Lizama reconsiders previous ruling favoring ex-Rota mayor

Superior Court Associate Judge Juan T. Lizama has granted a motion to reconsider his earlier ruling that found former Rota Mayor Benjamin T. Manglona and ex-Department of Lands and Natural Resources Rota resident head Vicente M. Atalig not liable to a wrongful termination lawsuit.

Lizama said upon further reflection, he finds that the allegations of plaintiff Mariano S. Sablan can be construed to meet the requirements in filing pleadings.

Lizama said he recognizes that ruling in favor of defendants Manglona and Atalig would not provide Sablan with the opportunity to amend his lawsuit.

“Accepting plaintiff’s arguments that he has sued the proper party, such denial would cause manifest injustice,” said the judge in granting Sablan’s motion for reconsideration.

Lizama, however, cautioned Sablan that his allegations are serious and should not be made lightly.

“Plaintiff will have to present stronger allegations in order to meet his burden at trial,” the judge noted.

Court records show that Sablan sued the defendants for allegedly illegally terminating his employment in 2003. He sued the defendants in their individual capacities, although the complaint alleged that defendants were acting “under color of law” and the Attorney General has taken responsibility for their defense.

Sablan was made the deputy director of Land Registration and Survey on Rota in May 1998. His employment was then renewed annually until 2003, when it was terminated.

Sablan challenged his termination with the Civil Service Commission arguing that he was a civil service employee.

CSC agreed and on March 3, 2004, it ordered Sablan reinstated and awarded him back pay and benefits. He was reinstated on March 18, 2004, but did not receive his back pay and benefits until April 28, 2004.

Sablan’s original complaint alleged wrongful termination, breach of contract, and deprivation of property without due process of law.

The wrongful termination was dismissed without prejudice due to his failure to allege that any public policy violation was implicated in his termination.

The contract claim was dismissed without prejudice because Sablan did not appear to have evidence of the existence of a contract between himself and the defendants.

The claims relating to deprivation of property survived defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Sablan submitted a first amended complaint to address some of the deficiencies of the original complaint.

Manglona and Atalig, through assistant attorney general Jeanne H. Rayphand, moved for judgment on the pleadings with respect to the wrongful termination claim.

Rayphand argued that the defendants are not the proper parties for the action, and the tort of wrongful termination against public policy does not apply to the facts at hand.

In Feb. 2006, Lizama granted the defendants’ motion. He ruled that under the existing case law, there is no basis for bringing the tort of wrongful termination against a supervisor rather than the employer.

Lizama in that order stated that because Manglona and Atalig were allegedly the supervisors of plaintiff Land Registration and Survey for Rota Deputy Director Mariano S. Sablan, they are not the proper subjects for a tort action based on wrongful termination.

Tort refers to a private or civil wrong or injury resulting from a breach of a legal duty.

Sablan, through counsel Joseph E. Horey, moved the court to reconsider its decision.

Horey asserted that Sablan has met the “causation element” in the pleading because his complaint directly states that his termination was based upon his ethnicity, political affiliation and or lack of certain familial connections.

Horey argued that the tort of wrongful discharge encompasses not only discharge in violation of public policy for doing something, but also for being something.

In granting Sablan’s request, Lizama pointed out that while the first amended complaint lacks specificity, the court acknowledges that a complaint need only contain “a short and plain statement of the claim.”

Further, Lizama said, pleadings are adequate if there are allegations “from which an inference could fairly be drawn that evidence of these material points will be introduced at trial.”

The judge pointed out that straightforward allegations against the CNMI in the first instance would have saved the court and the parties a great deal of time and effort.

Lizama said he, however, has considered Sablan’s briefing and construed the pleadings in an extremely liberal manner.