Carlson v Guam Telephone Authority [2002] GUSC 15; 2002 Guam 15 (6 September 2002)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PAUL CARLSON, JOHN BORLAS, and JAY SHEDD;
Individuals, and IT&E OVERSEAS, INC.; and GUAMCELL COMMUNICATIONS INC., Guam Corporations, and
KUENTOS, a Guam Business,
Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

GUAM TELEPHONE AUTHORITY; and PETER ROY MARTINEZ,
RALPH TAITANO, SCHOLASTICA RIVERA and EDWARD AGUON,
in their capacities as members of the Guam Telephone Authority
Board of Directors, and VINCE ARRIOLA, in his capacity as the
Guam Telephone Authority General Manager,
Defendants-Appellants

Supreme Court Case No. CVA01-015Superior Court Case No. CV1949-00

OPINION

Filed: September 6, 2002

Cite as: 2002 Guam 15

Appeal from the Superior Court of GuamArgued and submitted on March 15, 2002Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendants-Appellants: F. Randall Cunliffe, Esq. Cunliffe & Cook, P.C. 210 Archbishop F.C. Flores St. Suite 200 Hagåtña, Guam 96910	Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellees Kuentos and Paul Carlson: Arthur B. Clark, Esq. Calvo and Clark, LLP Attorneys at Law 655 S. Marine Dr., Suite 202 Tamuning, Guam 96911
Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellees GuamCell, Inc. and Jay Shedd: Jay Shedd, Pro Se GuamCell Comm., Inc. Century Plaza, 2nd Floor 219 S. Marine Dr. Tamuning, Guam 96913	Appearing for Plaintiffs-Appellees IT&E, Overseas Inc. and John Borlas: Robert J. Torres, Jr., Esq. Alicia A. G. Limtiaco, Esq. Torres, P.C. Suite 206A, Ada Plaza Ctr. 173 Aspinall Ave. Hagåtña, Guam 96910

BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, JR., Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; and JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice.

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] The Plaintiffs-Appellees, Paul Carlson, John Borlas, Jay Shedd, IT&E, Overseas Inc., GuamCell Communications, Inc., and Kuentos (hereinafter collectively referred to as AIT&E@) filed a complaint for declaratory relief and a permanent injunction against Defendants-Appellants, Guam Telephone Authority, et al.[1] (hereinafter referred to as AGTA@), to enjoin GTA from operating its new internet service provider GuamTel.Net. After a hearing, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction on the ground that GTA did not have the statutory power to provide such service. Upon consent of the parties, the trial court entered final judgment for IT&E and issued a permanent injunction on the grounds set forth in its order granting the preliminary injunction. GTA appealed. We agree that GTA exceeded its statutory power in offering internet access service through GuamTel.Net and therefore affirm the trial court=s judgment.

I.

[2] On December 2, 2000, GTA commenced operation of an internet service provider GuamTel.Net. On December 5, 2000, IT&E filed an