{
  "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-367044",
  "citation": "Res. 00057-2024 Tribunal de Apelación Civil y Trabajo Zona Sur Sede Pérez Zeledón Materia Laboral",
  "section": "nexus_decisions",
  "doc_type": "court_decision",
  "title_es": "Reconocimiento del plus de operaciones de alto riesgo a oficial de Policía de Migración",
  "title_en": "Recognition of high-risk operations bonus for Immigration Police officer",
  "summary_es": "El Tribunal de Apelación Civil y Trabajo de la Zona Sur confirmó la sentencia que reconoció a un oficial de la Policía Profesional de Migración y Extranjería el derecho al plus salarial por Operaciones de Alto Riesgo. El incentivo fue creado por la Secretaría Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria (acuerdo N° 5878 del 10 de abril de 2000) para miembros de la Fuerza Pública que realizan funciones de mantenimiento del orden, seguridad ciudadana y represión delictiva, exponiendo su vida e integridad física. Aunque el acuerdo original se refería a los cuerpos de la Guardia Civil y la Guardia de Asistencia Rural (artículos 21 y 22 de la Ley General de Policía), el tribunal aplicó por analogía los principios de igualdad (artículo 33 de la Constitución Política y artículos 11 y 12 del Código Civil) para extender el beneficio a la Policía de Migración. Argumentó que este cuerpo, creado por la Ley General de Migración y Extranjería (artículo 15), está integrado a la Fuerza Pública, se rige por la misma Ley General de Policía y sus funciones —control migratorio, seguridad nacional— implican riesgos análogos a los de otros cuerpos policiales. El Estado no demostró causas objetivas para excluir a este cuerpo del incentivo. La sentencia confirma el criterio de que la naturaleza de alto riesgo en las funciones policiales, más que la denominación específica del cuerpo, determina el derecho al sobresueldo.",
  "summary_en": "The Labor Appeals Court of the Southern Zone upheld the judgment recognizing a Professional Immigration and Foreign Affairs Police officer's right to the High-Risk Operations salary bonus. The bonus was created by the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority (agreement No. 5878 of April 10, 2000) for public force members performing functions involving the maintenance of order, citizen security, and crime suppression, thereby exposing their lives and physical integrity. Although the original agreement referred to the Civil Guard and Rural Assistance Guard (Articles 21 and 22 of the General Police Law), the court applied the principles of equality by analogy (Article 33 of the Constitution and Articles 11 and 12 of the Civil Code) to extend the benefit to the Immigration Police. It reasoned that this body, created by the General Migration and Foreign Affairs Law (Article 15), is part of the Public Force, is governed by the same General Police Law, and its functions —migration control, national security— involve risks analogous to those of other police bodies. The State failed to demonstrate objective reasons to exclude this body from the bonus. The ruling confirms the criterion that the high-risk nature of police functions, rather than the specific designation of the body, determines entitlement to the bonus.",
  "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Apelación Civil y Trabajo Zona Sur Sede Pérez Zeledón Materia Laboral",
  "date": "29/05/2024",
  "year": "2024",
  "topic_ids": [
    "_off-topic"
  ],
  "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic",
  "es_concept_hints": [
    "plus salarial por operaciones de alto riesgo",
    "Policía Profesional de Migración y Extranjería",
    "Autoridad Presupuestaria",
    "Ley General de Policía",
    "analogía in bonam partem",
    "igualdad de razón y causa",
    "sobresueldo",
    "seguridad nacional"
  ],
  "article_citations": [
    {
      "law": "Constitución Política",
      "article": "33",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Constitución Política 0",
      "article": "33",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Código de Trabajo",
      "article": "481",
      "doc_id": "norm-8045",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 2",
      "article": "481",
      "doc_id": "norm-8045",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Código Civil",
      "article": "11",
      "doc_id": "norm-15437",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 30",
      "article": "11",
      "doc_id": "norm-15437",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Código Civil",
      "article": "12",
      "doc_id": "norm-15437",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 30",
      "article": "12",
      "doc_id": "norm-15437",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de Policía",
      "article": "21",
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7410",
      "article": "21",
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de Policía",
      "article": "22",
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 7410",
      "article": "22",
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-47634",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 8000",
      "article": "1",
      "doc_id": "norm-47634",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas",
      "article": "2",
      "doc_id": "norm-47634",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 8000",
      "article": "2",
      "doc_id": "norm-47634",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley General de Migración y Extranjería",
      "article": "15",
      "doc_id": "norm-66139",
      "source": "metadata"
    },
    {
      "law": "Ley 8764",
      "article": "15",
      "doc_id": "norm-66139",
      "source": "metadata"
    }
  ],
  "keywords_es": [
    "plus operaciones de alto riesgo",
    "Policía de Migración",
    "sobresueldo policial",
    "Autoridad Presupuestaria",
    "Ley General de Policía",
    "igualdad salarial",
    "analogía",
    "derecho laboral",
    "Guardia Civil",
    "Guardia de Asistencia Rural",
    "Guardacostas",
    "seguridad nacional"
  ],
  "keywords_en": [
    "high-risk operations bonus",
    "Immigration Police",
    "police salary supplement",
    "Budgetary Authority",
    "General Police Law",
    "salary equality",
    "analogy",
    "labor law",
    "Civil Guard",
    "Rural Assistance Guard",
    "Coast Guard",
    "national security"
  ],
  "excerpt_es": "De este modo, al presentarse igualdad de razón y causa (aplicación de los cánones 33 de la Carta Magna, 11 y 12 del Código Civil), por existir equidad de condiciones entre los miembros de los cuerpos policiales de la guardia de asistencia rural, guardia pública y el servicio de guardacostas, debe reconocerse a favor del gestionante el plus por Operaciones de Alto Riesgo. [...] De esa lista de funciones se colige la relación intrínseca con los aspectos tomados en consideración para la creación del plus que interesa, pues es claro que están vinculadas a la seguridad nacional, al mantenimiento del orden, seguridad ciudadana y/o represión delictiva; en sus tareas pueden estar exponiendo en forma directa su vida y su integridad física; y deben atender contingencias que atentan contra la seguridad nacional. En esa línea de pensamiento, como la intención de cubrir con un sobresueldo a las personas integrantes de la Fuerza Pública viene en función de la naturaleza de sus tareas, es innegable que ellas son quienes en primera instancia comprometen su integridad personal y su vida en el cumplimiento de estas labores y, de ahí que, en razón de las tareas descritas, el actor como integrante de la Policía de Migración tiene derecho a dicho plus. No se observa ningún quebranto del artículo 481 del Código de Trabajo, ya que a los autos se allegó prueba suficiente de la cual se extrae que el demandante tiene derecho a lo pretendido.",
  "excerpt_en": "Thus, when equality of reason and cause exists (application of canons 33 of the Magna Carta, 11 and 12 of the Civil Code), due to equal conditions among the members of the rural assistance guard, public guard and the coast guard service, the High-Risk Operations bonus must be recognized in favor of the petitioner. [...] From that list of functions, the intrinsic relationship with the aspects taken into consideration for the creation of the bonus in question is inferred, since it is clear that they are linked to national security, the maintenance of order, citizen security and/or crime suppression; in their tasks they may be directly exposing their lives and physical integrity; and they must attend to contingencies that threaten national security. Following this line of thought, since the intention of covering members of the Public Force with an additional salary is based on the nature of their tasks, it is undeniable that they are the ones who, in the first instance, compromise their personal integrity and lives in the performance of these duties and, therefore, by reason of the tasks described, the plaintiff as a member of the Immigration Police is entitled to said bonus. No violation of Article 481 of the Labor Code is observed, since sufficient evidence was brought to the record from which it is inferred that the plaintiff is entitled to what is sought.",
  "outcome": {
    "label_en": "Upheld",
    "label_es": "Confirma",
    "summary_en": "The judgment recognizing the Immigration Police officer's High-Risk Operations bonus is upheld, considering that his functions entail risks analogous to those of other police bodies covered by the incentive.",
    "summary_es": "Se confirma la sentencia que reconoció al oficial de la Policía de Migración el plus por Operaciones de Alto Riesgo, al considerar que sus funciones entrañan riesgos análogos a los de otros cuerpos policiales amparados por el incentivo."
  },
  "pull_quotes": [
    {
      "context": "Considerando",
      "quote_en": "Regarding the high-risk operations bonus, this Court has already ruled in similar cases to the one at hand, in which the recognition of the high-risk incentive is sought in favor of persons who, like the plaintiff, are members of police bodies, for being in the factual scenarios foreseen in the agreement that authorized said bonus, which is why they are entitled to the same legal consequences.",
      "quote_es": "En cuanto al plus por operaciones de alto riesgo, ya este Tribunal se ha pronunciado en casos similares al que nos ocupa, en los que se pretende el reconocimiento del incentivo de alto riesgo a favor de personas, quienes, como el actor, integran los cuerpos policiales, por encontrarse en los supuestos de hecho que se previeron en el acuerdo que autorizó ese plus, razón por la cual tienen derecho a las mismas consecuencias jurídicas."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando",
      "quote_en": "Thus, when equality of reason and cause exists (application of canons 33 of the Magna Carta, 11 and 12 of the Civil Code), due to equal conditions among the members of the rural assistance guard, public guard and the coast guard service, the High-Risk Operations bonus must be recognized in favor of the petitioner.",
      "quote_es": "De este modo, al presentarse igualdad de razón y causa (aplicación de los cánones 33 de la Carta Magna, 11 y 12 del Código Civil), por existir equidad de condiciones entre los miembros de los cuerpos policiales de la guardia de asistencia rural, guardia pública y el servicio de guardacostas, debe reconocerse a favor del gestionante el plus por Operaciones de Alto Riesgo."
    },
    {
      "context": "Considerando",
      "quote_en": "Following this line of thought, since the intention of covering members of the Public Force with an additional salary is based on the nature of their tasks, it is undeniable that they are the ones who, in the first instance, compromise their personal integrity and lives in the performance of these duties and, therefore, by reason of the tasks described, the plaintiff as a member of the Immigration Police is entitled to said bonus.",
      "quote_es": "En esa línea de pensamiento, como la intención de cubrir con un sobresueldo a las personas integrantes de la Fuerza Pública viene en función de la naturaleza de sus tareas, es innegable que ellas son quienes en primera instancia comprometen su integridad personal y su vida en el cumplimiento de estas labores y, de ahí que, en razón de las tareas descritas, el actor como integrante de la Policía de Migración tiene derecho a dicho plus."
    }
  ],
  "cites": [
    {
      "id": "norm-871",
      "citation": "Constitución Política 0 (Asamblea Nacional Constituyente, 07/11/1949)",
      "title_en": "Right to a Healthy and Ecologically Balanced Environment — Article 50 of the Political Constitution",
      "title_es": "Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado — Artículo 50 de la Constitución Política",
      "doc_type": "constitution",
      "date": "07/11/1949",
      "year": "1949"
    },
    {
      "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-66525",
      "citation": "Ley 7410",
      "title_en": "General Police Law",
      "title_es": "Ley General de Policía",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "26/05/1994",
      "year": "1994"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-47634",
      "citation": "Ley 8000",
      "title_en": "National Coast Guard Service Creation Law",
      "title_es": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "05/05/2000",
      "year": "2000"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-66139",
      "citation": "Ley 8764",
      "title_en": "General Migration and Foreigners Law",
      "title_es": "Ley General de Migración y Extranjería",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "19/08/2009",
      "year": "2009"
    }
  ],
  "cited_by": [
    {
      "id": "norm-47634",
      "citation": "Ley 8000",
      "title_en": "National Coast Guard Service Creation Law",
      "title_es": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "05/05/2000",
      "year": "2000"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-66139",
      "citation": "Ley 8764",
      "title_en": "General Migration and Foreigners Law",
      "title_es": "Ley General de Migración y Extranjería",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "19/08/2009",
      "year": "2009"
    },
    {
      "id": "norm-66525",
      "citation": "Ley 7410",
      "title_en": "General Police Law",
      "title_es": "Ley General de Policía",
      "doc_type": "law",
      "date": "26/05/1994",
      "year": "1994"
    }
  ],
  "references": {
    "internal": [
      {
        "target_id": "norm-871",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Constitución Política"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-8045",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Código de Trabajo"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-66525",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley General de Policía"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-47634",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas"
      },
      {
        "target_id": "norm-66139",
        "kind": "cited_norm",
        "label": "Ley General de Migración y Extranjería"
      }
    ],
    "external": [
      {
        "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-1-0034-367044",
  "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": "33",
      "art_scij": "4881",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-871",
      "norm_fecha": "29 Nov 2023",
      "norm_name": "Constitución Política",
      "norm_num": "0",
      "norm_ver": "138995",
      "tipo_norma": "Constitución Política"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "481",
      "art_scij": "47508",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-8045",
      "norm_fecha": "01 Feb 2024",
      "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo",
      "norm_num": "2",
      "norm_ver": "140179",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "11",
      "art_scij": "88906",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-15437",
      "norm_fecha": "19 Mar 2024",
      "norm_name": "Código Civil",
      "norm_num": "30",
      "norm_ver": "140291",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "12",
      "art_scij": "88907",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-15437",
      "norm_fecha": "19 Mar 2024",
      "norm_name": "Código Civil",
      "norm_num": "30",
      "norm_ver": "140291",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "21",
      "art_scij": "22",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "norm_fecha": "24 Ago 2022",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía",
      "norm_num": "7410",
      "norm_ver": "132416",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "22",
      "art_scij": "23",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "norm_fecha": "24 Ago 2022",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía",
      "norm_num": "7410",
      "norm_ver": "132416",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "1",
      "art_scij": "2",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-47634",
      "norm_fecha": "13 Dic 2023",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas",
      "norm_num": "8000",
      "norm_ver": "139309",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "2",
      "art_scij": "3",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-47634",
      "norm_fecha": "13 Dic 2023",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas",
      "norm_num": "8000",
      "norm_ver": "139309",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    },
    {
      "art_num": "15",
      "art_scij": "16",
      "art_subnum": "0",
      "doc_id": "norm-66139",
      "norm_fecha": "30 Sep 2022",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Migración y Extranjería",
      "norm_num": "8764",
      "norm_ver": "132666",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley"
    }
  ],
  "cited_norms_inverted": [
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-47634",
      "norm_num": "8000",
      "norm_name": "Ley de Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "05/05/2000"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-66139",
      "norm_num": "8764",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Migración y Extranjería",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "19/08/2009"
    },
    {
      "doc_id": "norm-66525",
      "norm_num": "7410",
      "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía",
      "tipo_norma": "Ley",
      "norm_fecha": "26/05/1994"
    }
  ],
  "sentencias_relacionadas": [],
  "temas_y_subtemas": [
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Reconocimiento del incentivo de Operaciones de Alto riesgo a oficial de policía de migración y extranjería en función y naturaleza de sus tareas"
        },
        {
          "id": 2,
          "nombre": "Existencia de leyes diferentes que regulan uno y otro cuerpo policial no implica que aquellos que se desempeñan como policías de migración no corran los riesgos considerados como supuestos para pago de sobresueldo"
        }
      ],
      "id": 2,
      "nombre": "Plus salarial"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Reconocimiento del incentivo de Operaciones de Alto riesgo a oficial de policía de migración y extranjería en función y naturaleza de sus tareas"
        },
        {
          "id": 2,
          "nombre": "Existencia de leyes diferentes que regulan uno y otro cuerpo policial no implica que aquellos que se desempeñan como policías de migración no corran los riesgos considerados como supuestos para pago de sobresueldo"
        }
      ],
      "id": 1,
      "nombre": "Sobresueldo"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Reconocimiento del incentivo de Operaciones de Alto riesgo a oficial de policía de migración y extranjería en función y naturaleza de sus tareas"
        },
        {
          "id": 2,
          "nombre": "Existencia de leyes diferentes que regulan uno y otro cuerpo policial no implica que aquellos que se desempeñan como policías de migración no corran los riesgos considerados como supuestos para pago de sobresueldo"
        }
      ],
      "id": 4,
      "nombre": "Persona trabajadora policial"
    },
    {
      "Subtemas": [
        {
          "id": 1,
          "nombre": "Reconocimiento del incentivo de Operaciones de Alto riesgo a oficial de policía de migración y extranjería en función y naturaleza de sus tareas"
        },
        {
          "id": 2,
          "nombre": "Existencia de leyes diferentes que regulan uno y otro cuerpo policial no implica que aquellos que se desempeñan como policías de migración no corran los riesgos considerados como supuestos para pago de sobresueldo"
        }
      ],
      "id": 3,
      "nombre": "Incentivo salarial"
    }
  ],
  "cascade_only": false,
  "amendment_count": 0,
  "body_es_text": "\"V.[...] Primer agravio:[...] Se rechaza agravio:[...] En cuanto al plus por operaciones de alto riesgo, ya este Tribunal se ha pronunciado en casos similares al que nos ocupa, en los que se pretende el reconocimiento del incentivo de alto riesgo a favor de personas, quienes, como el actor, integran los cuerpos policiales, por encontrarse en los supuestos de hecho que se previeron en el acuerdo que autorizó ese plus, razón por la cual tienen derecho a las mismas consecuencias jurídicas. Según consta, el incentivo que solicita el actor, fue creado por la Secretaria Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria en su acuerdo N° 5878 de la sesión extraordinaria 03-2000 del 10 de abril de 2000, con base en las siguientes motivaciones: \"Que los miembros de la fuerza pública efectúan funciones que consisten en el mantenimiento del orden, seguridad ciudadana y/o represión delictiva. /2. Que se requiere que los miembros de la fuerza pública participen en operaciones de alto riesgo como allanamientos, situaciones de crisis, acciones antiterroristas, protección de figuras públicas o visitantes oficiales, entre otras, en las que el funcionario expone en forma directa su vida y su integridad física. / 3. Que estos miembros de la fuerza pública deben cumplir con la atención de contingencias que atentan contra la Seguridad Nacional en forma oportuna y eficaz. /4. Que existen diferencias salariales en el mercado de trabajo a favor de los agentes de seguridad de la empresa privada, lo que provoca una alta rotación de personal e inestabilidad en el servicio. / 5. Que en virtud del riesgo y peligro implícitos en las funciones efectuados por los funcionarios de la fuerza pública, procede autorizar un incentivo denominado de 'OPERACIONES DE ALTO RIESGO', a los efectos de cumplir con las responsabilidades vinculadas a la Seguridad Nacional. / 6. Que el incentivo aquí creado debe considerarse diferente al denominado 'Riesgo Policial' cuyo fin es garantizar la seguridad nacional del bienes (sic) así como el respeto de los derechos y libertades de los ciudadanos (folio 112 del expediente administrativo). El plus salarial en discusión se delineó para fomentar la incorporación de efectivos en las fuerzas policiales y al mismo tiempo, retribuirlos adicionalmente por el peligro intrínseco al cumplimiento de sus funciones. Por último, el citado acuerdo dispuso sus afectos para aquellos oficiales cuyas competencias y funciones estuviesen inmersas en los artículos 21 y 22 de la Ley General de Policía. Las normas invocadas por el acuerdo, regulan las labores y atribuciones de la Guardia Civil y la Guardia de Asistencia Rural. Así, esas disposiciones en concreto nos hablan lo siguiente: 'artículo 21. / La Guardia Civil y la Guardia de Asistencia Rural son cuerpos especialmente encargados de la vigilancia general y la seguridad ciudadana; ejercerán sus funciones en todo el país, de conformidad con la determinación técnica sobre la naturaleza rural o urbana que señalen las instituciones públicas correspondientes. Para ello, se establecerán unidades de mando organizadas según la división regional que el ministerio respectivo determine. / artículo 22. / Son atribuciones de la Guardia Civil y la Guardia de Asistencia Rural: / a) Asegurar el ejercicio de las garantías constitucionales, la protección del orden constitucional, la seguridad ciudadana, la soberanía nacional y la integridad territorial. / b) Mantener la tranquilidad y el orden público. / c) Velar por la seguridad y la integridad de las personas y los bienes de los habitantes de la República. / d) Mantener el respeto por las propiedades y los demás derechos de los habitantes de la República. / e) Prevenir y reprimir la comisión de infracciones punibles dentro del territorio nacional'. Como puede verse, la intención de cubrir con un sobresueldo a los miembros de estos dos cuerpos policiales, viene en función de la naturaleza de sus tareas, pues es innegable que estos funcionarios son quienes en primera instancia comprometen su integridad personal y vida, con el fin de mantener el orden público y garantizar la seguridad de los habitantes del país. La Ley N° 8000 denominada Creación del Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas estableció ese departamento como un cuerpo integrante de la fuerza pública, especializado en el resguardo de las aguas territoriales, la plataforma continental, el zócalo insular y los mares adyacentes (art. 1).[...] A la luz de esta relación de normas, es fácil visualizar que los oficiales del servicio de guardacostas cuentan con las atribuciones y poderes necesarios para llevar a cabo las mismas funciones que la legislación dispuso para la Guardia Civil y la Guardia de Asistencia Rural, es decir, sus labores se encuentran enmarcadas en el canon 22 de la Ley General de Policía. De ahí que, entre estos cuerpos existe una compatibilidad de tareas, que simplemente se diferencian por la modalidad en que son ejecutadas, a saber, la guardia rural y civil en tierra firme y, el servicio de guardacostas en las aguas del Estado. Por otra parte, es un hecho público y notorio, que los guardacostas enfrentan en la actualidad grandes peligros en el desempeño de sus funciones, propiciados por la lucha contra el narcotráfico y la defensa de los recursos naturales del país. De tal manera, que también, se encuentren expuestos a un riesgo semejante al previsto para los restantes funcionarios policiales del país. También, que este cuerpo no fue contemplado de manera expresa por el acuerdo de la Secretaria Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria, ya que su ley de creación (Ley n° 8000) entró en vigencia con posterioridad a su promulgación. Sin embargo, si observamos los motivos de esa norma, es claro que los juicios de hecho y de derecho, que dieron pie a esa disposición, son análogos a las condiciones de trabajo del accionante. De este modo, al presentarse igualdad de razón y causa (aplicación de los cánones 33 de la Carta Magna, 11 y 12 del Código Civil), por existir equidad de condiciones entre los miembros de los cuerpos policiales de la guardia de asistencia rural, guardia pública y el servicio de guardacostas, debe reconocerse a favor del gestionante el plus por Operaciones de Alto Riesgo”. Se debe tener presente la regulación contenida en el numeral 15 de la Ley General de Migración y Extranjería, que reza: “La Policía Profesional de Migración y Extranjería será un cuerpo policial especializado de la Fuerza Pública; estará adscrito a la Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería y será regido por la Ley general de policía, N.º 7410, de 26 de mayo de 1994, y sus reformas. Este cuerpo policial tendrá competencia específica para controlar y vigilar el ingreso de personas al territorio nacional, o el egreso de él, así como la permanencia y las actividades que en el territorio nacional llevan a cabo las personas extranjeras, de conformidad con las disposiciones de la presente Ley y su Reglamento”; cuyas funciones están reguladas en el artículo 18 siguiente, así: [...]\n\nDe esa lista de funciones se colige la relación intrínseca con los aspectos tomados en consideración para la creación del plus que interesa, pues es claro que están vinculadas a la seguridad nacional, al mantenimiento del orden, seguridad ciudadana y/o represión delictiva; en sus tareas pueden estar exponiendo en forma directa su vida y su integridad física; y deben atender contingencias que atentan contra la seguridad nacional. En esa línea de pensamiento, como la intención de cubrir con un sobresueldo a las personas integrantes de la Fuerza Pública viene en función de la naturaleza de sus tareas, es innegable que ellas son quienes en primera instancia comprometen su integridad personal y su vida en el cumplimiento de estas labores y, de ahí que, en razón de las tareas descritas, el actor como integrante de la Policía de Migración tiene derecho a dicho plus. No se observa ningún quebranto del artículo 481 del Código de Trabajo, ya que a los autos se allegó prueba suficiente de la cual se extrae que el demandante tiene derecho a lo pretendido. En ese orden de ideas, para este órgano, la representación del Estado no logró demostrar las causas objetivas por las que el cuerpo policial al que pertenece el petente -Policía de Migración- deba excluirse de esa normativa y disposición interna de la Secretaría Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria.[...].\"",
  "body_en_text": "\"[...] First ground of appeal:[...] The ground of appeal is rejected:[...] Regarding the high-risk operations bonus (plus por operaciones de alto riesgo), this Tribunal has already ruled in cases similar to the one before us, in which the recognition of the high-risk incentive is sought in favor of persons who, like the plaintiff, are members of police forces, because they fall under the factual circumstances provided for in the agreement that authorized that bonus, and therefore they are entitled to the same legal consequences. According to the record, the incentive requested by the plaintiff was created by the Secretaria Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria in its agreement N° 5878 of special session 03-2000 of April 10, 2000, based on the following grounds: \\\"That the members of the public force (fuerza pública) perform functions consisting of maintaining order, citizen security and/or criminal suppression. /2. That members of the public force are required to participate in high-risk operations such as raids (allanamientos), crisis situations, antiterrorist actions, protection of public figures or official visitors, among others, in which the officer directly exposes their life and physical integrity. / 3. That these members of the public force must address contingencies that threaten National Security in a timely and effective manner. /4. That there are wage differences in the labor market in favor of private company security agents, which causes high personnel turnover and instability in the service. / 5. That by virtue of the risk and danger implicit in the functions performed by public force officers, it is appropriate to authorize an incentive called 'HIGH-RISK OPERATIONS' (OPERACIONES DE ALTO RIESGO), for the purposes of fulfilling the responsibilities linked to National Security. / 6. That the incentive created herein must be considered different from the one called 'Police Risk' (Riesgo Policial) whose purpose is to guarantee the national security of goods (sic) as well as respect for the rights and freedoms of citizens (folio 112 of the administrative record). The salary bonus in dispute was designed to promote the recruitment of personnel into the police forces and, at the same time, to additionally compensate them for the danger inherent in the performance of their duties. Finally, the cited agreement stipulated its effects for those officers whose competencies and functions were encompassed by Articles 21 and 22 of the Ley General de Policía. The rules invoked by the agreement regulate the tasks and powers of the Guardia Civil and the Guardia de Asistencia Rural. Thus, those provisions specifically tell us the following: 'Article 21. / The Guardia Civil and the Guardia de Asistencia Rural are bodies especially charged with general surveillance and citizen security; they shall exercise their functions throughout the entire country, in accordance with the technical determination regarding the rural or urban nature indicated by the corresponding public institutions. To this end, command units shall be established, organized according to the regional division that the respective ministry determines. / Article 22. / The powers of the Guardia Civil and the Guardia de Asistencia Rural are: / a) To ensure the exercise of constitutional guarantees, the protection of the constitutional order, citizen security, national sovereignty and territorial integrity. / b) To maintain public tranquility and order. / c) To ensure the security and integrity of the persons and property of the inhabitants of the Republic. / d) To maintain respect for the properties and other rights of the inhabitants of the Republic. / e) To prevent and suppress the commission of punishable offenses within the national territory'. As can be seen, the intention of covering the members of these two police bodies with an additional salary is based on the nature of their tasks, since it is undeniable that these officers are the ones who, in the first instance, risk their personal integrity and life in order to maintain public order and guarantee the security of the country's inhabitants. Ley N° 8000, called Creation of the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas, established that department as an integral body of the public force, specialized in the protection of territorial waters, the continental shelf, the insular shelf (zócalo insular) and adjacent seas (Art. 1).[...] In light of this set of rules, it is easy to visualize that the officers of the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas have the powers and authorities necessary to carry out the same functions that the legislation provided for the Guardia Civil and the Guardia de Asistencia Rural, that is, their tasks are framed within canon 22 of the Ley General de Policía. Hence, there is a compatibility of tasks among these bodies, which are simply differentiated by the manner in which they are executed, namely, the rural and civil guard on dry land and the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas in the waters of the State. On the other hand, it is a public and notorious fact that the guardacostas currently face great dangers in the performance of their duties, brought about by the fight against drug trafficking and the defense of the country's natural resources. In such a way, that they are also exposed to a risk similar to that foreseen for the other police officers of the country. Also, that this body was not expressly contemplated by the agreement of the Secretaria Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria, since its creating law (Ley n° 8000) entered into force after its promulgation. However, if we observe the reasons for that rule, it is clear that the factual and legal judgments that gave rise to that provision are analogous to the working conditions of the plaintiff. Thus, when equality of reason and cause exists (application of canons 33 of the Carta Magna, 11 and 12 of the Código Civil), because there is equity of conditions among the members of the police bodies of the Guardia de Asistencia Rural, the Guardia Civil and the Servicio Nacional de Guardacostas, the bonus for High-Risk Operations must be recognized in favor of the petitioner.” One must bear in mind the regulation contained in numeral 15 of the Ley General de Migración y Extranjería, which reads: “The Policía Profesional de Migración y Extranjería shall be a specialized police body of the Fuerza Pública; it shall be attached to the Dirección General de Migración y Extranjería and shall be governed by the Ley General de Policía, N.º 7410, of May 26, 1994, and its reforms. This police body shall have specific jurisdiction to control and monitor the entry of persons into national territory, or their exit from it, as well as the stay and the activities that foreign persons carry out within national territory, in accordance with the provisions of this Law and its Regulations”; whose functions are regulated in the following Article 18, as follows: [...]\n\nFrom that list of functions, one can infer the intrinsic relationship with the aspects taken into consideration for the creation of the bonus in question, since it is clear that they are linked to national security, to the maintenance of order, citizen security and/or criminal suppression; in their tasks they may be directly exposing their life and physical integrity; and they must address contingencies that threaten national security. Along these lines of thought, since the intention of covering members of the Fuerza Pública with an additional salary is based on the nature of their tasks, it is undeniable that they are the ones who, in the first instance, risk their personal integrity and their lives in the fulfillment of these duties and, therefore, by reason of the described tasks, the plaintiff as a member of the Policía de Migración is entitled to said bonus. No violation of Article 481 of the Código de Trabajo is observed, since sufficient evidence was provided to the case file from which it can be inferred that the plaintiff is entitled to what is claimed. In this line of reasoning, for this body, the representation of the State failed to demonstrate the objective causes for which the police body to which the petitioner belongs -Policía de Migración- should be excluded from that regulation and internal provision of the Secretaría Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria.[...]\"\n\nLaw No. 8000, called Creation of the National Coast Guard Service, established that department as an integral body of the public force (fuerza pública), specialized in the safeguarding of territorial waters, the continental shelf, the insular shelf, and adjacent seas (Art. 1). [...] In light of this set of rules, it is easy to see that the officers of the coast guard service have the powers and authority necessary to carry out the same functions that the legislation provided for the Civil Guard (Guardia Civil) and the Rural Assistance Guard (Guardia de Asistencia Rural), meaning their duties are framed within canon 22 of the General Police Law. Hence, there is a compatibility of tasks among these bodies, which are simply differentiated by the mode in which they are executed: specifically, the rural and civil guard on land, and the coast guard service in the waters of the State. On the other hand, it is a public and notorious fact that coast guard officers currently face great dangers in the performance of their duties, driven by the fight against drug trafficking and the defense of the country's natural resources. In such a way, they are also exposed to a risk similar to that foreseen for the remaining police officers of the country. Also, this body was not expressly contemplated by the agreement of the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority (Secretaría Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria), since its creation law (Law No. 8000) came into force after its promulgation. However, if we look at the grounds for that regulation, it is clear that the factual and legal judgments that gave rise to that provision are analogous to the plaintiff's working conditions. In this way, given the equality of reason and cause (application of canons 33 of the Magna Carta, 11 and 12 of the Civil Code), because there is equity of conditions among the members of the police bodies of the Rural Assistance Guard, the Public Guard (guardia pública), and the Coast Guard Service, the High-Risk Operations bonus (plus por Operaciones de Alto Riesgo) must be recognized in favor of the claimant.” One must bear in mind the regulation contained in numeral 15 of the General Law of Migration and Aliens, which reads: “The Professional Migration and Aliens Police (Policía Profesional de Migración y Extranjería) shall be a specialized police body of the Public Force (Fuerza Pública); it shall be attached to the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens and shall be governed by the General Police Law, No. 7410, of May 26, 1994, and its amendments. This police body shall have specific competence to control and monitor the entry of persons into the national territory, or their exit from it, as well as the permanence and activities that foreign persons carry out within the national territory, in accordance with the provisions of this Law and its Regulations”; whose functions are regulated in Article 18 below, as follows: [...]\n\nFrom that list of functions, the intrinsic relationship is inferred with the aspects taken into consideration for the creation of the bonus in question, since it is clear that they are linked to national security, the maintenance of order, citizen security and/or criminal repression; in their tasks, they may be directly exposing their life and physical integrity; and they must attend to contingencies that threaten national security. In that line of thought, since the intention of covering the members of the Public Force (Fuerza Pública) with a supplementary salary is based on the nature of their tasks, it is undeniable that they are the ones who primarily compromise their personal integrity and their lives in fulfilling these duties, and therefore, by reason of the tasks described, the plaintiff, as a member of the Migration Police, is entitled to said bonus. No violation of Article 481 of the Labor Code is observed, since sufficient evidence was adduced to the case file from which it can be concluded that the claimant is entitled to what is sought.\n\nIn that line of reasoning, for this body, the State's representation failed to demonstrate the objective causes for which the police force to which the petitioner belongs—the Immigration Police (Policía de Migración)—must be excluded from that regulation and internal provision of the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority (Secretaría Técnica de la Autoridad Presupuestaria).[...].\"\n\nAs can be seen, the intention to cover members of these two police forces with supplementary pay stems from the nature of their duties, since it is undeniable that these officials are the ones who, in the first instance, risk their personal integrity and lives in order to maintain public order and guarantee the security of the country's inhabitants. Law No. 8000, called the Creation of the National Coast Guard Service, established that department as a body forming part of the public force, specialized in safeguarding territorial waters, the continental shelf, the insular shelf, and adjacent seas (Art. 1). [...] In light of this set of norms, it is easy to see that the officers of the coast guard service possess the powers and authority necessary to carry out the same functions that the legislation assigned to the Civil Guard and the Rural Assistance Guard, meaning their work falls within the scope of Article 22 of the General Police Law. Hence, there exists a compatibility of tasks between these bodies, which are simply differentiated by the manner in which they are executed—namely, the rural and civil guard on land, and the coast guard service in the State's waters. On the other hand, it is a public and notorious fact that coast guard officers currently face great dangers in the performance of their duties, driven by the fight against drug trafficking and the defense of the country's natural resources. In this way, they are also exposed to a risk similar to that foreseen for the country's other police officials. Likewise, this body was not expressly contemplated by the agreement of the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority, since its enabling law (Law No. 8000) came into force after its promulgation. However, if we observe the grounds for that rule, it is clear that the factual and legal judgments that gave rise to that provision are analogous to the working conditions of the claimant. Thus, given equality of reason and cause (application of Articles 33 of the Magna Carta, 11 and 12 of the Civil Code), because there is an equivalence of conditions among the members of the police bodies of the rural assistance guard, public guard, and the coast guard service, the claimant must be recognized the High-Risk Operations bonus. One must bear in mind the regulation contained in Article 15 of the General Law on Migration and Aliens, which reads: “The Professional Police of Migration and Aliens shall be a specialized police body of the Public Force; it shall be attached to the General Directorate of Migration and Aliens and shall be governed by the General Police Law, No. 7410, of May 26, 1994, and its reforms. This police body shall have specific competence to control and monitor the entry of persons into the national territory, or their exit from it, as well as the stay and the activities carried out within the national territory by foreign persons, in accordance with the provisions of this Law and its Regulations”; whose functions are regulated in the following Article 18, thus: [...]\n\nFrom that list of functions, the intrinsic relationship with the aspects taken into consideration for the creation of the bonus in question is inferred, since it is clear that they are linked to national security, the maintenance of order, citizen security, and/or criminal repression; in their tasks, they may be directly exposing their lives and physical integrity; and they must attend to contingencies that threaten national security. Along this line of thought, just as the intention to cover members of the Public Force with supplementary pay stems from the nature of their duties, it is undeniable that they are the ones who, in the first instance, risk their personal integrity and their lives in fulfilling these tasks, and hence, by reason of the tasks described, the plaintiff, as a member of the Migration Police, has a right to said bonus. No violation of Article 481 of the Labor Code is observed, since sufficient proof was submitted to the case file from which it is deduced that the claimant is entitled to what is sought. Along these lines, for this body, the State's representation did not manage to demonstrate the objective causes for which the police body to which the petitioner belongs—Migration Police—should be excluded from that regulation and internal provision of the Technical Secretariat of the Budgetary Authority.[...]."
}