By Cherrie Anne E. Villahermosa
Variety News Staff

THE Supreme Court has affirmed the trial court’s decision in favor of the Tinian Dynasty Hotel & Casino in connection with lawsuit filed by former Speaker Pedro R. Deleon Guerrero.
Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Miguel S. Demapan and Associate Justice John A.Manglona, in an order on Thursday, affirmed the Superior Court decision to grant Tinian Dynasty’s motion to change the trial venue from Saipan to Tinian.
The high court also affirmed the jury’s verdict against Deleon Guerrero.
The justices said the Superior Court’s ruling in favor of Tinian Dynasty was not an abuse of discretion and the trial court’s decision denying Deleon Guerrero’s motion to challenge the composition of the jury panel was not erroneous.
But Justice Pro Tempore F. Philip Carbullido, Guam’s chief justice, issued a dissenting opinion.
According to Carbullido, “The trial court erred in granting Tinian Dynasty’s motion to transfer venue because no such statute authorized the trial court to so grant the motion. I disagree with the majority’s holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by transferring the present case and I would reverse the trial court’s decision to change venue and remand to vacate the judgment and order a new trial.”
Deleon Guerrero filed a personal injury action against Tinian Dynasty after an altercation with one of its employees on July 22, 1998.
Deleon Guerrero and his friend Candido Castro were gambling at the Tinian Dynasty when Castro got into argument with one of the dealers.
Two of the Tinian Dynasty employees approached Deleon Guerrero and talked to him.
The employee asked Deleon Guerrero to get down from the gaming table but he refused.
He was angry and was pointing and shouting at the Tinian Dynasty security staff who moved in to physically removed him but the former speaker resisted and tripped a security guard.
Deleon Guerrero was put on the floor until he calmed down and was later subdued and removed from the casino.
He was allowed to wait inside the lobby doorway for the arrival of the police officers who escorted him to the airport.
Deleon Guerrero sued Tinian Dynasty, saying he suffered severe humiliation and embarrassment after being beaten and dragged through the casino and lobby by some Tinian Dynasty employees.
A jury trial was held and on March 12, 2003, the jurors returned a verdict finding that Tinian Dynasty employees did not commit assault and battery in removing Deleon Guerrero from the casino.
The jurors also did not find that the employees intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Deleon Guerrero.
Prior to the jury trial, Tinian Dynasty filed a motion to change the trial venue from Saipan to Tinian.
Deleon Guerrero, for his part, filed a motion to challenge the composition of the jury panel.
He argued that the change of venue violated his Seventh Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights which mandate a fair trial.
But C Demapan and Manglona said that the trial court’s decision to remove the case from Saipan and to hold the jury trial on Tinian was not such an abuse.
“While there is no specific statute in the CNMI which authorizes a change of venue in a civil case, the trial court’s transfer of venue from Saipan to Tinian was rooted in its inherent powers,” the justices said.
They said the lawsuit could have initially been filed on Tinian, and transferring the case to the island “advanced the convenient administration of justice.”
Demapan and Manglona said Tinian was the proper place to hold the trial and Deleon Guerreo had not shown actual or presumed prejudice occurred as a result of venue.
“There was no showing by Deleon Guerrero that the jurors exhibited actual partiality or hostility,” the justices said in response to the former speaker’s argument that many in the community of Tinian had some kind of direct or indirect economic ties with Tinian Dynasty.
“Even assuming this is true, there was no showing whatsoever that any juror called as part of the jury pool was actually partial or hostile. We do not consider self-serving declarations to be evidence,” the justices said.