{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-150087",
  "citation": "Res. 00017-2014 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Validez de adjudicación y derecho a rentas por incumplimiento contractual del Estado",
  "title_en": "Validity of award and right to rent for state's contractual breach",
  "summary_es": "La sentencia analiza la validez del acto de adjudicación de un contrato de arrendamiento de inmueble entre Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A. y el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia (PANI). Tras un proceso de contratación directa, la adjudicación adquirió firmeza el 24 de octubre de 2012, constituyendo un acto administrativo favorable y declaratorio de derechos subjetivos para la empresa. Sin embargo, la Presidencia Ejecutiva del PANI se negó a firmar el contrato y suspendió los trámites invocando razones de austeridad presupuestaria. El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección V, declara que dicha negativa es contraria a derecho y viola el principio de buena fe contractual, así como la seguridad jurídica y la intangibilidad de los actos propios, al desconocer la administración sus propios actos válidos. Se reconoce el derecho de la demandante a percibir las rentas dejadas de cobrar desde la fecha pactada para la ocupación (7 de noviembre de 2012) hasta la ocupación efectiva (1 de marzo de 2013), por ser el retraso imputable únicamente al PANI.",
  "summary_en": "The ruling examines the validity of an award for a property lease contract between Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A. and the National Children's Trust (PANI). The direct contracting award became final on 24 October 2012, creating a favorable administrative act that declared subjective rights for the company. However, PANI's Executive Presidency refused to sign the contract and suspended the process, citing budget austerity. The Administrative Appeals Court, Section V, declares this refusal unlawful, violating the principle of good faith, legal certainty, and the prohibition against acting against one's own acts. The court recognizes the claimant's right to receive the rents lost from the agreed occupancy date (7 November 2012) until actual occupancy (1 March 2013), as the delay was solely attributable to PANI.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V",
  "date": "2014",
  "year": "2014",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "adjudicación firme",
    "intangibilidad de los actos propios",
    "buena fe contractual",
    "acto administrativo favorable",
    "derechos subjetivos",
    "seguridad jurídica",
    "lesividad",
    "contratación directa"
  ],
  "concept_anchors": [
    {
      "article": "Art. 11",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 34",
      "law": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 15",
      "law": "Ley de Contratación Administrativa"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 20",
      "law": "Ley de Contratación Administrativa"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 76",
      "law": "Ley de Contratación Administrativa"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 159",
      "law": "Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa"
    },
    {
      "article": "Art. 6",
      "law": "Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "contratación administrativa",
    "buena fe",
    "seguridad jurídica",
    "intangibilidad de los actos propios",
    "adjudicación",
    "arrendamiento",
    "PANI",
    "rentas dejadas de percibir",
    "derechos subjetivos",
    "acto administrativo favorable",
    "principio de legalidad",
    "Contratación Directa",
    "lesividad"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "administrative contracting",
    "good faith",
    "legal certainty",
    "intangibility of one's own acts",
    "award",
    "lease",
    "PANI",
    "lost rents",
    "subjective rights",
    "favorable administrative act",
    "principle of legality",
    "direct contracting",
    "lesividad"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "Es claro para esta Cámara en el caso bajo análisis, que la forma en que la Presidencia Ejecutiva del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia dejó sin efecto la adjudicación realizada a favor de la actora, negándose a firmar el contrato ya confeccionado y firmado por el personero de la arrendataria, resulta contraria a derecho y al principio de la buena fe contractual, antes mencionado, al negarse a cumplir con los compromisos, adquiridos válidamente, en la contratación administrativa, obstaculizando la puesta en ejecución del contrato, cuando en realidad se encontraba en la obligación de colaborar para ejecutar en forma correcta el objeto del contrato. Obsérvese que la adjudicación del proceso de contratación adquirió firmeza el 24 de octubre de 2012, a partir de ese momento se convirtió en un acto administrativo favorable y declaratorio de derechos subjetivos para la empresa aquí demandante. En consecuencia, no podía la Presidencia Ejecutiva de la institución demandada, simplemente prescindir de continuar con la tramitación; pues con ello se da una clara violación al principio de seguridad jurídica, que se manifiesta en la garantía de la intangibilidad de los actos propios.",
  "excerpt_en": "It is clear to this Chamber in the case under analysis that the way in which the Executive Presidency of the National Children's Trust annulled the award made in favor of the plaintiff, refusing to sign the contract already prepared and signed by the lessee's representative, is contrary to law and the aforementioned principle of good faith, by refusing to fulfill commitments validly acquired in administrative contracting, hindering the execution of the contract, when in reality it was obliged to collaborate to properly execute the contract's purpose. Note that the award of the contracting process became final on 24 October 2012; from that moment it became a favorable administrative act declaring subjective rights for the plaintiff company. Consequently, the Executive Presidency of the defendant institution could not simply dispense with continuing the process, as this clearly violates the principle of legal certainty, manifested in the guarantee of the intangibility of one's own acts.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Judgment against the administration",
    "label_es": "Condena a la administración",
    "summary_en": "The Court declares unlawful PANI's refusal to sign the lease contract and recognizes the claimant's right to receive the rents lost during the delay period attributable to the administration.",
    "summary_es": "El Tribunal declara contraria a derecho la negativa del PANI a firmar el contrato de arrendamiento y reconoce el derecho de la demandante a percibir las rentas dejadas de cobrar por el período de retraso imputable a la administración."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "The Administration is obliged to fulfill all commitments, validly acquired, in administrative contracting and to provide collaboration so that the contractor performs the agreed object appropriately.",
      "quote_es": "La Administración está obligada a cumplir con todos los compromisos, adquiridos válidamente, en la contratación administrativa y a prestar colaboración para que el contratista ejecute en forma idónea el objeto pactado."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando III",
      "quote_en": "The contractors are obliged to comply with what was offered in their proposal and in any formal documented statement, which they have additionally provided, during the procedure or in the formalization of the contract.",
      "quote_es": "Los contratistas están obligados a cumplir, con lo ofrecido en su propuesta y en cualquier manifestación formal documentada, que hayan aportado adicionalmente, en el curso del procedimiento o en la formalización del contrato."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando V",
      "quote_en": "The Executive Presidency of the defendant institution could not simply dispense with continuing the process, as this clearly violates the principle of legal certainty, manifested in the guarantee of the intangibility of one's own acts.",
      "quote_es": "No podía la Presidencia Ejecutiva de la institución demandada, simplemente prescindir de continuar con la tramitación; pues con ello se da una clara violación al principio de seguridad jurídica, que se manifiesta en la garantía de la intangibilidad de los actos propios."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [],
  "cited_by": [],
  "references": {
    "internal": [],
    "external": []
  },
  "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-150087",
  "tier": 2,
  "_editorial_citation_count": 0,
  "regulations_by_article": null,
  "amendments_by_article": null,
  "dictamen_by_article": null,
  "concordancias_by_article": null,
  "afectaciones_by_article": null,
  "resoluciones_by_article": null,
  "cited_by_votos": [],
  "cited_norms": [],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-23655",
      "norm_num": "7527",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "10/07/1995"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-24284",
      "norm_num": "7494",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Contratación Administrativa",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "02/05/1995"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-58314",
      "norm_num": "33411",
      "norm_name": "Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa",
      "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo",
      "norm_fecha": "27/09/2006"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "“III.- SOBRE EL CONTRATO ADMINISTRATIVO\r\nY LOS PRINCIPIOS QUE LO RIGEN.\n\r\n\r\n\nEl contrato administrativo como resultado de un\r\nprocedimiento de contratación, se encuentra sujeto a una serie de principios,\r\ndefinidos por la Sala Constitucional en el voto 998 de las 11 horas con\r\n30 minutos del 16 de febrero de 1998, que en lo que es de interés expresó:\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\n“...vi. los principios de la\r\ncontratación administrativa. En virtud de lo anterior, debe\r\nentenderse que del artículo 182 de la Constitución Política se derivan todos\r\nlos principios y parámetros constitucionales que rigen la actividad\r\ncontractual del Estado. Algunos de estos principios que orientan y regulan la\r\nlicitación son:… 2.- de igualdad de trato entre\r\ntodos los posibles oferentes, …tiene una doble finalidad, la de\r\nser garantía para los administrados en la protección de sus intereses y\r\nderechos como contratistas, oferentes y como particulares, que se traduce en la\r\nprohibición para el Estado de imponer condiciones restrictivas para el acceso\r\ndel concurso, sea mediante la promulgación de disposiciones legales o\r\nreglamentarias con ese objeto, como en su actuación concreta; y la de\r\nconstituir garantía para la administración, en tanto acrece la posibilidad de\r\nuna mejor selección del contratista; todo lo anterior, dentro del marco\r\nconstitucional dado por el artículo 33 de la Carta Fundamental; 3.- de\r\npublicidad, que constituye el presupuesto y garantía de los principios\r\ncomentados, ya que busca asegurar a los administrados la más amplia certeza de\r\nla libre concurrencia en condiciones de absoluta igualdad en los procedimientos\r\nde la contratación administrativa, y que consiste en que la invitación al\r\nconcurso licitatorio se haga en forma general, abierta y lo más amplia posible\r\na todos los oferentes posibles, dándosele al cartel la más amplia divulgación,\r\nasí como el más amplio acceso al expediente, informes, resoluciones y en\r\ngeneral a todo el proceso de que se trate; 4.-de legalidad o\r\ntransparencia de los procedimientos, en tanto los procedimientos de\r\nselección del contratista deben estar definidos a priori en forma precisa,\r\ncierta y concreta, de modo que la administración no pueda obviar las reglas\r\npredefinidas en la norma jurídica que determina el marco de acción, como\r\ndesarrollo de lo dispuesto al efecto en la Constitución Política; 5.- de\r\nseguridad jurídica, que es derivado del anterior, puesto que al\r\nsujetarse los procedimientos de la contratación administrativa a las reglas\r\ncontenidas en las disposiciones normativas, se da seguridad y garantía a los\r\noferentes de su participación; …8.- principio de buena fe , en\r\ncuanto en los trámites de las licitaciones y en general, en todo lo\r\nconcerniente a la contratación administrativa, se considera como un principio\r\nmoral básico que la administración y oferentes actúen de buena fe, en donde las\r\nactuaciones de ambas partes estén caracterizadas por normas éticas claras,\r\ndonde prevalezca el interés público sobre cualquier otro” . \n\r\n\r\n\nEstos principios se encuentran\r\nreflejados en la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, creando derechos y\r\nobligaciones entre las partes contratantes, así el artículo quince de la\r\nLey de Contratación Administrativa, expresamente señala como obligación de la\r\nAdministración que: \"La Administración está obligada a cumplir con\r\ntodos los compromisos, adquiridos válidamente, en la contratación\r\nadministrativa y a prestar colaboración para que el contratista ejecute en\r\nforma idónea el objeto pactado\". Por su parte, el artículo 20 de\r\nla misma ley, establece la obligación de cumplimiento para los\r\ncontratistas: \"Los contratistas están obligados a cumplir, con lo\r\nofrecido en su propuesta y en cualquier manifestación formal documentada, que\r\nhayan aportado adicionalmente, en el curso del procedimiento o en la\r\nformalización del contrato\". Estas obligaciones nacen de un principio\r\nde buena fe, en el deber de cumplimiento y colaboración mutuos. \n\r\n\r\n\nIV.- SOBRE EL PRINCIPIO DE BUENA\r\nFE Y EL ARRENDAMIENTO DE BIENES INMUEBLES \n\r\n\r\n\nComo ya se indicó, el marco\r\nregulador de las obligaciones tanto de los entes contratantes como de las\r\nempresas contratistas se encuentra contemplado en la Ley de Contratación\r\nAdministrativa; artículo s 15 y 20 de dicha Ley. Es\r\nprecisamente el principio de buena fe, el que debe regir en la relación\r\ncontractual desde su inicio hasta su finalización. En el caso concreto del\r\ncontrato de arrendamiento entre el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia y la\r\nsociedad Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal S.A., se rige por lo\r\ndispuesto en el artículo 76 de la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa y 159\r\nde su Reglamento, en tanto disponen lo siguiente: \"Artículo 76.—Procedimiento\r\naplicable. Para tomar en arrendamiento bienes inmuebles, con construcciones\r\no sin ellas, la administración deberá acudir al procedimiento de licitación\r\npública, licitación abreviada o contratación directa, según corresponda, de\r\nacuerdo con el monto\". \"Artículo 159.— Arrendamiento\r\nde inmuebles. La Administración podrá tomar en arrendamiento\r\nbienes inmuebles, con o sin opción de compra, mediante el procedimiento de\r\nlicitación pública, licitación abreviada o contratación directa, según\r\ncorresponda, de acuerdo con el monto estimado; sin perjuicio de lo establecido\r\nen relación con el arrendamiento o compra de bienes únicos de este Reglamento.\r\nEl propietario del inmueble no rendirá ninguna clase de garantía de cumplimiento\r\na favor de la Administración. Para el reajuste de la renta precio se aplicará\r\nlo dispuesto en el artículo 67 de la Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y\r\nSuburbanos\". En este mismo sentido, el artículo 6 de la Ley de\r\nArrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos, indica la aplicación de dicho cuerpo\r\nnormativo a las relaciones contractuales entre la Administración Pública y los\r\narrendantes, de la siguiente manera: \"ARTICULO 6.- Estado, entes\r\ndescentralizados y municipalidades. El Estado, los entes públicos descentralizados\r\ny las municipalidades, en calidad de arrendadores o arrendatarios, están\r\nsujetos a esta ley, salvo disposición expresa de su propio ordenamiento\r\njurídico. El procedimiento de licitación se rige por las disposiciones legales\r\ny reglamentarias de la contratación administrativa\". En razón de lo\r\nanterior, todo análisis jurídico con relación a este figura contractual no\r\npuede desatender ni las regulaciones generales propias de la materia\r\nadministrativa, ni las disposiciones específicas que sobre la materia\r\ninquilinaria se establecen en la ley dicha, dada su especialidad y alcances\r\nnormativos específicos. Es así como en el presente caso, la Coordinadora de la\r\nOficina Local San José Este del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, la\r\nSra,. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, solicita a la Presidencia Ejecutiva, con\r\nfundamento en las condiciones de deterioro del inmueble actual, se valore\r\nautorizar el traslado de la Oficina a otro inmueble que reúna las condiciones\r\nadecuadas para brindar los servicios institucionales a la comunidad y ésta\r\nautoriza iniciar el proceso de contratación de un nuevo inmueble para reubicar\r\nla \"Oficina Local de San José este\", por su parte, la señora\r\nCoordinadora de la Oficina Local San José Este del PANI, licenciada\r\nTatiana Martínez Bolívar solicitó a la Gerencia de Administración la\r\ncertificación de fondos para proceder con el proceso de alquiler del nuevo\r\ninmueble y mediante Oficio GA-0798-2012 de 13 de setiembre de 2012 la Gerente\r\nde Administración certificó el contenido presupuestario para ese fin, un monto\r\nmensual de ¢1.837.300.50. Posteriormente, el Patronato Nacional de la infancia,\r\na través del Departamento de Suministro de bienes y servicios, realiza la\r\npublicación en un diario de circulación nacional del cartel que invita a\r\nparticipar en la contratación de la compra o alquiler de un inmueble, para\r\nubicar la oficina local de San José Este del PANI.Se recibieron varias ofertas,\r\nentre ellas la de Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A.,\r\npresentada a través de su representante Mario José Fachler Grunspan, quien\r\nofertó a nombre de su representada para alquilar al Patronato\r\nNacional de la Infancia el inmueble, ubicado en San Pedro, Barrio Dent, con un\r\nárea de construcción de 795 metros, con un precio de alquiler de $3.650.00 mensuales.\r\nUna vez determinado que dicha oferta cumple con los requerimientos solicitados\r\nen el cartel, es calificada como idónea por parte de la Administración\r\ncontratante y como parte del procedimiento de contratación, fueron realizados\r\navalúos administrativos por parte de la Dirección General de Tributación, los\r\nque valoraron la propiedad para alquiler mensual en dos millones trescientos\r\nveintiocho mil doscientos colones, monto mayor al de la oferta de la sociedad\r\ndemandante. Además fue presentado un Informe de salud ocupacional a cargo del\r\nDepartamento de Recursos Humanos de la institución, que estimó que el inmueble\r\nreunía las condiciones adecuadas para reubicar la oficina Local de San José,\r\nEste del PANI. Finalmente, el Departamento de Suministros, Bienes y Servicios\r\ndel Patronato Nacional de la Infancia mediante resolución administrativa \r\nN°365-2012, relacionada con la Contratación Directa N°2012CD-000444-01, de las\r\ncatorce horas del 17 de octubre de 2011; decidió adjudicar la Contratación\r\nDirecta antes mencionada de \"Alquiler de inmueble para reubicar la\r\nOficina Local de San José Este\" a Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal\r\nCentroamericana S.A., por un monto mensual de $3.650.00. en colones\r\n¢1.836.826.00 al tipo de cambio ¢503.24 del Banco Central al día 17 de octubre\r\ndel 2012\". Adjudicación que adquirió firmeza el 24 de octubre de 2012,\r\nsegún consta en el Sistema Integrado de Actividad contractual (SIAC), de\r\nla Contraloría General de la República, cuya copia se encuentra a folio 166 del\r\nexpediente administrativo. Una vez adjudicada en firme a la demandante la\r\nmencionada contratación directa, el Departamento de Suministros, bienes y\r\nservicios del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia remitió a la Asesoría Jurídica\r\nde la institución, el expediente original con la finalidad de que se\r\nconfeccionara el contrato correspondiente y se le otorgara la aprobación\r\ninterna respectiva. Es así como el contrato es elaborado por la Asesoría\r\nJurídica y firmado por el representante de la accionante, el 31 de octubre de\r\n2012, fecha de emisión del documento. Debiendo realizarse el primer pago, según\r\nconsta en la cláusula décima tercera de ese instrumento jurídico, a partir de\r\nla orden de inicio dada por el Departamento de Suministros, Bienes y Servicios\r\ndel Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. Consta que la fecha de traslado de dicha\r\noficina del PANI al local arrendado sería el 7 de noviembre de 2012, así se\r\nindicó en el Oficio DSBS-2232-2012 de 24 de octubre de 2012, suscrito por la\r\nCoordinadora del Departamento de Suministros, Bienes y Servicios del Patronato\r\nNacional de la Infancia. De manera que, a partir de esa fecha se daría la\r\nocupación efectiva del inmueble. Sin embargo, el 7 de noviembre de 2012, le es\r\ncomunicado al señor Mario Fachler Grunspan, mediante oficio GA-0967-2012, de la\r\nGerente de Administración del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, la suspensión\r\nde los trámites para alquilar el inmueble, según decisión de la Presidencia\r\nEjecutiva, aduciendo razones de austeridad debido a la situación presupuestaria\r\npor la que atravesaba la institución por lo que deberían ajustarse los montos\r\nmáximos de pago de alquiler de inmuebles y que dado que el monto del alquiler\r\npara la \"Oficina Local San José Este\", superaba la suma contemplada\r\nen ese marco de austeridad, debían entonces suspenderse los trámites para\r\nalquilar ese inmueble. Por lo que el contrato fue devuelto sin la autorización\r\no visto bueno de la Presidencia Ejecutiva.\n\r\n\r\n\nV.- SOBRE LA\r\nVALIDEZ DEL ACTO DE ADJUDICACIÓN A FAVOR DE LA DEMANDANTE. \n\r\n\r\n\nEs claro para\r\nesta Cámara en el caso bajo análisis, que la forma en que la Presidencia\r\nEjecutiva del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia dejó sin efecto la adjudicación\r\nrealizada a favor de la actora, negándose a firmar el contrato ya confeccionado\r\ny firmado por el personero de la arrendataria, resulta contraria a derecho y al\r\nprincipio de la buena fe contractual, antes mencionado, al negarse a cumplir\r\ncon los compromisos, adquiridos válidamente, en la contratación administrativa,\r\nobstaculizando la puesta en ejecución del contrato, cuando en realidad se\r\nencontraba en la obligación de colaborar para ejecutar en forma correcta el\r\nobjeto del contrato. Obsérvese que la adjudicación del proceso de contratación\r\nadquirió firmeza el 24 de octubre de 2012, a partir de ese momento se convirtió\r\nen un acto administrativo favorable y declaratorio de derechos subjetivos para\r\nla empresa aquí demandante. En consecuencia, no podía la Presidencia Ejecutiva\r\nde la institución demandada, simplemente prescindir de continuar con la\r\ntramitación; pues con ello se da una clara violación al principio de seguridad\r\njurídica, que se manifiesta en la garantía de la intangibilidad de los actos\r\npropios. En efecto, cuando se habla de “seguridad jurídica”, se alude a la\r\nconfianza que los ciudadanos pueden tener en la observancia y respeto de las\r\nsituaciones derivadas de la aplicación de las normas vigentes. Si bien no está\r\nexplícitamente contemplado en la Constitución Política, se manifiesta\r\nfundamentalmente por medio de las garantías de irretroactividad de la ley e\r\nintangibilidad de los actos propios. Esta última deriva de la interpretación\r\nde los artículos 11 y 34 de la Carta Magna y configura un límite en el proceder\r\ndel poder público que le inhibe desconocer sus propios actos de contenido y\r\nefectos positivos al destinatario. La imposibilidad de ir contra sus propias\r\nconductas de contenido favorable funciona como un límite en el accionar de las\r\nAdministraciones Públicas, que es consecuencia del propio principio de\r\nlegalidad (numeral 11 de la Constitución Política y 11, 12, 13, 59, 66 y 132 de\r\nla Ley General de la Administración Pública) y cuyo tratamiento en la doctrina\r\npatria ha sido prolijo (ver, entre muchas otras, las sentencias N° 1635-90 de\r\nlas 17:00 horas del 14 de noviembre de 1990; 2186-94 de las 17:03 horas del 4\r\nde mayo de 1994; 13447-2006 de las 10:06 horas del 8 de setiembre de 2006 y\r\n16314-2010 de las 15:16 del 29 de setiembre de 2010, todas de la Sala\r\nConstitucional). Existen procedimientos establecidos por la misma ley, para\r\nproceder a suprimir actos o conductas favorables. Así en la Ley General de la\r\nAdministración Pública, los numerales 173, 155 así como el proceso de\r\nlesividad, son mecanismos que la misma ley concede para poder revertir los\r\nefectos de actos declarativos de derechos. Se trata de garantías\r\nmínimas que emergen a favor de quien posee actos administrativos declarados a\r\nsu favor, que exigen a la Administración acudir a determinados procedimientos\r\nestablecidos en la ley, para suprimir esa conducta, sin lo cual, no podrá, en\r\nningún caso, desaplicar, desconocer o suprimir las consecuencias fácticas y\r\njurídicas de ese acto constitutivo de derechos. \n\r\n\r\n\nVI.- SOBRE LAS\r\nRENTAS DEJADAS DE PERCIBIR.\n\r\n\r\n\nSi bien en el presente asunto, la\r\nJunta Directiva del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia acogió el recurso de\r\nreconsideración y ordenó continuar con el proceso de contratación\r\nadministrativa, con lo cual se firmó un nuevo contrato el 01 de febrero de\r\n2013, y el traslado se hizo efectivo al 01 de marzo de 2013; lo cierto es que\r\nse produjo un atraso en la ocupación del inmueble, imputable únicamente a la\r\nadministración demandada, pues fue la negativa de la presidenta ejecutiva de la\r\ninstitución a firmar el contrato y dar la autorización correspondiente, lo que\r\nimpidió el traslado efectivo y la consecuente ocupación del inmueble, momento a\r\npartir del cual comenzaba a regir el pago, según lo establecido en el Oficio\r\nDSBS-2232-2012, en relación con la cláusula décimo tercera del contrato\r\noriginalmente firmado sólo por el apoderado de la demandante. Debe tenerse en\r\nconsideración que el acto de adjudicación una vez firme, confiere derechos\r\nsubjetivos, en el caso del arrendante, el derecho a percibir el alquiler a\r\npartir de la fecha pactada, esa fecha era a partir del 7 de noviembre de 2012,\r\nmomento en que la sociedad actora debió recibir el importe correspondiente por\r\nconcepto de alquiler. Esto sucede hasta el 01 de marzo de 2013, por causas\r\nimputables a la Administración contratante. Por lo que tiene derecho a percibir\r\nlo que le correspondía desde el momento en que el inmueble iba a ser ocupado\r\npor la Oficina Local San José Este del PANI, (07 de noviembre de 2012) al (01\r\nde marzo de 2013), teniendo en cuenta que a partir del 01 de marzo de 2013 se\r\nhizo efectivo el traslado, le correspondería percibir la renta correspondiente\r\ndel 7 de noviembre de 2012 al 01 de marzo de 2013, en la suma de ¢6.918.711.27.”",
  "body_en_text": "“III.- ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACT AND THE PRINCIPLES THAT GOVERN IT.\n\nThe administrative contract, as the result of a contracting procedure (procedimiento de contratación), is subject to a series of principles, defined by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in Voto 998 of 11:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998, which, as relevant, stated:\n\n“...vi. the principles of administrative contracting. By virtue of the foregoing, it must be understood that Article 182 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) gives rise to all the constitutional principles and parameters that govern the contractual activity of the State. Some of these principles that guide and regulate the tender (licitación) are:… 2.- of equality of treatment among all potential bidders (oferentes), …has a dual purpose: to serve as a guarantee for citizens (administrados) in the protection of their interests and rights as contractors, bidders, and private individuals, which translates into a prohibition for the State to impose restrictive conditions for access to the competition, whether through the enactment of legal or regulatory provisions for that purpose, or in its specific actions; and to constitute a guarantee for the Administration, insofar as it increases the possibility of a better selection of the contractor; all of the foregoing, within the constitutional framework established by Article 33 of the Fundamental Charter (Carta Fundamental); 3.- of publicity (publicidad), which constitutes the prerequisite and guarantee of the aforementioned principles, as it seeks to ensure that citizens have the broadest certainty of free concurrence under conditions of absolute equality in administrative contracting procedures, and which consists of the invitation to the tender competition being made in a general, open, and as broad as possible manner to all potential bidders, with the bid documents (cartel) receiving the widest dissemination, as well as the broadest access to the file, reports, resolutions, and in general to the entire process in question; 4.- of legality or transparency of procedures, insofar as the procedures for selecting the contractor must be defined a priori in a precise, certain, and specific manner, so that the Administration cannot circumvent the rules predefined in the legal norm that determines the scope of action, as a development of the provisions established for this purpose in the Political Constitution; 5.- of legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), which is derived from the previous principle, since subjecting the administrative contracting procedures to the rules contained in the regulatory provisions provides security and guarantee to bidders in their participation; …8.- principle of good faith (buena fe), insofar as in the processing of tenders and, in general, in everything concerning administrative contracting, it is considered a basic moral principle that the Administration and bidders act in good faith, where the actions of both parties are characterized by clear ethical standards, where the public interest prevails over any other.”\n\nThese principles are reflected in the Law of Administrative Contracting (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), creating rights and obligations between the contracting parties; thus, Article 15 of the Law of Administrative Contracting expressly indicates as an obligation of the Administration that: \"The Administration is obliged to fulfill all commitments, validly acquired, in the administrative contracting and to provide collaboration so that the contractor suitably executes the agreed object.\" For its part, Article 20 of the same law establishes the obligation of compliance for contractors: \"Contractors are obliged to comply with what was offered in their proposal and in any formal documented manifestation that they have additionally provided during the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract.\" These obligations arise from a principle of good faith, in the duty of mutual compliance and collaboration.\n\nIV.- ON THE PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH AND THE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY\n\nAs already indicated, the regulatory framework for the obligations of both the contracting entities and the contracting companies is contemplated in the Law of Administrative Contracting; Articles 15 and 20 of said Law. It is precisely the principle of good faith that must govern the contractual relationship from its beginning to its completion. In the specific case of the lease agreement between the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia and the company Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal S.A., it is governed by the provisions of Article 76 of the Law of Administrative Contracting and Article 159 of its Regulation (Reglamento), as they provide the following: \"Article 76.—Applicable Procedure. To take real property on lease, with or without constructions, the Administration must resort to the procedure of public tender (licitación pública), abbreviated tender (licitación abreviada), or direct contracting (contratación directa), as applicable, according to the amount.\" \"Article 159.—Lease of Real Property. The Administration may take real property on lease, with or without a purchase option, through the procedure of public tender, abbreviated tender, or direct contracting, as applicable, according to the estimated amount; without prejudice to the provisions established in relation to the lease or purchase of unique goods in this Regulation. The owner of the property shall not provide any kind of performance guarantee in favor of the Administration. For the adjustment of the rent price, the provisions of Article 67 of the General Law of Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) shall apply.\" In this same sense, Article 6 of the Law of Urban and Suburban Leases indicates the application of that regulatory body to the contractual relations between the Public Administration and lessors, in the following manner: \"ARTICLE 6.- State, decentralized entities, and municipalities. The State, the decentralized public entities, and the municipalities, in their capacity as lessors or lessees, are subject to this law, unless there is an express provision to the contrary in their own legal system. The tender procedure is governed by the legal and regulatory provisions on administrative contracting.\" By reason of the foregoing, any legal analysis regarding this contractual figure cannot disregard either the general regulations specific to the administrative matter or the specific provisions on the tenancy matter established in said law, given its specialty and specific normative scope. Thus, in the present case, the Coordinator of the San José Este Local Office of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, Ms. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requested the Executive Presidency, based on the deteriorated conditions of the current property, to consider authorizing the relocation of the Office to another property that meets the adequate conditions to provide institutional services to the community, and the latter authorized initiating the contracting process for a new property to relocate the \"San José Este Local Office\"; for her part, the Coordinator of the San José Este Local Office of PANI, Lic. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requested the Administration Management to certify funds to proceed with the rental process for the new property, and through Official Letter GA-0798-2012 of September 13, 2012, the Administration Manager certified the budgetary allocation for that purpose, a monthly amount of ¢1,837,300.50. Subsequently, the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through the Department of Supply of Goods and Services (Departamento de Suministro de bienes y servicios), published in a nationally circulated newspaper the bid documents (cartel) inviting participation in the contracting for the purchase or lease of a property to house the San José Este local office of PANI. Several offers were received, among them that of Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., presented through its representative Mario José Fachler Grunspan, who made an offer on behalf of his represented company to lease to the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia the property located in San Pedro, Barrio Dent, with a construction area of 795 square meters, at a monthly rental price of $3,650.00. Once it was determined that said offer met the requirements specified in the bid documents, it was classified as suitable by the contracting Administration, and as part of the contracting procedure, administrative appraisals (avalúos administrativos) were conducted by the Directorate General of Taxation (Dirección General de Tributación), which valued the property for monthly rent at two million three hundred twenty-eight thousand two hundred colones, an amount greater than the offer from the plaintiff company. Additionally, an occupational health report was submitted by the institution's Department of Human Resources (Departamento de Recursos Humanos), which considered that the property met the adequate conditions to relocate the San José Este Local Office of PANI. Finally, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through administrative resolution No. 365-2012, related to Direct Contracting No. 2012CD-000444-01, at two o'clock in the afternoon on October 17, 2011, decided to award the aforementioned Direct Contracting for \"Lease of Property to Relocate the San José Este Local Office\" to Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., for a monthly amount of $3,650.00, in colones ¢1,836,826.00 at the exchange rate of ¢503.24 from the Central Bank (Banco Central) on October 17, 2012. This award became final on October 24, 2012, as recorded in the Integrated System of Contractual Activity (Sistema Integrado de Actividad contractual, SIAC) of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), a copy of which is found on folio 166 of the administrative file. Once the aforementioned direct contracting had been definitively awarded to the plaintiff, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia sent the original file to the institution's Legal Advisory Office (Asesoría Jurídica) for the purpose of preparing the corresponding contract and granting the respective internal approval. Thus, the contract was drafted by the Legal Advisory Office and signed by the plaintiff's representative on October 31, 2012, the document's issuance date. The first payment was to be made, as stated in the thirteenth clause of that legal instrument, from the start order given by the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. It is recorded that the transfer date of said PANI office to the leased premises would be November 7, 2012, as indicated in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012 of October 24, 2012, signed by the Coordinator of the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. Therefore, effective occupancy of the property would take place from that date. However, on November 7, 2012, Mr. Mario Fachler Grunspan was notified, via official letter GA-0967-2012 from the Administration Manager of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, of the suspension of the procedures to lease the property, according to a decision by the Executive Presidency, citing austerity reasons due to the budgetary situation the institution was experiencing, whereby the maximum rental payment amounts for properties should be adjusted, and given that the rental amount for the \"San José Este Local Office\" exceeded the sum contemplated in that austerity framework, the procedures to lease that property should therefore be suspended. Consequently, the contract was returned without the authorization or approval of the Executive Presidency.\n\nV.- ON THE VALIDITY OF THE AWARD ACT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.\n\nIt is clear to this Chamber in the case under analysis that the manner in which the Executive Presidency of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia nullified the award granted in favor of the plaintiff, refusing to sign the contract already prepared and signed by the lessee's legal representative, is contrary to law and to the principle of contractual good faith, previously mentioned, by refusing to fulfill the commitments validly acquired in the administrative contracting, hindering the execution of the contract, when it was in fact obliged to collaborate to correctly execute the object of the contract. Note that the award of the contracting process became final on October 24, 2012; from that moment on, it became a favorable administrative act declaring subjective rights for the plaintiff company here. Consequently, the Executive Presidency of the defendant institution could not simply dispense with continuing the processing; since this constitutes a clear violation of the principle of legal certainty, which is manifested in the guarantee of the intangibility of one's own acts. Indeed, when speaking of \"legal certainty,\" it refers to the trust that citizens can have in the observance and respect of situations derived from the application of current norms. Although it is not explicitly contemplated in the Political Constitution, it manifests itself fundamentally through the guarantees of non-retroactivity of the law and intangibility of one's own acts. The latter derives from the interpretation of Articles 11 and 34 of the Magna Carta (Carta Magna) and constitutes a limit on the conduct of public power that inhibits it from disregarding its own acts of positive content and effects for the recipient. The impossibility of going against one's own favorable conduct functions as a limit on the actions of Public Administrations, which is a consequence of the principle of legality itself (Article 11 of the Political Constitution and Articles 11, 12, 13, 59, 66, and 132 of the General Law of Public Administration [Ley General de la Administración Pública]) and whose treatment in national doctrine has been extensive (see, among many others, judgments No. 1635-90 of 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 1990; 2186-94 of 5:03 p.m. on May 4, 1994; 13447-2006 of 10:06 a.m. on September 8, 2006, and 16314-2010 of 3:16 p.m. on September 29, 2010, all from the Constitutional Chamber). There are procedures established by the law itself to proceed with the annulment of favorable acts or conducts. Thus, in the General Law of Public Administration, numerals 173, 155, as well as the lesivity process (proceso de lesividad), are mechanisms that the law itself grants to reverse the effects of acts declaratory of rights. These are minimum guarantees that emerge in favor of those who possess administrative acts declared in their favor, which require the Administration to resort to specific procedures established by law to nullify that conduct, without which it may not, under any circumstances, disapply, disregard, or suppress the factual and legal consequences of that act constitutive of rights.\n\nVI.- ON THE RENTS NOT RECEIVED.\n\nAlthough in the present matter, the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia upheld the reconsideration appeal (recurso de reconsideración) and ordered the administrative contracting process to continue, whereby a new contract was signed on February 1, 2013, and the relocation became effective on March 1, 2013; the truth is that a delay occurred in the occupation of the property, solely attributable to the defendant Administration, since it was the refusal of the institution's executive president to sign the contract and give the corresponding authorization that prevented the effective relocation and the consequent occupation of the property, the moment from which payment was to commence, as established in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012, in relation to the thirteenth clause of the original contract signed only by the plaintiff's representative. It must be taken into consideration that the award act, once final, confers subjective rights, in the case of the lessor, the right to receive the rent from the agreed date; that date was from November 7, 2012, the moment when the plaintiff company should have received the corresponding amount for rent. This occurred until March 1, 2013, for reasons attributable to the contracting Administration. Therefore, it is entitled to receive what it was owed from the moment the property was to be occupied by the San José Este Local Office of PANI (November 7, 2012) to (March 1, 2013), taking into account that from March 1, 2013, the relocation became effective, it would be entitled to receive the corresponding rent from November 7, 2012, to March 1, 2013, in the sum of ¢6,918,711.27.”\n\nIn this same vein, article 6 of the Urban and Suburban Leases Law (Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) indicates the application of said regulatory body to contractual relationships between the Public Administration and lessors, in the following manner: \"<i>ARTICLE 6.- <b>State, decentralized entities, and municipalities.</b> The State, decentralized public entities, and municipalities, in their capacity as lessors or lessees, are subject to this law, unless expressly provided otherwise in their own legal system. The bidding procedure is governed by the legal and regulatory provisions of administrative contracting.</i>\" By reason of the foregoing, any legal analysis regarding this contractual figure cannot disregard either the general regulations inherent to administrative matters or the specific provisions on tenancy matters established in said law, given its specialty and specific normative scope. It is thus in the present case that the Coordinator of the San José East Local Office of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, Mrs. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requests the Executive Presidency, based on the deterioration conditions of the current property, to consider authorizing the relocation of the Office to another property that meets the adequate conditions to provide institutional services to the community, and it authorizes initiating the contracting process for a new property to relocate the \"San José East Local Office\"; for her part, the Coordinator of the San José East Local Office of PANI, Lic. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requested from the Administration Management the certification of funds to proceed with the rental process of the new property, and via Official Letter GA-0798-2012 of September 13, 2012, the Administration Manager certified the budgetary content for that purpose, a monthly amount of ¢1,837,300.50. Subsequently, the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through the Department of Supply of Goods and Services, publishes in a nationally circulated newspaper the public notice inviting participation in the contracting for the purchase or lease of a property, to locate the San José East local office of PANI. Several offers were received, among them that of Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., submitted through its representative Mario José Fachler Grunspan, who offered, on behalf of his represented company, to lease to the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia the property located in San Pedro, Barrio Dent, with a construction area of 795 square meters, at a rental price of $3,650.00 per month. Once it was determined that said offer meets the requirements requested in the public notice, it is qualified as suitable by the contracting Administration, and as part of the contracting procedure, administrative appraisals were carried out by the Dirección General de Tributación, which valued the property for monthly rent at two million three hundred twenty-eight thousand two hundred colones, an amount greater than that of the plaintiff company's offer. In addition, an Occupational Health Report was submitted by the institution's Human Resources Department, which estimated that the property met the adequate conditions to relocate the San José East Local Office of PANI. Finally, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through Administrative Resolution No. 365-2012, related to Direct Contracting No. 2012CD-000444-01, at fourteen hundred hours on October 17, 2011, decided to award the aforementioned Direct Contracting for \"<i>Lease of property to relocate the San José East Local Office</i>\" to Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., for a monthly amount of $3,650.00, in colones ¢1,836,826.00 at the exchange rate of ¢503.24 of the Central Bank as of October 17, 2012. This award became final on October 24, 2012, as recorded in the Integrated System of Contractual Activity (Sistema Integrado de Actividad Contractual, SIAC) of the Contraloría General de la República, a copy of which is found on folio 166 of the administrative file. Once the aforementioned direct contracting was definitively awarded to the plaintiff, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia referred the original file to the institution's Legal Advisory Office for the purpose of drafting the corresponding contract and granting the respective internal approval. It is thus that the contract is drafted by the Legal Advisory Office and signed by the plaintiff's representative on October 31, 2012, the date of issuance of the document. The first payment was to be made, as stated in the thirteenth clause of that legal instrument, from the commencement order given by the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. It is recorded that the transfer date of said PANI office to the leased premises would be November 7, 2012, as indicated in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012 of October 24, 2012, signed by the Coordinator of the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. So that, from that date, the effective occupancy of the property would take place. However, on November 7, 2012, Mr. Mario Fachler Grunspan was notified, via Official Letter GA-0967-2012 from the Administration Manager of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, of the suspension of the procedures to lease the property, according to a decision by the Executive Presidency, citing reasons of austerity due to the budgetary situation the institution was undergoing, and therefore maximum payment amounts for property leases should be adjusted, and given that the rental amount for the \"San José East Local Office\" exceeded the sum contemplated within that austerity framework, the procedures to lease that property should then be suspended. Thus the contract was returned without the authorization or approval of the Executive Presidency.\n\n**V.- ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT OF AWARD IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.**\n\nIt is clear to this Chamber in the case under analysis that the manner in which the Executive Presidency of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia rendered the award made in favor of the plaintiff without effect, by refusing to sign the already drafted contract that had been signed by the representative of the lessee, is contrary to law and to the principle of contractual good faith, mentioned above, by refusing to fulfill the commitments, validly acquired, in the administrative contracting, hindering the execution of the contract, when in reality it was under the obligation to collaborate to correctly execute the object of the contract. Note that the award of the contracting process became final on October 24, 2012; from that moment it became a favorable administrative act declaratory of subjective rights for the plaintiff company here. Consequently, the Executive Presidency of the defendant institution could not simply dispense with continuing the procedure; because this constitutes a clear violation of the principle of legal certainty, which manifests itself in the guarantee of the intangibility of one's own acts. In effect, when speaking of \"legal certainty,\" it refers to the confidence that citizens can have in the observance and respect of the situations derived from the application of current norms. Although it is not explicitly contemplated in the Political Constitution, it is manifested fundamentally through the guarantees of non-retroactivity of the law and intangibility of one's own acts. The latter derives from the interpretation of articles 11 and 34 of the Magna Carta and constitutes a limit on the conduct of public power that inhibits it from disavowing its own acts of positive content and effects for the recipient. The impossibility of going against one's own favorable conduct functions as a limit on the actions of Public Administrations, which is a consequence of the very principle of legality (numeral 11 of the Political Constitution and 11, 12, 13, 59, 66, and 132 of the General Law of Public Administration) and whose treatment in national doctrine has been extensive (see, among many others, judgments No. 1635-90 of 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 1990; 2186-94 of 5:03 p.m. on May 4, 1994; 13447-2006 of 10:06 a.m. on September 8, 2006; and 16314-2010 of 3:16 p.m. on September 29, 2010, all from the Constitutional Chamber). There are procedures established by the law itself to proceed in suppressing favorable acts or conduct. Thus, in the General Law of Public Administration, numerals 173, 155, as well as the lesivity process, are mechanisms that the law itself grants to be able to reverse the effects of acts declaratory of rights. These are minimum guarantees that emerge in favor of those who possess administrative acts declared in their favor, which require the Administration to resort to certain procedures established in the law to suppress that conduct, without which it cannot, in any case, disapply, disavow, or suppress the factual and legal consequences of that act constitutive of rights.\n\n**VI.- ON THE UNEARNED RENTS.**\n\nAlthough in the present matter, the Board of Directors of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia accepted the motion for reconsideration and ordered the continuation of the administrative contracting process, whereby a new contract was signed on February 1, 2013, and the relocation became effective as of March 1, 2013; the truth is that a delay occurred in the occupancy of the property, attributable solely to the defendant administration, since it was the refusal of the institution's executive president to sign the contract and grant the corresponding authorization that prevented the effective relocation and the consequent occupancy of the property, the moment from which the payment was to start, according to what was established in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012, in relation to the thirteenth clause of the contract originally signed only by the plaintiff's legal representative. It must be taken into consideration that the act of award, once final, confers subjective rights; in the case of the lessor, the right to receive the rent from the agreed date. That date was as of November 7, 2012, the moment at which the plaintiff company should have received the corresponding amount for rent. This happened until March 1, 2013, for reasons attributable to the contracting Administration. Therefore, it has the right to receive what corresponded to it from the moment the property was to be occupied by the San José East Local Office of PANI (November 7, 2012) to (March 1, 2013), taking into account that as of March 1, 2013 the relocation became effective, it would be entitled to receive the corresponding rent from November 7, 2012 to March 1, 2013, in the sum of ¢6,918,711.27.\"\n\nThe Administration may take real property on lease, with or without a purchase option, through the procedure of public bidding (licitación pública), abbreviated bidding (licitación abreviada), or direct contracting (contratación directa), as applicable, according to the estimated amount; without prejudice to the provisions established in relation to the lease or purchase of unique goods under these Regulations. The owner of the property shall not provide any type of performance guarantee in favor of the Administration. For the adjustment of the rent price, the provisions of article 67 of the General Law of Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) shall apply.\" In this same sense, article 6 of the Law of Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) indicates the application of said regulatory body to contractual relations between the Public Administration and lessors, as follows: \"ARTICLE 6.- State, decentralized entities and municipalities. The State, decentralized public entities, and municipalities, in their capacity as lessors or lessees, are subject to this law, except for express provisions of their own legal system. The bidding procedure is governed by the legal and regulatory provisions of administrative contracting.\" By reason of the foregoing, any legal analysis in relation to this contractual figure cannot disregard either the general regulations specific to administrative matters, or the specific provisions established on the matter of tenancy in said law, given its specialty and specific regulatory scope. Thus, in the present case, the Coordinator of the San José Este Local Office of the National Children's Trust (Patronato Nacional de la Infancia), Ms. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requests the Executive Presidency, based on the deteriorating conditions of the current property, to consider authorizing the relocation of the Office to another property that meets the appropriate conditions to provide institutional services to the community; and the latter authorizes the initiation of the contracting process for a new property to relocate the \"San José Este Local Office.\" In turn, the Coordinator of the San José Este Local Office of PANI, attorney Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requested from the Administration Management the certification of funds to proceed with the rental process for the new property, and through Official Letter GA-0798-2012 of September 13, 2012, the Administration Manager certified the budget appropriation for that purpose, a monthly amount of ¢1,837,300.50. Subsequently, the National Children's Trust, through the Department of Supply of Goods and Services, publishes in a nationally circulated newspaper the tender invitation to participate in the contracting for the purchase or rental of a property to locate the San José Este local office of PANI. Several offers were received, among them that of Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., presented through its representative Mario José Fachler Grunspan, who offered on behalf of his represented entity to rent to the National Children's Trust the property located in San Pedro, Barrio Dent, with a construction area of 795 meters, for a monthly rental price of $3,650.00. Once it was determined that said offer meets the requirements requested in the tender, it is qualified as suitable by the contracting Administration, and as part of the contracting procedure, administrative appraisals were conducted by the Directorate General of Taxation (Dirección General de Tributación), which valued the property for monthly rent at two million three hundred twenty-eight thousand two hundred colones, an amount greater than the offer of the plaintiff company. Additionally, an Occupational Health Report was submitted by the Human Resources Department of the institution, which considered that the property met the appropriate conditions to relocate the San José Este Local Office of PANI. Finally, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the National Children's Trust, through administrative resolution No. 365-2012, related to Direct Contracting No. 2012CD-000444-01, at fourteen hours on October 17, 2011; decided to award the aforementioned Direct Contracting for \"Rental of property to relocate the San José Este Local Office\" to Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., for a monthly amount of $3,650.00, in colones ¢1,836,826.00 at the exchange rate of ¢503.24 of the Central Bank (Banco Central) as of October 17, 2012.\" The award became final on October 24, 2012, as recorded in the Integrated System of Contractual Activity (Sistema Integrado de Actividad Contractual, SIAC) of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), a copy of which is located at folio 166 of the administrative file. Once the aforementioned direct contracting was firmly awarded to the plaintiff, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the National Children's Trust sent the original file to the Legal Advisory Office of the institution in order for the corresponding contract to be drafted and the respective internal approval granted. Thus, the contract is drafted by the Legal Advisory Office and signed by the representative of the plaintiff on October 31, 2012, the issuance date of the document. The first payment was to be made, as recorded in the thirteenth clause of that legal instrument, from the start order given by the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the National Children's Trust. It is recorded that the date of transfer of said PANI office to the leased premises would be November 7, 2012, as indicated in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012 of October 24, 2012, signed by the Coordinator of the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the National Children's Trust. Accordingly, effective occupancy of the property would occur as of that date. However, on November 7, 2012, Mr. Mario Fachler Grunspan was notified, through official letter GA-0967-2012, from the Administration Manager of the National Children's Trust, of the suspension of the procedures to rent the property, pursuant to a decision of the Executive Presidency, citing austerity reasons due to the budgetary situation the institution was facing, for which the maximum amounts for property rental payments should be adjusted, and given that the rental amount for the \"San José Este Local Office\" exceeded the sum contemplated within that austerity framework, the procedures to rent that property had to be suspended. Consequently, the contract was returned without the authorization or approval of the Executive Presidency.\n\n**V.- ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT OF AWARD IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.**\n\nIt is clear to this Chamber in the case under analysis that the manner in which the Executive Presidency of the National Children's Trust nullified the award made in favor of the plaintiff, refusing to sign the already drafted contract signed by the legal representative of the lessee, is contrary to law and to the principle of contractual good faith, mentioned above, by refusing to fulfill the commitments validly acquired in the administrative contracting, obstructing the execution of the contract, when in reality it was obligated to collaborate to correctly execute the object of the contract. It should be noted that the award of the contracting process became final on October 24, 2012; from that moment, it became a favorable administrative act declaring subjective rights for the plaintiff company here. Consequently, the Executive Presidency of the defendant institution could not simply dispense with continuing the procedure; because this constitutes a clear violation of the principle of legal certainty, which manifests itself in the guarantee of the intangibility of one's own acts. Indeed, when speaking of \"legal certainty,\" it refers to the trust that citizens may have in the observance and respect of situations derived from the application of current norms. Although it is not explicitly contemplated in the Political Constitution, it manifests itself fundamentally through the guarantees of non-retroactivity of the law and the intangibility of one's own acts. The latter derives from the interpretation of articles 11 and 34 of the Magna Carta and constitutes a limit on the conduct of public power that inhibits it from disregarding its own acts with positive content and effects for the recipient. The impossibility of going against its own favorable conduct functions as a limit on the actions of Public Administrations, which is a consequence of the principle of legality itself (numeral 11 of the Political Constitution and 11, 12, 13, 59, 66, and 132 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)) and whose treatment in national doctrine has been extensive (see, among many others, rulings No. 1635-90 of 17:00 hours on November 14, 1990; 2186-94 of 17:03 hours on May 4, 1994; 13447-2006 of 10:06 hours on September 8, 2006; and 16314-2010 of 15:16 on September 29, 2010, all from the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional)). There are procedures established by the law itself to proceed to suppress favorable acts or conduct. Thus, in the General Law of Public Administration, numerals 173, 155, as well as the lesivity process, are mechanisms that the law itself grants to reverse the effects of acts declaring rights. These are minimum guarantees that emerge in favor of those who possess administrative acts declared in their favor, which require the Administration to resort to certain procedures established in the law to suppress that conduct, without which it cannot, in any case, disapply, disregard, or suppress the factual and legal consequences of that act constituting rights.\n\n**VI.- ON THE RENTS NOT RECEIVED.**\n\nAlthough in the present matter, the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the National Children's Trust upheld the motion for reconsideration and ordered the continuation of the administrative contracting process, with which a new contract was signed on February 1, 2013, and the transfer became effective on March 1, 2013; the reality is that a delay occurred in the occupancy of the property, attributable solely to the defendant administration, since it was the refusal of the executive president of the institution to sign the contract and give the corresponding authorization that prevented the effective transfer and the consequent occupancy of the property, the moment from which payment was to begin, as established in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012, in relation to the thirteenth clause of the contract originally signed only by the legal representative of the plaintiff. It must be taken into consideration that the act of award, once final, confers subjective rights, in the case of the lessor, the right to receive the rent as of the agreed date; that date was as of November 7, 2012, the moment when the plaintiff company should have received the corresponding amount for rent. This did not happen until March 1, 2013, for reasons attributable to the contracting Administration. Therefore, it is entitled to receive what it was owed from the moment the property was to be occupied by the San José Este Local Office of PANI, (November 7, 2012) to (March 1, 2013), taking into account that as of March 1, 2013, the transfer became effective, it would be entitled to receive the corresponding rent from November 7, 2012, to March 1, 2013, in the sum of ¢6,918,711.27.”"
}