GCA Title 7, Chapter 4
7 GCA JUDICIARY AND CIVIL PROCEDURE CH. 4 SUPERIOR COURT
INTRODUCTORY NOTE FOR TITLE 7 - JUDICIARY AND CIVIL PROCEDURE
2015 NOTE: The judicial branch of Guam was established on August 1, 1950 by the Organic Act of Guam, codified at 48 U.S.C. § 1424-1. The branch was reorganized pursuant to P.L. 12-085 (Jan. 16, 1974), known as the Court Reorganization Act, with appellate jurisdiction vested in a newly created the Supreme Court of Guam. However, after a legal challenge to P.L. 12-085, the Supreme Court of Guam was abolished when the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Guam Legislature could not divest the District Court of Guam of appellate jurisdiction and transfer appellate jurisdiction to Supreme Court of Guam. See Guam v. Olsen , 431 U.S. 195 (1977). Subsequent amendments to the Organic Act authorized the Guam Legislature to create an appellate court, and in 1985, legislation was drafted to create Chapters 1 through 10 of Title 7 of the Guam Code Annotated. This draft legislation was eventually enacted into law by P.L. 21-147:2 (Jan. 14, 1993), known as the Frank G. Lujan Memorial Court Reorganization Act of 1992. Although P.L. 21-147:2 expressly stated that it was adding Chapters 1 through 10 of Title 7, the law itself enacted only Chapters 1 through 9. The provisions in the draft version of Chapter 10 were enacted as uncodified provisions; specifically, Sections 1 through 7 of P.L. 21-147. Past print publications of the GCA included annotations from the 1985 draft legislation, which were not included in Bill 102, the draft legislation introduced to the 21st Guam Legislature that was eventually signed into law as P.L. 21147. These annotation s, designated ‘1985 Source’ and ‘1985 Comment,’ have been retained as they provide background information as to the source and legislative drafting history.
CHAPTER 4 SUPERIOR COURT
SOURCE: Entire Chapter added by P.L. 21-147:2 (Jan. 14, 1993). 2025 NOTE: Pursuant to 5 GCA § 1510, I Maga’hågan/Maga’låhen Guåhan means the ‘Governor of Guam’ and I Maga’håga/Maga’låhi means the ‘Governor.’ Pursuant to 2 GCA § 1101, I Liheslatura/Liheslaturan Guåhan means the ‘Legislature’ / ‘Guam Legislature.’ 2015 NOTE: Annotations designated ‘1985 Source’ and ‘1985 Comment’ refer to draft legislation, and have been retained to provide background information as to the source and legislative drafting history. See Introductory Note for Title 7 -Civil Procedure. Other annotations included in past publications of the GCA have been updated or deleted, after review for necessity and relevance.
ARTICLE 1
GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 4101. Superior Court: Nature and Composition.
(a) The Superior Court of Guam is a court of general jurisdiction in Guam, having original jurisdiction as prescribed by this Title and in other laws of Guam which are not within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
7 GCA JUDICIARY AND CIVIL PROCEDURE CH. 4 SUPERIOR COURT
Supreme Court of Guam or the District Court of Guam. The Superior Court shall consist of a presiding judge and six (6) additional judges. The Judges of the Superior Court shall be appointed as provided in this Title. The Presiding Judge holding office on the effective date of this Act shall remain Presiding Judge for so long as he shall remain a Judge of the Superior Court. Thereafter, however, the Judges of the Superior Court shall elect one (1) of their number Presiding Judge. The first elected Presiding Judge shall serve until the third Tuesday of the first January occurring three (3) years after his or her election. Thereafter a Presiding Judge shall serve a term of three (3) years, unless he or she is elected to fill a vacancy, in which case he or she shall serve only the remainder of the unexpired term of his or her predecessor. No person may be elected to consecutive terms as a Presiding Judge. (b) If the Judicial Council determines that additional Judges are required for the proper dispatch of business, the Chief Justice shall so notify I Maga’håga/Maga’låhi , who, if he or she concurs, shall appoint a new Judge as in the case of a vacancy. (c) If, for any reason, a vacancy is created in the Superior Court and the Judicial Council determines that the business of the Court is such that no new Judge is required to fill the vacancy, the Chief Justice shall so declare, and upon such declaration, no Judge shall be appointed to fill the vacancy until the Judicial Council again determines that a need exists and proceeds in the manner prescribed by Subsection (b) of this § 4101. (d) All Judges sitting on the effective date of this Chapter shall continue to sit for the remainder of their respective terms without need for reappointment, reconfirmation or additional declarations required by this § 4101. (e) Enactment of Rules on Case Management and Disposition. The Supreme Court shall enact rules governing the efficient dispatch of the Superior Court’s business, including the following: (1) time frames and deadlines for matters taken under submission to provide speedy and efficient disposition of cases; (2) compilation of data and statistics regarding the court and each judge’s performance and publication of the same on the Supreme Court website. Said compilation shall include, but not be limited to, the number of motions filed in cases pending before each judge, the number of motions and trials to the court which each judge has had under submission more than sixty (60) days, and the number of motions and trials to the court each judge has had under submission more than one hundred twenty (120) days prompt and equitable assignment and distribution of cases and workload and time off among the judges; (3) assignment, management, distribution, processing, scheduling and disposition of cases in the Superior Court; (4) whether a referee or hearing officer may hear a case; and (5) any other matters which affect the prompt, fair and just disposition of cases in the Superior Court. SOURCE: Added by P.L. 21-147:2 (Jan. 14, 1993). Amended (as CCP § 81) by P.L. 22-075:2 (Mar. 3, 1994). Subsections (b), (c) repealed and reenacted by P.L. 24-139:30-32 (Feb. 7, 1998). Subsections (b), (c) amended by P.L. 27-031:11 (Oct. 31, 2003). Subsection (e) added by P.L. 27-031:12 (Oct. 31, 2003), and repealed and reenacted by P.L. 28-137:1 (July 11, 2006). COURT DECISIONS: Pangelinan v. Gutierrez , 2000 Guam 11 ¶ 8 (’ We find that Bill 495 [designated as P.L. 24139] was pocket vetoed and that the Legislature ’ s subsequent actions did not serve to ratify Bill 495. ’), aff’d by Gutierrez v. Pangelinan , 276 F.3d 539 (9 th Cir. 2002), cert. den. 537 U.S. 825 (Oct. 7, 2002). 1985 SOURCE: New section, but compare CCP § 81 in part.
7 GCA JUDICIARY AND CIVIL PROCEDURE CH. 4 SUPERIOR COURT
1985 COMMENT: The confusion arising over the appointment of Judge Diaz (August 1980) and the appointment of Attorney Crain (who was not confirmed by the Legislature) (December 1982) has shown that there is no clear means by which a new judicial position is created. Judge Diaz was appointed and confirmed as judge before any new position was funded. However, the funding was authorized by the Legislature before the new judge was sworn in and took office. To remedy this situation P.L. 15140:2, in amending § 81 of the CCP, stated that there are ‘a presiding judge and 5 additional judges’. However, with the resignation of Judge Benson, there was no hurry in filling that vacancy because all concerned believed that the business of the court did not require an additional judge. Therefore, this Section takes care of not only increased judicial business, but also decreased judicial business. This Section will also take care of the problem occurring in 1982 when the Bar Association still believed that no new judge was required, but the Governor disagreed.
§ 4102. Appellate Jurisdiction and Procedure.
The Superior Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in all cases tried and determined in the: (a) Traffic Division wherein the amount of the fine levied is more than One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150). Such an appeal shall be taken within five (5) court days after the judgment is rendered by the Traffic Division and shall be taken by filing a written notice of appeal with the Clerk of the Superior Court. The appeal shall be a trial on the merits de novo;
- (b) Small Claims Division pursuant to Article 2 of this Chapter. 1985 SOURCE: CCP § 83 (P.L. 12-85) as modified. 1985 COMMENT: The appellate function over traffic cases is retained in the Superior Court. However, former § 83 CCP is modified to reflect the actual situation in which the traffic division does not hear cases in which imprisonment may be imposed, the nomenclature of the courts adopted by this Title and the procedure and rule-making powers, also adopted by this Title. Former § 83 CCP was repealed by P.L. 13-187 upon adoption of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 1.09(b) provides that a defendant in the traffic court shall have a right to appeal and obtain a trial de novo in any case. This Section adopts that, and provides for a more detailed procedure than is stated in the Criminal Procedure Code. In that Code no mention is made as to times, nor methods of appeal to the Superior Court.
§ 4103. Powers of the Presiding Judge.
The Presiding Judge of the Superior Court shall prescribe the order of business and randomly assign the cases to the Judges, Referees, and Hearing Officers of the Court in conformance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Supreme Court. During the Presiding Judge’s temporary absence or temporary disability, his or her duties shall be performed by his or her designated appointee. Appointment shall be on a rotating basis among all the Judges of the Superior Court. The Presiding Judge shall be responsible for preparing the annual budget of the Superior Court and its divisions for the review, recommendation and approval of the Judicial Council. SOURCE: Added by P.L. 21-147:2 (Jan. 14, 1993), amended by P.L. 23-086:4 (Apr. 29, 1996). Repealed and reenacted by P.L. 24-139:32 (Feb. 7, 1998). Amended by P.L. 27-031:13 (Oct. 31, 2003).
§ 4104. I Maga’håga/Maga’låhi and I Liheslatura May Request Declaratory Judgments.
I Maga’håga/Maga’låh en Guåhan , in writing, or I Liheslaturan Guåhan , by resolution, may request declaratory judgments from the Supreme Court of Guam as to the interpretation of any law, federal or local, lying within the jurisdiction of the courts of Guam to decide, and upon any question affecting the powers and duties of I Maga’håga/Maga’låhi and the operation of the Executive Branch, or I Liheslaturan Guåhan , respectively. The declaratory judgments may be issued only where it is a matter of great public interest and the normal process of law would cause undue delay. Such declaratory judgments shall not be available to private parties. The Supreme Court of Guam shall, pursuant to its rules and procedure, permit interested parties to be heard on the questions presented and shall render its written judgment thereon.
7 GCA JUDICIARY AND CIVIL PROCEDURE CH. 4 SUPERIOR COURT
SOURCE: Added by P.L. 21-147:2 (Jan. 14, 1993), repealed and reenacted by P.L. 24-061:3 (Sept. 17, 1997). Repealed by P.L. 28-146:1 (August 15, 2006). Added by P.L. 29-103:2 (July 22, 2008). 1985 SOURCE: Article 4(c) Constitution of Florida, as modified by Massachusetts Constitution, Article of Amendment No. 85 amending Art. 2 of Ch. 3 of the Mass. Constitution. 1985 COMMENT: Several states permit the governor, and Massachusetts permits the Governor, Legislature and Council, to seek opinions from their respective Supreme Courts on matters respecting the duties of the Governor and Legislature. It has been this drafter ’ s experience that such a grant of jurisdiction would have solved many serious questions which have arisen, but which have lacked a forum for decision. Under the usual rule, no case may be brought until it has ripened into a ‘case or controversy’. This section will permit important issues to be decided before that time and will avoid the necessity of creating harm to some party in order to have a decision. Thus, a Massachusetts Opinion of the Justices determined certain powers of the Legislature and Governor before any employees had to be laid off. This Section would permit a better resolution of serious questions than occurred in the 1978 District Court decision of Wong v. Camina wherein the Court decided a question relating to federal grants. No defendant was forthcoming, so the case was decided essentially on a default. This Section would permit a full hearing in such cases and decisions rendered under this Section would be binding. Note that the language permits the Governor to request opinions as the operation of the Executive Branch, including questions involving separation of powers, and the Legislature to request opinions on the operation of that Branch, but does not permit one Branch to request opinions as to the operation of the other where that operation does not impinge on the requesting branch’s operations. The purpose of this limitation is to avoid one branch trying to regulate the other through the courts.
§ 4105. Certifying Questions of Law.
Any judge of the Superior Court of Guam may certify a question of law to the Supreme Court of Guam for its opinion as to the interpretation of any law, federal or local, lying within the jurisdiction of the courts of Guam to decide, and arising in a case or proceeding then pending before the Superior Court.
ARTICLE 2 SMALL CLAIMS DIVISION
SOURCE: CCP § 100, added by P.L. 20-028:1 (June 13, 1989) as a new Chapter III-B of Title I. Renumbered and codified by the Compiler as Article 2 of Chapter 4, Title 7 GCA (§§ 4201-4208). 2025 NOTE: Past publications of the GCA included a Compiler’s annotation which acknowledged that P.L. 21-147 (Jan. 14, 1993) did not include this article when enacting Chapter 4. This article was nevertheless included in publications of the GCA; the annotation explained the presumption Article 2 had not been repealed, because Article 1 contained a reference to it. See § 4102(b) (referring to the ’ Small Claims Division pursuant to Article 2 of this Chapter .’ ).
§ 4201. Title.
This Article may be cited as the Small Claims Court Act. A Small Claims Division is created within the Superior Court of Guam on the following terms and conditions.
§ 4202. Jurisdiction.
Any person having a claim of 10,000. If a bona fide counterclaim or crossclaim is in excess of $10,000, the matter shall be h andled as a regular civi