{ "id": "nexus-ext-1-1011-386083", "citation": "Res. 00031-2026 Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Autenticación de reclamos contra el patrono por oficial de policía", "title_en": "Authentication of claims against employer by police officer", "summary_es": "La sentencia del Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo revoca la decisión de instancia y declara sin lugar la demanda de una oficial de la Fuerza Pública que fue despedida por autenticar, como abogada, reclamos administrativos de compañeros contra el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública. El Tribunal sostiene que la autenticación de esos reclamos constituye una actividad incompatible con su condición de funcionaria policial, en violación del artículo 244 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, que prohíbe a los servidores propietarios del Poder Ejecutivo ejercer la abogacía de manera liberal. Además, la conducta vulnera el deber de probidad (artículos 3 y 38 de la Ley contra la Corrupción), la exigencia de dedicación exclusiva del artículo 76 de la Ley General de Policía, y diversas disposiciones del Reglamento de Ética y del Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio. La Cámara considera que la falta es grave y justifica el despido sin responsabilidad patronal, sin que el no pago del incentivo por prohibición exima a la funcionaria del cumplimiento de sus deberes éticos y legales.", "summary_en": "The Administrative Cassation Tribunal reverses the lower court ruling and dismisses the lawsuit of a Public Force officer fired for authenticating, as a lawyer, administrative claims by colleagues against the Ministry of Public Security. The Tribunal holds that authenticating these claims constitutes an activity incompatible with her police employment, violating Article 244 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary, which prohibits property-holder employees of the Executive Branch from practicing law privately. The conduct also breaches the duty of probity (Articles 3 and 38 of the Anti-Corruption Law), the full-time dedication requirement of Article 76 of the General Police Law, and several provisions of the Police Ethics and Service Regulations. The Chamber finds the misconduct serious enough to justify dismissal without employer liability, and the fact that the officer was not receiving the prohibition bonus does not relieve her of her ethical and legal duties.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda", "date": "11/02/2026", "year": "2026", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "autenticación de firmas", "deber de probidad", "ejercicio liberal de la abogacía", "falta grave", "dedicación exclusiva", "pérdida de confianza" ], "article_citations": [ { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "71", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "71", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Código de Trabajo", "article": "81", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 2", "article": "81", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "article": "1", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 23880", "article": "1", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "article": "3", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 23880", "article": "3", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "article": "7", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 23880", "article": "7", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "article": "8", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 23880", "article": "8", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "article": "10", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 23880", "article": "10", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "article": "11", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 23880", "article": "11", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "article": "202", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Decreto Ejecutivo 23880", "article": "202", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "article": "111", "doc_id": "norm-13231", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 6227", "article": "111", "doc_id": "norm-13231", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley General de Policía", "article": "45", "doc_id": "norm-66525", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7410", "article": "45", "doc_id": "norm-66525", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley General de Policía", "article": "76", "doc_id": "norm-66525", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7410", "article": "76", "doc_id": "norm-66525", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley General de Policía", "article": "85", "doc_id": "norm-66525", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 7410", "article": "85", "doc_id": "norm-66525", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (1937)", "article": "244", "doc_id": "norm-33635", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8", "article": "244", "doc_id": "norm-33635", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "article": "3", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8422", "article": "3", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "article": "4", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8422", "article": "4", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "article": "38", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" }, { "law": "Ley 8422", "article": "38", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "source": "metadata" } ], "keywords_es": [ "autenticación de reclamos", "conflicto de intereses", "deber de probidad", "dedicación exclusiva", "despido disciplinario", "función policial", "incompatibilidad laboral", "Ministerio de Seguridad Pública", "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial", "Ley General de Policía", "Ley contra la Corrupción", "pérdida de confianza", "Reglamento de Ética Policial", "Tribunal de Casación Contencioso", "Ugalde Venegas" ], "keywords_en": [ "authentication of claims", "conflict of interest", "duty of probity", "full-time dedication", "disciplinary dismissal", "police function", "employment incompatibility", "Ministry of Public Security", "Organic Law of the Judiciary", "General Police Law", "Anti-Corruption Law", "loss of trust", "Police Ethics Regulations", "Administrative Cassation Tribunal", "Ugalde Venegas" ], "excerpt_es": "Con base en el marco referencial descrito, no comparte este Órgano Decisor el razonamiento ni lo resuelto por el Tribunal. En el caso concreto, es un hecho no desvirtuado que, mediante escritos presentados ante el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública en la dependencia de Proceso de Asesoría Jurídica, los días 1°, 7, 8 y 15 de julio de 2016, diversos funcionarios policiales, entre ellos la aquí actora, presentaron sendos reclamos económicos pidiendo el pago del 1.5% anual escalonado desde la fecha de inicio de sus labores. Tales reclamos administrativos, fueron realizados en papelería membretada de la señora Ugalde Venegas y autenticados a todos los petentes por su persona en calidad de abogada con carné no. 25806, estampando su sello de profesional en derecho en cada escrito. (...) En el subjúdice, tiene claro este Órgano Colegiado, desde el momento que doña Gisella autenticó -en calidad de abogada- los reclamos administrativos presentados ante su propio patrono, sea; el Ministerio de Seguridad Publica, incurrió en una actividad incompatible con su condición de funcionaria policial, consecuentemente; faltó al deber de probidad contenido en los ordinales 3 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, 1, 2 y 3 del Reglamento de Ética de los Miembros de las Fuerzas de Policía, por lo que al enterarse el referido Ministerio de la situación, sin duda, la relación laboral perdió confianza, lo que justifica la sanción disciplinaria impuesta.", "excerpt_en": "Based on the aforementioned referential framework, this Deciding Body does not share the reasoning nor the decision of the Court. In the specific case, it is an undisputed fact that, through documents filed with the Ministry of Public Security in the Legal Advisory Process unit on July 1, 7, 8 and 15, 2016, several police officers, including the plaintiff, submitted various financial claims requesting payment of 1.5% annually, scaled from the start of their employment. These administrative claims were made on Ms. Ugalde Venegas' letterhead and authenticated for all petitioners by her as an attorney with ID no. 25806, stamping her professional seal on each document. (...) In the case at hand, this Collegiate Body is clear that from the moment Ms. Gisella authenticated—as a lawyer—the administrative claims filed against her own employer, i.e., the Ministry of Public Security, she engaged in an activity incompatible with her status as a police officer, thereby violating the duty of probity contained in Articles 3 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office, and 1, 2 and 3 of the Ethics Regulations for Police Forces, so that when the Ministry learned of the situation, the employment relationship undoubtedly lost trust, which justifies the disciplinary sanction imposed.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The Tribunal overturns the lower court ruling, dismisses the lawsuit, and upholds the legality of the officer's disciplinary dismissal for authenticating claims against her employer.", "summary_es": "El Tribunal casa la sentencia de instancia y declara sin lugar la demanda, confirmando la legalidad del despido disciplinario de la funcionaria por autenticar reclamos contra su patrono." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "From the moment Ms. Gisella authenticated—as a lawyer—the administrative claims filed against her own employer, i.e., the Ministry of Public Security, she engaged in an activity incompatible with her status as a police officer, thereby violating the duty of probity.", "quote_es": "Desde el momento que doña Gisella autenticó -en calidad de abogada- los reclamos administrativos presentados ante su propio patrono, sea; el Ministerio de Seguridad Publica, incurrió en una actividad incompatible con su condición de funcionaria policial, consecuentemente; faltó al deber de probidad." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "The prohibition set forth in Article 244 under discussion is based on the inherent incompatibility between the private practice of law and the responsibilities of public servants.", "quote_es": "La prohibición estipulada en el numeral 244 de comentario, se fundamenta en la incompatibilidad inherente entre el ejercicio de la abogacía de manera liberal o privada y las responsabilidades de los servidores públicos." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "In essence, the regulation recognizes that participation in private law activities could jeopardize integrity and public trust by creating potential conflicts between personal interests and official duties.", "quote_es": "En esencia, la normativa reconoce que la participación en actividades privadas de abogacía podría poner en riesgo la integridad y la confianza pública al crear potenciales conflictos entre intereses personales y deberes oficiales." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-8045", "citation": "Ley 5089", "title_en": "Labor Code", "title_es": "Código de Trabajo", "doc_type": "law", "date": "29/08/1943", "year": "1943" }, { "id": "norm-13231", "citation": "Ley 6227", "title_en": "General Law of Public Administration", "title_es": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "doc_type": "law", "date": "02/05/1978", "year": "1978" }, { "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-53738", "citation": "Ley 8422", "title_en": "Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office", "title_es": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "doc_type": "law", "date": "06/10/2004", "year": "2004" }, { "id": "norm-33635", "citation": "", "title_en": "Organic Law of the Judiciary", "title_es": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/12/1937", "year": "1937" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-13231", "citation": "Ley 6227", "title_en": "General Law of Public Administration", "title_es": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "doc_type": "law", "date": "02/05/1978", "year": "1978" }, { "id": "norm-33635", "citation": "", "title_en": "Organic Law of the Judiciary", "title_es": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial", "doc_type": null, "date": "01/12/1937", "year": "1937" }, { "id": "norm-53738", "citation": "Ley 8422", "title_en": "Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office", "title_es": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "doc_type": "law", "date": "06/10/2004", "year": "2004" }, { "id": "norm-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-8045", "citation": "Ley 5089", "title_en": "Labor Code", "title_es": "Código de Trabajo", "doc_type": "law", "date": "29/08/1943", "year": "1943" } ], "references": { "internal": [ { "target_id": "norm-8045", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Código de Trabajo" }, { "target_id": "norm-13231", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley General de la Administración Pública" }, { "target_id": "norm-66525", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley General de Policía" }, { "target_id": "norm-53738", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública" } ], "external": [ { "ref_id": "norm-68369", "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=68369&strTipM=FN", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "norm_id": "68369" }, { "ref_id": "norm-33635", "url": "https://pgrweb.go.cr/scij/Busqueda/Normativa/Normas/nrm_norma.aspx?param1=NRM&nValor1=1&nValor2=33635&strTipM=FN", "kind": "cited_norm", "label": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (1937)", "norm_id": "33635" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/ext-1-1011-386083", "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": "71", "art_scij": "47097", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "04 Nov 2025", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "148411", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "81", "art_scij": "47107", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_fecha": "04 Nov 2025", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "norm_num": "2", "norm_ver": "148411", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "1", "art_scij": "2", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "norm_detalle": "Inciso 2", "norm_fecha": "26 Ene 2022", "norm_name": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "norm_num": "23880", "norm_ver": "130911", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo" }, { "art_num": "3", "art_scij": "4", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "norm_detalle": "Inciso 4", "norm_fecha": "26 Ene 2022", "norm_name": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "norm_num": "23880", "norm_ver": "130911", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo" }, { "art_num": "7", "art_scij": "8", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "norm_detalle": "Inciso 1", "norm_fecha": "26 Ene 2022", "norm_name": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "norm_num": "23880", "norm_ver": "130911", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo" }, { "art_num": "8", "art_scij": "9", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "norm_detalle": "Inciso c", "norm_fecha": "26 Ene 2022", "norm_name": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "norm_num": "23880", "norm_ver": "130911", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo" }, { "art_num": "10", "art_scij": "11", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "norm_detalle": "Inciso h, j", "norm_fecha": "26 Ene 2022", "norm_name": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "norm_num": "23880", "norm_ver": "130911", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo" }, { "art_num": "11", "art_scij": "12", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "norm_fecha": "26 Ene 2022", "norm_name": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "norm_num": "23880", "norm_ver": "130911", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo" }, { "art_num": "202", "art_scij": "167", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-68369", "norm_detalle": "Inciso h, j", "norm_fecha": "26 Ene 2022", "norm_name": "Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública (Reglamenta relaciones de funcionamiento y servicio de los diferentes cuerpos policiales indicadas en el Título III artículo 50 de la Ley N° 7410)", "norm_num": "23880", "norm_ver": "130911", "tipo_norma": "Decreto Ejecutivo" }, { "art_num": "111", "art_scij": "77179", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-13231", "norm_fecha": "05 Nov 2024", "norm_name": "Ley General de la Administración Pública", "norm_num": "6227", "norm_ver": "143668", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "45", "art_scij": "36", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-66525", "norm_detalle": "Inciso a", "norm_fecha": "04 Jun 2025", "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía", "norm_num": "7410", "norm_ver": "146316", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "76", "art_scij": "57", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-66525", "norm_detalle": "Inciso a", "norm_fecha": "04 Jun 2025", "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía", "norm_num": "7410", "norm_ver": "146316", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "85", "art_scij": "66", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-66525", "norm_detalle": "Inciso j, ñ", "norm_fecha": "04 Jun 2025", "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía", "norm_num": "7410", "norm_ver": "146316", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "244", "art_scij": "193204", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-33635", "norm_fecha": "23 Oct 2024", "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial (1937)", "norm_num": "8", "norm_ver": "143189", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "3", "art_scij": "4", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_fecha": "06 May 2025", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_ver": "146086", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "4", "art_scij": "5", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_fecha": "06 May 2025", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_ver": "146086", "tipo_norma": "Ley" }, { "art_num": "38", "art_scij": "39", "art_subnum": "0", "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_fecha": "06 May 2025", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_ver": "146086", "tipo_norma": "Ley" } ], "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-33635", "norm_num": "", "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial", "tipo_norma": "", "norm_fecha": "01/12/1937" }, { "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "06/10/2004" }, { "doc_id": "norm-66525", "norm_num": "7410", "norm_name": "Ley General de Policía", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "26/05/1994" }, { "doc_id": "norm-8045", "norm_num": "5089", "norm_name": "Código de Trabajo", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "29/08/1943" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [ { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Funcionaria policial abogada e incompatibilidad entre el ejercicio liberal de la profesión y la función policial" } ], "id": 1, "nombre": "Despido" }, { "Subtemas": [ { "id": 1, "nombre": "Funcionaria policial abogada e incompatibilidad entre el ejercicio liberal de la profesión y la función policial" } ], "id": 2, "nombre": "Policía" } ], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "\"V. Con base en el marco referencial descrito, no comparte este Órgano Decisor el razonamiento ni lo resuelto por el Tribunal. En el caso concreto, es un hecho no desvirtuado que, mediante escritos presentados ante el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública en la dependencia de Proceso de Asesoría Jurídica, los días 1°, 7, 8 y 15 de julio de 2016, diversos funcionarios policiales, entre ellos la aquí actora, presentaron sendos reclamos económicos pidiendo el pago del 1.5% anual escalonado desde la fecha de inicio de sus labores. Tales reclamos administrativos, fueron realizados en papelería membretada de la señora Ugalde Venegas y autenticados a todos los petentes por su persona en calidad de abogada con carné no. 25806, estampando su sello de profesional en derecho en cada escrito. En el expediente administrativo, consta a folios 4 a 38 cada uno de dichos escritos, donde se denota que la actora autenticó la firma de los reclamantes, se constata que ofreció su correo electrónico personal para recibir notificaciones, constan sus sellos de abogada e incluso se presentaron en escritos en donde se encuentra su membrete personal en cada uno de los folios. Conducta imputada en el traslado de cargos y reconocida por la propia investigada en el procedimiento administrativo tramitado en su contra, la que deviene improcedente e inadmisible para una funcionaria de la fuerza pública que debe actuar con la probidad que el puesto amerita, como bien estableció el Consejo de Personal y el Ministro de la Cartera. Cabe destacar, en el ámbito del empleo público es sabido de la existencia de impedimentos legales para el ejercicio liberal de la profesión. En esa dirección, el cardinal 244 de la LOPJ es claro al establecer: “Aunque sean abogados, no podrán ejercer la profesión los servidores propietarios de los Poderes Ejecutivo y Judicial, del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, de la Contraloría General de la República, de la Procuraduría General de la República y de las municipalidades, salvo en sus propios negocios y en los de sus cónyuges, ascendientes o descendientes, hermanos, suegros, yernos y cuñados (…).” De la literalidad del precepto trascrito, se desprende que los funcionarios policiales que ostenten la condición de abogados tienen prohibido el ejercicio liberal de esa profesión, lo que les impide realizar cualquier acto o trabajo que implique tal ejercicio. En otra palabras, los funcionarios que ocupan un puesto en propiedad de los Poderes de la República y demás dependencias y entes públicos enunciados en el artículo 244 de la LOPJ, se encuentran compelidos, de manera imperativa, a no ejercer, de manera privada, la abogacía, por ostentar, precisamente, la condición de \"funcionario\"; es decir, basta con aceptar un cargo público y que su nombramiento se haya conformado mediante acto válido y eficaz de investidura, al tenor de lo dispuesto en el ordinal 111 de la LGAP, para que no puedan ejercer, de modo particular, su profesión de abogados. Esta prohibición, de acatamiento obligatorio, está determinada por la incompatibilidad que tienen los servidores públicos, una vez sometidos al régimen jurídico que les rige en sus puestos, para desempeñarse en actividades particulares que puedan comprometer los deberes éticos y morales de imparcialidad, lealtad, objetividad e independencia de la función estatal. Valga agregar, el ejercicio de la función pública implica el cumplimiento de deberes y obligaciones de carácter ético y legal. Entre esas obligaciones se encuentra la de observar el deber de probidad, el cual está regulado, entre otras normas, en los artículos 3 y 38 de la Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública. Asimismo, la Ley General de Policía establece deberes y obligaciones a cumplir por parte de los oficiales policiales que lo vinculan a la Administración Pública de una forma exclusiva y excepcional. En esa medida, el artículo 76 consagra: “DEBERES. Los miembros de las fuerzas de policía, además de los deberes ético-jurídicos consignados en esta Ley, tendrán las siguientes obligaciones específicas: a) Dedicarse exclusivamente a sus labores a tiempo completo (…).” Puede observarse del texto legal transcrito, que los miembros de las fuerzas de policía, tienen como deber el dedicarse completa y exclusivamente a sus labores a tiempo completo y bajo los horarios definidos por reglamento, sin perjuicio de la disponibilidad a que se encuentran sujetos a cumplir. Modalidades de carácter imperativo, que son inherentes al cargo mismo de policía. Tómese en cuenta, en términos generales, los oficiales de policía están llamados a resguardar el interés público y el interés de la institución a la cual sirve, investidura que trae aparejada la obligación de conducirse, sea en el plano público como privado, bajo los recaudos de la rectitud, probidad, buenas costumbres, honestidad, transparencia, respeto y acatamiento del ordenamiento jurídico, así como; realizar su trabajo en forma diligente, responsable, en resguardo de la ciudadanía y de sus bienes garantizando la seguridad pública mediante la prevención y represión de las manifestaciones de delincuencia. En cuanto a este punto, el Reglamento de Ética de los Cuerpos Policiales expresamente consagra: “Artículo 1º- Los miembros de las fuerzas de policía tienen el deber de cumplir con la misión encomendada, respetando el ordenamiento jurídico y con espíritu de servicio. Para lo anterior, deberán cumplir con los siguientes deberes: (…) 2) Observar en todo momento los deberes que les impone la Constitución Política, los tratados internacionales, las leyes, los reglamentos y las disposiciones administrativas, así como los deberes que se desprenden de la misión institucional, sirviendo a la comunidad mediante la investigación, prevención y represión de las manifestaciones de delincuencia, de conformidad con la competencia policial en la que se encuentren circunscritos, teniendo siempre presente que su función profesional está enmarcada por el espíritu de servicio público, el bien común, el compromiso con los habitantes, con los tribunales de justicia y demás autoridades públicas. Artículo 3º- En razón de que la investidura policial se ostenta las veinticuatro horas del día durante todos los días del año, la conducta de los miembros de los cuerpos de policía debe ajustarse a los más altos ideales de dignidad humana y a los principios de urbanidad, buenas costumbres y sana convivencia social. En virtud de ello, deberán observar las siguientes reglas: (…) 4) Abstenerse de realizar en su vida privada y aún durante su tiempo libre, actuaciones incompatibles con la función policial, o que comprometan la investidura policial que ostenta durante las veinticuatro horas del día, todos los días del año. Artículo 7º- Los servidores policiales, bajo ninguna circunstancia deben cometer actos de corrupción ni tolerarlos en su presencia. Asimismo, están obligados a rechazar esos actos y a denunciar a quienes los cometan. Para ello, deberán observar las siguientes disposiciones: 1) Mantener siempre clara conciencia de su responsabilidad individual por los actos que ejecuten, actuando en todo momento con probidad y honradez, rechazando vigorosamente y denunciando toda acción u omisión que pueda conducir a actos de corrupción o cualquier otra conducta contraria al ordenamiento jurídico. El abstenerse de denunciar estas actuaciones convierte al servidor pasivo en co-partícipe y por ende responsable, de los actos ilegales y, o corruptos. (…). Artículo 11.- El incumplimiento de los principios y deberes éticos comprendidos en el presente Reglamento conllevará las sanciones disciplinarias que sean en corresponder, según la gravedad de las circunstancias y conforme las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias que rigen la relación de servicio policial, previa instauración del debido proceso administrativo para tales efectos, sin perjuicio de otras responsabilidades que se pudieran derivar de la conducta reprochable.” Asimismo, estipula el mandato 8 del Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública: “De las obligaciones de los servidores. Además de las obligaciones contenidas en el artículo 71 del Código de Trabajo, son obligaciones de los servidores: (…) c) Ejecutar todos los trabajos adicionales que su superior inmediato le señale, dentro de la jornada ordinaria de trabajo, siempre que sean compatibles con sus aptitudes y condición (…).” Ahora, establece el artículo 85 de la Ley General de Policía como faltas graves: “Para los efectos de este régimen, se considerarán faltas graves: (…) j) El ejercicio de actividades públicas o privadas, incompatibles con el desempeño de sus funciones. (…) ñ) Cualquier otra conducta sancionada con despido en el Código de Trabajo.” Como se indicó, el artículo 244 de la LOPJ impone una restricción categórica sobre el ejercicio de la abogacía de manera liberal o privada para los servidores en cargos de propiedad en el Poder Ejecutivo. Restricción que se aplica independientemente de si los servidores reciben o no remuneración por alguna norma que permita el pago de prohibición. La prohibición estipulada en el numeral 244 de comentario, se fundamenta en la incompatibilidad inherente entre el ejercicio de la abogacía de manera liberal o privada y las responsabilidades de los servidores públicos. Esta incompatibilidad se deriva del régimen jurídico al que están sometidos los servidores, el cual exige una dedicación exclusiva a sus funciones públicas y una conducta que no comprometa los principios éticos y morales esenciales de imparcialidad, lealtad, objetividad e independencia. En esencia, la normativa reconoce que la participación en actividades privadas de abogacía podría poner en riesgo la integridad y la confianza pública al crear potenciales conflictos entre intereses personales y deberes oficiales, minando así los pilares éticos que deben regir la función pública. Por tanto, la prohibición busca asegurar que los servidores públicos mantengan su enfoque y lealtad hacia el interés público y la rectitud administrativa. Precisamente, en virtud del impedimento legal que tienen los funcionarios abogados enunciados en el artículo 244 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, para ejercer liberalmente la profesión (sea de forme remunerada o ad honorem), la conducta desarrollada por la señora Ugalde Venegas y que tiene relación directa con ese oficio profesional resulta incompatible con su condición de funcionaria policial, de ahí la falta grave en la que incurre. En el subjúdice, tiene claro este Órgano Colegiado, desde el momento que doña Gisella autenticó -en calidad de abogada- los reclamos administrativos presentados ante su propio patrono, sea; el Ministerio de Seguridad Publica, incurrió en una actividad incompatible con su condición de funcionaria policial, consecuentemente; faltó al deber de probidad contenido en los ordinales 3 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, 1, 2 y 3 del Reglamento de Ética de los Miembros de las Fuerzas de Policía, por lo que al enterarse el referido Ministerio de la situación, sin duda, la relación laboral perdió confianza, lo que justifica la sanción disciplinaria impuesta (por infracción de los cardinales 10 inciso h) y j) del Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública –de aplicación supletoria de conformidad con el artículo 202 del Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública-,1 inciso 2), 3 inciso 4), 7 inciso 1) y 11 del Reglamento de Ética de los Miembros de las Fuerzas de Policía Adscritas al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública). Contrario al criterio de los Jueces de instancia, deviene inadmisible tener por demostrado que la servidora policial autenticó una serie de reclamos administrativos dirigidos contra su patrono, estimar que lo más conveniente era que doña Gisella se abstuviera de tal actuación para evitar cuestionamiento o dudas, e incluso; calificar tal conducta como un conflicto de interés (en su parecer: atenuado) y al mismo tiempo; concluir que esa conducta no califica como falta grave y no justifica el despido. Es innegable, la señora Ugalde Venegas infringió el ordenamiento jurídico al incumplir los deberes propios de su cargo, de ahí que, la base de la sanción impuesta es la conducta reprochable e irreconocible de la investigada por vulnerar las obligaciones del quehacer policial, con la consecuente pérdida de confianza. Accionar anómalo que la accionante no niega haber realizado. Valga acotar, si las autenticaciones las realizó en horas hábiles o no, si participó o no en su resolución, si trabajaba o no en el Departamento encargado de resolver las gestiones planteadas, poco o nada importa al resolver este asunto, en ese sentido las apreciaciones de los Jueces no dejan de ser meras elucubraciones sin trascendencia, pues al margen de tales aspectos, es evidente la conducta reprochable de la actora, el incumplimiento de las obligaciones propias del quehacer policial y la pérdida objetiva de confianza (en los términos antes indicados), fundamentos de la sanción disciplinaria. Tengase claro, se está ante una conducta improcedente e inadmisible para una funcionaria de la policía que debe actuar con la probidad que el puesto amerita. Los oficiales de policía están llamados a resguardar el interés público y el interés de la institución a la cual sirve, investidura que trae aparejada la obligación de conducirse, sea en el plano público como privado, bajo los recaudos de la rectitud, probidad, buenas costumbres, honestidad, transparencia, respeto y acatamiento del ordenamiento jurídico, así como; realizar su trabajo en forma diligente, responsable, en resguardo de la ciudadanía y de sus bienes garantizando la seguridad pública mediante la prevención y represión de las manifestaciones de delincuencia. En el sublite, doña Gisella fue sancionada por realizar actividades incompatibles con su condición de funcionaria policial y por esa conducta se dispuso su despido, al constituir una falta grave en los términos del canon 85 de la Ley General de Policía (anteriormente el ordinal 81), en relación con los numerales 81 del Código de Trabajo, 8 y 10 del Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública y 3 del Reglamento de Ética de los Miembros de las Fuerzas de Policía Adscritas al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública. Normas -todas- que sustentaron el traslado de cargos y la resolución final del procedimiento. Cabe destacar, la accionante no logró desvirtuar en el proceso plenario (en el cual contó con todas las garantías de defensa), los motivos que condujeron al demandado a disponer el despido sin responsabilidad patronal. Por el contrario, resulta evidente, la conducta reprochable de la accionante tiene sustento en el incumplimiento de las obligaciones propias del quehacer policial y la pérdida objetiva de confianza, fundamentos de la sanción disciplinaria impuesta. Esa indudable, autenticar reclamos administrativos contra el Ministerio para el cual se labora, genera un caos institucional y una indisposición entre los servidores, con clara afectación a la buena administración de la Institución. Particularidades que permiten confirmar la razonabilidad y proporcional del despido. Aunado a lo anterior, no comparte esta Cámara el argumento de los Juzgadores en cuanto estiman que no existía impedimento legal para que doña Gisella autenticara los reclamos administrativos, por el hecho de que en ese momento no se le pagaba a la funcionaria ningún rubro por prohibición. Cabe destacar, el pago por prohibición que prevé el inciso a) del artículo 45 de la Ley General de Policía, consistente en un 65% sobre el salario base, es una compensación económica que se aplica a los profesionales en Derecho, que prestan el servicio de apoyo y asesoramiento legal en materia de policía en la Dirección de Apoyo Legal de la Fuerza Pública del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública. Por consiguiente, el beneficio compensatorio estipulado en dicha norma, no puede ser extendido a un funcionario de los cuerpos policiales del Ministerio si no se encuentra dentro de los presupuestos legales a que hace referencia la citada normativa para su otorgamiento. En el caso concreto, tuvo por demostrado el Tribunal que, durante el mes de julio de 2016 (momento en que se plantearon los reclamos administrativos autenticados por la accionante), la señora Ugalde Venegas ostentaba un puesto en propiedad dentro del MSP, como Agente II (FP) y como Agente de Programa Preventivo, no obstante; a partir del 16 de junio de 2017 fue ascendida interinamente al puesto de Oficial I Apoyo Legal, momento en que empezó a percibir la compensación económica por concepto de prohibición. Véase, contrario al criterio de los Jueces, en los términos de los numerales 45 de la Ley General de Policía y 244 de la LOPJ, hasta que doña Giselle no fue ascendida al Departamento de Apoyo Legal no era obligatorio el pago de prohibición alguna, sin embargo; mantenía el impedimento legal para el ejercicio liberal de la profesión de abogada, al tratarse de una servidora propietaria del Poder Ejecutivo (único supuesto exigido en el canon 244 de comentario). Ahora, el no pago de prohibición al momento de autenticar los reclamos administrativos, no implica que estuviera exenta del deber de probidad al que se refieren los artículos 3, 4 y 38 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, deber que incluye la obligación de abstenerse de litigar contra los intereses de la Institución para la que labora. Por las razones invocadas, contrario a la tesis del Tribunal, estima esta Cámara que el despido acordado por el Ministerio de Seguridad Pública está bien fundamentado y no adolece de nulidad, de manera que lo procedente será acoger el recurso interpuesto, casar la resolución impugnada y en consecuencia; declarar sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos. Por la forma como se resolverá (declarando sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos), deviene innecesario referirse a segundo cargo endilgado, el que gira en torno al monto otorgado a título de daño moral subjetivo\".", "body_en_text": "V. Based on the referential framework described, this Deciding Body does not share the reasoning or the decision of the Trial Court. In the specific case, it is an undisputed fact that, through briefs filed with the Ministry of Public Security in the Legal Advisory Process department, on July 1, 7, 8, and 15, 2016, various police officials, among them the plaintiff here, submitted respective monetary claims requesting payment of the 1.5% annually, staggered from the start date of their employment. Such administrative claims were made on the letterhead of Mrs. Ugalde Venegas and authenticated for all the petitioners by her in her capacity as a lawyer with bar card no. 25806, stamping her legal professional seal on each brief. In the administrative file, each of these briefs is found at folios 4 to 38, where it is noted that the plaintiff authenticated the signature of the claimants, it is verified that she provided her personal email address to receive notifications, her lawyer seals are present, and they were even submitted in briefs where her personal letterhead is found on each of the folios. This conduct was charged in the notice of charges (traslado de cargos) and acknowledged by the investigated party herself in the administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo) processed against her, which proves to be improper and inadmissible for a public force official who must act with the probity (probidad) that the position merits, as the Personnel Council and the Minister of the Ministry well established.\n\nIt is worth highlighting that in the field of public employment, the existence of legal impediments to the private practice of the profession is well known. In that direction, Article 244 of the LOPJ is clear in establishing: \"Even if they are lawyers, the permanent employees of the Executive and Judicial Branches, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Comptroller General of the Republic, the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, and the municipalities may not practice the profession, except in their own affairs and those of their spouses, ascendants or descendants, siblings, parents-in-law, sons-in-law, and brothers-in-law (...).\" From the literal wording of the transcribed precept, it follows that police officials who hold the status of lawyers are prohibited from the private practice of that profession, which prevents them from performing any act or work that implies such practice. In other words, officials who hold a permanent position in the Branches of the Republic and other public agencies and entities listed in Article 244 of the LOPJ are compelled, in a mandatory manner, not to practice law privately, precisely because they hold the status of \"official\"; that is, it is sufficient to accept a public position and for their appointment to have been made through a valid and effective investiture act, pursuant to the provisions of Article 111 of the LGAP, for them to be unable to practice their legal profession in a private manner. This prohibition, of mandatory observance, is determined by the incompatibility that public servants have, once subjected to the legal regime that governs them in their positions, to engage in private activities that may compromise the ethical and moral duties of impartiality, loyalty, objectivity, and independence of the state function.\n\nIt is worth adding that the exercise of the public function implies compliance with duties and obligations of an ethical and legal nature. Among these obligations is that of observing the duty of probity (deber de probidad), which is regulated, among other norms, in Articles 3 and 38 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function. Likewise, the General Police Law establishes duties and obligations to be fulfilled by police officers that bind them to the Public Administration in an exclusive and exceptional manner. To that extent, Article 76 enshrines: \"DUTIES. The members of the police forces, in addition to the ethical-legal duties set forth in this Law, shall have the following specific obligations: a) To dedicate themselves exclusively to their full-time duties (...).\" It can be observed from the transcribed legal text that the members of the police forces have the duty to dedicate themselves completely and exclusively to their full-time duties under the schedules defined by regulation, without prejudice to the availability they are subject to fulfill. These are mandatory modalities that are inherent to the very position of police officer.\n\nTake into account that, in general terms, police officers are called to safeguard the public interest and the interest of the institution they serve, an investiture that entails the obligation to conduct themselves, whether in the public or private sphere, under the precepts of rectitude, probity (probidad), good customs, honesty, transparency, respect, and compliance with the legal system, as well as to perform their work diligently and responsibly, in protection of the citizenry and their property, guaranteeing public safety through the prevention and repression of manifestations of delinquency. Regarding this point, the Ethics Regulation for Police Forces expressly enshrines: \"Article 1- The members of the police forces have the duty to fulfill the entrusted mission, respecting the legal system and with a spirit of service. To this end, they must comply with the following duties: (...) 2) Observe at all times the duties imposed on them by the Political Constitution, international treaties, laws, regulations, and administrative provisions, as well as the duties arising from the institutional mission, serving the community through the investigation, prevention, and repression of manifestations of delinquency, in accordance with the police competence in which they are circumscribed, always bearing in mind that their professional function is framed by the spirit of public service, the common good, commitment to the inhabitants, to the courts of justice, and other public authorities. Article 3- Because the police investiture is held twenty-four hours a day every day of the year, the conduct of the members of the police forces must conform to the highest ideals of human dignity and to the principles of civility, good customs, and healthy social coexistence. By virtue of this, they must observe the following rules: (...) 4) Refrain from performing, in their private life and even during their free time, actions incompatible with the police function, or that compromise the police investiture they hold twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year. Article 7- Police servants, under no circumstances, must commit acts of corruption or tolerate them in their presence. Likewise, they are obligated to reject such acts and to denounce those who commit them. To this end, they must observe the following provisions: 1) Always maintain a clear awareness of their individual responsibility for the acts they execute, acting at all times with probity (probidad) and honesty, vigorously rejecting and denouncing any action or omission that may lead to acts of corruption or any other conduct contrary to the legal system. Refraining from denouncing these actions makes the passive servant a co-participant and therefore responsible for the illegal and/or corrupt acts. (...). Article 11.- Failure to comply with the ethical principles and duties contained in this Regulation shall entail the disciplinary sanctions that are applicable, according to the seriousness of the circumstances and in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions that govern the police service relationship, after the establishment of the appropriate administrative due process for such purposes, without prejudice to other responsibilities that may arise from the reprehensible conduct.\"\n\nLikewise, Article 8 of the Autonomous Service Regulation of the Ministry of Public Security stipulates: \"Of the obligations of the servants. In addition to the obligations contained in Article 71 of the Labor Code, the obligations of the servants are: (...) c) Execute all additional work that their immediate superior assigns to them, within the ordinary workday, provided they are compatible with their skills and condition (...).\"\n\nNow, Article 85 of the General Police Law establishes as serious faults (faltas graves): \"For the purposes of this regime, the following shall be considered serious faults: (...) j) The exercise of public or private activities incompatible with the performance of their functions. (...) ñ) Any other conduct punishable by dismissal in the Labor Code.\"\n\nAs indicated, Article 244 of the LOPJ imposes a categorical restriction on the private or liberal practice of law for public servants in permanent positions within the Executive Branch. This restriction applies regardless of whether or not the servants receive compensation under any rule that allows payment for the prohibition (prohibición). The prohibition stipulated in Article 244 under discussion is based on the inherent incompatibility between the private or liberal practice of law and the responsibilities of public servants. This incompatibility derives from the legal regime to which the servants are subjected, which demands exclusive dedication to their public functions and conduct that does not compromise the essential ethical and moral principles of impartiality, loyalty, objectivity, and independence. In essence, the regulations recognize that participation in private law activities could jeopardize integrity and public trust by creating potential conflicts between personal interests and official duties, thereby undermining the ethical pillars that must govern the public function. Therefore, the prohibition seeks to ensure that public servants maintain their focus and loyalty towards the public interest and administrative rectitude.\n\nPrecisely, by virtue of the legal impediment that the lawyer-officials listed in Article 244 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch have from practicing the profession privately (whether for pay or pro bono), the conduct engaged in by Mrs. Ugalde Venegas and which is directly related to that professional practice is incompatible with her status as a police official, hence the serious fault (falta grave) incurred.\n\nIn the case sub judice, it is clear to this Collegiate Body, that from the moment Mrs. Gisella authenticated - in her capacity as a lawyer - the administrative claims filed before her own employer, that being the Ministry of Public Security, she engaged in an activity incompatible with her status as a police official; consequently, she breached the duty of probity (deber de probidad) contained in Articles 3 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function, and 1, 2, and 3 of the Ethics Regulation for Members of the Police Forces. Therefore, when the referenced Ministry became aware of the situation, without a doubt, the employment relationship lost trust, which justifies the imposed disciplinary sanction (for infringement of Articles 10, subsections h) and j) of the Autonomous Service Regulation of the Ministry of Public Security –of supplementary application in accordance with Article 202 of the Service Regulation for the Police Forces Attached to the Ministry of Public Security–, 1, subsection 2), 3, subsection 4), 7, subsection 1), and 11 of the Ethics Regulation for Members of the Police Forces Attached to the Ministry of Public Security).\n\nContrary to the criterion of the trial-level Judges, it proves inadmissible to have found it proven that the police officer authenticated a series of administrative claims directed against her employer, to consider that it was most advisable for Mrs. Gisella to refrain from such action to avoid questions or doubts, and even to classify such conduct as a conflict of interest (in their view: attenuated) and at the same time conclude that this conduct does not qualify as a serious fault (falta grave) and does not justify dismissal. It is undeniable that Mrs. Ugalde Venegas infringed the legal system by failing to comply with the duties inherent to her position; hence, the basis of the imposed sanction is the reprehensible and unrecognizable conduct of the investigated party for violating the obligations of police work, with the consequent loss of trust. This is an anomalous action that the plaintiff does not deny having performed.\n\nIt is worth noting that whether she performed the authentications during working hours or not, whether she participated in their resolution or not, whether she worked in the Department responsible for resolving the filed claims or not, matters little or nothing when resolving this matter. In that sense, the Judges' assessments are merely inconsequential lucubrations, because aside from such aspects, the reprehensible conduct of the plaintiff, the failure to comply with the obligations inherent to police work, and the objective loss of trust (in the terms previously indicated) – the foundations for the disciplinary sanction – are evident.\n\nLet it be clear, this involves improper and inadmissible conduct for a police officer who must act with the probity (probidad) that the position merits. Police officers are called to safeguard the public interest and the interest of the institution they serve, an investiture that entails the obligation to conduct themselves, whether in the public or private sphere, under the precepts of rectitude, probity (probidad), good customs, honesty, transparency, respect, and compliance with the legal system, as well as to perform their work diligently and responsibly, in protection of the citizenry and their property, guaranteeing public safety through the prevention and repression of manifestations of delinquency.\n\nIn the case at hand, Mrs. Gisella was sanctioned for engaging in activities incompatible with her status as a police official, and her dismissal was ordered for that conduct, as it constitutes a serious fault (falta grave) under the terms of Article 85 of the General Police Law (formerly Article 81), in relation to Articles 81 of the Labor Code, 8 and 10 of the Autonomous Service Regulation of the Ministry of Public Security, and 3 of the Ethics Regulation for Members of the Police Forces Attached to the Ministry of Public Security. All of these norms supported the notice of charges (traslado de cargos) and the final resolution of the procedure.\n\nIt is worth highlighting that the plaintiff was unable to refute, in the plenary proceeding (in which she had all the guarantees of defense), the reasons that led the defendant to order the dismissal without employer liability. On the contrary, it is evident that the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct is based on the failure to comply with the obligations inherent to police work and the objective loss of trust, the foundations of the imposed disciplinary sanction. It is indubitable that authenticating administrative claims against the Ministry for which one works generates institutional chaos and displeasure among the servants, with a clear impact on the good administration of the Institution. These particularities allow confirmation of the reasonableness and proportionality of the dismissal.\n\nIn addition to the above, this Chamber does not share the argument of the Judges insofar as they consider that there was no legal impediment for Mrs. Gisella to authenticate the administrative claims, based on the fact that at that time the official was not being paid any item for prohibition (prohibición). It should be noted that the payment for prohibition (prohibición) provided for in subsection a) of Article 45 of the General Police Law, consisting of 65% of the base salary, is an economic compensation applied to legal professionals who provide legal support and advisory services in police matters within the Legal Support Directorate of the Public Force of the Ministry of Public Security. Consequently, the compensatory benefit stipulated in that rule cannot be extended to an official of the Ministry's police forces if they do not meet the legal requirements referred to in the cited regulation for its granting.\n\nIn the specific case, the Trial Court found it proven that, during the month of July 2016 (the time when the administrative claims authenticated by the plaintiff were filed), Mrs. Ugalde Venegas held a permanent position within the MSP, as Agent II (FP) and as a Preventive Program Agent; however, as of June 16, 2017, she was temporarily promoted to the position of Officer I Legal Support, at which time she began to receive the economic compensation for prohibition (prohibición). It is evident that, contrary to the Judges' criterion, under the terms of Articles 45 of the General Police Law and 244 of the LOPJ, until Mrs. Giselle was promoted to the Legal Support Department, payment of any prohibition (prohibición) was not mandatory; however, she still had the legal impediment to the private practice of the legal profession, as she was a permanent servant of the Executive Branch (the only condition required in Article 244 under discussion).\n\nNow, the non-payment of prohibition (prohibición) at the time of authenticating the administrative claims does not imply that she was exempt from the duty of probity (deber de probidad) referred to in Articles 3, 4, and 38 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function, a duty that includes the obligation to refrain from litigating against the interests of the Institution for which she works. For the reasons stated, contrary to the thesis of the Trial Court, this Chamber considers that the dismissal decided by the Ministry of Public Security is well-founded and does not suffer from nullity, so the appropriate course of action will be to grant the appeal filed, overturn the challenged resolution, and consequently, dismiss the lawsuit in all its claims.\n\nDue to the manner in which this will be resolved (dismissing the lawsuit in all its claims), it becomes unnecessary to refer to the second charge raised, which concerns the amount awarded for subjective moral damages (daño moral subjetivo).\n\nIt is worth noting, in the realm of public employment (ámbito del empleo público), the existence of legal impediments to the private practice of the profession is well known. In that regard, article 244 of the LOPJ is clear in establishing: “Even if they are lawyers, the permanent officeholders of the Executive and Judicial Branches, the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), and the municipalities may not practice the profession, except in their own affairs and those of their spouses, ascendants or descendants, siblings, parents-in-law, sons-in-law, and brothers-in-law (…).” From the literal wording of the transcribed precept, it follows that police officials who hold the status of lawyers are prohibited from the private practice of that profession, which prevents them from carrying out any act or work that implies such practice. In other words, officials who hold a permanent position in the Branches of the Republic and the other dependencies and public entities listed in article 244 of the LOPJ are imperatively compelled not to practice law privately, precisely because they hold the status of “official” (funcionario); that is, it is sufficient to accept a public office and for their appointment to have been executed through a valid and effective act of investiture, pursuant to the provisions of article 111 of the LGAP, for them to be unable to practice their profession as lawyers in a private capacity. This prohibition, which must be mandatorily observed, is determined by the incompatibility that public servants (servidores públicos) have, once subjected to the legal regime that governs them in their positions, to engage in private activities that could compromise the ethical and moral duties of impartiality, loyalty, objectivity, and independence of the state function. It is worth adding that the exercise of public function implies the fulfillment of duties and obligations of an ethical and legal nature. Among those obligations is the duty to observe the duty of probity, which is regulated, among other norms, in articles 3 and 38 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function (Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública).\n\nLikewise, the General Police Law establishes duties and obligations to be fulfilled by police officers that bind them to the Public Administration in an exclusive and exceptional manner. In this regard, Article 76 enshrines: \"DUTIES. The members of the police forces, in addition to the ethical-legal duties set forth in this Law, shall have the following specific obligations: a) To devote themselves exclusively to their full-time duties (…).\" It can be observed from the transcribed legal text that the members of the police forces have the duty to devote themselves completely and exclusively to their full-time duties and under the schedules defined by regulation, without prejudice to the availability to which they are subject.\n\nMandatory modalities that are inherent to the office of police itself. Consider, in general terms, that police officers are called upon to safeguard the public interest and the interest of the institution they serve, a station which entails the obligation to conduct themselves, whether in the public or private sphere, under the standards of rectitude, probity, good customs, honesty, transparency, respect, and compliance with the legal system, as well as to perform their work diligently, responsibly, safeguarding the citizenry and their property by guaranteeing public security through the prevention and repression of manifestations of crime. As to this point, the Ethics Regulation of the Police Forces expressly enshrines: \"Article 1.- The members of the police forces have the duty to fulfill the mission entrusted to them, respecting the legal system and with a spirit of service.\"\n\nFor the above, they must comply with the following duties: (…) 2) Observe at all times the duties imposed upon them by the Political Constitution, international treaties, laws, regulations, and administrative provisions, as well as the duties arising from the institutional mission, serving the community through the investigation, prevention, and suppression of manifestations of crime, in accordance with the police competence within which they are circumscribed, always bearing in mind that their professional function is framed by the spirit of public service, the common good, commitment to the inhabitants, to the courts of justice, and to other public authorities. Article 3º- Given that police investiture is held twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, the conduct of members of the police forces must conform to the highest ideals of human dignity and to the principles of civility, good customs, and healthy social coexistence. By virtue thereof, they must observe the following rules: (…) 4) Refrain from carrying out, in their private life and even during their free time, actions incompatible with the police function, or that compromise the police investiture they hold twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year. Article 7º- Police servants must under no circumstances commit acts of corruption or tolerate them in their presence. Likewise, they are obligated to reject such acts and to denounce those who commit them. For this, they must observe the following provisions: 1) Always maintain a clear awareness of their individual responsibility for the acts they carry out, acting at all times with probity and honesty, vigorously rejecting and denouncing any action or omission that could lead to acts of corruption or any other conduct contrary to the legal system. Refraining from denouncing these actions makes the passive servant a co-participant and therefore responsible for the illegal and/or corrupt acts.\n\n(…). **Article 11.-** Non-compliance with the ethical principles and duties contained in these Regulations shall entail the corresponding disciplinary sanctions, according to the severity of the circumstances and in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions governing the police service relationship, after the establishment of the due administrative process (debido proceso administrativo) for such purposes, without prejudice to other liabilities that may arise from the reprehensible conduct.”\n\nLikewise, mandate 8 of the Autonomous Service Regulations of the Ministry of Public Security stipulates: “**Of the obligations of servers.** In addition to the obligations contained in Article 71 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), the obligations of the servers are: (…) **c)** Execute all additional work that their immediate superior assigns, within the ordinary workday, provided that it is compatible with their skills and condition (…).”\n\nNow, Article 85 of the General Police Law establishes as serious offenses: “For the purposes of this regime, the following shall be considered serious offenses: (…) **j)** Engaging in public or private activities incompatible with the performance of their duties. (…) **ñ)** Any other conduct punishable by dismissal in the Labor Code.”\n\nAs indicated, Article 244 of the LOPJ imposes a categorical restriction on the liberal or private practice of law for servers holding proprietary positions in the Executive Branch. A restriction that applies regardless of whether the servers receive compensation through any rule allowing the payment of a prohibition (prohibición). The prohibition stipulated in the aforementioned numeral 244 is based on the inherent incompatibility between the liberal or private practice of law and the responsibilities of public servants.\n\nThis incompatibility derives from the legal framework to which public servants are subject, which demands exclusive dedication to their public functions and conduct that does not compromise the essential ethical and moral principles of impartiality, loyalty, objectivity, and independence. In essence, the regulations recognize that participation in private legal practice could jeopardize integrity and public trust by creating potential conflicts between personal interests and official duties, thus undermining the ethical pillars that must govern public service. Therefore, the prohibition seeks to ensure that public servants maintain their focus and loyalty toward the public interest and administrative rectitude. Precisely, by virtue of the legal impediment that the attorney officials set forth in Article 244 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial have against freely practicing the profession (whether remunerated or ad honorem), the conduct carried out by Ms. Ugalde Venegas and that is directly related to that professional practice is incompatible with her status as a police officer, hence the serious misconduct (falta grave) she incurs. This Collegiate Body is clear on this matter, from the moment that Ms. Gisella authenticated—in her capacity as an attorney—the administrative claims filed before her own employer, that is, the Ministry of Public Security, she engaged in an activity incompatible with her status as a police officer; consequently, she breached the duty of probity contained in Articles 3 of the Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, 1, 2, and 3 of the Reglamento de Ética de los Miembros de las Fuerzas de Policía, so that when the aforementioned Ministry became aware of the situation, without a doubt, the employment relationship lost trust, which justifies the disciplinary penalty imposed (for violation of Articles 10, subsections h) and j) of the Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública—applied supplementarily in accordance with Article 202 of the Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública—, 1, subsection 2), 3, subsection 4), 7, subsection 1), and 11 of the Reglamento de Ética de los Miembros de las Fuerzas de Policía Adscritas al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública). Contrary to the criterion of the lower court Judges, it becomes inadmissible to have it demonstrated that the police officer authenticated a series of administrative claims directed against her employer, to consider that the most advisable thing was for Ms. Gisella to refrain from such action to avoid questioning or doubts, and even to classify such conduct as a conflict of interest (in their view: attenuated) and at the same time to conclude that this conduct does not qualify as serious misconduct (falta grave) and does not justify dismissal.\n\nIt is undeniable that Mrs. Ugalde Venegas breached the legal system by failing to comply with the duties inherent to her position; hence, the basis for the imposed sanction is the reprehensible and unrecognizable conduct of the investigated party for violating the obligations of police work, with the consequent loss of trust. Anomalous action that the plaintiff does not deny having performed. It is worth noting, whether the authentications were performed during business hours or not, whether she participated or not in their resolution, whether or not she worked in the Department responsible for resolving the submitted procedures, matters little or nothing to the resolution of this matter; in that sense, the Judges' assessments are mere inconsequential conjecture, since regardless of such aspects, the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct, the breach of obligations inherent to police work, and the objective loss of trust (in the terms previously indicated) are evident, which are the foundations of the disciplinary sanction. Let it be clear, this involves improper and inadmissible conduct for a police officer who must act with the probity that the position merits. Police officers are called upon to safeguard the public interest and the interest of the institution they serve, a role that entails the obligation to conduct themselves, whether in the public or private sphere, under the precepts of rectitude, probity, good customs, honesty, transparency, respect, and observance of the legal system, as well as performing their work diligently, responsibly, protecting citizens and their property, guaranteeing public safety through the prevention and repression of criminal manifestations. In the case at hand, Mrs. Gisella was sanctioned for carrying out activities incompatible with her status as a police officer, and for that conduct her dismissal was ordered, as it constituted a serious offense under the terms of canon 85 of the General Police Law (formerly section 81), in relation to sections 81 of the Labor Code, 8 and 10 of the Autonomous Service Regulation of the Ministry of Public Security, and 3 of the Ethical Regulation for Members of the Police Forces Attached to the Ministry of Public Security. Rules—all of which—supported the notification of charges and the final resolution of the procedure. It should be highlighted that the plaintiff failed to rebut, in the plenary process (in which she had all the defense guarantees), the reasons that led the defendant to order the dismissal without employer liability. On the contrary, it is evident that the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct is supported by the breach of obligations inherent to police work and the objective loss of trust, which are the foundations of the imposed disciplinary sanction. It is undoubtedly such that authenticating administrative claims against the Ministry for which one works generates institutional chaos and discord among employees, with clear harm to the good administration of the Institution.\n\nParticularities that confirm the reasonableness and proportionality of the dismissal. In addition, this Chamber does not share the argument of the Judges in that they consider there was no legal impediment for Mrs. Gisella to authenticate the administrative claims, due to the fact that at that time the official was not being paid any item for prohibition (prohibición). It should be noted, the payment for prohibition (prohibición) provided for in subsection a) of article 45 of the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía), consisting of 65% of the base salary, is an economic compensation applied to legal professionals who provide support and legal advisory services in police matters in the Legal Support Directorate (Dirección de Apoyo Legal) of the Public Force (Fuerza Pública) of the Ministry of Public Security (Ministerio de Seguridad Pública). Consequently, the compensatory benefit stipulated in said regulation cannot be extended to an official of the Ministry's police forces if they do not meet the legal requirements referred to in the aforementioned regulation for its granting. In the specific case, the Tribunal demonstrated that, during the month of July 2016 (the time when the administrative claims authenticated by the plaintiff were filed), Mrs. Ugalde Venegas held a permanent post within the MSP, as Agent II (FP) and as Preventive Program Agent, however; as of June 16, 2017, she was provisionally promoted to the post of Legal Support Officer I, at which time she began to receive the economic compensation for prohibition (prohibición). See, contrary to the Judges' criterion, in the terms of numerals 45 of the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía) and 244 of the LOPJ, that as long as Mrs. Giselle had not been promoted to the Legal Support Department, no prohibition (prohibición) payment was mandatory; however, she maintained the legal impediment to the private practice of the legal profession, being a permanent employee of the Executive Branch (the sole requirement demanded in canon 244 of commentary). Now, the non-payment of prohibition (prohibición) at the time of authenticating the administrative claims does not imply that she was exempt from the duty of probity referred to in articles 3, 4 and 38 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública), a duty that includes the obligation to refrain from litigating against the interests of the Institution for which she works.\n\nFor the reasons invoked, contrary to the thesis of the Tribunal, this Chamber considers that the dismissal agreed upon by the Ministerio de Seguridad Pública is well-founded and does not suffer from nullity, so the appropriate course of action will be to uphold the appeal filed, overturn (casar) the challenged resolution, and consequently, dismiss the lawsuit (declarar sin lugar la demanda) in its entirety. Due to the manner in which this matter will be resolved (dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety), it becomes unnecessary to address the second charge levied, which revolves around the amount awarded as subjective moral damages (daño moral subjetivo).\n\nIn that regard, article 244 of the LOPJ is clear in establishing: “Even if they are lawyers, the permanent employees of the Executive and Judicial Branches, of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) and of the municipalities may not engage in the private practice of the profession, except in their own affairs and those of their spouses, ascendants or descendants, siblings, parents-in-law, sons-in-law and brothers-in-law (…).” From the literal wording of the transcribed precept, it follows that police officials who hold lawyer status are prohibited from the private practice of that profession, which prevents them from performing any act or work that entails such practice. In other words, officials who occupy a permanent position in the Branches of the Republic and the other dependencies and public entities listed in article 244 of the LOPJ are compelled, in an imperative manner, not to practice law privately, precisely because they hold the status of \"official\"; that is, it is enough to accept a public office and for their appointment to have been formalized through a valid and effective act of investiture, according to the provisions of article 111 of the LGAP, so that they may not engage in the private practice of their profession as lawyers. This prohibition, which is mandatory, is determined by the incompatibility that public servants have, once subject to the legal regime governing them in their positions, to engage in private activities that may compromise the ethical and moral duties of impartiality, loyalty, objectivity and independence of the state function. It should be added that the exercise of the public function implies the fulfillment of duties and obligations of an ethical and legal nature. Among those obligations is that of observing the duty of probity, which is regulated, among other norms, in articles 3 and 38 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function (Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública).\n\nLikewise, the General Police Law establishes duties and obligations to be fulfilled by police officers that bind them to the Public Administration in an exclusive and exceptional manner. In this regard, Article 76 enshrines: \"DUTIES. Members of the police forces, in addition to the ethical-legal duties set forth in this Law, shall have the following specific obligations: a) To devote themselves exclusively to their full-time duties (…).\" It can be observed from the transcribed legal text that members of the police forces have the duty to devote themselves completely and exclusively to their full-time duties and under the schedules defined by regulation, without prejudice to the availability to which they are subject.\n\nMandatory modalities, which are inherent to the police position itself. Bear in mind, in general terms, police officers are called upon to safeguard the public interest and the interest of the institution they serve, a position that entails the obligation to conduct themselves, whether in the public or private sphere, under the standards of rectitude, probity, good customs, honesty, transparency, respect, and compliance with the legal system, as well as to perform their work diligently, responsibly, safeguarding the citizenry and their property by ensuring public safety through the prevention and repression of manifestations of delinquency. Regarding this point, the Code of Ethics for Police Forces expressly enshrines: \"Article 1.- Members of the police forces have the duty to fulfill the mission entrusted to them, respecting the legal system and with a spirit of service.\"\n\nFor the foregoing, they must comply with the following duties: (…) 2) At all times observe the duties imposed by the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), international treaties, laws, regulations, and administrative provisions, as well as the duties arising from the institutional mission, serving the community through the investigation, prevention, and repression of manifestations of crime, in accordance with the police competence to which they are assigned, always bearing in mind that their professional function is framed by the spirit of public service, the common good, the commitment to the inhabitants, to the courts of justice and other public authorities. Article 3º- Given that police authority is held twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year, the conduct of members of the police forces must conform to the highest ideals of human dignity and to the principles of civility, good customs, and healthy social coexistence. By virtue thereof, they must observe the following rules: (…) 4) Refrain from carrying out, in their private life and even during their free time, actions incompatible with the police function, or that compromise the police authority they hold twenty-four hours a day, every day of the year. Article 7º- Police officers must under no circumstances commit acts of corruption or tolerate them in their presence. Likewise, they are obliged to reject such acts and to denounce those who commit them. To this end, they must observe the following provisions: 1) Always maintain a clear awareness of their individual responsibility for the acts they perform, acting at all times with probity and honesty, vigorously rejecting and denouncing any action or omission that may lead to acts of corruption or any other conduct contrary to the legal system. Refraining from denouncing these actions makes the passive officer a co-participant and therefore responsible for the illegal and/or corrupt acts.\n\n(…). **Article 11.-** Failure to comply with the ethical principles and duties contained in these Regulations shall entail the corresponding disciplinary sanctions, according to the seriousness of the circumstances and in accordance with the legal and regulatory provisions governing the police service relationship, following the establishment of the due administrative process for such purposes, without prejudice to other responsibilities that may arise from the reprehensible conduct.”\n\nLikewise, mandate 8 of the Autonomous Service Regulations of the Ministry of Public Security stipulates: “**Of the obligations of the servers.** In addition to the obligations contained in Article 71 of the Labor Code, the obligations of the servers are: (…) **c)** Execute all additional work assigned by their immediate superior, within the ordinary workday, provided they are compatible with their skills and condition (…).”\n\nNow, Article 85 of the General Police Law establishes as serious offenses: “For the purposes of this regime, the following shall be considered serious offenses: (…) **j)** The exercise of public or private activities incompatible with the performance of their duties. (…) **ñ)** Any other conduct sanctioned with dismissal in the Labor Code.”\n\nAs indicated, Article 244 of the LOPJ imposes a categorical restriction on the liberal or private practice of law for servers in permanent positions in the Executive Branch. A restriction that applies regardless of whether the servers receive or do not receive remuneration under any rule allowing the payment of a prohibition on practice. The prohibition stipulated in numeral 244 under discussion is based on the inherent incompatibility between the liberal or private practice of law and the responsibilities of public servants.\n\nThis incompatibility derives from the legal regime to which public servants are subject, which demands exclusive dedication to their public functions and conduct that does not compromise the essential ethical and moral principles of impartiality, loyalty, objectivity, and independence. In essence, the regulations recognize that participation in private legal practice (abogacía) could jeopardize integrity and public trust by creating potential conflicts between personal interests and official duties, thereby undermining the ethical pillars that must govern public service. Therefore, the prohibition seeks to ensure that public servants maintain their focus and loyalty toward the public interest and administrative rectitude. Precisely, by virtue of the legal impediment that the lawyer-officials set forth in Article 244 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial) have against freely practicing their profession (whether in a paid or ad honorem capacity), the conduct engaged in by Mrs. Ugalde Venegas, which is directly related to that professional practice, is incompatible with her status as a police official, hence the serious misconduct she incurs. This Collegiate Body is clear on this matter, from the moment that Mrs. Gisella authenticated—in her capacity as an attorney—the administrative claims filed against her own employer, that is, the Ministry of Public Security (Ministerio de Seguridad Publica), she engaged in an activity incompatible with her status as a police official; consequently, she breached the duty of probity contained in sections 3 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Service (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública), 1, 2, and 3 of the Ethics Regulations for Members of the Police Forces (Reglamento de Ética de los Miembros de las Fuerzas de Policía), so that, upon the aforementioned Ministry learning of the situation, the employment relationship undoubtedly lost trust, which justifies the imposed disciplinary sanction (for infringement of sections 10, subsections h) and j) of the Autonomous Service Regulations of the Ministry of Public Security (Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública)—applicable supplementary in accordance with Article 202 of the Service Regulations of the Police Bodies Attached to the Ministry of Public Security (Reglamento de Servicio de los Cuerpos Policiales adscritos al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública)—, 1 subsection 2), 3 subsection 4), 7 subsection 1), and 11 of the Ethics Regulations for Members of the Police Forces Attached to the Ministry of Public Security (Reglamento de Ética de los Miembros de las Fuerzas de Policía Adscritas al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública)). Contrary to the criterion of the lower-court Judges, it becomes inadmissible to have it proven that the police officer authenticated a series of administrative claims directed against her employer, to consider that the most appropriate thing would have been for Mrs. Gisella to abstain from such action to avoid questioning or doubts, and even to classify such conduct as a conflict of interest (in its view: mitigated) and, at the same time, conclude that this conduct does not qualify as serious misconduct and does not justify dismissal.\n\nIt is undeniable that Mrs. Ugalde Venegas breached the legal order by failing to fulfill the duties inherent to her position; hence, the basis for the sanction imposed is the reprehensible and unjustifiable conduct of the investigated party for violating the obligations of police work, with the consequent loss of trust. An anomalous action that the plaintiff does not deny having carried out. It is worth noting, whether the authentications were performed during business hours or not, whether she participated or not in their resolution, whether she worked or not in the Department responsible for resolving the submitted requests, matters little or nothing when resolving this issue; in that sense, the Judges' assessments are mere inconsequential speculation, because regardless of such aspects, the reprehensible conduct of the plaintiff, the failure to fulfill the obligations inherent to police work, and the objective loss of trust (in the terms previously indicated) are evident, which are the foundations of the disciplinary sanction.\n\nLet it be clear, this involves improper and inadmissible conduct for a police officer who must act with the probity that the position merits. Police officers are called upon to safeguard the public interest and the interest of the institution they serve, a role that entails the obligation to conduct themselves, whether in the public or private sphere, under the standards of rectitude, probity, good customs, honesty, transparency, respect, and compliance with the legal order, as well as; to perform their work diligently, responsibly, safeguarding citizens and their property, guaranteeing public safety through the prevention and repression of manifestations of crime.\n\nIn the case at hand, Mrs. Gisella was sanctioned for engaging in activities incompatible with her status as a police officer, and for that conduct her dismissal was ordered, as it constituted a serious offense under the terms of Article 85 of the Ley General de Policía (formerly Article 81), in relation to Articles 81 of the Código de Trabajo, 8 and 10 of the Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del Ministerio de Seguridad Pública, and 3 of the Reglamento de Ética de los Miembros de las Fuerzas de Policía Adscritas al Ministerio de Seguridad Pública. Regulations -all- that supported the statement of charges and the final resolution of the procedure. It should be noted that the plaintiff was unable to refute, in the plenary proceeding (in which she had all the guarantees of defense), the reasons that led the defendant to order the dismissal without employer liability. On the contrary, it is evident that the plaintiff's reprehensible conduct is based on the failure to fulfill the obligations inherent to police work and the objective loss of trust, which are the foundations of the disciplinary sanction imposed. It is unquestionable that authenticating administrative claims against the Ministry for which one works generates institutional chaos and discord among servants, with a clear impact on the good administration of the Institution.\n\nParticulars that confirm the reasonableness and proportionality of the dismissal. In addition to the foregoing, this Chamber does not share the argument of the Judges in that they consider there was no legal impediment for Mrs. Gisella to authenticate the administrative claims, by virtue of the fact that at that time the official was not being paid any item for prohibition (prohibición). It is worth noting that the payment for prohibition provided for in subsection a) of Article 45 of the General Police Law (Ley General de Policía), consisting of 65% of the base salary, is an economic compensation applied to legal professionals who provide support and legal advisory services in police matters in the Legal Support Directorate of the Public Force of the Ministry of Public Security. Consequently, the compensatory benefit stipulated in that rule cannot be extended to an official of the Ministry’s police forces if they do not fall within the legal assumptions referred to in the cited regulation for its granting. In the specific case, the Tribunal had it as proven that, during the month of July 2016 (the moment when the administrative claims authenticated by the plaintiff were filed), Mrs. Ugalde Venegas held a permanent position within the MSP as Agent II (FP) and as Preventive Program Agent, however; as of June 16, 2017, she was provisionally promoted to the position of Legal Support Officer I, at which point she began to receive the economic compensation for prohibition. It can be seen, contrary to the Judges' criterion, in the terms of numerals 45 of the General Police Law and 244 of the LOPJ, that until Mrs. Giselle was promoted to the Legal Support Department, no payment of prohibition was mandatory, nevertheless; she maintained the legal impediment to the liberal practice of the legal profession, as she was a permanent employee of the Executive Branch (the sole circumstance required under canon 244 under discussion). Now, the non-payment of prohibition at the time of authenticating the administrative claims does not imply that she was exempt from the duty of probity referred to in Articles 3, 4, and 38 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública), a duty that includes the obligation to refrain from litigating against the interests of the Institution for which she works. For the reasons invoked, contrary to the Tribunal’s thesis, this Chamber considers that the dismissal agreed upon by the Ministry of Public Security is well-founded and does not suffer from nullity, such that the proper course will be to allow the appeal filed, overturn (casar) the challenged resolution, and consequently; declare the lawsuit unfounded in all its respects. Given the manner in which this will be resolved (declaring the lawsuit unfounded in all its respects), it becomes unnecessary to address the second charge leveled, which concerns the amount granted as subjective moral damages.\"" }