}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Mauro B. v. Super. Ct.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 ,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 230 Cal. App. 3d 949, 954 (Ct. App. 1991); }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 see also Dikeman v. Snell}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 490 S.W.2d 183, 186 (Tex. 1973) (failure to pursue appeal does not bar application for writ of mandamus in appellate court).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Because the CSC lacked authority to hear Rojas\rquote Motion for Reconsideration, the CSC Judgment issued subsequent to the motion is void and of no effect.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See Varian Med. Sys. Inc. v. Delfino}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 106 P.3d 958, 969 (Cal. 2005) (stating that \'93any judgmen t or order rendered by a court lacking subject matter jurisdiction is \lquote void on its face.\rquote \'94) (ellipsis and citation omitted);}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 In re Marriage of Jackson}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 136 Cal. App. 4th 980, 989 (Ct. App. 2006) (holding that an order, which exceeded the trial court\rquote s jurisdiction was void and subject to collateral attack.); }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 see also Griset v. Fair Political Practices Comm\rquote n}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 23 P.3d 43, 51 (Cal. 2001) (\'93 When . . . there is an appeal from a void judgment, the reviewing court\rquote s jurisdiction is limited to reversing the trial court\rquote s void acts.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Cf. Pac. Rock v. Perez}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2005 Guam 15 \'b6}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 30 (\'93The policy considerations supporting the finality of judgments, weighed against the doctrine of sovereign immunity \endash which we have held to be a [sic] unwaivable jurisdictional issue \endash compel us to agree with the Court that, where there exists a \lquote collision between the desirable principle that rights may be adequately vindicated through a single trial of an issue and the sovereign right of immunity from suit, . . . the doctrine of immunity should prevail.\rquote \'94) (citations omitted). \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [42]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab The extraordinary relief for mandamus should have been granted and we hold that the trial court abused its discretion in denying DOA\rquote s request, and in implicitly finding that the CSC had jurisdiction to hear Rojas\rquote Motion for Reconsideration.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 See Underwood v. Guam Election Comm\rquote n (Camacho)}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2006 Guam 17 \'b6 12 (\'93The decision of whether to issue a writ of mandamus lies within the discretion of the court.\'94).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The CSC lacked jurisdiction to hear Rojas\rquote appeal based on her failure to comply with the statutory deadline set forth in 4 GCA \'a7 4406 and therefore, the court should have granted mandamus and ordered the CSC to vacate its judgment. \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13633955 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 V.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\wrapdefault\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15684014 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 [43]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 \tab We hold that due to Rojas\rquote failure to file her Notice of Appeal to the CSC within twenty (20) days, as set forth in 4 GCA \'a7 4406, the CSC lacked jurisdiction to consider her Motion for Reconsideration.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Using the three-prong test in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Blas}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 , 2000 Guam 12, the CSC improperly reconsidered its dismissal of Rojas\rquote appeal and the CSC Judgment, issued pursuant to Rojas\rquote motion, must be vacated.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 The trial court did not recognize the jurisdictional defect, and therefore, abused its discretion when it denied DOA\rquote s Petition for Writ of Mandamus.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid15684014 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 Accordingly, the trial court is }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 REVERSED,}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 and the case is }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 REMANDED}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid12347136\charrsid15684014 for entry of the writ of mandamus to vacate the CSC Decision and Judgment of March 18, 2003.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid10945910\charrsid15684014 \par }}