{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-150802", "citation": "Res. 02411-2012 Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal II Circuito Judicial de San José", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Responsabilidad civil solidaria de la Iglesia por actos de Ministro de la Eucaristía", "title_en": "Church's joint civil liability for acts of a Eucharistic Minister", "summary_es": "El Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal de San José rechaza el recurso de apelación interpuesto por las Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis de San José, en su condición de demandada civil solidaria, contra la sentencia penal que condenó a un Ministro de la Eucaristía por abuso sexual de una menor. La demandada alegaba falta de legitimación pasiva, errónea aplicación del artículo 18 del Código de Trabajo y ausencia de culpa in eligendo o in vigilando porque el Ministro no era empleado remunerado y no fue ella sino el cura párroco quien lo designó. El Tribunal desestima todos los argumentos. Establece que la Iglesia, como persona jurídica, responde solidariamente por los daños causados por quienes desempeñan funciones eclesiales por delegación, aun sin relación laboral, por su posición de autoridad moral y la confianza que la institución deposita y genera en la comunidad. Funda la responsabilidad en la culpa in vigilando e in eligendo del cura párroco —representante de la Iglesia—, que no seleccionó ni supervisó adecuadamente al encargado, y en el artículo 106 inciso 3 del Código Penal, que obliga solidariamente a dueños de establecimientos donde se cometan delitos. Concluye que la Iglesia debe asumir solidariamente la indemnización de tres millones de colones por daño moral.", "summary_en": "The San José Criminal Appeals Tribunal rejects the appeal filed by the Temporalidades of the Archdiocese of San José, as a joint civil defendant, against a criminal conviction of a Eucharistic Minister for sexual abuse of a minor. The defendant argued a lack of standing, misapplication of the Labor Code, and absence of fault in selection or supervision because the Minister was not a paid employee and was appointed by the parish priest. The Tribunal dismisses all arguments. It holds that the Church, as a legal entity, is jointly and severally liable for damages caused by those who carry out ecclesiastical duties by delegation, even without an employment relationship, given its moral authority and the trust it inspires. Liability rests on the parish priest's fault in selection and supervision — as the Church's representative — and on Article 106(3) of the Penal Code, which makes owners of establishments jointly liable for crimes committed there. The Church must jointly pay three million colones in moral damages.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Apelación de Sentencia Penal II Circuito Judicial de San José", "date": "03/12/2012", "year": "2012", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "culpa in vigilando", "culpa in eligendo", "legitimatio ad causam pasiva", "Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis", "artículo 1048 del Código Civil", "artículo 106 inciso 3 del Código Penal", "responsabilidad civil solidaria", "daño moral", "Ministro de la Eucaristía" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Constitución de Federación de Centroamérica (Constitución Política 1824)", "article": "75", "doc_id": "norm-59628", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Constitución Política 0", "article": "75", "doc_id": "norm-59628", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código Penal", "article": "106", "doc_id": "norm-5027", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 4573", "article": "106", "doc_id": "norm-5027", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código Civil", "article": "1048", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 63", "article": "1048", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "article": "32", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7472", "article": "32", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "responsabilidad civil", "responsabilidad civil solidaria", "culpa in vigilando", "culpa in eligendo", "abuso sexual", "persona menor de edad", "Iglesia Católica", "Ministro de la Eucaristía", "Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis", "apelación penal", "Código Civil", "Código Penal", "daño moral", "representante legal", "legitimación pasiva" ], "keywords_en": [ "civil liability", "joint and several liability", "fault in supervision", "fault in selection", "sexual abuse", "minor", "Catholic Church", "Eucharistic Minister", "Archdiocesan temporalities", "criminal appeal", "Civil Code", "Penal Code", "moral damages", "legal representative", "passive standing" ], "excerpt_es": "“En lo que respecta a la responsabilidad civil de Temporalidades Arquidiócesis de San José que es la persona jurídica que representa la Iglesia Católica, su responsabilidad deriva de la ausencia de una vigilancia debida del encartado que fungía un papel en el desempeño eclesiástico, deber que le asistía al jerarca de la iglesia representado por el sacerdote en ejercicio en dicha parroquia, a saber [Nombre2]. Es claro que el demandado civil A no es un empleado remunerado de la iglesia, jurídicamente representada por Temporalidades Arquidiócesis de San José, pues a lo largo del debate los testigos vinculados con el ejercicio del Ministerio de la Eucaristía o la pastoral informaron al Tribunal que el puesto es meritorio y voluntario, la elección la realiza el sacerdote de la parroquia con base en consultas que realiza a los feligreses y a la propia observación de la conducta social del interesado en asumir la función y que luego de hecha la elección el futuro Ministro recibe una capacitación y asume un compromiso de carácter espiritual para con la Iglesia Católica y que este compromiso se renueva cada tres años, por parte del sacerdote que tiene la potestad de destituir a quien no considere digno del cargo. No obstante, la ausencia de una remuneración no desliga a la Iglesia como persona jurídica de su responsabilidad en ejercer una vigilancia debida de estas personas que desempeñan un papel en la función de evangelización, pues estos Ministros tienen contacto con los feligreses que asisten a la iglesia o que abren las puertas de sus casas para recibir la comunión, en el entendido de que los Ministros de la Eucaristía tienen un respaldo de la Iglesia. En su función estas personas tienen contacto con los feligreses y en este contacto exponen a estos feligreses a cualquier acción dañosa, directamente ligada al ejercicio de la función eclesiástica.”", "excerpt_en": "“Regarding the civil liability of Temporalidades Arquidiócesis de San José, which is the legal entity that represents the Catholic Church, its liability derives from the lack of proper supervision of the accused who performed a role in the ecclesiastical service, a duty that fell upon the church's hierarch, represented by the priest in charge of that parish, namely [Name2]. It is clear that civil defendant A is not a paid employee of the church, legally represented by Temporalidades Arquidiócesis de San José, since throughout the hearing the witnesses involved with the Eucharistic Ministry or pastoral work informed the Tribunal that the position is meritorious and voluntary, the selection is made by the parish priest based on consultations with parishioners and his own observation of the social conduct of the person interested in taking the role, and that after the selection the future Minister receives training and assumes a spiritual commitment to the Catholic Church, and that this commitment is renewed every three years, by the priest who has the power to dismiss anyone he considers unworthy. Nevertheless, the absence of remuneration does not release the Church as a legal entity from its responsibility to exercise proper supervision over these persons who play a role in the evangelizing function, because these Ministers have contact with parishioners who attend church or open the doors of their homes to receive communion, under the understanding that Eucharistic Ministers are backed by the Church. In their role, these persons have contact with parishioners and in that contact expose these parishioners to any harmful action, directly linked to the exercise of the ecclesiastical function.”", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The Tribunal denies the appeal of the Archdiocese of San José's temporalities and upholds the joint civil liability of the Catholic Church, ordering it to jointly pay three million colones in moral damages arising from the sexual abuse committed by a Eucharistic Minister against a minor inside the church.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal rechaza el recurso de apelación de las Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis de San José y confirma la responsabilidad civil solidaria de la Iglesia Católica, condenándola al pago solidario de tres millones de colones por daño moral derivado del abuso sexual cometido por un Ministro de la Eucaristía contra una menor de edad dentro del templo." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "iv.- Del caso en concreto", "quote_en": "the absence of remuneration does not release the Church as a legal entity from its responsibility to exercise proper supervision over these persons who play a role in the evangelizing function", "quote_es": "la ausencia de una remuneración no desliga a la Iglesia como persona jurídica de su responsabilidad en ejercer una vigilancia debida de estas personas que desempeñan un papel en la función de evangelización" }, { "context": "iii) Sobre la responsabilidad civil solidaria de la iglesia", "quote_en": "whoever selects them and whoever hierarchically presides over that delegation structure is liable with its assets for damages caused by the designated and delegated persons in carrying out such tasks", "quote_es": "quien lo escoge y quien preside jerárquicamente esa estructura de delegaciones, responde con su patrimonio por los daños que se ocasione por las personas designadas y delegadas, en el cumplimiento de tales tareas" }, { "context": "iii) Sobre la responsabilidad civil solidaria de la iglesia", "quote_en": "it is essential that such officials and guides must exercise greater prudence and take all precautions to ensure that, when delegating their delicate teaching and moral and religious formation functions, they do not create a situation in which the rights of students and the faithful are not properly guaranteed", "quote_es": "resulta medular que tales funcionarios y guías, deben observar mayor tino y tomar todas las previsiones que brinden seguridad de que, al delegar sus delicadas funciones docentes y de formación moral y religiosa, no creen una situación en la cual no están debidamente garantizados los derechos de los educandos y de los fieles" } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-5027", "citation": "Ley 4573", "title_en": "Penal Code — Law 4573", "title_es": "Código Penal — Ley 4573", "doc_type": "law", "date": "04/05/1970", "year": "1970" }, { "id": "norm-26481", "citation": "Ley 7472", "title_en": "Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Protection", "title_es": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "doc_type": "law", "date": "20/12/1994", "year": "1994" }, { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" }, { "id": "norm-26481", "citation": "Ley 7472", "title_en": "Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Protection", "title_es": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "doc_type": "law", "date": "20/12/1994", "year": "1994" }, { "id": "norm-5027", "citation": "Ley 4573", "title_en": "Penal Code — Law 4573", "title_es": "Código Penal — Ley 4573", "doc_type": "law", "date": "04/05/1970", "year": "1970" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-5027", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código Penal" }, { "target_id": "norm-26481", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor" } ], "external": [ { "ref_id": "norm-59628", "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=59628&strTipM=FN", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Constitución de Federación de Centroamérica (Constitución Política 1824)", "norm_id": "59628" }, { "ref_id": "norm-15437", "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=15437&strTipM=FN", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código Civil", "norm_id": "15437" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-150802", "tier": 2, "is_environmental": false, "_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": [ { "art_num": "75", "art_scij": "76", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-59628", "norm_fecha": "22 Nov 1824", "norm_name": "Constitución de Federación de Centroamérica (Constitución Política 1824)", "norm_num": "0", "norm_ver": "66657", "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política" }, { "art_num": "106", "art_scij": "23886", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-5027", "norm_detalle": "Inciso 3", "norm_fecha": "04 May 1970", "norm_name": "Código Penal", "norm_num": "4573", "norm_ver": "91405", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "1048", "art_scij": "89943", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_fecha": "28 Sep 1887", "norm_name": "Código Civil", "norm_num": "63", "norm_ver": "90115", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "32", "art_scij": "128969", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-26481", "norm_fecha": "20 Dic 1994", "norm_name": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "norm_num": "7472", "norm_ver": "92463", "tipo_norma": "Ley" } ], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "01/01/1888" }, { "doc_id": "norm-26481", "norm_num": "7472", "norm_name": "Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "20/12/1994" }, { "doc_id": "norm-5027", "norm_num": "4573", "norm_name": "Código Penal — Ley 4573", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "04/05/1970" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [ { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Papel social de la Iglesia Católica y validez de condenarla solidariamente por actos de sus funcionarios o delegados" } ], "id": 1, "nombre": "Responsabilidad civil derivada del hecho punible" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Papel social de la Iglesia Católica y validez de condenarla solidariamente en el aspecto civil por actos de sus funcionarios o delegados" } ], "id": 2, "nombre": "Abuso sexual contra persona menor de edad o incapaz" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Papel social de la Iglesia Católica y validez de condenarla solidariamente por actos de sus funcionarios o delegados" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Consideraciones sobre la subjetiva y objetiva y la in eligendo e in vigilando" } ], "id": 4, "nombre": "Responsabilidad civil extracontractual" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Papel social de la Iglesia Católica y validez de condenarla por actos de sus funcionarios o delegados" } ], "id": 3, "nombre": "Responsabilidad civil solidaria" } ], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "“IV.- Recurso de apelación interpuesto por [Nombre1] en su condición de representante legal de la demanda civil Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis de San José: Sustenta su impugnación en la errónea aplicación de la ley sustantiva, así como del principio de causa petendi y la ausencia de aplicación de los elementos jurídicos de la falta de legitimatio ad causam, en su versión pasiva. Indica que el Tribunal consideró que la responsabilidad civil solidaria que se endosa a su representada, deriva de la actuación negligente del […], como una responsabilidad in vigilando, cuando el Cura Párroco nunca fue siquiera citado para que pudiera defenderse. Señala que la acción civil resarcitoria menciona el artículo 1048 del Código Civil por tratarse de una culpa in eligendo, pero en el fallo, se menciona únicamente el artículo 1046, no obstante que no se demostró que se hubiera incurrido en culpa in eligendo, pues no fueron las Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis las que eligieron y designaron al imputado, sino que fue el Cura Párroco. Se vulnera el principio de causa petendi porque se demandó solidariamente a las Temporalidades y no al Cura Párroco de la localidad. Con relación a la falta de legitimatio ad causam pasiva, es lógico que la acción carece de prueba respecto a la vinculación de la demandada civil con relación a una culpa in vigilando. Si se pretendía -señala- endosar a mi patrocinada una responsabilidad solidaria en dicha conducta, era menester tener como demandado civil al padre [Nombre2], […]. La culpa in vigilando resulta de imposible cumplimiento, pues la comunidad religiosa aumenta continuamente, por lo que el Cura Párroco debe cumplir múltiples funciones, por lo que no tendría sentido que estuviere vigilando a quien cumple la función de distribución de eucaristía en casa de los enfermos, puesto que para eso sería mejor que lo hiciese personalmente él. Como segundo motivo, se acusa violación por errónea aplicación del artículo 18 del Código de Trabajo. Indica que el Tribunal consideró que las actividades realizadas por los Ministros de la Eucaristía eran de carácter laboral, pese a no existir los elementos del contrato de esta naturaleza. El Tribunal –alega el apelante- estima que la obligación de vigilar la actividad de los Ministros de la Eucaristía, deriva de la actividad de carácter laboral que ellos realizan. Señala que las dos condiciones de dicho contrato son subordinación y salario y la actividad del Ministro de la Eucaristía no es remunerada y tampoco es empleado de la Curia, de la Parroquia y mucho menos de las Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis, que es una persona jurídica totalmente independiente. Así las cosas, acusa que el Tribunal infirió erróneamente que el deber in vigilando sobre dichos personajes corresponde al Cura Párroco. Los reclamos no son de recibo, y por su conexión, serán resueltos de manera conjunta. Para efectos de una mejor exposición, conviene esbozar algunas consideraciones en cuanto a la responsabilidad civil extracontractual, así como acerca de la función de la Iglesia Católica y la responsabilidad civil derivada de su actividad. i) Sobre la responsabilidad civil extracontractual: La responsabilidad extracontractual, se encuentra desvinculada de cualquier relación jurídica y se fundamenta en cualquier acto u omisión culposo o negligente que suponga un ilícito civil. La responsabilidad puede provenir de la actuación dolosa o culposa del agente productor directo del daño, que es el sistema de responsabilidad subjetiva, mientras que en el sistema de responsabilidad objetiva, no tiene importancia el dolo o la culpa porque la legislación establece diversos criterios en que se responde civilmente, por ejemplo: el riesgo creado, establecido en el artículo 1048 párrafo 5 del Código Civil; la protección al consumidor, contenida en el artículo 32 de la Ley de Promoción de la competencia y defensa efectiva del Consumidor, número 7472, la responsabilidad objetiva del Estado, etc. Doctrinariamente se distingue entre culpa in eligendo e in vigilando, entendiendo la primera como la atribuible a una persona por haber elegido un tercero para una tarea en particular y que en el transcurso de la misma ha causado daños, sean patrimoniales o morales; en la culpa in vigilando, supone entonces una negligencia o incuria en cuanto al deber de vigilancia. Como parte de una responsabilidad subjetiva indirecta, estos tipos de culpa se encuentran contenidos en el artículo 1048 del Código Civil, tercer párrafo, que en lo conducente, dice: “El que encarga a una persona del cumplimiento de uno o muchos actos, está obligado a escoger una persona apta para ejecutarlos y a vigilar la ejecución en los límites de la diligencia de un buen padre de familia; y si descuidare esos deberes, será responsable solidariamente de los perjuicios que su encargado causare a un tercero con una acción violatoria del derecho ajeno, cometida con mala intención o por negligencia en el desempeño de sus funciones, a no ser que esa acción no se hubiere podido evitar con todo y la debida diligencia en vigilar.” La responsabilidad civil objetiva es independiente entonces del dolo o de la culpa con la que haya actuado el agente que produce el daño, de manera que el criterio de imputación va más allá, sosteniéndose no sólo en la doctrina, sino también vía jurisprudencial, que deben existir tres requisitos para sustentar este tipo de responsabilidad: a) el empleo de cosas que conllevan peligro o riesgo; b) causar un daño de carácter patrimonial; c) la relación o nexo de causa efectos entre el hecho y el daño. ii) Naturaleza de la función eclesial y su trascendencia en el plano social: Desde sus orígenes, la Iglesia Católica ha tenido una función evangelizadora y orientadora en la ética social que se ha mantenido a través de los siglos. Resulta claro que la Iglesia ha sido una institución con gran presencia en el plano político, moral y social, cuya actividad en los planos político y social ha ido de la mano del quehacer estatal, al punto que en algún momento se ha hablado de un binomio entre Iglesia y Estado. Si bien es cierto el Estado Costarricense se ha decantado por un modelo tolerante en cuanto a la libertad de culto permitiendo a los ciudadanos elegir y profesar otras creencias, lo cierto es que también declara a la “Religión Católica, Apostólica, Romana” como la religión de Estado, disposición que tiene raigambre constitucional (Artículo 75 de la Constitución Política). De manera que, la actividad de la Iglesia trasciende al plano de la moral social hasta el punto de que, en la concepción popular de los fieles, la Iglesia ejerce una misión no solamente orientadora, sino que se involucra en un deber ejemplarizante para la sociedad. Los sacerdotes y las personas que ejercen alguna función eclesial que implique una relación interpersonal, como lo son los Ministros de la Eucaristía o la Catequesis y, cualquier otra labor educativa de contenido religioso y docente, deben cumplir con un sagrado deber de conducción ética y una función que trasciende la conducta en el sentido de que no solamente es en el plano puramente individual, sino que deben constituirse en ejemplos vivos de la moral que la misma Iglesia a través de los siglos y desde su fundación, ha mantenido y ha predicado. iii) Sobre la responsabilidad civil solidaria de la iglesia: La Iglesia, tal y como se indicó, realiza un servicio a la comunidad de sus fieles, servicio en el cual asume una determinada posición frente a las personas que congrega, por el compromiso mismo de desarrollar su misión evangelizadora, de acción social y en la cual incorpora a fieles para delegarle algunas funciones eclesiales, selección que pasa por el criterio del sacerdote, máximo representante en la comunidad, de la estructura de organización de la Iglesia Católica y de la Arquidiócesis a la que pertenece. Si bien es cierto la práctica religiosa es, en esencia, libre y nadie está obligado a participar ni acudir a las ceremonias y servicios religiosos, cuando se hace porque se profesa y practica la fe, se acepta la estructura y organización de la Iglesia y se confía en las decisiones del sacerdote como tal, algunas de las cuales incluso, toma en asocio con miembros de la comunidad. Así, si para el desarrollo propio del servicio que presta y la organización de sus actividades, el sacerdote, pero en general la Iglesia, realiza selecciones de seglares o feligreses para que coadyuven con algunas tareas propias del giro mismo de actividades de la Iglesia, quien lo escoge y quien preside jerárquicamente esa estructura de delegaciones, como responde con su patrimonio por los daños que se ocasione por las personas designadas y delegadas, en el cumplimiento de tales tareas, aprovechando las facilidades que esa escogencia de la que han sido objeto, les presenta, que no las tiene el común de feligreses precisamente porque tal selección parte de criterios del sacerdote y establecidos por la Diócesis o Arquidiócesis a la que pertenece, siendo todas estas actividades parte del desarrollo del servicio que presta la Iglesia Católica. Al igual que en el caso de los educadores en general, las autoridades eclesiásticas tienen responsabilidad precisamente por esa delegación que existe por parte de una autoridad superior a un tercero con el cual existe una relación de confianza, para el cumplimiento de obligaciones que implican en sí mismas una relación interpersonal, de servicio a la Iglesia como Institución y que son funciones estrechamente relacionadas con el Magisterio de la Iglesia (entiéndanse incluidos figuras que ejercen una función eclesial en general) y, por ende, encuentran sentido solamente en ella, como parte del desarrollo de su función en la sociedad y comunidad de fieles. En determinados ámbitos, como lo es el cuidado pastoral por ejemplo, debe hacerse especial énfasis en el hecho de que más que la relación de subordinación entre el agente que delega y el sujeto activo directo del acto dañoso, está de por medio que -independientemente de la subordinación- sí existe la obligación a una especial prudencia en elegir y vigilar, puesto que un descuido en tales previsiones, acarrea la producción o el riesgo del daño, y con él, vulneración de la confianza que la propia posición social histórica de lo eclesial comporta para los fieles. En otras palabras, es un elemento de especial relevancia, la credibilidad que impera o debe haber imperado de parte del sujeto pasivo de daño o del abuso y el estamento religioso, máxime cuando es la misma Iglesia la que acoge en su seno a personas menores de edad, con el fin de que realicen funciones dentro de la misma liturgia o bien, asistan a cursos de catequesis en general. En conclusión, puede establecerse la existencia de una responsabilidad civil solidaria inherente de las conductas de quienes, por su posición frente a la comunidad, ostentan cargos de orientación, ya en el ámbito educativo, ya en el orden eclesial y catequístico. Resulta medular que tales funcionarios y guías, deben observar mayor tino y tomar todas las previsiones que brinden seguridad de que, al delegar sus delicadas funciones docentes y de formación moral y religiosa, no creen una situación en la cual no están debidamente garantizados los derechos de los educandos y de los fieles. Esto es cierto, y lo es con mayor énfasis, cuando se trate de personas que, por su condición de personas menores de edad, sean especialmente vulnerables, de allí que ya la actividad de por sí resulta riesgosa para una persona menor de edad a la luz de la interrelación que existe entre adultos que son considerados figuras de autoridad, ejemplificantes y de confianza, ante personas menores de edad que desean profesar su fe mediante actividades religiosas dirigidas y encomendadas por tales figuras. iv.- Del caso en concreto: Resulta necesario transcribir las razones que el Tribunal plasmó en el fallo, y sobre las cuales fundamenta la responsabilidad civil de las Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis: “En lo que respecta a la responsabilidad civil de Temporalidades Arquidiócesis de San José que es la persona jurídica que representa la Iglesia Católica, su responsabilidad deriva de la ausencia de una vigilancia debida del encartado que fungía un papel en el desempeño eclesiástico, deber que le asistía al jerarca de la iglesia representado por el sacerdote en ejercicio en dicha parroquia, a saber [Nombre2]. Es claro que el demando civil A no es un empleado remunerado de la iglesia, jurídicamente representada por Temporalidades Arquidiócesis de San José, pues a lo largo del debate los testigos vinculados con el ejercicio del Ministerio de la Eucaristía o la pastoral informaron al Tribunal que el puesto es meritorio y voluntario, la elección la realiza el sacerdote de la parroquia con base en consultas que realiza a los feligreses y a la propia observación de la conducta social del interesado en asumir la función y que luego de hecha la elección el futuro Ministro recibe una capacitación y asume un compromiso de carácter espiritual para con la Iglesia Católica y que este compromiso se renueva cada tres años, por parte del sacerdote que tiene la potestad de destituir a quien no considere digno del cargo. No obstante, la ausencia de una remuneración no desliga a la Iglesia como persona jurídica de su responsabilidad en ejercer una vigilancia debida de estas personas que desempeñan un papel en la función de evangelización, pues estos Ministros tienen contacto con los feligreses que asisten a la iglesia o que abren las puertas de sus casas para recibir la comunión, en el entendido de que los Ministros de la Eucaristía tienen un respaldo de la Iglesia. En su función estas personas tienen contacto con los feligreses y en este contacto exponen a estos feligreses a cualquier acción dañosa, directamente ligada al ejercicio de la función eclesiástica. En este caso que nos ocupa, por su cargo el encartado gozaba de la confianza de acceder a las instalaciones físicas de la Iglesia de [...] y de estar a cargo del cuido de niños que querían ser monaguillos, específicamente de la aquí ofendida, que en la creencia de que ingresaba a un lugar seguro quedó al arbitrio del encartado en un lugar que ofrecía condiciones de privacidad y en el que no recibía ninguna protección adicional. El propio sacerdote de la congregación, es la persona en representación de la Iglesia que funge en esta parroquia como máxima autoridad y sobre el que pesa la responsabilidad de vigilar que no ocurra ninguna acción indebida, ilícita o delictiva como en este caso, sin embargo, él dejó de lado esta función y no ejerció la vigilancia debida sobre los presentes y sobre todo los Ministros de la Eucaristía y los miembros de la pastoral que tienen asignadas responsabilidades de carácter laboral, pese a la inexistencia de salario. El mismo admite que llega unos cinco minutos antes que empiece la misa, en tanto que la testigo O dice que la iglesia se abre aproximadamente una hora antes de que empiece la misa y los encargados de preparar la eucaristía ingresan a cumplir con sus funciones. Con ello se evidencia la ausencia del celo esperado a su jerarquía, incurriéndose así en una culpa in vigilando que en este caso tuvo una consecuencia dañosa para la actora civil, menor ofendida, es por esto que la indemnización a la ofendida de la suma de TRES MILLONES DE COLONES por daño moral, debe ser asumida de manera solidaria entre la Iglesia Católica representada por Temporalidades Arquidiócesis de San José y el demandado civil A” (folios 329 y 330). Como ya se indicó, la Iglesia como Institución y como autoridad religiosa, presta un servicio ante la comunidad de feligreses, lo que en este caso resultó escenario propicio, para que confluyeran dos hechos determinantes: primero, una escogencia inadecuada de una persona que no era apta para desempeñarse dentro de los cánones de servicio de la Iglesia y segundo: una falta de vigilancia de lo que esas personas -por su posición distinta del resto de feligreses, en cuanto al acceso y conocimiento del manejo de los lugares, ornamentos y demás objetos y disposiciones necesarias para las distintas celebraciones-, estaban obligadas a realizar dentro de ese marco, lo que provocó que se cometieran hechos sexuales abusivos en perjuicio de la menor, dentro del templo, en un recinto al que no todas las personas tienen común o fácil acceso, hecho cometido por un feligrés que desempeñaba un cargo especial, por delegación y en perjuicio de una niña que también iniciaba labores como pequeña laica comprometida, es decir, dos personas seleccionadas por el máximo representante local de la Iglesia y en desempeño de sus funciones propias en la Iglesia. El dolo con el que actuó el imputado se encuentra demostrado y, como la norma contiene una inversión de la carga de la prueba, la única forma de que se excluya la responsabilidad es demostrando que esa acción no se hubiere podido evitar con todo y la debida diligencia de vigilar o elegir, lo cual a lo largo del contradictorio y ni siquiera con la prueba recibida en esta sede, pudo establecerse. Se tuvo por cierto, eso sí, que al delegar funciones el sacerdote, representante de la Iglesia, no se seleccionó (eligendo) ni controló (vigilando) adecuadamente y por parte de los encargados, las tareas encomendadas al imputado. Esas tareas desde luego no autorizaban ni incluían el abuso sexual a los menores, pero se dieron precisamente por las condiciones dadas y la oportunidad de relación gracias al desempeño de tales funciones, incluso echando mano de la autoridad moral que las mismas les daban y la posición de autoridad frente a una persona vulnerable, como un menor de edad que daba sus primeros pasos al servicio, precisamente, de la Iglesia. La paradoja es precisamente que víctima y victimario estaban en tal condición, por la escogencia que de ellos había hecho un miembro de la estructura de la Iglesia, Arquidiócesis de San José, lo que hace aún más clara la atribución del daño ocasionado, al patrimonio de quien se erige como cabeza jurídica y patrimonialmente hablando, de tal organización, en este caso, las Temporalidades de la Iglesia. Queda claro que el Tribunal tomó en consideración la culpa in vigilando en que se demostró incurrió el Cura Párroco, quien no ejerció la vigilancia debida sobre los presentes y sobre todo los Ministros de la Eucaristía y los miembros de la pastoral, pues independientemente de que se presente cinco minutos antes de que inicie la misa, ello no lo exime de tomar otro tipo de previsiones en resguardo de los menores ya que la Iglesia se abre aproximadamente una hora antes de que empiece la misa, conforme se desprende de la prueba testimonial y los encargados de preparar la Eucaristía ingresan a cumplir con sus funciones, todo lo cual implica una falta de vigilancia que de forma inexorable le acarrea responsabilidad civil solidaria a la Iglesia, en este caso por lo acaecido en la Parroquia del […], representada jurídicamente por las Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis. Nótese que el Cura Párroco puede destituir a los Ministros de la Eucaristía y a los miembros de la pastoral en el caso de que no resulten dignos, lo que hace derivar que, si tiene esta potestad, es porque tiene que estar vigilante de su desempeño, en virtud de que realizan funciones eclesiales por delegación, suficiente para hacer nacer ese deber de vigilancia, que no es exclusivo de tareas remuneradas, como parece entenderlo quien recurre. Si el sacerdote confió tanto en su buen juicio al elegir y no se preocupó de supervisar, esa es una razón más para establecer el origen de la responsabilidad objetiva del patrimonio de la Iglesia, en nombre de quien el sacerdote y luego sus designados, prestan sus servicios a la comunidad de creyentes. No solamente al artículo 1048.3 del Código Civil sustenta esta responsabilidad civil solidaria pues une estrechamente la culpa in vigilando de la in eligendo, sino también el artículo 106 inciso 3 del Código Penal cuando dispone: “Es solidaria la acción de los partícipes de un hecho punible, en cuanto a la responsabilidad civil. Están igualmente obligados solidariamente con los autores del hecho punible, al pago de los daños y perjuicios: … Las personas naturales y jurídicas dueñas de establecimientos de cualquier naturaleza, en que se cometiere un hecho punible por parte de sus administradores, dependientes y demás trabajadores a sus servicio”, disposición en la que indudablemente y con mucha más razón se encuentra incluida la Iglesia, no sólo por esa relación que existe entre la Iglesia como persona jurídica y un dependiente que actúa en su servicio, como resulta ser la figura del Ministro de la Comunión, sino porque en el orden catequístico, priva y tiene un peso específico la confianza que se deposita en todos sus personeros, la sociedad, de allí que la fundamentación que dio el Tribunal para declarar con lugar la acción civil resarcitoria, no sólo se encuentra acorde con la legislación que regula la responsabilidad civil extracontractual, sino que además, de acuerdo a las consideraciones expuestas, la Iglesia es una entidad que debe responder civilmente, por lo que la excepción de falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva no podía prosperar. Por otro lado, de una lectura del fallo, se desprende que las juzgadoras no hicieron surgir el vínculo jurídico de una relación laboral, sino de una culpa in eligendo por parte del Cura párroco que es el representante de la Iglesia y actúa por delegación según la estructura eclesiástica. No era por lo tanto necesario, que se le diera audiencia a él como parte civil, pues es la Iglesia como persona jurídica, la que debe responder civilmente de forma solidaria, a lo cual, la litis debe tenerse por integrada con la demanda a las Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis y no pretender un enderezamiento de la demanda al Cura Párroco, quien debía únicamente limitar su actuación -como ocurrió en este caso-, a la de un testigo que podría informar acerca de su actuación dentro de los hechos acusados. Consecuentemente, se declara sin lugar el recurso interpuesto por el representante de la demandada civil.-”", "body_en_text": "**IV.- Appeal filed by [Name1] in his capacity as legal representative of the civil claim Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis de San José:** He bases his challenge on the erroneous application of substantive law, as well as of the principle of *causa petendi* and the lack of application of the legal elements of the lack of *legitimatio ad causam*, in its passive form. He indicates that the Court considered that the joint and several civil liability (responsabilidad civil solidaria) attributed to his client derives from the negligent conduct of the [...], as a liability for failure to supervise (*in vigilando*), when the Parish Priest was never even summoned so that he could defend himself. He points out that the civil action for damages mentions Article 1048 of the Civil Code because it concerns a fault in selection (*culpa in eligendo*), but the judgment mentions only Article 1046, even though it was not proven that a *culpa in eligendo* had been incurred, since it was not the Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis that chose and designated the accused, but rather the Parish Priest. The principle of *causa petendi* is violated because the Temporalidades were sued jointly and severally, and not the local Parish Priest. Regarding the lack of passive *legitimatio ad causam*, it is logical that the action lacks proof regarding the connection of the civil defendant to a *culpa in vigilando*. If it was intended—he states—to attribute a joint and several liability to my client for said conduct, it was necessary to have Father [Name2], [...], as a civil defendant. The *culpa in vigilando* proves impossible to fulfill, since the religious community continually grows, meaning the Parish Priest must perform multiple functions, and it would therefore make no sense for him to be watching over whoever performs the function of distributing the Eucharist in the homes of the sick, since for that it would be better for him to do it personally. As a **second ground**, a violation is alleged due to the erroneous application of Article 18 of the Labor Code. He indicates that the Court considered the activities performed by the Ministers of the Eucharist to be of a labor nature, despite the elements of a contract of this nature not existing. The Court—the appellant alleges—deems that the obligation to supervise the activity of the Ministers of the Eucharist derives from the labor-related nature of the activity they perform. He points out that the two conditions of said contract are subordination and salary, and the activity of the Minister of the Eucharist is not remunerated, nor is he an employee of the Curia, the Parish, and much less of the Temporalidades de la Arquidiócesis, which is a completely independent legal entity. Thus, he accuses that the Court erroneously inferred that the duty *in vigilando* over such individuals corresponds to the Parish Priest. **The claims are not receivable, and due to their connection, they will be resolved jointly.** For a better exposition, it is appropriate to outline some considerations regarding non-contractual civil liability (responsabilidad civil extracontractual), as well as regarding the function of the Catholic Church and the civil liability derived from its activity. ***i) On non-contractual civil liability (responsabilidad civil extracontractual):** Non-contractual liability is unlinked from any legal relationship and is based on any culpable or negligent act or omission that constitutes a civil wrong.\n\nLiability can arise from the intentional or negligent action of the direct agent causing the damage, which is the system of subjective liability, whereas in the system of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva), intent or negligence is irrelevant because the legislation establishes various criteria under which one is civilly liable, for example: the created risk, established in Article 1048, paragraph 5 of the Civil Code; consumer protection, contained in Article 32 of the Law on the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, No. 7472; the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the State, etc. Doctrinally, a distinction is made between fault in eligendo (culpa in eligendo) and fault in vigilando (culpa in vigilando), the former being understood as that attributable to a person for having chosen a third party for a particular task and, in the course of that task, said third party caused damages, whether economic or moral; fault in vigilando (culpa in vigilando) then presupposes negligence or carelessness regarding the duty of supervision. As part of indirect subjective liability, these types of fault are contained in Article 1048 of the Civil Code, third paragraph, which, in relevant part, states: \"He who entrusts a person with the performance of one or many acts is obliged to choose a person suitable to execute them and to supervise the execution within the limits of the diligence of a good father of a family; and if he neglects these duties, he shall be jointly and severally liable for the damages that his appointee caused to a third party through an action violating another's right, committed with malice or by negligence in the performance of his functions, unless such action could not have been avoided even with all due diligence in supervising.\" Strict civil liability (responsabilidad civil objetiva) is therefore independent of the intent or negligence with which the agent causing the damage acted, so the criterion for attribution goes further. It is sustained not only in doctrine but also through case law that three requirements must exist to support this type of liability: a) the use of things that involve danger or risk; b) causing a damage of an economic nature; c) a relationship or causal link between the act and the damage.\n\n**ii) Nature of the ecclesiastical function and its significance on a social level:** Since its origins, the Catholic Church has had an evangelizing and guiding function in social ethics that has been maintained through the centuries. It is clear that the Church has been an institution with a great presence on the political, moral, and social levels, whose activity in the political and social spheres has gone hand in hand with state activity, to the point that at some time there has been talk of a binomial between Church and State. While it is true the Costa Rican State has opted for a tolerant model regarding freedom of worship, allowing citizens to choose and profess other beliefs, the truth is that it also declares the \"Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Religion\" as the religion of the State, a provision rooted in the Constitution (Article 75 of the Political Constitution). Thus, the Church's activity transcends into the realm of social morality to the point that, in the popular conception of the faithful, the Church exercises not only a guiding mission but is also involved in a duty to set an example for society. Priests and persons exercising any ecclesiastical function involving an interpersonal relationship, such as Ministers of the Eucharist or Catechesis and any other educational activity with religious and doctrinal content, must fulfill a sacred duty of ethical guidance and a function that transcends conduct, in the sense that it is not only on a purely individual level, but they must become living examples of the morality that the Church itself, through the centuries and since its foundation, has maintained and preached.\n\n**iii) On the joint and several civil liability of the church:** The Church, as indicated, provides a service to its community of faithful, a service in which it assumes a certain position towards the people it gathers, due to the very commitment to carry out its evangelizing mission of social action and in which it incorporates faithful to delegate to them certain ecclesiastical functions, a selection that passes through the criterion of the priest, the maximum representative in the community, of the organizational structure of the Catholic Church and the Archdiocese to which he belongs. While it is true that religious practice is, in essence, free and no one is obliged to participate in or attend religious ceremonies and services, when one does so because one professes and practices the faith, one accepts the structure and organization of the Church and trusts in the priest's decisions as such, some of which he even makes in association with members of the community. Thus, if for the proper development of the service it provides and the organization of its activities, the priest, but generally the Church, makes selections of laypeople or parishioners to assist with certain tasks inherent to the Church's own scope of activities, the one who chooses them and who hierarchically presides over that structure of delegations is also liable with its assets for the damages caused by the designated and delegated persons in the performance of such tasks, taking advantage of the opportunities that this selection, of which they have been the object, presents to them, opportunities not available to the common parishioner precisely because such selection is based on criteria of the priest and established by the Diocese or Archdiocese to which he belongs, all these activities being part of the development of the service provided by the Catholic Church. As in the case of educators in general, ecclesiastical authorities are liable precisely because of that delegation existing from a superior authority to a third party with whom a relationship of trust exists, for the fulfillment of obligations that in themselves imply an interpersonal relationship, of service to the Church as an Institution, and which are functions closely related to the Magisterium of the Church (understood to include figures exercising an ecclesiastical function in general) and, therefore, find meaning only within it, as part of the development of its function in society and the community of the faithful. In certain areas, such as pastoral care, for example, special emphasis must be placed on the fact that more than the relationship of subordination between the delegating agent and the direct active subject of the harmful act, what is at stake—independently of the subordination—is the existence of an obligation to a special prudence in choosing and supervising (elegir y vigilar), since a neglect in such precautions entails the production or the risk of damage, and with it, a violation of the trust that the Church's own historical social position implies for the faithful. In other words, a specially relevant element is the credibility that prevails or should have prevailed on the part of the passive subject of the damage or abuse and the religious establishment, especially since it is the Church itself that welcomes minors into its fold so they perform functions within the liturgy itself or attend general catechesis courses. In conclusion, the existence of joint and several civil liability (responsabilidad civil solidaria) inherent to the conduct of those who, by their position before the community, hold guiding positions, whether in the educational sphere, or in the ecclesiastical and catechetical order, can be established. It is essential that such officials and guides must observe greater judgment and take all precautions that provide security that, upon delegating their delicate teaching and moral and religious formation functions, they do not create a situation in which the rights of students and the faithful are not duly guaranteed. This is true, and it is so with even greater emphasis, when dealing with persons who, due to their status as minors, are especially vulnerable; hence, the activity itself is already risky for a minor in light of the interrelation that exists between adults considered to be authoritarian, exemplary, and trustworthy figures, and minors who wish to profess their faith through religious activities directed and entrusted by such figures.\n\n**iv.- Regarding the specific case:** It is necessary to transcribe the reasons the Trial Court set forth in the judgment, and upon which it bases the civil liability of the Temporalities of the Archdiocese: *“Regarding the civil liability of the Temporalities of the Archdiocese of San José, which is the legal entity representing the Catholic Church, its liability derives from the absence of due supervision of the defendant who was playing a role in ecclesiastical performance, a duty incumbent upon the church hierarch represented by the practicing priest in said parish, namely [Name2]. It is clear that civil defendant A is not a paid employee of the church, legally represented by the Temporalities of the Archdiocese of San José, since during the debate, the witnesses linked to the exercise of the Ministry of the Eucharist or the pastoral ministry informed the Court that the position is meritorious and voluntary; the choice is made by the parish priest based on consultations he makes with parishioners and on his own observation of the social conduct of the person interested in assuming the function, and that after the choice is made, the future Minister receives training and assumes a commitment of a spiritual nature to the Catholic Church, and this commitment is renewed every three years by the priest, who has the authority to dismiss anyone he does not deem worthy of the position. However, the absence of remuneration does not release the Church as a legal entity from its responsibility to exercise due supervision of these persons who play a role in the evangelization function, as these Ministers have contact with parishioners who attend the church or who open the doors of their homes to receive communion, on the understanding that Ministers of the Eucharist have the backing of the Church. In their function, these persons have contact with parishioners, and in this contact, they expose these parishioners to any harmful action directly linked to the exercise of the ecclesiastical function. In the case at hand, due to his position, the defendant enjoyed the trust to access the physical facilities of the Church of [...] and to be in charge of the care of children who wanted to be altar servers, specifically the victim here, who, in the belief that she was entering a safe place, was left at the whim of the defendant in a place that offered conditions of privacy and in which she received no additional protection. The congregation's own priest is the person representing the Church who serves in this parish as the maximum authority and upon whom rests the responsibility to ensure that no undue, illicit, or criminal action occurs, as in this case; however, he neglected this function and did not exercise due supervision over those present and, above all, over the Ministers of the Eucharist and the members of the pastoral ministry who have assigned responsibilities of a labor nature, despite the nonexistence of a salary. He himself admits that he arrives about five minutes before mass begins, while witness O says that the church opens approximately one hour before mass begins and the persons in charge of preparing the Eucharist enter to fulfill their functions. This demonstrates the absence of the zeal expected of his hierarchy, thus incurring fault in vigilando (culpa in vigilando) which in this case had a harmful consequence for the civil plaintiff, the minor victim. This is why the compensation to the victim of the sum of THREE MILLION COLONES for moral damages must be assumed jointly and severally between the Catholic Church, represented by the Temporalities of the Archdiocese of San José, and the civil defendant A”* (folios 329 and 330). As already indicated, the Church, as an Institution and as a religious authority, provides a service to the community of parishioners, which in this case proved to be a favorable scenario for the convergence of two determining facts: first, an inadequate selection of a person who was not suitable to perform within the service canons of the Church, and second: a lack of supervision of what those persons—due to their different position from the rest of the parishioners in terms of access to and knowledge of the management of places, ornaments, and other objects and provisions necessary for the different celebrations—were obliged to do within that framework, which led to the commission of abusive sexual acts against the minor, inside the temple, in a place not everyone has common or easy access to, an act committed by a parishioner who held a special position by delegation, to the detriment of a girl who was also starting her duties as a small committed layperson; that is, two persons selected by the Church's highest local representative and in the performance of their own functions in the Church. The malice with which the accused acted is proven, and as the rule contains a reversal of the burden of proof, the only way to exclude liability is to demonstrate that such action could not have been avoided even with all due diligence in supervising or choosing, which throughout the adversarial proceeding, and not even with the evidence received in this venue, could be established. It was taken as true, however, that when the priest, the Church's representative, delegated functions, he did not select (eligendo) or control (vigilando) the tasks entrusted to the accused adequately and on the part of those in charge. Those tasks, of course, did not authorize or include the sexual abuse of minors, but they occurred precisely because of the conditions given and the opportunity for a relationship thanks to the performance of such functions, even taking advantage of the moral authority these conferred and the position of authority over a vulnerable person, such as a minor who was taking her first steps in the service, precisely, of the Church. The paradox is precisely that victim and victimizer were in such a condition due to the selection made of them by a member of the Church's structure, the Archdiocese of San José, which makes the attribution of the damage caused to the assets of the entity that stands as the juridical and financial head of such organization, in this case, the Temporalities of the Church, even clearer. It is clear that the Court considered the fault in vigilando (culpa in vigilando) that the Parish Priest was proven to have incurred, who did not exercise due supervision over those present and, above all, over the Ministers of the Eucharist and the members of the pastoral ministry, because regardless of whether he appears five minutes before mass begins, this does not exempt him from taking other types of precautions to protect minors, since the church opens approximately one hour before mass begins, as shown by the testimonial evidence, and those in charge of preparing the Eucharist enter to fulfill their functions, all of which implies a lack of supervision that inexorably entails joint and several civil liability (responsabilidad civil solidaria) for the Church, in this case for what occurred in the Parish of […], legally represented by the Temporalities of the Archdiocese. Note that the Parish Priest can dismiss the Ministers of the Eucharist and the members of the pastoral ministry if they prove unworthy, which leads to the conclusion that if he has this power, it is because he must be watchful of their performance, by virtue of the fact that they carry out ecclesiastical functions by delegation, sufficient to give rise to this duty of supervision, which is not exclusive to paid tasks, as the appellant seems to understand. If the priest trusted so much in his good judgment when choosing and did not concern himself with supervising, that is one more reason to establish the origin of the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the Church's assets, in whose name the priest, and later his designees, provide their services to the community of believers. Not only Article 1048.3 of the Civil Code supports this joint and several civil liability (responsabilidad civil solidaria), as it closely links the fault in vigilando (culpa in vigilando) with the fault in eligendo (culpa in eligendo), but also Article 106, subsection 3 of the Penal Code when it provides: *“The action of the participants in a punishable act is joint and several regarding civil liability. The following are equally jointly and severally obligated with the perpetrators of the punishable act for the payment of damages: ... Natural and legal persons who own establishments of any nature, in which a punishable act was committed by their administrators, dependents, and other workers in their service.”* A provision in which the Church is undoubtedly, and with much more reason, included, not only because of that relationship that exists between the Church as a legal entity and a dependent acting in its service, such as the figure of the Minister of Communion, but also because in the catechetical order, the trust placed in all its representatives and in society has specific weight; hence, the foundation the Court gave to declare the civil compensation claim admissible is not only in accordance with the legislation regulating tort liability (responsabilidad civil extracontractual) but also, according to the considerations set forth, the Church is an entity that must be civilly liable. Therefore, the objection of lack of passive standing (falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva) could not prosper. On the other hand, a reading of the judgment shows that the judges did not derive the legal bond from an employment relationship but from fault in eligendo (culpa in eligendo) on the part of the Parish Priest, who is the Church's representative and acts by delegation according to the ecclesiastical structure. It was therefore not necessary to grant him a hearing as a civil party, since it is the Church, as a legal entity, that must be jointly and severally civilly liable, for which the dispute must be deemed integrated with the lawsuit against the Temporalities of the Archdiocese, and not to seek a redirection of the lawsuit to the Parish Priest, who should only limit his acting—as occurred in this case—to that of a witness who could report on his actions within the facts alleged.\n\nConsequently, the appeal filed by the representative of the civil defendant is dismissed.-”

 

\n\nThis demonstrates the absence of the diligence expected of his rank, thus incurring a fault *in vigilando* that in this case had a harmful consequence for the civil plaintiff, the aggrieved minor; it is for this reason that compensation to the aggrieved party of the sum of THREE MILLION COLONES for moral damages must be assumed jointly and severally by the Catholic Church, represented by the Temporalidades Arquidiócesis de San José, and the civil defendant A (folios 329 and 330). As already indicated, the Church as an Institution and as a religious authority provides a service to the community of parishioners, which in this case became a favorable setting for the convergence of two determining facts: first, an inadequate selection of a person who was not suitable to perform within the canons of service of the Church, and second, a lack of supervision over what those persons—by virtue of their distinct position from the rest of the parishioners concerning access and knowledge of the use of the places, ornaments, and other objects and provisions necessary for the various celebrations—were obligated to do within that framework, which caused sexually abusive acts to be committed against the minor inside the temple, in an enclosure to which not everyone has common or easy access—an act committed by a parishioner who held a special office, by delegation, and to the detriment of a girl who was also beginning service as a committed young lay person; that is, two persons selected by the highest local representative of the Church and acting in the performance of their own functions within the Church. The fraud with which the accused acted has been demonstrated, and, since the norm contains a reversal of the burden of proof, the only way to exclude liability is by demonstrating that such action could not have been avoided despite all due diligence in supervising or choosing, which could not be established throughout the adversarial process, nor even with the evidence received in this venue. It was taken as true, however, that upon delegating functions, the priest, representative of the Church, did not adequately select (*in eligendo*) or control (*in vigilando*)—and neither did those in charge—the tasks entrusted to the accused. Those tasks, of course, did not authorize or include the sexual abuse of minors, but they occurred precisely because of the conditions given and the opportunity for contact thanks to the performance of such functions, even making use of the moral authority those functions conferred and the position of authority vis-à-vis a vulnerable person, such as a minor who was taking her first steps in the service, precisely, of the Church. The paradox is precisely that victim and perpetrator were in that condition because of the choice a member of the structure of the Church, the Arquidiócesis de San José, had made of them, which makes even clearer the attribution of the damage caused to the patrimony of the entity that stands, legally and patrimonially speaking, as the head of such organization—in this case, the Temporalidades of the Church.\n\nIt is clear that the Trial Court took into consideration the fault *in vigilando* that the Parish Priest was shown to have incurred, who did not exercise due supervision over those present and, above all, the Ministers of the Eucharist and the members of the pastoral ministry, since regardless of whether he arrives five minutes before Mass begins, this does not exempt him from taking other types of precautions for the protection of minors, given that the Church opens approximately one hour before Mass begins, as evidenced by the testimonial evidence, and those in charge of preparing the Eucharist enter to carry out their duties, all of which implies a lack of supervision that inexorably entails joint and several civil liability for the Church, in this case for what occurred in the Parish of […], juridically represented by the Temporalidades of the Archdiocese. Note that the Parish Priest can dismiss the Ministers of the Eucharist and the members of the pastoral ministry in the event they prove unworthy, from which it follows that, if he possesses this power, it is because he must be watchful of their performance, given that they carry out ecclesiastical functions by delegation—sufficient cause for this duty of supervision, a duty not exclusive to paid tasks, as the appellant seems to understand it. If the priest relied so heavily on his good judgment when choosing and did not concern himself with supervising, that is one more reason to establish the origin of the objective liability of the patrimony of the Church, in whose name the priest and later his appointees provide their services to the community of believers.\n\nIt is not only Article 1048.3 of the Civil Code that supports this joint and several civil liability, since it closely links the fault *in vigilando* with that of *in eligendo*, but also Article 106, subsection 3, of the Penal Code when it provides: “The civil action of the participants in a criminal act is joint and several with regard to civil liability. Likewise jointly and severally obliged with the perpetrators of the criminal act for the payment of damages and losses are: … The natural and juridical persons who own establishments of any nature whatsoever in which a criminal act is committed by their administrators, dependents, and other workers in their service,” a provision in which the Church is undoubtedly and with even greater reason included, not only because of the relationship that exists between the Church as a juridical person and a dependent acting in its service, as is the case of the figure of the Minister of Communion, but also because in the catechetical order, the trust that society places in all its representatives holds a specific weight. Hence, the reasoning the Trial Court gave to grant the civil action for damages is not only consistent with the legislation regulating extracontractual civil liability, but also that, in accordance with the considerations set forth, the Church is an entity that must answer civilly, such that the exception of *lack of passive standing to be sued (falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva)* could not succeed. Moreover, from a reading of the judgment, it is evident that the judges did not derive the juridical link from an employment relationship, but rather from a fault *in eligendo* on the part of the Parish Priest, who is the representative of the Church and acts by delegation according to the ecclesiastical structure. It was therefore not necessary for him to be given a hearing as a civil party, since it is the Church as a juridical person that must answer civilly on a joint and several basis, for which the litis must be considered fully joined with the lawsuit against the Temporalidades of the Archdiocese, and no attempt to redirect the lawsuit against the Parish Priest can be entertained, as he was to limit his participation merely—as occurred in this case—to that of a witness who could report on his actions within the accused facts. Consequently, the appeal filed by the representative of the civil defendant is dismissed.-”" }