In the Matter of Juan P. San Nicolas and John J. Sablan v. Edward Birn, in his official capacity as Director for the Department of Administration, and Guam Fire Department, Real Party in Interest-Appellee, 2022 Guam 8

Petitioners Juan P. San Nicolas and John J. Sablan were GFD Firefighter I employees who performed duties above that classification from ~2001–2008 and sought back pay and reclassification.
A 2008 DOA desk audit concluded they performed duties above Firefighter I but did not reclassify them; it recommended compensation at the Fire Service Specialist level and noted no suitable existing title.
Petitioners filed administrative grievances and then SP0189-10 in Superior Court; the court remanded to the Civil Service Commission (CSC), which after hearings (2015) found Petitioners performed Fire Specialist duties and awarded a limited pay differential (Sept 2005–May 2008) but did not order reclassification.
Superior Court entered final judgment in SP0189-10 (July 2017); Petitioners did not appeal. They then filed SP0088-17 seeking a writ of mandamus to compel DOA to promote them under 10 GCA § 72107 (automatic permanent promotion after occupying a temporary Fire Service Specialist or Firefighter II position >5 years).
The trial court denied the writ, holding SP0088-17 was barred by res judicata and that § 72107 did not apply because Petitioners were never appointed to or shown to have “occupied” the Fire Service Specialist position; the Supreme Court of Guam affirmed.

Issue	Petitioners' Argument	Respondents' Argument	Held
Whether SP0088-17 is barred by res judicata	§72107 claim was not finally decided in SP0189-10; new relief sought	SP0088-17 arises from same transactional nucleus and SP0189-10 produced a final judgment	Barred: res judicata applies; SP0189-10 was final and claims arise from same facts
Whether 10 GCA § 72107 applies to Petitioners	§72107 should be strictly construed to deem permanent those who in fact occupied the position >5 years, even without formal appointment	§72107 applies only where there was a temporary appointment/occupation; record lacks proof of such appointment	§72107 inapplicable: record does not show Petitioners ‘‘occupied’’ the Fire Service Specialist position as required
Whether Respondents’ pleadings were judicial admissions forcing relief	Respondents admitted Petitioners “occupied the position” in their Answer, so court must grant §72107 relief	The admissions were not unequivocal or deliberate judicial admissions and are contradicted by the record	Not bound: trial court did not abuse discretion in treating answers as non‑binding and declining to treat them as judicial admissions
Whether denial of writ of mandamus was an abuse of discretion	Denial was erroneous given statutory entitlement and CSC findings	Mandamus is extraordinary; res judicata and statute inapplicability justify denial	Denial affirmed: no abuse of discretion given claim preclusion and §72107 inapplicability

Castillo v. City of Los Angeles, 111 Cal. Rptr. 2d 870 (Ct. App. 2001) (administrative decision is final after full hearing, decision on the merits, and expiration of appeal period)
Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 230 P.3d 342 (Cal. 2010) (one injury gives rise to only one claim for relief; cause of action defined by harm and duty breached)
Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (transactional nucleus test for claim identity in res judicata analysis)
MacDonald v. Gen. Motors Corp., 110 F.3d 337 (6th Cir. 1997) (standard of review for trial court’s treatment of judicial admissions)
Am. Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224 (9th Cir. 1988) (principles on binding effect of judicial admissions)
Childs v. Franco, 563 F. Supp. 290 (E.D. Pa. 1983) (judicial admission requires unequivocal, deliberate waiver of right to controvert)