{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-368771", "citation": "Res. 00365-2024 Tribunal Segundo de Apelación Civil de San José", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Fijación de honorarios del liquidador societario mediante analogía con el albacea", "title_en": "Compensation of Corporate Liquidator by Analogy to Executor", "summary_es": "El Tribunal Segundo de Apelación Civil de San José, mediante voto salvado del juez Fernández Hidalgo, aborda la falta de regulación expresa sobre los honorarios de un liquidador de sociedad anónima nombrado judicialmente. Ante el vacío normativo en el Código de Comercio y el Código Procesal Civil, el juzgador recurre a la integración analógica, hallando identidad de razón con la figura del albacea en la sucesión y el liquidador concursal. Concluye que debe aplicarse analógicamente el artículo 557 del Código Civil, que fija los honorarios del albacea en un 5% sobre los primeros ¢10,000 del capital líquido y un 2.5% sobre el excedente. No obstante, confirma la fijación realizada en primera instancia, por encima de ese cálculo, al considerar que el liquidador nombrado es un profesional en derecho que debió representar a la sociedad disuelta en un proceso hipotecario, justificando un monto mayor para evitar costos adicionales y reconociendo la práctica usual en estos casos.", "summary_en": "The Second Civil Appeals Court of San José, through a dissenting opinion by Judge Fernández Hidalgo, addresses the lack of explicit regulation regarding the fees of a court-appointed liquidator of a dissolved corporation. Facing a normative gap in both the Commercial Code and the Civil Procedure Code, the judge resorts to analogical integration, finding substantial identity with the role of an executor in succession and a bankruptcy liquidator. The judge concludes that the provisions of Article 557 of the Civil Code—setting the executor's fees at 5% of the first ¢10,000 of liquid assets and 2.5% on the excess—should apply analogously. However, the judge upholds the higher amount fixed at first instance, noting the liquidator was a legal professional appointed to represent the dissolved company in a foreclosure proceeding, which justified a higher fee to avoid increasing costs for the estate, in line with common practice.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal Segundo de Apelación Civil de San José", "date": "28/06/2024", "year": "2024", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "albacea", "identidad de razón", "laguna normativa", "voto salvado", "Código de Comercio", "Código Procesal Civil", "Ley Concursal" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Código Civil", "article": "557", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 30", "article": "557", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Comercio", "article": "210", "doc_id": "norm-6239", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 3284", "article": "210", "doc_id": "norm-6239", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Reglamento para la selección, designación, ejercicio de las funciones y remuneración de los Órganos Concursales", "article": "51", "doc_id": "norm-100575", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Reglamento 34", "article": "51", "doc_id": "norm-100575", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código Procesal Civil", "article": "3", "doc_id": "norm-81360", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 9342", "article": "3", "doc_id": "norm-81360", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley Concursal de Costa Rica", "article": "26", "doc_id": "norm-94451", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 9957", "article": "26", "doc_id": "norm-94451", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "liquidación de sociedad", "honorarios del liquidador", "analogía jurídica", "Código de Comercio", "Código Procesal Civil", "albacea", "sucesión", "voto salvado", "laguna normativa", "remuneración" ], "keywords_en": [ "corporate liquidation", "liquidator's fees", "legal analogy", "Commercial Code", "Civil Procedure Code", "executor", "succession", "dissenting opinion", "legal vacuum", "compensation" ], "excerpt_es": "La fijación de honorarios de una persona liquidadora no está regulada en forma expresa en el Código de Comercio (artículos 209 a 219), entonces, no hay normas que establezcan si debe ser provisional o definitiva, tampoco el monto o el parámetro para su determinación. Ante esta laguna normativa, el Código Procesal Civil estatuye lo siguiente: “3.4 Integración. En ausencia de norma expresa se acudirá a la aplicación analógica de otras disposiciones que contemplen supuestos semejantes, en los que se aprecie identidad de razón...”. La figura objeto de estudio es análoga al albacea en la sucesión o el liquidador nombrado en un proceso liquidatorio concursal, cuyo objetivo es esencialmente el mismo, existe identidad de razón: establecer el patrimonio sujeto de liquidación, las acreencias y créditos pendientes de pago, los gastos necesarios y la representación ideal del estado de pendencia originado con la muerte de la persona física, la disolución de la persona jurídica y la liquidación de un patrimonio concursado.\n\nEn el presente caso, el suscrito juzgador estima que debe aplicarse la normativa de la persona albacea, en cuanto, el motivo que genera su actividad es la desaparición jurídica de una persona, física en el caso de la sucesión y jurídica en el caso presente. Por lo que, a la persona liquidadora debe dársele un honorario por sus funciones de administración y representación, del 2.5 % sobre el valor, que supere los ¢10.000, que finalmente se llegue a liquidar los bienes de la persona jurídica, adicional a ¢500 sobre los primeros ¢10.000.", "excerpt_en": "The fixing of fees for a liquidator is not expressly regulated in the Commercial Code (Articles 209 to 219); therefore, there are no rules establishing whether it should be provisional or definitive, nor the amount or the parameter for its determination. Faced with this legal vacuum, the Civil Procedure Code provides: '3.4 Integration. In the absence of an express provision, analogical application of other provisions covering similar cases, where identity of reason is apparent, shall be resorted to...' The figure under analysis is analogous to the executor in succession or the liquidator appointed in bankruptcy proceedings; its purpose is essentially the same—there is identity of reason: to establish the assets subject to liquidation, the debts and credits pending payment, the necessary expenses, and the ideal representation of the pending state arising from the death of a natural person, the dissolution of a legal person, and the liquidation of a bankrupt estate.\n\nIn the present case, the undersigned judge finds that the rules governing the executor should apply, given that the reason for the activity is the legal extinction of a person—natural in the case of succession and legal in this case. Therefore, the liquidator should be awarded a fee for administration and representation duties, at 2.5% of the value exceeding ¢10,000 of the corporate assets to be ultimately liquidated, plus ¢500 on the first ¢10,000.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Affirmed with dissent", "label_es": "Confirma con voto salvado", "summary_en": "The first-instance determination of liquidator fees is affirmed, applying Article 557 of the Civil Code by analogy, but upholding a higher amount due to the liquidator's professional status and the specific needs of the case.", "summary_es": "Se confirma la fijación de honorarios del liquidador dispuesta en primera instancia, aplicando analógicamente el artículo 557 del Código Civil, pero reconociendo un monto mayor en razón de la calidad profesional del liquidador y las necesidades del caso concreto." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "The figure under analysis is analogous to the executor in succession or the liquidator appointed in bankruptcy proceedings; its purpose is essentially the same—there is identity of reason.", "quote_es": "La figura objeto de estudio es análoga al albacea en la sucesión o el liquidador nombrado en un proceso liquidatorio concursal, cuyo objetivo es esencialmente el mismo, existe identidad de razón." }, { "context": "Cita Código Procesal Civil", "quote_en": "In the absence of an express provision, analogical application of other provisions covering similar cases, where identity of reason is apparent, shall be resorted to.", "quote_es": "En ausencia de norma expresa se acudirá a la aplicación analógica de otras disposiciones que contemplen supuestos semejantes, en los que se aprecie identidad de razón." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "Therefore, the liquidator should be awarded a fee for administration and representation duties, at 2.5% of the value exceeding ¢10,000 of the corporate assets to be ultimately liquidated.", "quote_es": "Por lo que, a la persona liquidadora debe dársele un honorario por sus funciones de administración y representación, del 2.5 % sobre el valor, que supere los ¢10.000, que finalmente se llegue a liquidar los bienes de la persona jurídica." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "This has been done regularly, to avoid additional costs to the estate under liquidation, since the other option would be to appoint a liquidator and have them designate a legal professional to handle the relevant court activity.", "quote_es": "Lo anterior, se ha realizado normalmente, para evitar costos adicionales al patrimonio sujeto a liquidación, dado que la otra opción sería nombrar un liquidador y que este designe un profesional en derecho que se encargue de la actividad jurisdiccional de interés." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-6239", "citation": "Ley 3284", "title_en": "Commercial Code", "title_es": "Código de Comercio", "doc_type": "law", "date": "30/04/1964", "year": "1964" }, { "id": "norm-81360", "citation": "Ley 9342", "title_en": "Civil Procedure Code — Reversal of Burden of Proof in Environmental Matters", "title_es": "Código Procesal Civil", "doc_type": "law", "date": "03/02/2016", "year": "2016" }, { "id": "norm-94451", "citation": "Ley 9957", "title_en": "Costa Rica Bankruptcy Law", "title_es": "Ley Concursal de Costa Rica", "doc_type": "law", "date": "14/04/2021", "year": "2021" }, { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-15437", "citation": "", "title_en": "Civil Code of Costa Rica", "title_es": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/01/1888", "year": "1888" }, { "id": "norm-6239", "citation": "Ley 3284", "title_en": "Commercial Code", "title_es": "Código de Comercio", "doc_type": "law", "date": "30/04/1964", "year": "1964" }, { "id": "norm-94451", "citation": "Ley 9957", "title_en": "Costa Rica Bankruptcy Law", "title_es": "Ley Concursal de Costa Rica", "doc_type": "law", "date": "14/04/2021", "year": "2021" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-6239", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código de Comercio" }, { "target_id": "norm-81360", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código Procesal Civil" }, { "target_id": "norm-94451", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley Concursal de Costa Rica" } ], "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" }, { "ref_id": "norm-100575", "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=100575&strTipM=FN", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Reglamento para la selección, designación, ejercicio de las funciones y remuneración de los Órganos Concursales", "norm_id": "100575" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-0034-368771", "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": "557", "art_scij": "89452", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_fecha": "14 Abr 2021", "norm_name": "Código Civil", "norm_num": "30", "norm_ver": "143320", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "210", "art_scij": "34343", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-6239", "norm_fecha": "06 May 2022", "norm_name": "Código de Comercio", "norm_num": "3284", "norm_ver": "130564", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "51", "art_scij": "52", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-100575", "norm_fecha": "07 Ago 2023", "norm_name": "Reglamento para la selección, designación, ejercicio de las funciones y remuneración de los Órganos Concursales", "norm_num": "34", "norm_ver": "138127", "tipo_norma": "Reglamento" }, { "art_num": "3", "art_scij": "4", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-81360", "norm_detalle": "Inciso 4", "norm_fecha": "06 May 2022", "norm_name": "Código Procesal Civil", "norm_num": "9342", "norm_ver": "130547", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "26", "art_scij": "27", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-94451", "norm_detalle": "Inciso 5", "norm_fecha": "14 Abr 2021", "norm_name": "Ley Concursal de Costa Rica", "norm_num": "9957", "norm_ver": "125804", "tipo_norma": "Ley" } ], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-15437", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Código Civil de Costa Rica", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "01/01/1888" }, { "doc_id": "norm-6239", "norm_num": "3284", "norm_name": "Código de Comercio", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "30/04/1964" }, { "doc_id": "norm-94451", "norm_num": "9957", "norm_name": "Ley Concursal de Costa Rica", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "14/04/2021" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [ { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Análisis de la fijación de los honorarios de una persona liquidadora" } ], "id": 1, "nombre": "Liquidación de sociedades comerciales" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Análisis de la fijación de los honorarios de una persona liquidadora" } ], "id": 2, "nombre": "Proceso de liquidación de sociedad" } ], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "\"V.- CRITERIO MINORITARIO, SUSCRITO POR EL JUEZ FERNÁNDEZ HIDALGO: La fijación de honorarios de una persona liquidadora no está regulada en forma expresa en el Código de Comercio (artículos 209 a 219), entonces, no hay normas que establezcan si debe ser provisional o definitiva, tampoco el monto o el parámetro para su determinación. Ante esta laguna normativa, el Código Procesal Civil estatuye lo siguiente: “3.4 Integración. En ausencia de norma expresa se acudirá a la aplicación analógica de otras disposiciones que contemplen supuestos semejantes, en los que se aprecie identidad de razón. No podrán aplicarse por analogía normas de carácter sancionatorio, excepcionales o temporales. Si no es posible la aplicación analógica, el vacío se suplirá ideando procedimientos con aplicación de los principios constitucionales, generales del derecho y especiales del proceso, y atendiendo a las circunstancias”. En el Código Procesal Civil tampoco se regula la fijación de honorarios de la persona liquidadora de una sociedad anónima que fuera nombrada en sede jurisdiccional. Ante este vacío normativo, el suscrito Juez considera fundamental establecer el marco jurídico, dentro del cual puede ser decidido el punto, no solo para la fijación de los honorarios, sino en general para encuadrar el trámite que debería seguirse en esta materia. La figura objeto de estudio es análoga al albacea en la sucesión o el liquidador nombrado en un proceso liquidatorio concursal, cuyo objetivo es esencialmente el mismo, existe identidad de razón: establecer el patrimonio sujeto de liquidación, las acreencias y créditos pendientes de pago, los gastos necesarios y la representación ideal del estado de pendencia originado con la muerte de la persona física, la disolución de la persona jurídica y la liquidación de un patrimonio concursado. El artículo 210 del Código de Comercio, estatuye que el liquidador será el administrador y representante legal de la sociedad en liquidación.\n\nEn el caso de la sucesión, los honorarios del albacea, están regulados en el artículo 557 del Código Civil: \n\n“El albacea gana por su trabajo los honorarios que le haya fijado el testador y en caso de que este no le haya señalado, o de albacea dativo, recibirá como honorario el cinco por ciento (5%) sobre los primeros diez mil colones (¢10.000) del capital líquido de la sucesión, y el dos coma cinco por ciento (2,5%) sobre la cantidad que exceda de diez mil colones (¢ 10.000) (…) (Así reformado por el artículo 184 aparte 1) del Código Procesal Civil, N° 9342 del 3 de febrero del 2016)”.\n\nEn la Ley Concursal vigente se regula la remuneración del liquidador en el siguiente sentido: \n\n“26.5. Remuneración \n\nLos interventores, administradores y liquidadores concursales tendrán derecho a remuneración con cargo a la masa.\n\nLa Corte Suprema de Justicia reglamentará el arancel que permita fijar la remuneración de cada uno de ellos. Deberá considerar la complejidad del asunto y de las funciones que ejerzan, la duración de los cargos, la cuantía del activo y del pasivo, así como el resultado de la gestión. Devengarán honorarios mensuales mientras se mantengan en ejercicio de sus cargos, cuando el concurso continúe o realice actividades económicas.\n\nA solicitud del interesado, el tribunal fijará los honorarios correspondientes. La petición deberá justificar el monto pretendido.\n\nEn caso de cese, remoción o renuncia se procederá en la forma indicada, pero la estimación de los honorarios guardará proporción con la etapa del proceso y la labor realizada por el profesional”.\n\nEn el “Reglamento para la Selección, Designación, Ejercicio de las Funciones y remuneración de los Órganos Concursales”, publicado en el Boletín Judicial, número 169 del 14 setiembre de 2023, en el artículo 51 se estatuye: \n\n“Cuando se trate de liquidación patrimonial sin continuidad de actividades productivas, el liquidador percibirá honorarios sobre el activo concursal que se llegare a realizar, de acuerdo con lo indicado en la siguiente tabla:\n\nActivo en liquidación\n\nPorcentaje por aplicar\n\nHasta la suma de ¢50.000.000,00.\n\nCinco por ciento (5%).\n\nSobre el exceso de ¢50.000.000,00 y hasta la suma de ¢100.000.000,00.\n\nTres por ciento (3%).\n\nSobre el exceso de ¢100.000.000,00.\n\nDos por ciento (2%).\n\n \n\nEn el presente caso, el suscrito juzgador estima que debe aplicarse la normativa de la persona albacea, en cuanto, el motivo que genera su actividad es la desaparición jurídica de una persona, física en el caso de la sucesión y jurídica en el caso presente. Por lo que, a la persona liquidadora debe dársele un honorario por sus funciones de administración y representación, del 2.5 % sobre el valor, que supere los ¢10.000, que finalmente se llegue a liquidar los bienes de la persona jurídica, adicional a ¢500 sobre los primeros ¢10.000. Si se considera el valor fiscal de los bienes señalados por el albacea de ¢207.210.936,00, el 2.5 % representaría el tanto de ¢ 5.180.773,40, que es un monto inferior al fijado en primera instancia. No obstante, en el presente caso los honorarios se estimaron para que se pudiera representar a la persona jurídica disuelta en un proceso hipotecario y, por requerirlo el caso concreto, se optó por nombrar una persona liquidadora profesional en derecho. Lo anterior, se ha realizado normalmente, para evitar costos adicionales al patrimonio sujeto a liquidación, dado que la otra opción sería nombrar un liquidador y que este designe un profesional en derecho que se encargue de la actividad jurisdiccional de interés. En consecuencia, se deberá mantener la fijación dispuesta en primera instancia, conforme a la normativa que por analogía debe aplicarse.\"", "body_en_text": "V.- MINORITY OPINION, SUBSCRIBED BY JUDGE FERNÁNDEZ HIDALGO: The setting of fees for a liquidator is not expressly regulated in the Commerce Code (articles 209 to 219); thus, there are no rules establishing whether it should be provisional or definitive, nor the amount or the parameter for its determination. Faced with this normative gap, the Civil Procedure Code establishes the following: “3.4 Integration. In the absence of an express rule, recourse shall be made to the analogous application of other provisions that contemplate similar scenarios, in which an identity of reason is observed. Norms of a sanctioning, exceptional, or temporary nature may not be applied by analogy. If analogous application is not possible, the gap shall be filled by devising procedures with application of constitutional principles, general principles of law, and special principles of the process, and attending to the circumstances.” The Civil Procedure Code likewise does not regulate the setting of fees for the liquidator of a corporation that was appointed in a judicial venue. Faced with this normative void, the undersigned Judge considers it fundamental to establish the legal framework within which the point can be decided, not only for the setting of fees, but in general to frame the procedure that should be followed in this matter. The figure under study is analogous to the executor (albacea) in a succession or the liquidator named in a bankruptcy liquidation proceeding (proceso liquidatorio concursal), whose objective is essentially the same; there is an identity of reason: to establish the estate subject to liquidation, the outstanding debts and credits, the necessary expenses, and the ideal representation of the state of pendency originating with the death of the natural person, the dissolution of the legal entity, and the liquidation of a bankrupt estate. Article 210 of the Commerce Code establishes that the liquidator shall be the administrator and legal representative of the company in liquidation.\n\nIn the case of succession, the fees of the executor (albacea) are regulated in article 557 of the Civil Code:\n\n“The executor (albacea) earns for their work the fees that the testator may have set for them, and in the event that the testator has not specified them, or in the case of a court-appointed executor (albacea dativo), they shall receive as a fee five percent (5%) on the first ten thousand colones (¢10,000) of the net capital of the succession, and two point five percent (2.5%) on the amount that exceeds ten thousand colones (¢ 10,000) (…) (Thus amended by article 184, subsection 1) of the Civil Procedure Code, N° 9342 of February 3, 2016).”\n\nIn the current Bankruptcy Law (Ley Concursal), the remuneration of the liquidator is regulated in the following sense:\n\n“26.5. Remuneration\n\nThe bankruptcy receivers (interventores), administrators (administradores), and liquidators (liquidadores concursales) shall be entitled to remuneration chargeable to the estate.\n\nThe Supreme Court of Justice shall regulate the fee schedule that permits setting the remuneration of each of them. It must consider the complexity of the matter and of the functions they exercise, the duration of the appointments, the amount of the assets and liabilities, as well as the result of the administration. They shall earn monthly fees while they remain in the exercise of their duties, when the insolvency proceeding continues or conducts economic activities.\n\nAt the request of the interested party, the court shall fix the corresponding fees. The petition must justify the amount sought.\n\nIn the event of cessation, removal, or resignation, the procedure shall be as indicated, but the estimation of the fees shall be proportionate to the stage of the process and the work performed by the professional.”\n\nIn the “Regulation for the Selection, Designation, Exercise of Functions, and Remuneration of Insolvency Proceeding Bodies”, published in the Judicial Bulletin, number 169 of September 14, 2023, article 51 establishes:\n\n“In the case of asset liquidation (liquidación patrimonial) without continuity of productive activities, the liquidator shall receive fees on the insolvency estate assets that are ultimately realized, in accordance with what is indicated in the following table:\n\n| Activo en liquidación | Porcentaje por aplicar |\n| --- | --- |\n| Hasta la suma de ¢50.000.000,00. | Cinco por ciento (5%). |\n| Sobre el exceso de ¢50.000.000,00 y hasta la suma de ¢100.000.000,00. | Tres por ciento (3%). |\n| Sobre el exceso de ¢100.000.000,00. | Dos por ciento (2%). |\n| | |\n\nIn the present case, the undersigned judge considers that the regulations for the executor (albacea) should apply, inasmuch as the motive generating the activity is the legal disappearance of a person—natural in the case of succession and legal in the present case. Therefore, the liquidator must be given a fee for their administration and representation functions of 2.5% on the value exceeding ¢10,000 that is ultimately realized from the liquidation of the legal entity's assets, in addition to ¢500 on the first ¢10,000. If the fiscal value of the assets indicated by the executor (albacea) of ¢207,210,936.00 is considered, the 2.5% would represent the sum of ¢5,180,773.40, which is an amount lower than that set in the first instance. However, in the present case the fees were estimated so that the dissolved legal entity could be represented in a foreclosure proceeding and, as required by the specific case, it was opted to appoint a liquidator who is a legal professional. The foregoing has been done normally to avoid additional costs to the estate subject to liquidation, given that the other option would be to appoint a liquidator and have them designate a legal professional to handle the judicial activity of interest. Consequently, the determination ordered in the first instance must be upheld, in accordance with the regulations that should be applied by analogy.\n\nRemuneration\n\nThe insolvency interveners, administrators, and liquidators shall be entitled to remuneration charged to the insolvency estate (masa).\n\nThe Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) shall regulate the fee schedule that allows the fixing of the remuneration for each of them. It must consider the complexity of the matter and the functions they exercise, the duration of the appointments, the amount of assets and liabilities, as well as the result of the management. They shall earn monthly fees while they remain in the exercise of their duties, when the insolvency proceeding (concurso) continues or carries out economic activities.\n\nAt the interested party's request, the court shall fix the corresponding fees. The request must justify the amount sought.\n\nIn the event of cessation, removal, or resignation, the foregoing procedure shall apply, but the fee estimation shall be proportional to the stage of the proceeding (proceso) and the work performed by the professional.\"\n\nIn the \"Regulation for the Selection, Designation, Exercise of Functions, and Remuneration of Insolvency Bodies (Órganos Concursales)\", published in Judicial Bulletin (Boletín Judicial) number 169 of September 14, 2023, Article 51 establishes:\n\n\"When it involves a patrimonial liquidation without continuity of productive activities, the liquidator shall receive fees based on the insolvency estate (activo concursal) that is eventually realized, in accordance with the following table:\n\nAssets in liquidation\nPercentage to apply\n\nUp to the sum of ¢50,000,000.00.\nFive percent (5%).\n\nOn the excess over ¢50,000,000.00 and up to the sum of ¢100,000,000.00.\nThree percent (3%).\n\nOn the excess over ¢100,000,000.00.\nTwo percent (2%).\n\nIn the present case, the undersigned judge considers that the rules pertaining to the executor (albacea) should apply, given that the reason for their activity is the legal disappearance of a person—physical in the case of succession and legal in this case. As such, the liquidator shall be given a fee for their duties of administration and representation, of 2.5% on the value exceeding ¢10,000 that is ultimately realized from the liquidation of the legal entity's assets, plus an amount of ¢500 on the first ¢10,000. If the fiscal value of the assets, as indicated by the executor (albacea), is considered to be ¢207,210,936.00, the 2.5% would represent the amount of ¢5,180,773.40, which is a sum lower than that set in the first instance. However, in this case, the fees were estimated so that the dissolved legal entity could be represented in a mortgage proceeding (proceso hipotecario) and, as required by the specific case, an experienced legal professional was chosen as the liquidator. The foregoing has normally been done to avoid additional costs to the assets subject to liquidation, since the other option would be to appoint a liquidator and have them appoint a legal professional to handle the jurisdictional activity of interest.\n\nConsequently, the determination ordered in the first instance must be upheld, in accordance with the regulations that must be applied by analogy.\"\n\n**V.- MINORITY OPINION, SUBSCRIBED BY JUDGE FERNÁNDEZ HIDALGO:** The setting of fees for a liquidator is not expressly regulated in the Code of Commerce (articles 209 to 219); therefore, there are no rules establishing whether it should be provisional or final, nor the amount or the parameter for its determination. Given this regulatory gap, the Civil Procedure Code stipulates the following: \"3.4 Integration. In the absence of an express rule, the analogous application of other provisions contemplating similar scenarios, in which an identity of reason is appreciated, shall be sought. Rules of a sanctioning, exceptional, or temporary nature may not be applied by analogy. If analogous application is not possible, the gap shall be filled by devising procedures with the application of constitutional principles, general principles of law, and special principles of the process, and taking the circumstances into account.\" The Civil Procedure Code also does not regulate the setting of fees for the liquidator of a corporation (sociedad anónima) appointed in a jurisdictional venue. Given this regulatory gap, the undersigned Judge considers it essential to establish the legal framework within which this point may be decided, not only for the setting of fees, but in general to frame the procedure that should be followed in this matter. The figure under study is analogous to the executor (albacea) in a succession or the liquidator appointed in a bankruptcy liquidation proceeding, whose objective is essentially the same; there is an identity of reason: to establish the estate subject to liquidation, the outstanding debts and credits, the necessary expenses, and the legal representation of the pending state originated by the death of the natural person, the dissolution of the legal entity, and the liquidation of a bankrupt estate. Article 210 of the Code of Commerce establishes that the liquidator will be the administrator and legal representative of the company in liquidation.\n\nIn the case of a succession, the fees of the executor (albacea) are regulated in article 557 of the Civil Code:\n\n\"The executor (albacea) earns for their work the fees set by the testator, and in the event that the testator has not set them, or in the case of a court-appointed executor (albacea dativo), they shall receive as a fee five percent (5%) on the first ten thousand colones (¢10,000) of the net capital of the succession, and two point five percent (2.5%) on the amount exceeding ten thousand colones (¢10,000) (...) (Thus amended by article 184, subsection 1) of the Civil Procedure Code, No. 9342 of February 3, 2016).\"\n\nIn the current Insolvency Law (Ley Concursal), the liquidator's remuneration is regulated as follows:\n\n\"26.5.\n\nRemuneration\n\nThe receivers, administrators, and insolvency liquidators shall be entitled to remuneration charged to the estate.\n\nThe Supreme Court of Justice shall regulate the fee schedule for setting the remuneration of each of them. It shall consider the complexity of the matter and the functions they perform, the duration of their appointments, the amount of the assets and liabilities, and the outcome of their management. They shall earn monthly fees while they remain in office, when the insolvency proceeding continues or carries out economic activities.\n\nAt the request of the interested party, the court shall set the corresponding fees. The request shall justify the amount sought.\n\nIn the event of cessation, removal, or resignation, the procedure shall be as indicated, but the fee estimation shall be proportional to the stage of the proceeding and the work performed by the professional.\n\nIn the \"Regulation for the Selection, Appointment, Performance of Duties and Remuneration of Insolvency Bodies (Reglamento para la Selección, Designación, Ejercicio de las Funciones y remuneración de los Órganos Concursales)\", published in Judicial Bulletin No. 169 of September 14, 2023, Article 51 provides:\n\n\"When it involves a patrimonial liquidation without continuity of productive activities, the liquidator shall receive fees on the insolvency assets realized, in accordance with the following table:\n\nAssets under liquidation\n\nPercentage to apply\n\nUp to the amount of ¢50,000,000.00.\n\nFive percent (5%).\n\nOn the excess over ¢50,000,000.00 and up to the amount of ¢100,000,000.00.\n\nThree percent (3%).\n\nOn the excess over ¢100,000,000.00.\n\nTwo percent (2%).\n\n \n\nIn the present case, the undersigned judge considers that the rules applicable to the executor must be applied, since the reason generating their activity is the legal disappearance of a person, a natural person in the case of succession and a legal person in the present case. Therefore, the liquidator must be awarded a fee for their administration and representation functions, at 2.5% of the value exceeding ¢10,000 that is ultimately realized from the liquidation of the legal person's assets, in addition to ¢500 on the first ¢10,000. If the fiscal value of the assets indicated by the executor of ¢207,210,936.00 is considered, 2.5% would represent the amount of ¢5,180,773.40, which is an amount lower than that set in the first instance. Nevertheless, in this case, the fees were estimated so that the dissolved legal person could be represented in a mortgage foreclosure proceeding and, because the specific case required it, a professional legal liquidator was appointed. The foregoing has been done normally to avoid additional costs to the estate subject to liquidation, given that the other option would be to appoint a liquidator who would then designate a legal professional to handle the relevant jurisdictional activity. Consequently, the fee determination ordered in the first instance must be upheld, in accordance with the rules that by analogy must be applied.\"" }