Ada v Guam Telephone Authority [1999] GUSC 11; 1999 Guam 10 (30 April 1999)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

THOMAS C. ADA, Senator
Plaintiff-Appellant

vs.

GUAM TELEPHONE AUTHORITY, PAUL D. UNTALAN,
LESLIE D. MORENO, PEDRO R. MARTINEZ,
EDWARD L.G. AGUON, NORA P. HITOSIS, RENA B.
WANG, and ROMAN L. CEPEDA, personally and in
their capacities as members of the Guam Telephone
Authority Board of Directors, and VICENTE M.
CAMACHO, personally and in his capacity as the
Guam Telephone Authority General Manager,
Defendants-Appellees

OPINION

Supreme Court Case No. CVA98-012
Superior Court Case No. SP0265-96

Filed: 30 April 1999

Cite as: 1999 Guam 10

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on 29 January, 1999
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: Michael F. Phillips, Esquire Phillips & Bordallo, P.C. 410 West O=Brien Drive Hagåtña, Guam 96910	Appearing for Defendants-Appellees: Frederick J. Horecky, Esquire Law Offices of Horecky & Associates 1st Floor, J. Perez Building 138 Seaton Boulevard Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice[1], JANET HEALY WEEKS and BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ, Associate Justices.

SIGUENZA, C.J.:

[1] This is an appeal of the Superior Court=s decision and order dismissing the Plaintiff=s complaint on the pleadings. The court below ruled that the Plaintiff had standing to prosecute the instant action. Further, the court found that the Guam Telephone Authority, an autonomous agency of the government of Guam, had acted within its statutory authority to procure Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses for Personal Communications Services (PCS) in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI). We agree that the procurement of FCC licenses is within the statutory authority of the Guam Telephone Authority. We therefore AFFIRM the Superior Court=s decision.

BACKGROUND

[2] The underlying facts are not disputed. Plaintiff-Appellant, Thomas C. Ada, a Senator of the Twenty-Third Guam Legislature, had filed suit on October 2, 1996. Appellant claimed that the Guam Telephone Authority (GTA) did not have the authority to participate in a bidding process with the FCC to obtain licenses to provide and operate PCS[2] in Guam and the CNMI. He further alleged that the agency=s use of public funds in the procurement of the license, without prior legislative approval, was in contravention of law. Appellant named GTA, it=s Board of Directors and General Manager, personally and in their respective official capacities, as defendants.

[3] The suit asked for the following relief: (1) a declaratory judgment that GTA does not have the authority to open and operate a PCS business in the CNMI; (2) a permanent injunction enjoining GTA from taking further action towards operation of PCS in the CNMI; (3) that GTA return all public monies improperly spent toward securing the licenses and permits and other expenses associated with establishing a PCS business in the CNMI; and (4) attorney=s fees and costs.

[4] On October 4, 1996, GTA removed the action to the District Court of Guam and on October 9, 1996, filed a motion to dismiss or stay proceedings pending referral to the FCC. Appellant filed a motion to remand on October 22, 1996. By order issued on January 13, 1997, the District Court granted Appellant=s motion, while denying GTA=s motion to dismiss or stay proceedings and Appellant=s request for attorney