Superior Court Judge Arthur Barcinas denied a motion seeking an order to show cause against the Office of the Attorney General over its delayed filing of transcripts from Guam Civil Service Commission hearings.

Vivian Nisperos, identified in the special proceedings as the "Real Party In Interest" and represented by Attorney Jacqueline Terlaje filed the motion on May 13, asking the Court to issue an Order to show cause for the Attorney General's "failure" to file the transcripts of the Civil Service Commission hearings as mandated.

“Nearly two years later, on May 13, 2026, the Petitioners did not file an entry of the certified transcripts for the hearings following their petition for judicial review,” the court's order states.

Five days after the motion was filed, the OAG submitted a certification of transcript on May 18.

The OAG argued no violation had occurred and attributed the underlying issue involves external factors.

“The process in obtaining these transcriptions were delayed largely in part to missing testimony from the CSC proceedings,” the order states.

Barcinas took the matter under advisement after hearing the arguments. In his decision, he examined the court's contempt power and a four-element test for determining whether a party may be held in contempt for failing to comply with a court order.

“Trial courts may use its contempt powers under 7 GCA §34101 to hold a party in contempt for failure to comply with the court’s orders,” the decision said. “(1) a valid order, (2) knowledge of the order, (3) ability to comply with the order, and (4) willful failure to comply with the order.”

Barcinas cited Paul's Guam Inc v. Superior Court of Guam and Rodriguez v. Rodriguez cases from 2020 and 2003, respectively.

Although the Court recognized the "extraordinary delay" by the OAG to comply with the statutory requirement, Barcinas also recognized that "the Court did not issue an order requiring the Petitioner to comply."

The motion was denied, but Barcinas did not excuse the OAG's conduct.

“That does not change the fact that the Petitioner nonetheless had a duty to comply with the statute in its pursuit of its petition,” Barcinas said.