{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-331543", "citation": "Res. 01338-2022 Tribunal de Apelación de Trabajo del I Circuito Judicial de San José", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Reconocimiento de antigüedad para cesantía en sustitución patronal dentro del Grupo INS", "title_en": "Recognition of seniority for severance in employer substitution within INS Group", "summary_es": "El Tribunal de Apelación de Trabajo confirma la sentencia que condenó al INS a pagar una suma por auxilio de cesantía a una trabajadora que laboró primero para INS Servicios S.A. y luego, tras devolver la cesantía como requisito, continuó en el propio INS. El tribunal sostiene que la posición del INS es jurídicamente inaceptable: no es válido exigir la devolución de la cesantía para luego desconocer la antigüedad acumulada. Con base en los artículos 37 y 686 del Código de Trabajo, se determina que operó una sustitución patronal o, en todo caso, una continuidad laboral dentro del conglomerado público “Grupo INS”, lo que obliga al nuevo patrono a reconocer el tiempo de servicio previo. También analiza la naturaleza de empresa pública de las sociedades anónimas propiedad del INS (creadas bajo la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros), concluyendo que tanto la relación con INS Servicios S.A. como con el INS se rigieron por el derecho público, y que la devolución de la cesantía no implicó renuncia al derecho a su cobro futuro.", "summary_en": "The Labor Appeals Court upholds the ruling that ordered INS to pay severance to an employee who first worked for INS Servicios S.A. and then, after returning the severance as a requirement, continued working directly for INS. The court finds INS's position legally unacceptable: it cannot demand repayment of severance and then disregard the accrued seniority. Based on Articles 37 and 686 of the Labor Code, the court determines that an employer substitution took place, or in any case, a labor continuity within the public conglomerate 'INS Group,' obligating the new employer to recognize the prior service time. It also analyzes the public-company nature of the corporations owned by INS (created under the Insurance Market Regulatory Law), concluding that both the relationship with INS Servicios S.A. and INS were governed by public law, and that returning severance did not amount to waiving the right to its future payment.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Apelación de Trabajo del I Circuito Judicial de San José", "date": "30/11/2022", "year": "2022", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "cesantía", "sustitución patronal", "empresa pública", "auxilio de cesantía", "antigüedad", "derecho laboral público", "Grupo INS", "Código de Trabajo Art. 37" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "30", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "30", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "37", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "37", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "686", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "686", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores", "article": "55", "doc_id": "norm-29302", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7732", "article": "55", "doc_id": "norm-29302", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "article": "2", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8422", "article": "2", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros, incluye reforma integral a la Ley N° 12 del 30 de octubre de 1924", "article": "7", "doc_id": "norm-63749", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8653", "article": "7", "doc_id": "norm-63749", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros, incluye reforma integral a la Ley N° 12 del 30 de octubre de 1924", "article": "47", "doc_id": "norm-63749", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8653", "article": "47", "doc_id": "norm-63749", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "cesantía", "sustitución patronal", "INS", "empresa pública", "antigüedad laboral", "Grupo INS", "devolución de cesantía", "derecho laboral público" ], "keywords_en": [ "severance pay", "employer substitution", "INS", "public enterprise", "seniority", "INS Group", "severance repayment", "public labor law" ], "excerpt_es": "No resulta de recibo la tesis de la parte apelante, en que se debía definir si las sumas recibidas por la actora por parte de INS Servicios S.A, como empresa subsidiaria del INS, efectivamente forman parte de los fondos públicos que dicha sociedad administra. Lo anterior es irrelevante, por cuanto la antigüedad laborada de la actora, la debe reconocer el instituto coaccionado sin importar que deba pagarse con recursos públicos o no. La cesantía debe cancelarse a la trabajadora. Siendo ambas entidades de naturaleza de empresa pública, sus recursos también lo serán.\n\nEs muy clara la norma, en que la compensación entre los salarios y la cesantía, opera solamente si la parte trabajadora, efectivamente recibió y no devolvió los dineros por cesantía. En caso de devolución de los dineros, como ocurre en la especie, la actora siempre conservó su derecho a esa antigüedad laborada y al rubro de cesantía generado. Pues la relación con el instituto demandado finaliza nuevamente con derecho a ese pago. Debe confirmarse lo resuelto en este punto.", "excerpt_en": "The appellant's argument—that it was necessary to determine whether the sums received by the plaintiff from INS Servicios S.A., as a subsidiary of INS, actually constituted the public funds managed by that company—is not admissible. This is irrelevant, because the plaintiff's accrued seniority must be recognized by the defendant institute regardless of whether it must be paid with public funds. Severance must be paid to the worker. As both entities are public companies, their resources are also public.\n\nThe rule is very clear: the offset between wages and severance only applies if the worker actually received and did not return the severance money. In the event the money is returned, as occurred in this case, the plaintiff always retained her right to that accrued seniority and the severance benefits generated. Therefore, the employment relationship with the defendant institute, upon termination, once again entitles her to that payment. The decision on this point must be upheld.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Condemnation upheld", "label_es": "Confirmada condena", "summary_en": "The court confirms the judgment ordering INS to pay the worker the sum of ₡866,780.23 for previously returned severance and notice, recognizing the seniority accrued at INS Servicios S.A.", "summary_es": "Se confirma la sentencia que condenó al INS a pagar a la trabajadora la suma de ¢866,780.23 por cesantía y preaviso anteriormente devueltos, reconociendo la antigüedad laborada en INS Servicios S.A." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Séptimo, sobre el fondo", "quote_en": "Based on this provision, there is no legal excuse for the defendant institute to evade its responsibility regarding the return of the money it once required the plaintiff to repay.", "quote_es": "Con base en dicha norma, no hay excusa legal para que el instituto demandado evada su responsabilidad en cuanto a la devolución de los dineros que en su momento le impuso a la parte actora reintegrara." }, { "context": "Séptimo, sobre el fondo", "quote_en": "The obligation imposed by article 686 of the Labor Code regarding the return of severance for workers who choose to continue working in the public sector does not imply a waiver of the right to future severance pay.", "quote_es": "La obligación impuesta en el artículo 686 del Código de Trabajo, en cuanto a la devolución de la cesantía a los trabajadores que opten por continuar laborando en el sector público, no implica una renuncia al cobro de la futura cesantía." }, { "context": "Séptimo, sobre el fondo", "quote_en": "The rule is very clear: the offset between wages and severance only applies if the worker actually received and did not return the severance money.", "quote_es": "Es muy clara la norma, en que la compensación entre los salarios y la cesantía, opera solamente si la parte trabajadora, efectivamente recibió y no devolvió los dineros por cesantía." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-8045", "citation": "Ley 5089", "title_en": "Labor Code", "title_es": "Código de Trabajo", "doc_type": "law", "date": "29/08/1943", "year": "1943" }, { "id": "norm-29302", "citation": "Ley 7732", "title_en": "Securities Market Regulatory Law", "title_es": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores", "doc_type": "law", "date": "17/12/1997", "year": "1997" }, { "id": "norm-53738", "citation": "Ley 8422", "title_en": "Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office", "title_es": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "doc_type": "law", "date": "06/10/2004", "year": "2004" }, { "id": "norm-63749", "citation": "Ley 8653", "title_en": "Insurance Market Regulatory Law", "title_es": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros, incluye reforma integral a la Ley N°", "doc_type": "law", "date": "22/07/2008", "year": "2008" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-29302", "citation": "Ley 7732", "title_en": "Securities Market Regulatory Law", "title_es": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores", "doc_type": "law", "date": "17/12/1997", "year": "1997" }, { "id": "norm-53738", "citation": "Ley 8422", "title_en": "Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office", "title_es": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "doc_type": "law", "date": "06/10/2004", "year": "2004" }, { "id": "norm-63749", "citation": "Ley 8653", "title_en": "Insurance Market Regulatory Law", "title_es": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros, incluye reforma integral a la Ley N°", "doc_type": "law", "date": "22/07/2008", "year": "2008" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-8045", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código de Trabajo" }, { "target_id": "norm-29302", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores" }, { "target_id": "norm-53738", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública" }, { "target_id": "norm-63749", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros, incluye reforma integral a la Ley N° 12 del 30 de octubre de 1924" } ], "external": [ { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0007-209260", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0007-209260" }, { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-642123", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-642123" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-331543", "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": "30", "art_scij": "47056", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "05 May 2022", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "130678", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "37", "art_scij": "47063", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "05 May 2022", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "130678", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "686", "art_scij": "205498", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "05 May 2022", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "130678", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "55", "art_scij": "137220", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-29302", "norm_fecha": "21 Dic 2022", "norm_name": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores", "norm_num": "7732", "norm_ver": "133994", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "2", "art_scij": "3", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_fecha": "05 May 2022", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_ver": "130556", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "7", "art_scij": "8", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-63749", "norm_detalle": "Inciso a, b y c)", "norm_fecha": "14 Abr 2021", "norm_name": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros, incluye reforma integral a la Ley N° 12 del 30 de octubre de 1924", "norm_num": "8653", "norm_ver": "128066", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "47", "art_scij": "48", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-63749", "norm_fecha": "14 Abr 2021", "norm_name": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros, incluye reforma integral a la Ley N° 12 del 30 de octubre de 1924", "norm_num": "8653", "norm_ver": "128066", "tipo_norma": "Ley" } ], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-29302", "norm_num": "7732", "norm_name": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "17/12/1997" }, { "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "06/10/2004" }, { "doc_id": "norm-63749", "norm_num": "8653", "norm_name": "Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros, incluye reforma integral a la Ley N°", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "22/07/2008" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [ "sen-1-0007-209260", "sen-1-0034-642123" ], "temas_y_subtemas": [ { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Análisis sobre la naturaleza jurídica del INS y de sus sociedades anónimas" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Deber del INS de reconocer los años trabajados en sociedad anónima" }, { "id": 3, "nombre": "Procedente pago de monto de auxilio de cesantía a “auxiliar administrativa” del INS Servicios S.A que por sustitución patronal, continuó labores con el INS" } ], "id": 1, "nombre": "Auxilio de cesantía" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Análisis sobre la naturaleza jurídica del INS y de sus sociedades anónimas" }, { "id": 2, "nombre": "Deber del INS de reconocer los años trabajados en sociedad anónima" }, { "id": 3, "nombre": "Procedente pago de monto de auxilio de cesantía a “auxiliar administrativa” del INS Servicios S.A que por sustitución patronal, continuó labores con el INS" } ], "id": 2, "nombre": "Instituto Nacional de Seguros" } ], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "\"SÉTIMO:SOBRE EL FONDO:[...] En relación al primer agravio, reclama la parte codemandada recurrente, que hay violación sustancial del artículo 686 del Código de Trabajo. Este agravio no resulta de recibo. El instituto codemandado, reitera lo que ha sido su posición en juicio, que bien se resume en la sentencia recurrida, y es que, resulta ser contradictoria e ilegal, pues por un lado, manifiesta que a la actora correspondía devolver la cesantía que le había sido liquidada ante el despido con responsabilidad patronal realizado por la empresa INS Servicios S.A, al ser contratada por el INS al día siguiente, y por otro lado, no quiere reconocer esa antigüedad laborada a la trabajadora, a raíz de la nueva terminación laboral acaecida en fecha el 26 de mayo del 2019, bajo sus ordenes patronales.[...] Tal como lo describe la autoridad A Quo, la posición del instituto demandado es inaceptable jurídicamente. De forma independiente de que se trate ambas organizaciones como de naturaleza pública (como lo sostiene la parte recurrente, en un primer momento), lo cierto es que, la actora no recibió la cesantía por la antigüedad laborada para su anterior patrono, sino que, procedió a devolver esos dineros, y al haber asumido la relación laboral en forma continua el instituto demandada, el articulo 37 del Código de Trabajo, da protección a la parte trabajadora de cuando ocurre la sustitución de un patrono. Esta norma protectora, preceptúa que, no se afectará los contratos de trabajo existentes, en perjuicio de la parte trabajadora. El patrono sustituido será solidariamente responsable con el nuevo patrono por las obligaciones derivadas de los contratos o de la ley, nacidas antes de las fecha de la sustitución y hasta por el término de seis meses. Concluido este plazo, la responsabilidad subsistirá únicamente para el nuevo patrono. Con base en dicha norma, no hay excusa legal para que el instituto demandado evada su responsabilidad en cuanto a la devolución de los dineros que en su momento le impuso a la parte actora reintegrara. Esto es lo mismo que la parte accionante hubiese reclamado al instituto demandado la antigüedad laborada anteriormente para INS Servicios S.A, para el reconocimiento del auxilio de cesantía que le corresponde tomando en cuenta toda la antigüedad laborada y con base en los salarios proporcionales de los últimos seis meses laborados, que es lo que corresponde (artículo 30 del Código de Trabajo). Lo que torna en innecesaria cualquier discusión de si era procedente ese reintegro de la cesantía o no por parte de la trabajadora. Fue un hecho consumado en que la actora devolvió esos dineros de cesantía por el tiempo laborado anteriormente y ahora hay que reconocerlos ya sea pagando los montos que se habían liquidado (que es la petición de la actora), o bien, proceder con su pago en la liquidación laboral actual. Se avala la postura expuesta en la sentencia recurrida, la obligación impuesta a cargo del instituto demandado, lo es por cuanto no ha reconocido ese tiempo de cesantía, que ahora la parte trabajadora reclama en esa suma que devolvió otrora, de OCHOCIENTOS SESENTA Y SEIS MIL SETECIENTOS OCHENTA COLONES CON VEINTITRÉS CÉNTIMOS (¢866.780,23), correspondiente a la cesantía y preaviso pagada por INS Servicios S.A. No existe la alegada infracción al artículo 686 del Código de Trabajo, con lo dispuesto en la sentencia recurrida. La parte demandada está actualmente obligada a reconocer ese tiempo de servicio y cesantía devengada, incluso con el salario proporcional de los últimos seis meses laborados, sin embargo, la actora lo que solicita es ese calculo de cesantía y preaviso que reintegró en otro momento. Sobre la creación de la sociedades anónimas de las cuales un ente público conserva el capital social, y por medio de las cuales realiza actividad comercial, es muy clara tanto la normativa como la jurisprudencia, que apuntan a su naturaleza jurídica, y en especial, el régimen laboral aplicable a sus empleados, lo cual es conveniente clarificar para fundamentar en la obligación impuesta en sentencia. La Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros de Costa Rica N°8653 del 12 de agosto de 2008, en su artículo 47, al indicar: \"Para efectos de desarrollar la actividad aseguradora se autoriza a las siguientes instituciones: (...) b) Al INS para que constituya, en forma conjunta con los bancos públicos del Estado, una única sociedad anónima, la cual tendrá como objeto social exclusivo el ejercicio de la actividad aseguradora en los términos del inciso a) del artículo 7 de esta Ley. c) Al Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal y al INS para que constituyan, en forma conjunta, una única sociedad anónima, la cual tendrá como objeto social exclusivo el ejercicio de la actividad aseguradora en los términos del inciso a) del artículo 7 de esta Ley. En dicha sociedad podrán participar como socios otros agentes de la economía social. Para todos los casos de los incisos b) y c), al menos el cincuenta y uno por ciento (51%) de las acciones deberán ser propiedad del INS. A estas sociedades se les aplicará, en todos sus extremos, lo dispuesto en esta Ley para entidades aseguradoras. Ninguna de las sociedades creadas al amparo de este artículo contarán con la garantía del Estado.\". A su vez, esta misma Ley, en su artículo 55, contempló, lo siguiente: \"Constitución de sociedades. El Instituto Nacional de Seguros y cada uno de los bancos públicos quedarán autorizados para constituir sendas sociedades, en los términos indicados en el artículo anterior, con el fin único de operar su propio puesto de bolsa y realizar, exclusivamente, las actividades indicadas en el artículo 56. Asimismo, se autorizan para que cada uno constituya una sociedad administradora de fondos de inversión y una operadora de pensiones, en los términos establecidos en esta ley y en la Ley No. 7523 de 7 julio de 1995, según corresponda. En tales casos, los puestos, las sociedades administradoras de fondos de inversión y las operadoras de pensiones, deberán mantener sus operaciones y su contabilidad totalmente independientes de la institución a la que pertenezcan. Esta disposición se aplicará igualmente a los puestos de bolsa privados, en relación con sus socios y con otras sociedades pertenecientes al mismo grupo de interés económico.\". Con base en esta normativa, es claro que esta ley vino a autorizar la constitución de este tipo de sociedades al Instituto Nacional de Seguros, estableciendo la misma ley, que tanto la operatividad, y contabilidad de dichas sociedades debe ser independiente de la institución a la que pertenezcan, atribuyendo una naturaleza de empresa pública a ese tipo de sociedades. Se constituye una persona jurídica independiente del ente público propietario. Así mismo, el Reglamento No. 27503-H del 17 de diciembre de 1998, que desarrolla el artículo 55 indicado de la ley No. 7732, denominado Reglamento para la Constitución de los Puestos de Bolsa, Sociedades Administradoras de Fondos y Operadoras de Pensiones Complementarias de los Bancos Públicos y del Instituto Nacional de Seguros, en lo de interés, en su articulo 2° regula la obligatoriedad de la figura de la sociedad anónima, y así tanto los puestos de bolsa, sociedades administradoras de fondos de inversión y operadoras de planes de pensión complementarias de los bancos y entes públicos deberán constituirse como sociedades anónimas. Establece además que, estas sociedades tendrán el carácter de empresas públicas; sin embargo su actividad como participantes en el mercado de valores se regirá de conformidad con las disposiciones de la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores y de la Ley N° 7523 del 7 de julio de 1995 (Régimen Privado de Pensiones Complementarias), según corresponda, incluyendo lo referente a las coberturas patrimoniales y las garantías por volumen de actividad y riesgos asumidos. Asimismo, estas sociedades se regirán por el Código de Comercio en lo referente a la autonomía patrimonial y fusiones o absorciones entre ellas; disposiciones que serán de aplicación uniforme tanto para las empresas públicas como privadas. Lo indicado en este artículo deberá figurar en la publicidad que realicen estas empresas públicas. Dado lo anterior, la naturaleza que ostenta la sociedad codemandada es la de una empresa pública propiedad del Instituto Nacional de Seguros, y por ley, en forma excepcional se utilizó la figura de la sociedad anónima para efectos de darle personería independiente a la del instituto, con el fin de que organice la actividad de administrar los fondos a su cargo. [...] La Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en resolución No. 00648-2015, ya abordó este tema al que también la Sala Constitucional no ha resultado ajena, y señaló lo siguiente: \"Estas sociedades anónimas se encuentran separadas del ente autónomo en lo tocante al control de presupuesto y manejo de recursos, pero no son ajenas al esquema de la institución autónoma a la que pertenecen. Es por ello, que no puede decirse que estas sociedades anónimas gocen de todas las características de una sociedad anónima en el ámbito del derecho privado. Tal y como lo dijo la Sala Constitucional en la sentencia Nº.6531-2002 de las 14:57 horas del 3 de julio de 2002: “Por ello, estas sociedades participan necesariamente de la naturaleza del ente creador; es decir, son empresas del ente fundador y en consecuencia del Estado”. Es importante rescatar lo dispuesto en el artículo 2 del Reglamento para la Constitución de los Puestos de Bolsa, Sociedades Administradoras de Fondos de Inversión y Operadoras de Pensiones Complementarias de los Bancos Públicos y del Instituto Nacional de Seguros que expone:…deberán constituirse como sociedades anónimas. Estas sociedades tendrán el carácter de empresas públicas”. De lo esbozado líneas atrás, resulta claro que la naturaleza de la demandada es pública y por ende, se aplica el derecho Administrativo y no el contenido del Código de Trabajo. Ahora bien, también debe analizarse el marco jurídico que regula las relaciones las relaciones entre el INS Valores Puesto de Bolsa S.A. y sus trabajadores. La Procuraduría General de la República, indicó –con ocasión de una consulta hecha por la actora-, en el Dictamen C-190-2013 del 8 de setiembre de 2013, lo siguiente: “Con fundamento en lo expuesto, esta Procuraduría arriba a las siguientes conclusiones: 1.- Corresponde a cada empresa pública determinar cuáles de sus servidores son funcionarios gerenciales y de fiscalización superior. Sin perjuicio de ello, podemos indicar, en términos generales, que los funcionarios gerenciales son los que ocupan puestos de alto nivel (miembros de juntas directivas, gerentes, directores ejecutivos, etc.) y que los funcionarios de fiscalización superior son los que resguardan el buen funcionamiento de la empresa (auditor, subauditor, y otros que les resulten homólogos). 2. Las personas que ocupan cargos gerenciales y de fiscalización superior son funcionarios públicos en sentido estricto, por lo que de conformidad con el artículo 112.1 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, su relación con la empresa se rige por el Derecho Administrativo”. En el mismo sentido, en la Opinión Jurídica Nº C-153-2008 del 8 de mayo de 2008, indicó: “En relación con el segundo asunto, es decir, sobre el régimen de empleo en la empresa pública, la jurisprudencia constitucional, laboral y administrativa es conteste en el sentido de que es mixto, o sea, que hay relaciones jurídicas regentadas por el derecho laboral o mercantil, en cuyo caso, las personas que laboran para este tipo de empresas, no son empleados públicos, por un lado; y relaciones jurídicas –de la clase gerencial- que están reguladas por el derecho estatutario y, consecuentemente son FUNCIONARIOS PÚBLICOS”.\". Aplicando esta jurisprudencia al caso concreto, se puede concluir que se está en presencia en relación a la sociedad codemandada de una empresa pública que le pertenece al instituto asegurador. La actora manifiesta en su demanda que laboró como plataformista, y en las acciones de personal que aparecen a imágenes 21 al 40 del archivo de la demanda ingresado al expediente electrónico en fecha 22/11/2019 a las 11:07:15 horas, expedidas por la Subdirección de Recursos Humanos del INS, se indica que el puesto de trabajo que desempeñó la actora es de Asistente de Seguros I. De acuerdo con las copias del contrato de trabajo de imágenes 80 a 106 y acciones de personal de imágenes 133 a 138, el puesto que la actora desempeño para INS Servicios S.A, fue de Auxiliar de Oficina de la categoría de Administrativo IC. En ese contexto, y principalmente por lo contemplado en la normativa de cita, la parte actora fue un empleada pública, por consiguiente, su relación con la sociedad codemandada se regía por el derecho público y después con el instituto, con igual naturaleza. Adicionalmente, hay que considerar, que tanto la sociedad codemandada como el instituto accionado, siempre se han identificado como Grupo INS, dentro de la papelería que consta en autos, lo que hace que aun en el caso de que la sociedad codemandada se le considere una entidad privada o entidad pública, operó un conglomerado o grupo empresarial, y por ende, también operó una sustitución patronal en el primer caso y una continuidad laboral en el sector público en el segundo supuesto. Ambas figuras, salvaguardan los derechos laborales que se generen por antigüedad de la parte trabajadora. Entonces desde cualquier punto de vista que se valore, la parte actora mantiene y conserva el derecho a que la antigüedad laborada anteriormente para INS Servicios S.A, le sea cancelada por el instituto codemandado. Debe mantenerse lo resuelto en este punto.\n\nNo resulta de recibo la tesis de la parte apelante, en que se debía definir si las sumas recibidas por la actora por parte de INS Servicios S.A, como empresa subsidiaria del INS, efectivamente forman parte de los fondos públicos que dicha sociedad administra. Lo anterior es irrelevante, por cuanto la antigüedad laborada de la actora, la debe reconocer el instituto coaccionado sin importar que deba pagarse con recursos públicos o no. La cesantía debe cancelarse a la trabajadora. Siendo ambas entidades de naturaleza de empresa pública, sus recursos también lo serán. En ese mismo sentido, el reconocimiento de la antigüedad para efectos del pago de cesantía por parte del INS, al momento de finalizar la relación laboral en el año 2019, está vinculado con el pago que se está ordenando en la sentencia recurrida, por cuanto no le reconoció a la actora lo laborado anteriormente. De ahí su reclamo. Lo que no se puede avalar es que, a la actora no se le reconozca ese tiempo para efectos de la indemnización por cesantía, sin que sea aplicable la figura de la compensación de la cesantía, que se cita de la jurisprudencia laboral señalada por la parte apelante, pues la actora tuvo que devolver el monto de cesantía liquidada anteriormente. No ocurre un doble pago de cesantía, porque además de que la actora no recibió el pago (tuvo que devolverlo), ese tiempo laborado le debe ser reconocido. Conforme se analizó supra, tanto la relación laboral con INS Servicios S.A,. como con el INS se trató de vínculos de naturaleza pública. Por ello, el INS debe reconocer los años trabajados en esa sociedad anónima. Por otro lado, no existe ninguna violación al artículo 686 del Código de Trabajo, por cuanto, la actora había procedido con la devolución del concepto de cesantía que había reconocido la sociedad codemandada, como requisito para ingresar a laborar a las filas del instituto codemandado. La obligación impuesta en el artículo 686 del Código de Trabajo, en cuanto a la devolución de la cesantía a los trabajadores que opten por continuar laborando en el sector público, no implica una renuncia al cobro de la futura cesantía, cuando después finalice la relación laboral, por causa igual que genere el derecho de cesantía, como aparece mal entenderlo la parte recurrente.[...] Es muy clara la norma, en que la compensación entre los salarios y la cesantía, opera solamente si la parte trabajadora, efectivamente recibió y no devolvió los dineros por cesantía. En caso de devolución de los dineros, como ocurre en la especie, la actora siempre conservó su derecho a esa antigüedad laborada y al rubro de cesantía generado. Pues la relación con el instituto demandado finaliza nuevamente con derecho a ese pago. Debe confirmarse lo resuelto en este punto. [...].\"", "body_en_text": "**SEVENTH: ON THE MERITS:** [...]\n\nRegarding the first grievance, the appellant co-defendant claims that there is a substantial violation of Article 686 of the Código de Trabajo. This grievance is not admissible. The co-defendant institute reiterates what has been its position in the proceedings, which is well summarized in the appealed judgment, and that is that it is contradictory and illegal, because on one hand, it states that the plaintiff was required to return the severance pay (cesantía) that had been settled to her upon the dismissal with employer liability (despido con responsabilidad patronal) carried out by the company INS Servicios S.A, upon being hired by INS the following day, and on the other hand, it does not want to recognize that seniority (antigüedad) worked by the worker, as a result of the new employment termination that occurred on May 26, 2019, under its employer's orders. [...] As described by the A Quo authority, the position of the defendant institute is legally unacceptable. Regardless of whether both organizations are considered public in nature (as the appellant maintains, initially), the fact is that the plaintiff did not receive the severance pay for the seniority worked for her previous employer, but rather proceeded to return those monies, and since the defendant institute continuously assumed the employment relationship, Article 37 of the Código de Trabajo provides protection to the worker when a substitution of an employer (sustitución de un patrono) occurs. This protective rule prescribes that existing employment contracts shall not be affected to the detriment of the worker. The substituted employer shall be jointly and severally liable with the new employer for obligations arising from the contracts or by law, born before the date of the substitution and for a term of up to six months. After this period, liability shall subsist solely for the new employer. Based on said rule, there is no legal excuse for the defendant institute to evade its responsibility regarding the return of the monies that it imposed on the plaintiff to reimburse at the time. This is the same as if the plaintiff had claimed from the defendant institute the seniority previously worked for INS Servicios S.A, for the recognition of the severance pay assistance (auxilio de cesantía) owed to her taking into account all the seniority worked and based on the proportional salaries of the last six months worked, which is what is due (Article 30 of the Código de Trabajo). This renders unnecessary any discussion of whether that reimbursement of the severance pay by the worker was appropriate or not. It is a fait accompli that the plaintiff returned those severance monies for the time previously worked and now they must be recognized either by paying the amounts that had been settled (which is the plaintiff's request), or by proceeding with its payment in the current employment settlement. The position set forth in the appealed judgment is endorsed; the obligation imposed upon the defendant institute exists because it has not recognized that period of severance pay, which the worker now claims in that sum she once returned, of EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY COLONES AND TWENTY-THREE CÉNTIMOS (¢866,780.23), corresponding to the severance pay and notice pay (preaviso) paid by INS Servicios S.A. There is no alleged violation of Article 686 of the Código de Trabajo, with what was ordered in the appealed judgment. The defendant is currently obliged to recognize that period of service and earned severance pay, even with the proportional salary of the last six months worked; however, what the plaintiff requests is that calculation of severance pay and notice pay that she reimbursed at another time. Regarding the creation of corporations (sociedades anónimas) in which a public entity retains the share capital, and through which it carries out commercial activity, both the regulations and case law are very clear, pointing to their legal nature, and especially, the applicable employment regime for their employees, which is convenient to clarify to substantiate the obligation imposed in the judgment. The Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros de Costa Rica N°8653 of August 12, 2008, in its Article 47, states: \"For the purposes of developing insurance activity, the following institutions are authorized: (...) b) To INS to constitute, jointly with the public banks of the State, a single corporation, which shall have as its exclusive corporate purpose the exercise of insurance activity under the terms of subsection a) of Article 7 of this Law. c) To Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal and INS to constitute, jointly, a single corporation, which shall have as its exclusive corporate purpose the exercise of insurance activity under the terms of subsection a) of Article 7 of this Law. Other social economy agents may participate as partners in said corporation. For all cases in subsections b) and c), at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the shares must be owned by INS. These corporations shall be subject, in all respects, to the provisions of this Law for insurance entities. None of the corporations created under the coverage of this article shall have the guarantee of the State.\" In turn, this same Law, in its Article 55, contemplated the following: \"Constitution of companies. The Instituto Nacional de Seguros and each of the public banks are authorized to constitute respective companies, under the terms indicated in the previous article, for the sole purpose of operating their own brokerage house (puesto de bolsa) and carrying out, exclusively, the activities indicated in Article 56. Likewise, they are authorized so that each one constitutes a fund management company (sociedad administradora de fondos de inversión) and a pension operator (operadora de pensiones), under the terms established in this law and in Law No. 7523 of July 7, 1995, as applicable. In such cases, the brokerage houses, the fund management companies, and the pension operators must maintain their operations and accounting totally independent from the institution to which they belong. This provision shall apply equally to private brokerage houses, in relation to their partners and other companies belonging to the same economic interest group.\" Based on this regulation, it is clear that this law authorized the constitution of this type of company to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, with the same law establishing that both the operations and accounting of such companies must be independent from the institution to which they belong, attributing a nature of public enterprise (empresa pública) to that type of company. An independent legal entity from the owning public entity is constituted. Likewise, Regulation No. 27503-H of December 17, 1998, which develops the indicated Article 55 of Law No. 7732, called Reglamento para la Constitución de los Puestos de Bolsa, Sociedades Administradoras de Fondos y Operadoras de Pensiones Complementarias de los Bancos Públicos y del Instituto Nacional de Seguros, in what is of interest, in its Article 2 regulates the obligatory nature of the corporation figure, and thus both the brokerage houses, fund management companies, and complementary pension plan operators of public banks and entities must be constituted as corporations. It also establishes that these companies shall have the character of public enterprises; however, their activity as participants in the securities market shall be governed in accordance with the provisions of the Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores and Law N° 7523 of July 7, 1995 (Régimen Privado de Pensiones Complementarias), as applicable, including matters concerning capital coverage and guarantees for volume of activity and assumed risks. Likewise, these companies shall be governed by the Código de Comercio regarding asset autonomy and mergers or absorptions between them; provisions that shall be uniformly applicable to both public and private enterprises. What is indicated in this article must appear in the advertising carried out by these public enterprises. Given the foregoing, the nature held by the co-defendant company is that of a public enterprise owned by the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, and by law, the corporation figure was exceptionally used for the purpose of giving it independent legal status from that of the institute, in order for it to organize the activity of managing the funds under its charge. [...] The Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia in resolution No. 00648-2015, already addressed this issue, to which the Sala Constitucional has also not been unconnected, and stated the following: \"These corporations are separated from the autonomous entity regarding budget control and resource management, but they are not alien to the scheme of the autonomous institution to which they belong. It is for this reason that it cannot be said that these corporations enjoy all the characteristics of a corporation within the scope of private law. As the Sala Constitucional stated in judgment Nº.6531-2002 of 14:57 hours on July 3, 2002: 'Therefore, these companies necessarily share the nature of the creating entity; that is, they are enterprises of the founding entity and consequently of the State.' It is important to highlight the provision of Article 2 of the Reglamento para la Constitución de los Puestos de Bolsa, Sociedades Administradoras de Fondos de Inversión y Operadoras de Pensiones Complementarias de los Bancos Públicos y del Instituto Nacional de Seguros, which states: …they must be constituted as corporations. These companies shall have the character of public enterprises.\" From what has been outlined above, it is clear that the nature of the defendant is public and, therefore, Administrative Law applies and not the content of the Código de Trabajo. However, the legal framework that regulates the relations between INS Valores Puesto de Bolsa S.A. and its workers must also be analyzed. The Procuraduría General de la República indicated—on the occasion of a consultation made by the plaintiff—in Dictamen C-190-2013 of September 8, 2013, the following: \"Based on the foregoing, this Procuraduría reaches the following conclusions: 1.- It corresponds to each public enterprise to determine which of its employees are managerial and senior oversight officials (funcionarios gerenciales y de fiscalización superior). Without prejudice to this, we can indicate, in general terms, that the managerial officials are those who occupy high-level positions (members of boards of directors, managers, executive directors, etc.) and that the senior oversight officials are those who safeguard the proper functioning of the enterprise (auditor, sub-auditor, and others who are homologous to them). 2. The persons who occupy managerial and senior oversight positions are public officials in the strict sense, therefore, in accordance with article 112.1 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, their relationship with the enterprise is governed by Administrative Law.\" In the same vein, in Opinión Jurídica Nº C-153-2008 of May 8, 2008, it indicated: \"In relation to the second matter, that is, about the employment regime in the public enterprise, the constitutional, labor, and administrative case law is unanimous in the sense that it is mixed, that is, there are legal relationships governed by labor or commercial law, in which case, the people who work for this type of enterprise are not public employees, on one hand; and legal relationships—of the managerial class—that are regulated by statutory law and, consequently, are PUBLIC OFFICIALS.\" Applying this case law to the specific case, it can be concluded that, in relation to the co-defendant company, one is in the presence of a public enterprise that belongs to the insurance institute. The plaintiff states in her complaint that she worked as a platform operator (plataformista), and in the personnel actions appearing in images 21 to 40 of the complaint file entered into the electronic docket on 11/22/2019 at 11:07:15 a.m., issued by the Subdirección de Recursos Humanos of INS, it is indicated that the job position held by the plaintiff is Insurance Assistant I (Asistente de Seguros I). According to the copies of the employment contract in images 80 to 106 and personnel actions in images 133 to 138, the position that the plaintiff held for INS Servicios S.A was Office Auxiliary (Auxiliar de Oficina) in the Administrative IC category. In that context, and principally due to what is contemplated in the cited regulations, the plaintiff was a public employee (empleada pública), consequently, her relationship with the co-defendant company was governed by public law, and later with the institute, with the same nature. Additionally, it must be considered that both the co-defendant company and the defendant institute have always identified themselves as Grupo INS, within the documentation appearing in the case file, which means that even if the co-defendant company were considered a private entity or a public entity, a conglomerate or business group (conglomerado o grupo empresarial) operated, and therefore, an employer substitution (sustitución patronal) also operated in the first case and a labor continuity (continuidad laboral) in the public sector in the second scenario. Both figures safeguard labor rights generated by seniority on the part of the worker. Therefore, from any point of view assessed, the plaintiff maintains and retains the right to have the seniority previously worked for INS Servicios S.A paid to her by the co-defendant institute. What was decided on this point must be upheld.\n\nThe thesis of the appellant that it was necessary to define whether the sums received by the plaintiff from INS Servicios S.A, as a subsidiary company of INS, effectively form part of the public funds that said company administers is not admissible. The foregoing is irrelevant, because the seniority worked by the plaintiff must be recognized by the co-defendant institute regardless of whether it must be paid with public resources or not. The severance pay must be paid to the worker. Since both entities are public enterprise in nature, their resources will also be so. In that same sense, the recognition of seniority for the purposes of payment of severance pay by INS, upon termination of the employment relationship in 2019, is linked to the payment being ordered in the appealed judgment, because it did not recognize the plaintiff's previously worked time. Hence her claim. What cannot be endorsed is that this time was not recognized to the plaintiff for purposes of severance pay compensation, without the figure of compensation of severance pay (compensación de la cesantía), cited from the labor case law indicated by the appellant, being applicable, because the plaintiff had to return the previously settled severance amount. No double payment of severance pay occurs, because in addition to the plaintiff not having received the payment (she had to return it), that time worked must be recognized to her. As analyzed supra, both the employment relationship with INS Servicios S.A. and with INS involved linkages of a public nature. Therefore, INS must recognize the years worked in that corporation. On the other hand, there is no violation of Article 686 of the Código de Trabajo, because the plaintiff had proceeded with the return of the severance pay concept that the co-defendant company had recognized, as a requirement to enter work for the co-defendant institute. The obligation imposed in Article 686 of the Código de Trabajo, regarding the return of severance pay to workers who choose to continue working in the public sector, does not imply a waiver of the collection of future severance pay, when the employment relationship later ends, for the same cause that generates the right to severance pay, as the appellant appears to misunderstand it. [...] The rule is very clear that compensation between salaries and severance pay only operates if the worker effectively received and did not return the severance monies. In the event of return of the monies, as occurs in the present case, the plaintiff always retained her right to that seniority worked and to the generated severance pay item. Because the relationship with the defendant institute ends again with the right to that payment. What was decided on this point must be confirmed. [...]\n\nThis protective norm, which provides that existing employment contracts shall not be affected to the detriment of the worker. The substituted employer shall be jointly and severally liable with the new employer for the obligations arising from the contracts or from the law, born before the date of the substitution and for a term of up to six months. Once this period concludes, the liability shall subsist only for the new employer. Based on said norm, there is no legal excuse for the defendant institute to evade its responsibility regarding the return of the monies that it at the time imposed upon the plaintiff to reimburse. This is the same as if the claimant had demanded from the defendant institute the seniority previously worked for INS Servicios S.A., for the recognition of the severance pay (auxilio de cesantía) owed to her, taking into account all the seniority worked and based on the proportional salaries of the last six months worked, which is what corresponds (article 30 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo)). This renders unnecessary any discussion of whether or not that reimbursement of the severance pay by the worker was procedurally proper. It was a consummated act in which the plaintiff returned those severance pay monies for the time previously worked and now they must be recognized, either by paying the amounts that had been settled (which is the plaintiff's petition), or by proceeding with their payment in the current employment settlement. The position set forth in the appealed judgment is upheld; the obligation imposed upon the defendant institute exists because it has not recognized that severance period, which the worker now claims in that sum that she formerly returned, of EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY COLONES AND TWENTY-THREE CÉNTIMOS (¢866,780.23), corresponding to the severance pay and advance notice paid by INS Servicios S.A. The alleged violation of article 686 of the Labor Code does not exist in relation to what is ordered in the appealed judgment. The defendant party is currently obligated to recognize that time of service and earned severance pay, even with the proportional salary of the last six months worked; however, what the plaintiff requests is that calculation of severance pay and advance notice that she reimbursed at another time. Regarding the creation of corporations (sociedades anónimas) whose share capital is held by a public entity, and through which it carries out commercial activity, both the regulations and the case law are very clear, pointing to their legal nature, and in particular, the labor regime applicable to their employees, which it is convenient to clarify in order to ground the obligation imposed in the judgment. The Regulatory Law of the Costa Rican Insurance Market (Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros de Costa Rica) No. 8653 of August 12, 2008, in its article 47, indicates: \"For purposes of developing the insurance activity, the following institutions are authorized: (...) b) The INS, to constitute, jointly with the state public banks, a single corporation, which shall have as its exclusive corporate purpose the exercise of the insurance activity in the terms of subsection a) of article 7 of this Law. c) The Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal and the INS, to constitute, jointly, a single corporation, which shall have as its exclusive corporate purpose the exercise of the insurance activity in the terms of subsection a) of article 7 of this Law. Other agents of the social economy may participate as partners in said corporation. For all cases under subsections b) and c), at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the shares must be the property of the INS. These corporations shall be subject, in all respects, to the provisions of this Law for insurance entities. None of the corporations created under the protection of this article shall have the guarantee of the State.\"\n\nIn turn, this same Law, in its Article 55, provided for the following: **\"** ***Formation of companies.* The National Insurance Institute and each of the public banks shall be authorized to form respective companies, under the terms indicated in the preceding article, for the sole purpose of operating their own brokerage house (puesto de bolsa) and carrying out, exclusively, the activities indicated in Article 56. Likewise, they are authorized so that each one may form an investment fund management company (sociedad administradora de fondos de inversión) and a pension operator, under the terms established in this law and in Law No. 7523 of July 7, 1995, as applicable. In such cases, the brokerage houses, the investment fund management companies, and the pension operators must keep their operations and accounting completely independent from the institution to which they belong. This provision shall also apply to private brokerage houses, in relation to their partners and to other companies belonging to the same economic interest group.**\".\" Based on these regulations, it is clear that this law came to authorize the formation of this type of company by the National Insurance Institute, the same law establishing that both the operations and accounting of said companies must be independent from the institution to which they belong, attributing a public company nature to this type of company. An independent legal entity (persona jurídica) is formed, separate from the owning public entity.\n\nLikewise, Regulation No. 27503-H of December 17, 1998, which develops the indicated Article 55 of Law No. 7732, named Regulation for the Formation of Brokerage Houses, Fund Management Companies, and Supplementary Pension Operators of the Public Banks and the National Insurance Institute, in its Article 2, regulates the mandatory nature of the corporation (sociedad anónima) form, and thus the brokerage houses, investment fund management companies, and supplementary pension plan operators of the public banks and entities must be formed as corporations. It further establishes that these companies shall have the character of public companies; however, their activity as participants in the securities market shall be governed in accordance with the provisions of the Securities Market Regulatory Law and Law No. 7523 of July 7, 1995 (Private Supplementary Pension Regime), as applicable, including matters relating to equity coverage and guarantees for volume of activity and risks assumed. Likewise, these companies shall be governed by the Code of Commerce regarding equity autonomy and mergers or absorptions between them; provisions that shall be uniformly applicable to both public and private companies. What is indicated in this article must appear in the advertising carried out by these public companies.\n\nGiven the above, the nature held by the co-defendant company is that of a public company owned by the National Insurance Institute, and by law, exceptionally, the corporation form was used for the purpose of giving it an independent legal personality from that of the institute, in order to organize the activity of managing the funds under its charge. [...] The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling No. 00648-2015, already addressed this topic, to which the Constitutional Chamber has likewise not been alien, and indicated the following: \"These corporations are separated from the autonomous entity with respect to budget control and resource management, but they are not foreign to the scheme of the autonomous institution to which they belong.\"\n\nFor this reason, it cannot be said that these corporations enjoy all the characteristics of a corporation in the realm of private law. As the Constitutional Chamber stated in judgment No. 6531-2002 of 2:57 p.m. on July 3, 2002: \"For this reason, these companies necessarily share the nature of the creating entity; that is, they are enterprises of the founding entity and consequently of the State.\" It is important to highlight the provisions of Article 2 of the Regulation for the Constitution of Brokerage Houses, Investment Fund Management Companies, and Complementary Pension Operators of Public Banks and the National Insurance Institute, which states: \"...they must be constituted as corporations. These companies shall have the character of public enterprises.\" From the foregoing lines, it is clear that the nature of the defendant is public and therefore, Administrative law applies and not the content of the Labor Code. Now, the legal framework regulating the relations between INS Valores Puesto de Bolsa S.A. and its workers must also be analyzed. The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic indicated – on the occasion of a consultation made by the plaintiff – in Legal Opinion C-190-2013 of September 8, 2013, the following: \"Based on the foregoing, this Attorney General's Office reaches the following conclusions: 1.- It is up to each public enterprise to determine which of its servants are managerial and senior oversight officials. Without prejudice to this, we can indicate, in general terms, that managerial officials are those who occupy high-level positions (members of boards of directors, managers, executive directors, etc.) and that senior oversight officials are those who safeguard the proper functioning of the enterprise (auditor, sub-auditor, and others of a similar nature). 2. Persons who occupy managerial and senior oversight positions are public officials in the strict sense, so that in accordance with Article 112.1 of the General Law of Public Administration, their relationship with the enterprise is governed by Administrative Law.\" In the same vein, in Legal Opinion No. C-153-2008 of May 8, 2008, it indicated: \"Regarding the second matter, that is, the employment regime in the public enterprise, constitutional, labor, and administrative case law is unanimous in the sense that it is mixed, that is, that there are legal relationships governed by labor or commercial law, in which case, the persons who work for this type of enterprise are not public employees, on the one hand; and legal relationships – of the managerial class – that are regulated by statutory law and, consequently, they are PUBLIC OFFICIALS.\"\n\nApplying this case law to the specific case, it can be concluded that, in relation to the co-defendant company, we are in the presence of a public enterprise that belongs to the insurance institute.\n\nThe plaintiff states in her complaint that she worked as a platform operator (plataformista), and in the personnel actions appearing at images 21 to 40 of the complaint file entered into the electronic record on 22/11/2019 at 11:07:15 hours, issued by the Subdirectorate of Human Resources of the INS, it is indicated that the position held by the plaintiff is that of Insurance Assistant I. According to the copies of the employment contract at images 80 to 106 and personnel actions at images 133 to 138, the position that the plaintiff held for INS Servicios S.A was that of Office Assistant of the category of Administrative IC. In that context, and principally by what is contemplated in the cited regulations, the plaintiff was a public employee (empleada pública), consequently, her relationship with the co-defendant company was governed by public law and later with the institute, with the same nature. Additionally, it must be considered that both the co-defendant company and the respondent institute have always identified themselves as Grupo INS, within the documentation that appears in the record, which means that even if the co-defendant company were considered a private entity or public entity, a conglomerate or business group operated, and therefore, an employer substitution (sustitución patronal) also operated in the first case and labor continuity in the public sector in the second scenario. Both figures safeguard the labor rights generated by the seniority (antigüedad) of the worker. Therefore, from any point of view that is assessed, the plaintiff maintains and preserves the right to have the seniority previously worked for INS Servicios S.A be paid by the co-defendant institute. What was resolved on this point must be upheld.\n\nThe thesis of the appellant, that it was necessary to define whether the sums received by the plaintiff from INS Servicios S.A, as a subsidiary company of the INS, effectively form part of the public funds that said company administers, is not acceptable. The foregoing is irrelevant, since the seniority worked by the plaintiff must be recognized by the respondent institute regardless of whether it must be paid with public resources or not. The severance pay (cesantía) must be paid to the worker. Both entities being public companies in nature, their resources will also be public. In that same sense, the recognition of seniority for purposes of severance pay by the INS, at the time the employment relationship ended in the year 2019, is linked to the payment being ordered in the appealed judgment, because it did not recognize the plaintiff for what was previously worked. Hence her claim. What cannot be endorsed is that this time not be recognized to the plaintiff for purposes of the severance indemnity, without the figure of the offset (compensación) of severance pay, cited from the labor jurisprudence indicated by the appellant, being applicable, since the plaintiff had to return the amount of the previous severance pay settlement. A double payment of severance pay does not occur, because in addition to the plaintiff not receiving the payment (she had to return it), that worked time must be recognized for her. As analyzed supra, both the employment relationship with INS Servicios S.A. and with the INS were relationships of a public nature.\n\nON THE MERITS:[...] Regarding the first grievance, the co-defendant appellant claims that there is a substantial violation of Article 686 of the Código de Trabajo. This grievance is not admissible. The co-defendant institute reiterates its position at trial, which is well summarized in the appealed judgment, and which is contradictory and illegal, since on one hand, it states that the plaintiff was required to return the severance pay (cesantía) that had been settled upon the dismissal with employer liability carried out by the company INS Servicios S.A, upon being hired by the INS the following day, and on the other hand, it does not want to recognize that seniority worked by the worker, as a result of the new employment termination that occurred on May 26, 2019, under its employer’s orders.[...] As described by the lower court authority (A Quo), the position of the defendant institute is legally unacceptable. Therefore, the INS must recognize the years worked in that corporation (sociedad anónima). On the other hand, there is no violation of Article 686 of the Código de Trabajo, since the plaintiff had proceeded with the return of the severance pay concept that the co-defendant corporation had recognized, as a requirement to enter the ranks of the co-defendant institute. The obligation imposed in Article 686 of the Código de Trabajo, regarding the return of severance pay to workers who choose to continue working in the public sector, does not imply a waiver of the collection of future severance pay, when the employment relationship subsequently ends, for a cause that generates the right to severance pay, as the appellant party appears to misunderstand it.[...] The rule is very clear, in that the offset between wages and severance pay operates only if the worker party actually received and did not return the severance pay funds. In the event of a return of the funds, as occurs in the instant case, the plaintiff always retained her right to that seniority worked and to the item of severance pay generated. Since the relationship with the defendant institute ends again with the right to that payment. What was decided on this point must be confirmed. [...].\n\nRegardless of whether both organizations are treated as public in nature (as the appellant initially maintains), the fact is that the plaintiff did not receive her severance pay (cesantía) for the length of service (antigüedad laborada) with her previous employer; rather, she proceeded to return those funds, and since the defendant institute took on the employment relationship on a continuous basis, Article 37 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) protects the worker in the event of an employer substitution (sustitución de un patrono). This protective rule provides that existing employment contracts shall not be affected to the detriment of the worker. The substituted employer shall be jointly and severally liable with the new employer for the obligations arising from the contracts or from the law, incurred before the date of the substitution and for a term of six months. After this period has concluded, liability shall subsist solely for the new employer. Based on said rule, there is no legal excuse for the defendant institute to evade its responsibility regarding the return of the funds that it once compelled the plaintiff to reimburse. This is equivalent to the plaintiff having claimed from the defendant institute the length of service (antigüedad) previously worked for INS Servicios S.A., for the recognition of the severance pay (auxilio de cesantía) to which she is entitled, considering the entire length of service worked (antigüedad laborada) and based on the proportional salaries of the last six months worked, which is what applies (Article 30 of the Labor Code, Código de Trabajo). This renders unnecessary any discussion as to whether that reimbursement of the severance pay (cesantía) by the worker was proper or not. It was a fait accompli in which the plaintiff returned those severance pay (cesantía) funds for the time previously worked, and now those funds must be recognized, either by paying the amounts that had been settled (which is the plaintiff's petition), or by proceeding with their payment in the current employment settlement. The position set forth in the appealed judgment is endorsed; the obligation imposed on the defendant institute is because it has not recognized that severance pay (cesantía) period, which the worker now claims in that sum that she once refunded, of EIGHT HUNDRED SIXTY-SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED EIGHTY COLONES AND TWENTY-THREE CÉNTIMOS (¢866,780.23), corresponding to the severance pay (cesantía) and notice period (preaviso) paid by INS Servicios S.A. The alleged violation of Article 686 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) by the appealed judgment does not exist. The defendant is currently obligated to recognize that time of service and accrued severance pay (cesantía), even with the proportional salary of the last six months worked; however, the plaintiff is requesting that calculation of severance pay (cesantía) and notice period (preaviso) that she reimbursed at another time.\n\nRegarding the creation of corporations (sociedades anónimas) in which a public entity retains the share capital and through which it carries out commercial activity, both the regulations and case law are very clear, pointing to their legal nature, and especially, the employment regime (régimen laboral) applicable to their employees, which it is convenient to clarify in order to substantiate the obligation imposed in the judgment.\n\nThe Regulatory Law of the Insurance Market of Costa Rica (Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros de Costa Rica) No. 8653 of August 12, 2008, in its Article 47, states: \"For the purpose of developing insurance activity, the following institutions are authorized: (...) b) The INS is authorized to establish, jointly with the state public banks, a single corporation (sociedad anónima), which shall have as its exclusive corporate purpose the exercise of insurance activity under the terms of subsection a) of Article 7 of this Law.\"\n\nc) To the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal and the INS so that they jointly incorporate a single corporation (sociedad anónima), whose exclusive corporate purpose shall be the exercise of insurance activity under the terms of subsection a) of Article 7 of this Law. Other agents of the social economy may participate as partners in said company. For all cases under subsections b) and c), at least fifty-one percent (51%) of the shares must be owned by the INS. The provisions of this Law for insurance entities shall apply in their entirety to these corporations. None of the corporations created under this article shall have the State guarantee. In turn, this same Law, in its Article 55, provided for the following: \"Incorporation of Companies (Constitución de sociedades). The Instituto Nacional de Seguros and each of the public banks are hereby authorized to incorporate respective companies, under the terms indicated in the preceding article, for the sole purpose of operating their own brokerage house (puesto de bolsa) and exclusively carrying out the activities indicated in Article 56. Likewise, they are authorized for each to incorporate an investment fund management company (sociedad administradora de fondos de inversión) and a pension fund operator (operadora de pensiones), under the terms established in this law and in Law No. 7523 of July 7, 1995, as applicable. In such cases, the brokerage houses, the investment fund management companies, and the pension fund operators must maintain their operations and accounting completely independent of the institution to which they belong. This provision shall likewise apply to private brokerage houses, in relation to their partners and to other companies belonging to the same group of economic interest.\" Based on these regulations, it is clear that this law came to authorize the incorporation of this type of companies to the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, with the same law establishing that both the operation and accounting of said companies must be independent of the institution to which they belong, attributing the nature of a public enterprise (empresa pública) to that type of companies. A legal entity (persona jurídica) is constituted, independent of the owning public entity.\n\nLikewise, Regulation No. 27503-H of December 17, 1998, which develops the indicated Article 55 of Law No. 7732, called the Regulation for the Incorporation of Brokerage Houses, Fund Management Companies, and Complementary Pension Fund Operators of the Public Banks and the Instituto Nacional de Seguros (Reglamento para la Constitución de los Puestos de Bolsa, Sociedades Administradoras de Fondos y Operadoras de Pensiones Complementarias de los Bancos Públicos y del Instituto Nacional de Seguros), in its relevant part, in Article 2 regulates the mandatory nature of the corporation figure, and thus the brokerage houses, investment fund management companies, and complementary pension plan operators of the public banks and entities must be incorporated as corporations (sociedades anónimas). It further establishes that these corporations shall have the character of public enterprises (empresas públicas); however, their activity as participants in the securities market shall be governed in accordance with the provisions of the Securities Market Regulatory Law (Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores) and Law No. 7523 of July 7, 1995 (Private Regime of Complementary Pensions, Régimen Privado de Pensiones Complementarias), as applicable, including matters related to equity coverages (coberturas patrimoniales) and guarantees for volume of activity and assumed risks. Likewise, these corporations shall be governed by the Commerce Code (Código de Comercio) regarding patrimonial autonomy and mergers or absorptions among them; provisions that shall be of uniform application for both public and private enterprises.\n\nThe provisions of this article must appear in the advertising carried out by these public companies. Given the foregoing, the nature of the co-defendant company is that of a public company owned by the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, and by law, the form of a corporation (sociedad anónima) was exceptionally used for the purpose of granting it legal personality independent from that of the institute, so that it could organize the activity of managing the funds under its charge. [...]\n\nThe Second Chamber (Sala Segunda) of the Supreme Court of Justice, in resolution No. 00648-2015, has already addressed this issue, to which the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has also not been oblivious, and stated the following: \"These corporations (sociedades anónimas) are separate from the autonomous entity regarding budget control and resource management, but they are not alien to the structure of the autonomous institution to which they belong. For this reason, it cannot be said that these corporations enjoy all the characteristics of a corporation in the sphere of private law. As stated by the Constitutional Chamber in judgment No. 6531-2002 of 2:57 p.m. on July 3, 2002: 'Therefore, these companies necessarily share the nature of the creating entity; that is, they are companies of the founding entity and consequently of the State.' It is important to highlight the provisions of Article 2 of the Regulation for the Constitution of Brokerage Houses, Investment Fund Management Companies, and Complementary Pension Operators of Public Banks and the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, which states: '...they must be constituted as corporations (sociedades anónimas). These companies shall have the character of public companies.' From what has been outlined above, it is clear that the nature of the defendant is public and, therefore, Administrative Law applies and not the content of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo). Now, the legal framework that regulates the relations between INS Valores Puesto de Bolsa S.A. and its workers must also be analyzed. The Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República) indicated – on the occasion of a consultation made by the plaintiff – in Opinion C-190-2013 of September 8, 2013, the following: \"Based on the foregoing, this Attorney General's Office reaches the following conclusions: 1.- It is up to each public company to determine which of its servants are managerial and senior oversight officials. Without prejudice to this, we can indicate, in general terms, that managerial officials are those who occupy high-level positions (members of boards of directors, managers, executive directors, etc.) and that senior oversight officials are those who safeguard the proper functioning of the company (auditor, sub-auditor, and others that are homologous to them). 2. Persons who occupy managerial and senior oversight positions are public officials in the strict sense, and therefore, in accordance with Article 112.1 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), their relationship with the company is governed by Administrative Law.\"\n\nIn the same vein, Legal Opinion No. C-153-2008 of May 8, 2008, stated: \"Regarding the second matter, that is, the employment regime in the public enterprise, constitutional, labor, and administrative case law is unanimous in that it is mixed, meaning there are legal relationships governed by labor or commercial law, in which case, the persons working for this type of enterprise are not public employees, on the one hand; and legal relationships –of the managerial class– that are regulated by statutory law and, consequently, they are PUBLIC OFFICIALS.\".\n\nApplying this case law to the specific case, it can be concluded that we are in the presence, with respect to the co-defendant company, of a public enterprise belonging to the insurance institute. The plaintiff states in her complaint that she worked as a platform worker (plataformista), and in the personnel actions appearing in images 21 through 40 of the complaint file entered into the electronic case file on 22/11/2019 at 11:07:15 hours, issued by the Subdirectorate of Human Resources of the INS, it is indicated that the job position held by the plaintiff is Insurance Assistant I. According to the copies of the employment contract in images 80 to 106 and personnel actions in images 133 to 138, the position that the plaintiff held for INS Servicios S.A. was Office Auxiliary of the Administrative IC category.\n\nIn that context, and mainly due to what is contemplated in the cited regulations, the plaintiff was a public employee; therefore, her relationship with the co-defendant company was governed by public law and subsequently with the institute, of the same nature. Additionally, it must be considered that both the co-defendant company and the defendant institute have always identified themselves as Grupo INS, within the documentation contained in the case file, which means that even if the co-defendant company were considered a private entity or public entity, a conglomerate or business group operated, and therefore, an employer substitution (sustitución patronal) operated in the first case and employment continuity in the public sector in the second scenario. Both figures safeguard the labor rights generated by the seniority (antigüedad) of the worker. Thus, from any perspective that is assessed, the plaintiff maintains and retains the right that the seniority previously worked for INS Servicios S.A. be paid to her by the co-defendant institute. The decision on this point must be upheld.\n\nThe appellant's thesis, that it should be defined whether the sums received by the plaintiff from INS Servicios S.A., as a subsidiary company of the INS, effectively form part of the public funds that said company administers, is not acceptable. The foregoing is irrelevant, since the seniority worked by the plaintiff must be recognized by the coerced institute regardless of whether it must be paid with public resources or not. The severance pay (cesantía) must be paid to the worker. Since both entities are of a public enterprise nature, their resources will also be so. In that same sense, the recognition of seniority for purposes of payment of severance pay by the INS, at the time of termination of the employment relationship in the year 2019, is linked to the payment being ordered in the appealed judgment, since it did not recognize the plaintiff's previously worked time.\n\nHence her claim. What cannot be endorsed is that the plaintiff is not recognized that time for purposes of the severance pay (cesantía) indemnity, without the figure of offsetting of severance pay (cesantía), cited from the labor jurisprudence indicated by the appellant, being applicable, since the plaintiff had to return the amount of severance pay (cesantía) previously settled. There is no double payment of severance pay (cesantía), because in addition to the fact that the plaintiff did not receive the payment (she had to return it), that time worked must be recognized. As analyzed supra, both the employment relationship with INS Servicios S.A. and with INS were relationships of a public nature. Therefore, INS must recognize the years worked in that corporation (sociedad anónima). \n\nOn the other hand, there is no violation of Article 686 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), inasmuch as the plaintiff had proceeded with the return of the severance pay (cesantía) concept that the co-defendant corporation had recognized, as a requirement to enter into employment with the co-defendant institute. The obligation imposed in Article 686 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), regarding the return of severance pay (cesantía) to workers who opt to continue working in the public sector, does not imply a waiver of the collection of future severance pay (cesantía), when the employment relationship subsequently ends, for a cause that equally generates the right to severance pay (cesantía), as the appellant appears to misunderstand it.[...] \n\nThe rule is very clear, that the offsetting between salaries and severance pay (cesantía) operates only if the worker actually received and did not return the severance pay (cesantía) monies. In the event of return of the monies, as occurs in the instant case, the plaintiff always retained her right to that seniority worked and to the generated severance pay (cesantía) item. For the relationship with the defendant institute ends again with the right to that payment. What was resolved on this point must be confirmed. [...]." }