Guam Federation of Teachers v Government of Guam; Department of Education v Civil Service Commission [2013] GUSC 14; 2013 Guam 14 (12 August 2013)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

GUAM FEDERATION OF TEACHERS as agent for MATTHEW RECTOR, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

GOVERNMENT OF GUAM, a political entity, EDWARD J.B. CALVO, Governor of Guam, BENITA A. MANGLONA, Director of Dept. of Administration, JOHN FERNANDEZ, Director of Guam Public School System, JOHN A. RIOS, Director of Bureau of Budget Management Research and DOES 1-10,
Respondents-Appellees.

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Respondent-Appellee,

and

ELIZABETH TAIMANAO,
Real Party in Interest-Appellant.

OPINION

Filed: August 12, 2013

Cite as: 2013 Guam 14

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA12-012
Consolidated with CVA12-013
Superior Court Case Nos.: SP0009-07, SP0184-04

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on February 12, 2013
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Petitioner-Appellant: Robert P. Kutz, Esq. Law Office of Robert P. Kutz 130 Maleyuc Cir. Yona, GU 96915	Appearing for Respondents-Appellees: Fred Nishihira, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Civil Division 590 S Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706 Hagåtña, GU 96910
	Appearing for Cross-Appellee: Sophia Santos Diaz, Esq. Civil Service Commission Ste. 6A, Phase II, Complex 777 Route 4 Sinajana, GU 96910

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Presiding Justice[1]; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice; ALEXANDRO C. CASTRO, Justice Pro Tempore.

TORRES, J.:

[1] Petitioner-Appellant Guam Federation of Teachers ("GFT"), as agent for Matthew Rector, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, appeals from an amended judgment entered by the trial court in Superior Court Case Number SP0184-04 ("TAIMANAO/REVIEW case"). The TAIMANAO/REVIEW amended judgment ordered Respondents-Appellees Government of Guam, et al. (collectively "GovGuam"), to pay back wages and benefits allegedly due and owing to affected teachers for the payroll period of August 1, 2003 to August 18, 2003 in accordance with a decision and judgment issued by Cross-Appellee the Civil Service Commission ("the CSC").[2]

[2] GFT also appeals the trial court's decisions denying GFT's petition for an alternative writ of mandate, vacating GFT's previously-issued peremptory writ in Superior Court Case Number SP0009-07 ("RECTOR/MANDATE" case), and dismissing the RECTOR/MANDATE case in its entirety. We issued an order consolidating the TAIMANAO/REVIEW appeal and the RECTOR/MANDATE appeal.

[3] GFT argues on appeal that the trial court erred in holding that the TAIMANAO/REVIEW action could provide monetary recovery against GovGuam without further or alternative proceedings; that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining evidence of a proposed offset, as presented by the Guam Department of Education ("DOE"); that the trial court erred in issuing an ambiguous judgment incapable of review; and finally, that the trial court erred by failing to award interest, costs, or attorney's fees in its amended judgment.

[4] GFT further argues that the trial court erred in denying GFT's petition for an alternative writ of mandate, in vacating GFT's previously-issued peremptory writ in the RECTOR/MANDATE case, and in dismissing the RECTOR/MANDATE case in its entirety.

[5] In opposition, GovGuam contends that the amended judgment adopting an offset for double payment of teachers was correctly issued, and that the trial court properly dismissed the RECTOR/MANDATE case. GovGuam also argues that the CSC lacked jurisdiction to hear a furlough appeal; that if the CSC did have jurisdiction, it failed to follow its established rules of procedure for furlough appeals; that the CSC improperly determined that some teachers are employed on a continuous basis; and that the CSC was not authorized to hear a class action claim.

[6] Finally, the CSC argues that it properly exercised its jurisdiction over the Taimanao case, and that teachers who opted for a twenty-six pay period cycle were furloughed when their pay was delayed by one pay period.

[7] We hold the CSC lacked jurisdiction to hear the Taimanao matter. We primarily discuss arguments raised in the TAIMANAO/REVIEW case as it is dispositive of both cases.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[8] In June of 2003, Elizabeth Taimanao, a DOE teacher, filed a personnel action with the CSC alleging that the decision of the Guam Education Policy Board ("Board") to delay the start of the 2003-2004 school year ("SY04") resulted in an involuntary furlough during which time she lost approximately two weeks of compensation.

[9] Thereafter, DOE filed a petition for alternative writ of prohibition to ask the trial court to command the CSC to refrain from further proceedings in the Taimanao matter, arguing that the CSC lacked jurisdiction to review the case. The trial court ultimately concluded that the CSC had jurisdiction and denied DOE's petition for an alternative writ of prohibition. According to GFT, no judgment was issued on that decision and order.

[10] DOE continued to oppose the CSC proceeding, arguing that the Board had the right to change the school year as a matter of discretion and that no illegal furlough transpired. At a post-audit presentation, DOE's counsel argued that if Taimanao and others similarly situated were entitled to pay for missing two weeks of the 2003-2004 school year ("SY04"), then DOE was entitled to an offset due to an overpayment issued at the start of the 1998-1999 school year ("SY99") as a result of another schedule adjustment made in the 1997-1998 school year ("SY98") to accommodate the 1999 South Pacific Games.

[11] After reviewing the Taimanao matter, the CSC issued a decision and judgment upholding its post-audit report and mandating that DOE pay Taimanao and other similarly situated employees compensation owed for the alleged SY04 furlough. As part of its decision, the CSC directed DOE to investigate the matter and take "appropriate steps" to determine whether the SY98 schedule adjustment entitled DOE to an offset or reimbursement. Taimanao RA, tab 53, Ex. 4 at 1-9 (Pet'r's Supp. Ex. re: DOE Countercl., Feb. 2, 2011).

[12] Following the CSC's decision and judgment, DOE sought a writ of review in the Superior Court on the grounds that the CSC had exceeded its jurisdiction when ordering retroactive pay for all affected teachers. The parties have denominated the resulting case, SP0184-04, as the TAIMANAO/REVIEW case.

[13] The TAIMANAO/REVIEW case was submitted on briefs that were limited to furlough and jurisdictional issues and did not expressly include the offset arguments DOE's counsel had previously made, though overlapping or double payments from SY98 were mentioned in passing. The trial court issued a decision affirming the CSC's action and ordered DOE to pay the affected teachers. GFT admits that no judgment was issued on that decision at that time.

[14] Before judgment was secured in the TAIMANAO/REVIEW case, Guam's Superintendent of Education wrote a letter to the Governor of Guam acknowledging the trial court's decision holding DOE liable for violating furlough rules in SY04 and requesting funding to comply with the trial court's decision.

[15] Subsequently, GFT filed a class action for payment of wages along with a writ of mandate to compel payment, naming Matthew Rector as the petitioner-representative because he had succeeded Elizabeth Taimanao as GFT's president. The parties have denominated this case, SP0009-07, as the RECTOR/MANDATE case.

[16] Thereafter, Rector applied to the trial court ex parte for an alternative writ of mandate. The trial court denied the alternative writ.

[17] More than nineteen months later, GFT renewed its petition for writ of mandate under the same SP0009-07 caption, but instead of applying for an alternative writ, this time GFT applied for a peremptory writ of mandate. GovGuam did not file an opposition or return to the peremptory writ of mandate, and between August 2008 and March 2009, counsel for GovGuam failed to appear at three hearings set by the trial court.

[18] The trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate, compelling DOE to pay wages, interest, costs, and attorney's fees. Rather than complying, GovGuam filed an opposition and denied liability for the payment identified in the peremptory writ of mandate.

[19] More than a year later, GFT and Rector moved to enforce the peremptory writ. The trial court transferred the case to the court presiding over the TAIMANAO/REVIEW case. The transferee court deemed the peremptory writ satisfied because it had been returned and answered with objections and defenses.

[20] At subsequent hearings, the trial court considered GFT's argument that DOE previously admitted to owing money for SY04, and the court also considered DOE's argument that some teachers were overpaid in SY99. DOE's counsel sought the trial court's permission to and did submit an exhibit detailing in columnar fashion the amount of wages allegedly overpaid to teachers in SY99, the amount due to those teachers for the furlough in SY04, and a net result for each teacher, respectively.

[21]