The Superior Court of Guam has dismissed a counterclaim filed by government employee Bryan J. Cruz seeking declaratory relief against the Office of the Attorney General of Guam, ruling that Cruz failed to exhaust administrative remedies before turning to the judiciary.

In a Decision and Order issued Feb. 16, Judge Elyze M. Iriarte concluded that Cruz improperly sought to have the court enforce a reinstatement order issued by the Guam Civil Service Commission (CSC) without first invoking the commission’s statutory enforcement powers.

Reinstatement Order at Center of Dispute

The case stems from a March 25, 2025 CSC Decision and Judgment dismissing an adverse action brought by the OAG against Cruz and ordering his immediate reinstatement to his former position.

Cruz later filed a counterclaim in the OAG’s writ proceeding, alleging the agency failed to fully comply with the reinstatement directive. He asserted he was reassigned to the Child Support Enforcement Division rather than restored to his former Investigator III position.

Instead of seeking enforcement through the CSC, Cruz asked the Superior Court to declare the OAG “not in full compliance” and to award attorney’s fees and costs.

Court: CSC Must Act First

Judge Iriarte ruled that Guam law provides a specific enforcement mechanism: the CSC itself may seek enforcement of its decisions in Superior Court under 4 GCA §§ 4406(h) and 4408.

“The path is clear,” the court wrote. “The CSC must be given the first opportunity to enforce its own decision.”

Because Cruz did not request that the commission pursue enforcement before filing his counterclaim, the court found he failed to exhaust available administrative remedies. Under Guam Supreme Court precedent, including Barrett-Anderson v. Camacho (2015 Guam 20) and Story-Bernardo v. Gov’t of Guam (2023 Guam 27), declaratory relief cannot be used to bypass administrative processes.

The ruling emphasized that in judicial review proceedings, the court’s authority is limited to reviewing the CSC’s decisions and statutory authority — not exercising enforcement powers granted directly to the commission.

Accordingly, the court dismissed Cruz’s declaratory relief claim.

Attorney’s Fees Claim Remains Unresolved

However, the court stopped short of dismissing Cruz’s request for attorney’s fees under 4 GCA § 4406.1, which mandates fees when an employee prevails before the CSC.

While Cruz prevailed at the administrative level, the CSC failed to timely issue a written award of attorney’s fees. In a separate Feb. 5, 2026 order, the court struck the commission’s amended judgment adding fees as untimely.

The remaining legal question is procedural: whether Cruz’s counterclaim can function as a proper petition for judicial review or mandamus under the Administrative Adjudication Law, which requires filing within 30 days after the last date for reconsideration.

Judge Iriarte signaled she is “inclined to hold” that a formal petition was required but ordered additional briefing before making a final determination.

Broader Implications

The ruling reinforces the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in Guam’s civil service framework and clarifies that enforcement authority over reinstatement orders lies first with the CSC — not individual employees — unless and until administrative avenues are fully pursued.

Further briefing on the attorney’s fees issue is expected under a schedule to be issued by the court.