{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-1011-372960", "citation": "Res. 00197-2024 Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria de servidores públicos y plazo aplicable cuando la falta no encuadra en la LOCGR", "title_en": "Prescription of civil servants' disciplinary liability and applicable statute of limitations when the conduct does not fall under the LOCGR", "summary_es": "Esta resolución del Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo, de fecha 19 de diciembre de 2024, aborda un recurso relacionado con la prescripción de la potestad sancionatoria de la administración en materia disciplinaria de empleo público. El documento analiza la evolución legislativa –desde la aplicación supletoria del artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo (plazo de un mes) vía remisión del Estatuto del Servicio Civil, pasando por el régimen especial de la LOCGR (que establecía un plazo de 2 años para servidores de la Hacienda Pública), hasta la reforma introducida por la Ley General de Control Interno (Ley 8292) que amplió el plazo a 5 años y eliminó la distinción subjetiva entre servidores. El tribunal destaca que, tras dicha reforma, el plazo de prescripción se determina con criterio objetivo según la naturaleza de la infracción: si la falta está tipificada en la LOCGR o normativa de control superior, aplica el plazo de 5 años; en cambio, para las faltas disciplinarias comunes que no encajan en ese régimen especial –como las imputadas a la actora en este caso (no informar un fallecimiento, brindar información falsa y actuar contra el deber de probidad)– rige el plazo general de un mes del artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo. La decisión reitera la interpretación del tribunal sentada en precedentes sobre el carácter especial y prevalente del artículo 71 de la LOCGR respecto del régimen laboral común, pero aclara que este se circunscribe a las infracciones previstas en el ordenamiento de control superior.", "summary_en": "This ruling from the Administrative Cassation Court, dated December 19, 2024, addresses an appeal related to the statute of limitations applicable to the State's disciplinary authority over public employees. The document traces the legislative evolution: initially, the one-month limitation period of Article 603 of the Labor Code applied via the Civil Service Statute; the Organic Law of the Comptroller General (LOCGR) then established a special two-year period for public finance servants; finally, the General Law of Internal Control (Law 8292) extended the period to five years and eliminated the subjective distinction between servants. The court emphasizes that after this reform, the limitation period is determined by an objective criterion based on the nature of the offense. If the misconduct falls under the LOCGR or superior control regulations, the five-year period applies. For common disciplinary offenses that do not fit that special regime – such as those alleged against the plaintiff (failing to report a death, providing false information, and acting against the duty of probity) – the general one-month period of Article 603 of the Labor Code governs. The decision confirms the court's precedents on the special and prevailing nature of Article 71 of the LOCGR over the common labor regime, while clarifying that its scope is limited to infractions set forth in the superior control legal framework.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda", "date": "2024", "year": "2024", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "prescripción", "responsabilidad disciplinaria", "LOCGR", "Código de Trabajo", "potestad sancionatoria", "Ley 8292" ], "concept_anchors": [ { "article": "Art. 603", "law": "Código de Trabajo" }, { "article": "Art. 71", "law": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República" }, { "article": "Art. 45 inciso a", "law": "Ley General de Control Interno" }, { "article": "Art. 111", "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública" }, { "article": "Art. 44", "law": "Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito" }, { "article": "Art. 43", "law": "Ley General de Control Interno" }, { "article": "Art. 51", "law": "Estatuto de Servicio Civil" } ], "keywords_es": [ "prescripción", "responsabilidad disciplinaria", "servidor público", "LOCGR", "Código de Trabajo", "potestad sancionatoria", "plazo de prescripción", "Ley 8292", "control interno", "contraloría" ], "keywords_en": [ "statute of limitations", "disciplinary liability", "public servant", "LOCGR", "Labor Code", "sanctioning authority", "limitation period", "Law 8292", "internal control", "comptroller" ], "excerpt_es": "En virtud de esa reforma, no sólo se aumentó el plazo de prescripción de 2 a 5 años, sino también se eliminó el concepto de “servidor de la Hacienda Pública”. Es decir, se pasó de un régimen subjetivo, en el cual se valoraban las especiales condiciones del servidor (funcionario o no de la Hacienda Pública), a uno objetivo, donde el plazo prescriptivo aplicable al funcionario público (en el sentido del numeral 111 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública) se define no sólo por su carácter de tal, sino por la naturaleza misma de la conducta que se estima constitutiva de falta. Esto es, si la falta intimada rebasa la responsabilidad disciplinaria simple y se encasilla dentro de las infracciones previstas en la LOCGR, o bien en el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superior. Se trata entonces de un régimen particular, que establece reglas especiales de prescripción, las cuales se sobreponen al régimen general aplicable en materia de empleo público.", "excerpt_en": "By virtue of this reform, not only was the limitation period extended from 2 to 5 years, but the concept of 'public finance servant' was also eliminated. That is, there was a shift from a subjective regime, which assessed the special conditions of the servant (whether or not a public finance servant), to an objective one, where the applicable limitation period for public officials (as defined in Article 111 of the General Public Administration Act) is determined not only by their status but by the very nature of the conduct deemed to constitute an offense. In other words, whether the alleged offense exceeds simple disciplinary liability and falls within the infractions provided for in the LOCGR, or in the superior control and oversight legal framework. This therefore constitutes a particular regime establishing special prescription rules, which supersede the general regime applicable to public employment matters.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Rejected", "label_es": "Rechazada", "summary_en": "The Cassation Court rejected the appeal, confirming that the applicable statute of limitations for the alleged offense was the one-month period under Article 603 of the Labor Code, as it did not constitute an infringement under the LOCGR or superior oversight regulations.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal de Casación rechazó el recurso, confirmando que el plazo de prescripción aplicable a la falta imputada era el de un mes previsto en el artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo, por no tratarse de una infracción encuadrable en la LOCGR o el ordenamiento de control superior." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando VI", "quote_en": "The applicable limitation period for a public official is defined not only by their status but by the very nature of the conduct deemed to constitute an offense.", "quote_es": "El plazo prescriptivo aplicable al funcionario público se define no sólo por su carácter de tal, sino por la naturaleza misma de la conducta que se estima constitutiva de falta." }, { "context": "Considerando VI", "quote_en": "This therefore constitutes a particular regime establishing special prescription rules, which supersede the general regime applicable to public employment matters.", "quote_es": "Se trata entonces de un régimen particular, que establece reglas especiales de prescripción, las cuales se sobreponen al régimen general aplicable en materia de empleo público." } ], "cites": [], "cited_by": [], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-1011-372960", "tier": 2, "_editorial_citation_count": 0, "regulations_by_article": null, "amendments_by_article": null, "dictamen_by_article": null, "concordancias_by_article": null, "afectaciones_by_article": null, "resoluciones_by_article": null, "cited_by_votos": [], "cited_norms": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-13231", "norm_num": "6227", "norm_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/05/1978" }, { "doc_id": "norm-21629", "norm_num": "7428", "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "07/09/1994" }, { "doc_id": "norm-32708", "norm_num": "1581", "norm_name": "Estatuto de Servicio Civil", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "30/05/1953" }, { "doc_id": "norm-49185", "norm_num": "8292", "norm_name": "Ley General de Control Interno", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "31/07/2002" }, { "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" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "\"VI. De previo al análisis del reproche aducido, conviene formular algunas consideraciones en relación con los regímenes de responsabilidad disciplinaria de los servidores públicos establecidos en la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y el Código de Trabajo, especialmente en cuanto al plazo de prescripción aplicable a la potestad sancionatoria. Este Tribunal, en otros antecedentes, ha señalado: “Antes de la promulgación de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, la norma general aplicable en materia disciplinaria de empleo público, y en particular en temas de prescripción, fue el artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo, por remisión expresa del cardinal 51 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil (en el caso de los funcionarios amparados por ese régimen), el cual dispone: “Los derechos y acciones de los patronos para despedir justificadamente a los trabajadores o para disciplinar sus faltas prescriben en un mes, que comenzará a correr desde que se dio causa para la separación o, en su caso, desde que fueron conocidos los hechos que dieron lugar a la corrección disciplinaria”. Con la entrada en vigencia de la LOCGR (Ley no. 7428 del 7 de setiembre de 1994), el legislador, en función de la necesidad de asegurar un mayor y mejor control de la Hacienda, así como de responsabilizar a quienes incurrieran en un mal manejo de ella, estableció un régimen disciplinario diferenciado para los servidores de la Hacienda Pública, particularmente en lo atinente a la prescripción. El ordinal 71 de esa ley disponía: “La responsabilidad disciplinaria del servidor de la Hacienda Pública prescribirá en el plazo de dos años, contados a partir del conocimiento comprobado de la falta por parte del órgano competente, para iniciar el respectivo procedimiento sancionatorio. Para estos efectos, quedan reformados, respecto de los funcionarios o de los servidores públicos, el artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo y cualesquiera otras disposiciones jurídicas que se le opongan. La comprobación del conocimiento de la falta podrá efectuarse por cualquier medio de prueba, con el valor que esta tenga, de acuerdo con la Ley General de la Administración Pública y, supletoriamente, de acuerdo con el derecho común. Cuando el autor de la falta sea el jerarca, el plazo empezará a correr a partir de la fecha en que él termine su relación de servicio con el ente, la empresa o el órgano respectivo. Se reputará como falta grave del funcionario competente, para iniciar el procedimiento sancionatorio, el no darle inicio a este oportunamente o el dejar prescribir la responsabilidad del infractor, sin causa justificada”. De esa forma, el régimen de responsabilidad previsto en la norma y su respectivo plazo prescriptivo se definió en torno al concepto de “servidor de la Hacienda Pública”, entendido éste en términos generales como aquél en cuya órbita funcional se incluye la competencia en el manejo y disposición de fondos públicos, sea desde el punto de vista contable o jurídico. El precepto de cita fue reformado por el artículo 45 inciso a) de la Ley General de Control Interno, Ley no. 8292 de 31 de julio de 2002. En la actualidad, el cardinal 71 de la LOCGR dispone: “Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria. La responsabilidad administrativa del funcionario público por las infracciones previstas en esta Ley y en el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores, prescribirá de acuerdo con las siguientes reglas: a) En los casos en que el hecho irregular sea notorio, la responsabilidad prescribirá en cinco años, contados a partir del acaecimiento del hecho. b) En los casos en que el hecho irregular no sea notorio -entendido este como aquel hecho que requiere una indagación o un estudio de auditoría para informar de su posible irregularidad- la responsabilidad prescribirá en cinco años, contados a partir de la fecha en que el informe sobre la indagación o la auditoría respectiva se ponga en conocimiento del jerarca o el funcionario competente para dar inicio al procedimiento respectivo. // La prescripción se interrumpirá, con efectos continuados, por la notificación al presunto responsable del acto que acuerde el inicio del procedimiento administrativo. // Cuando el autor de la falta sea el jerarca, el plazo empezará a correr a partir de la fecha en que él termine su relación de servicio con el ente, la empresa o el órgano respectivo. // Se reputará como falta grave del funcionario competente para iniciar el procedimiento sancionatorio, el no darle inicio a este oportunamente o el dejar que la responsabilidad del infractor prescriba, sin causa justificada”. En virtud de esa reforma, no sólo se aumentó el plazo de prescripción de 2 a 5 años, sino también se eliminó el concepto de “servidor de la Hacienda Pública”. Es decir, se pasó de un régimen subjetivo, en el cual se valoraban las especiales condiciones del servidor (funcionario o no de la Hacienda Pública), a uno objetivo, donde el plazo prescriptivo aplicable al funcionario público (en el sentido del numeral 111 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública) se define no sólo por su carácter de tal, sino por la naturaleza misma de la conducta que se estima constitutiva de falta. Esto es, si la falta intimada rebasa la responsabilidad disciplinaria simple y se encasilla dentro de las infracciones previstas en la LOCGR, o bien en el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superior. Se trata entonces de un régimen particular, que establece reglas especiales de prescripción, las cuales se sobreponen al régimen general aplicable en materia de empleo público (teoría de los preceptos 44 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito, Ley 8422; 43 de la Ley General de Control Interno, Ley 8292; y 71 de la LOCGR, Ley 7428) (Sentencia número 117-F-TC-2018 de las 12 horas 04 minutos del 12 de setiembre de 2018, en igual sentido la res. 177-F-TC-2019 de las 10 horas 15 minutos del 31 de octubre de 2019). A efecto de establecer cuál es la norma del plazo de prescripción aplicable a la especie, conviene recordar qué conducta es la atribuida a la actora en el traslado de cargos, y ello es el haber: “PRIMERO: No haber informado del fallecimiento de la señora Adriana Badilla García, ocurrido el 01 de diciembre del 2008, a las autoridades competentes. SEGUNDO. Haber brindado información falsa a la Dra. Wendy Chacón Cambronero al momento de ingresar con la fallecida Adriana Badilla García, al servicio de urgencias de la Clínica de Home CreeK. TERCERO: Haber actuado en contra del deber de probidad en su calidad de funcionaria pública, en los hechos relacionados con el fallecimiento de la señora Adriana Badilla García, ocurridos entre los días 01 y 02 de diciembre del 2008”; lo anterior, de conformidad con los hechos vertidos y enunciados en la sentencia No. 276-2012 del Tribunal Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica, dictada el 23 de agosto del 2012, en que se declaró a la actora autora responsable de un delito de Favorecimiento Personal cometido en contra de la Administración de Justicia y se le impuso una pena de dos años de prisión, con el beneficio de condena de ejecución condicional de la pena, por el plazo de cinco años. Lo anterior, tal y como se extrae del traslado de cargos y posterior ampliación, con fundamento en los artículos 81 inciso l del Código de Trabajo, artículos 50 y 59 del Reglamento Interior de Trabajo de la CCSS, artículos 10, 11, 14 y 16 del Código de Ética del Servidor de la CCSS, artículos 110, 111, 135 de la Normativa de Relaciones Laborales de la CCSS y 281 del Código Procesal Penal\".", "body_en_text": "VI. Before analyzing the alleged grievance, it is appropriate to make some considerations regarding the disciplinary liability regimes for public servants established in the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República and the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), especially regarding the statute of limitations (plazo de prescripción) applicable to the sanctioning power. This Tribunal, in other precedents, has stated: “Before the enactment of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, the general rule applicable in public employment disciplinary matters, and particularly in matters of prescription, was article 603 of the Labor Code, by express reference of article 51 of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto del Servicio Civil) (in the case of officials covered by that regime), which provides: “The rights and actions of employers to justifiably dismiss workers or to discipline their faults prescribe in one month, which shall begin to run from when the cause for separation arose or, as appropriate, from when the facts giving rise to the disciplinary correction were known.” With the entry into force of the LOCGR (Law no. 7428 of September 7, 1994), the legislator, given the need to ensure greater and better control of the Public Treasury (Hacienda), as well as to hold accountable those who incurred in its mismanagement, established a differentiated disciplinary regime for Public Treasury servants, particularly regarding prescription. Article 71 of that law provided: “The disciplinary liability of the Public Treasury servant shall prescribe within a period of two years, counted from the proven knowledge of the fault by the competent body to initiate the respective sanctioning procedure. For these purposes, article 603 of the Labor Code and any other legal provisions that oppose it are hereby amended with respect to public officials or servants. The verification of knowledge of the fault may be made by any means of proof, with the value it holds, in accordance with the Ley General de la Administración Pública and, supplementarily, in accordance with common law. When the author of the fault is the hierarch (jerarca), the period shall begin to run from the date on which he terminates his service relationship with the respective entity, company, or body. It shall be deemed a serious fault of the competent official, to initiate the sanctioning procedure, not to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the liability of the offender to prescribe, without justified cause”. In this way, the liability regime provided in the rule and its respective prescriptive period was defined around the concept of \"Public Treasury servant,\" understood generally as one whose functional orbit includes competence in the management and disposition of public funds, whether from an accounting or legal point of view. The cited precept was amended by Article 45 subsection a) of the Ley General de Control Interno, Law no. 8292 of July 31, 2002. Currently, Article 71 of the LOCGR provides: “Prescription of disciplinary liability. The administrative liability of the public official for infractions provided for in this Law and in the higher control and oversight legal framework (ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores), shall prescribe in accordance with the following rules: a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act. b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious - understood as that act which requires an investigation or an audit study to report its possible irregularity - liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date on which the report on the respective investigation or audit is brought to the knowledge of the hierarch or the competent official to initiate the respective procedure. // The statute of limitations shall be interrupted, with continued effects, by the notification to the alleged offender of the act ordering the initiation of the administrative procedure. // When the author of the fault is the hierarch, the period shall begin to run from the date on which he terminates his service relationship with the respective entity, company, or body. // It shall be deemed a serious fault of the competent official to initiate the sanctioning procedure, not to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the liability of the offender to prescribe, without justified cause.” By virtue of that amendment, not only was the prescriptive period increased from 2 to 5 years, but the concept of \"Public Treasury servant\" was also eliminated. That is, a change was made from a subjective regime, in which the special conditions of the servant were assessed (whether or not a Public Treasury official), to an objective one, where the prescriptive period applicable to the public official (in the sense of Article 111 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública) is defined not only by his status as such, but by the very nature of the conduct deemed to constitute a fault. That is, if the alleged fault goes beyond simple disciplinary liability and is classified within the infractions provided for in the LOCGR, or in the higher control and oversight legal framework. This is, then, a particular regime, which establishes special rules of prescription, which override the general regime applicable in matters of public employment (theory of precepts 44 of the Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito, Law 8422; 43 of the Ley General de Control Interno, Law 8292; and 71 of the LOCGR, Law 7428) (Judgment number 117-F-TC-2018 of 12 hours 04 minutes on September 12, 2018, in the same sense resolution 177-F-TC-2019 of 10 hours 15 minutes on October 31, 2019). In order to establish which rule for the statute of limitations is applicable to the case, it is worth recalling what conduct is attributed to the plaintiff in the statement of charges (traslado de cargos), which is the following: \"FIRST: Not having reported the death of Mrs. Adriana Badilla García, which occurred on December 1, 2008, to the competent authorities. SECOND: Having provided false information to Dr. Wendy Chacón Cambronero upon admission with the deceased Adriana Badilla García to the emergency service of the Home Creek Clinic. THIRD: Having acted against the duty of probity in her capacity as a public official, in the events related to the death of Mrs. Adriana Badilla García, which occurred between December 1 and 2, 2008\"; the foregoing, in accordance with the facts set forth and stated in Judgment No. 276-2012 of the Criminal Trial Court of the First Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone (Tribunal Penal del Primer Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica), issued on August 23, 2012, in which the plaintiff was declared the responsible perpetrator of a crime of Personal Favoritism (Favorecimiento Personal) committed against the Administration of Justice and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment, with the benefit of a suspended sentence (condena de ejecución condicional de la pena), for a period of five years. The foregoing, as extracted from the statement of charges and subsequent amplification, based on Article 81 subsection l) of the Labor Code, Articles 50 and 59 of the Internal Work Regulations of the CCSS (Reglamento Interior de Trabajo de la CCSS), Articles 10, 11, 14, and 16 of the Code of Ethics of the Servant of the CCSS (Código de Ética del Servidor de la CCSS), Articles 110, 111, 135 of the Normative on Labor Relations of the CCSS (Normativa de Relaciones Laborales de la CCSS), and 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal).\"\",\n \"hash\": \"e6b6c2dbbf1daf32bb1d4e3b83e97cd9\",\n \"chunk_id\": 0\n}\n\nFor these purposes, with respect to public officials or public servants, Article 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) and any other legal provisions that conflict with it are hereby amended. Verification of knowledge of the infraction may be carried out by any means of proof, with the value such proof holds, in accordance with the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) and, supplementarily, in accordance with common law. When the author of the infraction is the head of the entity, the period shall begin to run from the date on which his employment relationship with the entity, company, or respective body ends. It shall be deemed a serious infraction by the competent official, for the purpose of initiating the sanctioning procedure, for him to fail to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the liability of the violator to expire, without justified cause.” In this way, the liability regime provided for in the rule and its respective prescriptive period was defined around the concept of “servant of the Public Treasury (servidor de la Hacienda Pública)”, the latter being understood in general terms as that person whose functional scope includes competence in the handling and disposition of public funds, whether from an accounting or legal standpoint. The cited precept was amended by Article 45, subsection a) of the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno), Law no. 8292 of July 31, 2002. Currently, Article 71 of the LOCGR provides: “Prescription of disciplinary liability (Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria). The administrative liability of the public official for violations provided for in this Law and in the higher control and oversight regulations shall prescribe according to the following rules: a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act. b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious—understood as an act that requires an investigation or an audit study to report its possible irregularity—liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date on which the report on the respective investigation or audit is brought to the attention of the head of the entity or the competent official to initiate the respective procedure. // Prescription shall be interrupted, with continued effects, by the notification to the presumed responsible party of the act ordering the initiation of the administrative procedure. // When the author of the infraction is the head of the entity, the period shall begin to run from the date on which his employment relationship with the entity, company, or respective body ends. // It shall be deemed a serious infraction by the competent official to initiate the sanctioning procedure, for him to fail to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the violator’s liability to expire, without justified cause.”\n\nBy virtue of that reform, not only was the statute of limitations (prescripción) extended from 2 to 5 years, but the concept of “servant of the Public Treasury (servidor de la Hacienda Pública)” was also eliminated. That is, it shifted from a subjective regime, in which the special conditions of the servant (whether or not an official of the Public Treasury) were assessed, to an objective one, where the prescriptive period applicable to the public official (in the sense of numeral 111 of the General Public Administration Act) is defined not only by their status as such, but by the very nature of the conduct deemed to constitute an offense. That is, if the alleged offense goes beyond simple disciplinary responsibility and falls within the infractions provided for in the LOCGR, or in the superior control and oversight framework. It thus concerns a particular regime, which establishes special rules for the statute of limitations, which override the general regime applicable in matters of public employment (theory of precepts 44 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment, Law 8422; 43 of the General Internal Control Law, Law 8292; and 71 of the LOCGR, Law 7428) (Judgment number 117-F-TC-2018 of 12 hours 04 minutes on September 12, 2018, similarly resolution 177-F-TC-2019 of 10 hours 15 minutes on October 31, 2019). In order to establish which is the applicable statute of limitations rule in this case, it is worth recalling what conduct is attributed to the plaintiff in the statement of charges (traslado de cargos), and that is having: “FIRST: Failed to inform the competent authorities of the death of Mrs. Adriana Badilla García, which occurred on December 1, 2008. SECOND: Provided false information to Dr. Wendy Chacón Cambronero upon entering the emergency service of the Home Creek Clinic with the deceased Adriana Badilla García. THIRD: Acted contrary to the duty of probity in her capacity as a public official, in the events related to the death of Mrs. Adriana Badilla García, which occurred between December 1 and 2, 2008”; the foregoing, in accordance with the facts set forth and stated in Judgment No. 276-2012 of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, handed down on August 23, 2012, in which the plaintiff was declared the responsible author of a crime of Personal Favoritism committed against the Administration of Justice and was sentenced to two years of imprisonment, with the benefit of conditional suspension of the sentence, for a period of five years.\n\nThe foregoing, as set forth in the statement of charges and subsequent expansion, based on articles 81 subsection l of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), articles 50 and 59 of the CCSS Internal Work Regulations (Reglamento Interior de Trabajo de la CCSS), articles 10, 11, 14 and 16 of the CCSS Code of Ethics for Public Servants (Código de Ética del Servidor de la CCSS), articles 110, 111, 135 of the CCSS Labor Relations Regulations (Normativa de Relaciones Laborales de la CCSS) and 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Procesal Penal).\"\n\nVI. Before analyzing the alleged grievance, it is appropriate to make some considerations regarding the disciplinary responsibility regimes for public servants established in the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República) and the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), especially concerning the statute of limitations (prescripción) applicable to the sanctioning power (potestad sancionatoria). This Tribunal, in other precedents, has indicated: \"Before the enactment of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic, the general rule applicable in disciplinary matters of public employment, and in particular regarding the statute of limitations, was article 603 of the Labor Code, by express referral of subsection 51 of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto del Servicio Civil) (in the case of officials covered by that regime), which provides: 'The rights and actions of employers to justifiably dismiss workers or to discipline their misconduct shall prescribe in one month, which shall begin to run from the date on which cause for the separation arose or, as applicable, from the date on which the facts giving rise to the disciplinary correction were known.' With the entry into force of the LOCGR (Law No. 7428 of September 7, 1994), the legislator, based on the need to ensure greater and better control of the Public Treasury (Hacienda), as well as to hold accountable those who incurred in mismanagement thereof, established a differentiated disciplinary regime for servants of the Public Treasury, particularly regarding the statute of limitations. Section 71 of that law provided: 'The disciplinary responsibility of the servant of the Public Treasury shall prescribe within a period of two years, counted from the proven knowledge of the misconduct by the competent body to initiate the respective sanctioning proceeding.'\n\nFor these purposes, with respect to public officials or public servants, Article 603 of the Labor Code and any other legal provisions that conflict are hereby reformed. Verification of knowledge of the infraction may be carried out by any means of proof, with the value it holds, in accordance with the General Law of Public Administration and, supplementarily, in accordance with common law. When the perpetrator of the infraction is the head of the entity, the time limit shall begin to run from the date on which his service relationship with the entity, company, or respective body ends. It shall be deemed a serious fault of the competent official, for the purpose of initiating the sanctioning procedure, to fail to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the offender's liability to prescribe, without justified cause.\" In this way, the liability regime provided for in the rule and its respective prescriptive period were defined around the concept of \"servant of the Public Treasury (servidor de la Hacienda Pública),\" generally understood as one whose functional scope includes competence in the management and disposition of public funds, whether from an accounting or legal standpoint. The cited precept was reformed by Article 45, subsection a) of the General Law of Internal Control, Law no. 8292 of July 31, 2002. Currently, Article 71 of the LOCGR provides: \"Prescription of disciplinary liability. The administrative liability of the public official for the infractions provided for in this Law and in the superior control and oversight regulations shall prescribe in accordance with the following rules: a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act. b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious—understood as an act that requires an investigation or an audit study to report its possible irregularity—liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date the report on the respective investigation or audit is brought to the attention of the head of the entity or the competent official to initiate the respective procedure. // The prescription shall be interrupted, with continued effects, by the notification to the alleged responsible party of the act ordering the initiation of the administrative procedure. // When the perpetrator of the infraction is the head of the entity, the time limit shall begin to run from the date on which his service relationship with the entity, company, or respective body ends. // It shall be deemed a serious fault of the competent official for initiating the sanctioning procedure to fail to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the offender's liability to prescribe, without justified cause.\"\n\nBy virtue of that reform, not only was the statute of limitations period increased from 2 to 5 years, but the concept of “public treasury servant (servidor de la Hacienda Pública)” was also eliminated. That is, it shifted from a subjective regime, in which the special conditions of the servant (whether or not an official of the Public Treasury) were assessed, to an objective one, where the prescriptive period applicable to the public official (in the sense of numeral 111 of the General Public Administration Law) is defined not only by their character as such, but by the very nature of the conduct that is deemed to constitute a fault. This is, if the fault alleged goes beyond simple disciplinary responsibility and falls within the infractions provided for in the LOCGR, or in the higher control and oversight system. It is therefore a particular regime, which establishes special rules for the statute of limitations, rules that override the general regime applicable in public employment matters (theory of precepts 44 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment, Law 8422; 43 of the General Internal Control Law, Law 8292; and 71 of the LOCGR, Law 7428) (Judgment number 117-F-TC-2018 of 12 hours 04 minutes of September 12, 2018, in the same sense res. 177-F-TC-2019 of 10 hours 15 minutes of October 31, 2019). In order to establish which is the applicable statute of limitations rule in this case, it is pertinent to recall what conduct is attributed to the plaintiff in the statement of charges, and that is having: “FIRST: Failed to report the death of Mrs. Adriana Badilla García, which occurred on December 01, 2008, to the competent authorities. SECOND. Provided false information to Dr. Wendy Chacón Cambronero upon entering the emergency service of the Home Creek Clinic with the deceased Adriana Badilla García. THIRD: Acted against the duty of probity in her capacity as a public official, in the events related to the death of Mrs. Adriana Badilla García, which occurred between December 01 and 02, 2008”; the foregoing, in accordance with the facts set forth and stated in Judgment No. 276-2012 of the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of the Atlantic Zone, issued on August 23, 2012, in which the plaintiff was declared responsible as the perpetrator of a crime of Personal Favoritism committed against the Administration of Justice and was sentenced to two years of prison, with the benefit of conditional execution of the sentence, for a period of five years.\n\nThe foregoing, as extracted from the statement of charges and subsequent amplification, based on Article 81 subsection l of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), Articles 50 and 59 of the CCSS Internal Work Regulations (Reglamento Interior de Trabajo de la CCSS), Articles 10, 11, 14, and 16 of the CCSS Servant's Ethics Code (Código de Ética del Servidor de la CCSS), Articles 110, 111, 135 of the CCSS Labor Relations Regulations (Normativa de Relaciones Laborales de la CCSS), and 281 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Código Procesal Penal).\"" }