Department of Agriculture v Guam Civil Service Commission, Real party in interest - Patricia Rojas [2014] GUSC 22 (20 August 2014)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

IN THE MATTER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

THE GUAM CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Respondent-Appellant,

and

PATRICIA ROJAS,
Real Party in Interest-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CVA13-007
Superior Court Case No.: SP0168-03

AMENDED OPINION ON REHEARING

Filed: August 20, 2014

Cite as: 2014 Guam 22

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on October 22, 2013
Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Real Party in Interest-Appellant: Delia Lujan Wolff, Esq. Lujan Aguigui & Perez, LLP DNA Bldg. 238 Archbishop Flores St., Ste. 300 Hagåtña, GU 96910

Appearing for Petitioner-Appellee: David J. Highsmith, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Civil Division 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706 Tamuning, GU 96913

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.

TORRES, C.J.:

[1] This Amended Opinion supersedes in its entirety the prior opinion of this court, Department of Agriculture v. Civil Service Commission, 2013 Guam 31. Real Party in Interest-Appellant Patricia Rojas appeals from the Superior Court’s decision and order requiring Respondent-Appellee Civil Service Commission (“the CSC” or “the commission”) to vacate its March 18, 2003 decision and enter a judgment dismissing Rojas’s appeal with the CSC. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the Superior Court’s order that the CSC vacate its judgment and dismiss Rojas’s appeal.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[2] The majority of the facts relevant to this appeal are provided in the factual and procedural background of Department of Agriculture v. Civil Service Commission (“Rojas I”), 2009 Guam 19 ¶¶ 3-6. All that is necessary to reiterate in the present appeal is that: Rojas filed an adverse employment appeal with the CSC beyond the 20-day statutory deadline provided in 4 GCA § 4406;[1] the CSC dismissed this appeal with prejudice as untimely; and more than two years later, the CSC reversed itself and ordered a judgment in favor of Rojas without giving any basis of jurisdiction for hearing the untimely appeal. In this new judgment, the CSC failed to resolve the issue of damages but explicitly stated that damages would be determined after an additional meeting. Although the meeting took place as ordered, months passed without the CSC resolving the issue of damages. During this time period, the CSC adopted a general resolution that it would no longer award back pay and attorneys’ fees to employees whose appeals were successful. The Department of Agriculture (“DOA”) filed a writ of mandamus to compel the CSC to vacate its judgment, but the Superior Court denied the writ. DOA appealed to this court.

[3] In our 2009 opinion on DOA’s appeal, we could not ascertain from the record a reasoned jurisdictional basis to support the CSC’s reconsideration of its initial dismissal of Rojas’s untimely appeal. We stressed that the CSC’s lack of a reasoned basis for reconsideration was inherently arbitrary and capricious. Finding no basis for jurisdiction, we directed the Superior Court to:

order the CSC to vacate the Judgment or demonstrate its jurisdictional basis for granting the motion for reconsideration. If a basis for jurisdiction can be shown, we instruct the court to order the CSC to issue a new judgment that finally determines the question of Rojas’ damages.

Id. ¶ 34. Thereafter, the Superior Court issued an alternative writ of mandamus ordering the CSC to vacate its decision or demonstrate a jurisdictional basis for hearing Rojas’s appeal.

[4] Following the Superior Court’s alternative writ of mandamus, Rojas submitted a brief accompanied by declarations of fact seeking to establish a reasoned basis for the CSC’s assertion of jurisdiction. Through its counsel, the CSC joined in Rojas’s brief.[2]

[5] In the two years since the Superior Court issued its writ of mandamus, there is no record of the commissioners of the CSC considering our previous opinion and the writ of mandamus, voting on whether or not it had jurisdiction, and, if it voted in favor of jurisdiction, issuing a reasoned basis for its jurisdiction. Instead, the extent of the CSC’s involvement after it was ordered to demonstrate jurisdiction was to simply join, through counsel, Rojas’s brief.

II. JURISDICTION

[6] This court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to the following statutes: 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 113-22 (2013)); 7 GCA §§ 3107, 3108(a), and 25102(a) (2005).

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[7] Whether the CSC had jurisdiction over a particular matter is an issue of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo. Guam Fed’n of Teachers v. Gov’t of Guam, 2013 Guam 14 ¶ 24. “‘[T]he interpretation by an appellate court of its own mandate is properly considered a question of law, reviewable de novo.’” Town House Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Ahn, 2003 Guam 6 ¶ 17 (quoting Laitram Corp. v. NEC Corp., 115 F.3d 947, 950 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). We review the Superior Court’s actions on remand for an abuse of discretion. Id.

IV. ANALYSIS

[8]