Department of Agriculture v Civil Service Commission [2007] GUSC 9; 2007 Guam 21 (31 December 2007)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

IN THE MATTER OF

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Petitioner-Appellant,

vs.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Respondent-Appellee,

PATRICIA ROJAS,
Real Party in Interest-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA05-008
Superior Court Case No.: SP0168-03

OPINION

Filed: December 31, 2007
Cite as: 2007 Guam 21

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on February 20, 2006
Hagåtña, Guam

For Petitioner-Appellant: James T. Mitchell, Esq. (briefed) Joseph A. Guthrie, Esq. (argued) Office of the Attorney General 287 W. O’Brien Dr. Hagåtña, GU 96910	For Respondent-Appellee: Robert H. Kono, Esq. Civil Service Commission 2nd Floor, Hakubotan Bldg. Tamuning, GU 96911
	For Real Party in Interest-Appellee: Anthony C. Perez, Esq. (briefed) Delia S. Lujan, Esq. (argued) Lujan Aguigui & Perez, LLP Pacific News Bldg. Suite 300 238 Archbishop Flores St. Hagåtña, GU 96910

BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice, FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice[1], ROBERT J. TORRES, JR., Associate Justice.

TORRES, J.:

[1] This appeal arises from the termination of Real Party in Interest-Appellee Patricia Rojas by Petitioner-Appellant Department of Agriculture (“DOA”), for insubordination and for failure of good behavior. Rojas appealed the adverse action to Respondent-Appellee Civil Service Commission (“CSC”), which dismissed Rojas’ case for her failure to timely file the appeal. 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. DOA then filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus in the Superior Court, requesting that the CSC decision be vacated. The Petition was denied, and DOA appealed to this court.

[2] We hold that the Superior Court abused its discretion in denying mandamus relief. The CSC properly dismissed Rojas’ appeal for failure to meet the statutory deadline of 4 GCA § 4406. Applying the three-prong test in Blas v. Guam Customs & Quarantine Agency