{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0004-1331274", "citation": "Res. 01258-2025 Sala Primera de la Corte", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Nulidad de laudo arbitral por omisión de timbres fiscales no anula el contrato", "title_en": "Arbitral award nullity for lack of fiscal stamps does not void the contract", "summary_es": "La Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia conoce los recursos de nulidad interpuestos por Mator Explotación CR S.A. y SAS Mator France contra el laudo arbitral que las condenó solidariamente al pago de servicios de mantenimiento de plantación de teca y daños. Mator Explotación CR S.A. alegó la ineficacia del contrato por falta de timbres fiscales y una errónea valoración probatoria con adelanto de criterio. La Sala rechaza ambos agravios señalando que la falta de timbres fiscales no invalida el contrato como negocio jurídico, solo afecta su eficacia probatoria, la cual puede suplirse con otros medios como la prueba testimonial. Respecto al debido proceso, indica que solo procede la nulidad cuando existe una violación esencial e insubsanable que cause indefensión grotesca, lo que no ocurrió. SAS Mator France reprochó una ampliación ilegítima de la demanda, pero la Sala la justifica como consecuencia de la integración necesaria del litisconsorcio pasivo. Se declaran sin lugar ambos recursos.", "summary_en": "The First Chamber of the Supreme Court reviews the nullity appeals filed by Mator Explotación CR S.A. and SAS Mator France against an arbitral award that held them jointly liable for teak plantation maintenance services and damages. Mator Explotación argued the contract was ineffective due to lack of fiscal stamps and that evidence was wrongly assessed with a prejudgment. The Chamber rejects both claims, holding that missing fiscal stamps do not invalidate the contract as a legal transaction, only its evidentiary effectiveness, which can be supplemented by other means such as witness testimony. On due process, nullity requires an essential, irremediable violation causing gross defenselessness, which did not occur. SAS Mator France contested an illegitimate expansion of the claim, but the Chamber justified it as necessary joinder of an indispensable party. Both appeals dismissed.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Primera de la Corte", "date": "04/09/2025", "year": "2025", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "laudo arbitral", "timbres fiscales", "litisconsorcio pasivo necesario", "Ley RAC", "debido proceso", "ineficacia", "prueba testimonial" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "arbitraje", "laudo arbitral", "recurso de nulidad", "timbres fiscales", "debido proceso", "litisconsorcio pasivo necesario", "Código Fiscal", "Ley RAC" ], "keywords_en": [ "arbitration", "arbitral award", "nullity appeal", "fiscal stamps", "due process", "necessary joinder", "Fiscal Code", "RAC Law" ], "excerpt_es": "Esta Cámara ha reiterado que la falta de timbres fiscales en un contrato (incluso si incluye cláusulas arbitrales) no lo vuelve inválido. Aunque la ley fiscal exige el pago de timbres, su omisión no anula el acuerdo entre las partes. Lo que se ve afectado es la eficacia del contrato como prueba documental, pero no su validez como negocio jurídico. En el presente caso, el Tribunal Arbitral confirmó la existencia del contrato de mantenimiento de plantación de teca mediante prueba testimonial, por lo que, al comprobarse el contrato por otros medios, el reclamo basado en la falta de timbres fiscales no resultaría procedente.\n\nLa procedencia de la nulidad del laudo cuando se haya violado el principio al debido proceso, acontece cuando existe quebranto a normas esenciales e irrenunciables del procedimiento o a fases relevantes acordadas por las partes, cuya vulneración no pudo ser subsanada en el curso del proceso y derive en un perjuicio al reclamante. Se trata de desatenciones que posicionan a una parte en un estado de grotesca indefensión, imposibilitándole su derecho de defensa, lo que no sucede en el sublite.", "excerpt_en": "This Chamber has reiterated that the lack of fiscal stamps on a contract (even if it includes arbitration clauses) does not render it invalid. Although tax law requires payment of stamps, their omission does not void the agreement between the parties. What is affected is the contract's effectiveness as documentary evidence, not its validity as a legal transaction. In the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal confirmed the existence of the teak plantation maintenance contract through witness testimony, so the claim based on lack of fiscal stamps is unsuccessful.\n\nThe nullity of an award on due process grounds occurs where essential, non-waivable procedural rules or material stages agreed by the parties are breached, such breach could not be cured during the proceedings and caused prejudice to the appellant. Such disregard places a party in a state of gross defenselessness, depriving it of its right of defense, which did not happen here.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "Both nullity appeals against the arbitral award are dismissed.", "summary_es": "Se declaran sin lugar los recursos de nulidad de laudo arbitral interpuestos por ambas partes accionadas." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "The lack of fiscal stamps on a contract (even if it includes arbitration clauses) does not render it invalid. Although tax law requires payment of stamps, their omission does not void the agreement between the parties. What is affected is the contract's effectiveness as documentary evidence, not its validity as a legal transaction.", "quote_es": "La falta de timbres fiscales en un contrato (incluso si incluye cláusulas arbitrales) no lo vuelve inválido. Aunque la ley fiscal exige el pago de timbres, su omisión no anula el acuerdo entre las partes. Lo que se ve afectado es la eficacia del contrato como prueba documental, pero no su validez como negocio jurídico." }, { "context": "Considerando IV", "quote_en": "The nullity of an award on due process grounds occurs where essential, non-waivable procedural rules or material stages agreed by the parties are breached, such breach could not be cured during the proceedings and caused prejudice to the appellant. Such disregard places a party in a state of gross defenselessness, depriving it of its right of defense.", "quote_es": "La procedencia de la nulidad del laudo cuando se haya violado el principio al debido proceso, acontece cuando existe quebranto a normas esenciales e irrenunciables del procedimiento o a fases relevantes acordadas por las partes, cuya vulneración no pudo ser subsanada en el curso del proceso y derive en un perjuicio al reclamante. Se trata de desatenciones que posicionan a una parte en un estado de grotesca indefensión, imposibilitándole su derecho de defensa." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "The expansion allowed to the claimant had the sole purpose of enabling it to direct its claim against the new passive subject of the proceedings, i.e., SAS Motor France, whose joinder was considered indispensable by the Arbitral Tribunal given the substantive nature of the legal relationship under debate.", "quote_es": "La ampliación permitida a la parte actora tuvo como único propósito permitirle dirigir su pretensión frente al nuevo sujeto pasivo del proceso, esto es, SAS Motor France, cuya incorporación fue considerada indispensable por el Tribunal Arbitral dada la naturaleza sustancial de la relación jurídica debatida." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-26393", "citation": "Ley 7727", "title_en": "Alternative Conflict Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace Law", "title_es": "Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social", "doc_type": "law", "date": "09/12/1997", "year": "1997" }, { "id": "norm-81360", "citation": "Ley 9342", "title_en": "Civil Procedure Code — Reversal of Burden of Proof in Environmental Matters", "title_es": "Código Procesal Civil", "doc_type": "law", "date": "03/02/2016", "year": "2016" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-26393", "citation": "Ley 7727", "title_en": "Alternative Conflict Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace Law", "title_es": "Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social", "doc_type": "law", "date": "09/12/1997", "year": "1997" }, { "id": "norm-81360", "citation": "Ley 9342", "title_en": "Civil Procedure Code — Reversal of Burden of Proof in Environmental Matters", "title_es": "Código Procesal Civil", "doc_type": "law", "date": "03/02/2016", "year": "2016" } ], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0004-1331274", "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": [], "cited_norms_inverted": [ { "doc_id": "norm-26393", "norm_num": "7727", "norm_name": "Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "09/12/1997" }, { "doc_id": "norm-81360", "norm_num": "9342", "norm_name": "Código Procesal Civil", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "03/02/2016" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "20220004000476-7868163-1.rtf\n\n\n\nExp. 22-000049-0004-AR \n\n \n\nRes. 001258-F-S1-2025\n\n \n\n SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las trece horas catorce minutos del cuatro de setiembre de dos mil veinticinco . \n\nEn proceso arbitral interpuesto por ARTAL FOREST S.A., representado por Carlos Ramírez Aguilar, Ángel Castillo Vanegas y Manuella Tanchella Chacón, contra MATOR EXPLOTACIÓN CR S.A. y SAS MATOR FRANCE, representados por Douglas Beard Holst y Manuel Antonio Rodríguez Espinoza, el Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje de la Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica emitió el Laudo Arbitral de las 14 horas del día 12 de mayo del 2022. Ambas partes accionadas plantean recurso de nulidad contra lo resuelto. \n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\nI.- Artal Forest S.A. interpuso proceso arbitral ante en el Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje de la Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica (CCA), en contra de Mator Explotación CR S.A. y SAS Mator France. En su escrito inicial menciona de una rescisión unilateral del Contrato de servicios de mantenimiento de plantación de Teca suscrito por las partes. Lo anterior se dio por motivo de un reclamo por la falta de pago en los servicios brindados durante los años 2017, 2018 y 2019, así como la ejecución de la cláusula penal contemplada en dicho contrato. Por ello solicitaron se declare el pago de los servicios prestados durante los años 2017 al 2019, se condene a Mator Explotación CR S.A. a pagar la suma $120.374,30 correspondiente a las facturas números 0948, 0089 y 0439 e intereses moratorios, contados desde el momento de su exigibilidad al 11 de setiembre del 2020. Además, se ordene ese pago de intereses moratorios conforme a lo establecido en el Artículo VII del Contrato, contados desde la fecha de interposición de la demanda arbitral hasta su efectivo pago. También, se condene a Mator Explotación C R, S.A. a pagar el porcentaje del 20% sobre los montos dejados de percibir por parte de Artal Forest S.A. Las partes accionadas contestaron la acción, y en términos generales opusieron las excepciones de falta de derecho, falta de exigibilidad, falta de legitimación pasiva, prescripción y pago. El Tribunal integrado por Alberto Pauly Sáenz, Álvaro Meza Lazarus y Anayansy Rojas Chan, mediante laudo arbitral de las 14 horas del día 12 de mayo del 2022, resolvieron rechazar las excepciones de falta de derecho, de prescripción, falta de exigibilidad, de pago, legitimación pasiva, y condenaron solidariamente a las accionadas Mator Explotación CR S.A. y SAS Mator France, al pago de los montos concernientes a los servicios de mantenimiento correspondientes a los años 2017 y 2018, para un total de $95.127,82. Rechazaron la pretensión de cobro del saldo reclamado por servicios del período 2019. También condenaron solidariamente a las demandadas al pago de los intereses sobre las sumas adeudadas por concepto de servicios de mantenimiento desde la fecha en que fueron exigibles, hasta su efectivo pago. Condenaron solidariamente a las codemandadas al pago de $127.627,50 por concepto de daños y perjuicios, en aplicación de la cláusula penal convenida entre las partes. También condenaron a las accionadas al pago solidario de las costas procesales y personales del proceso arbitral, y, por último, las condenaron al pago de los honorarios de abogado de la parte actora.\n\nMator Explotación CR S.A. Motivos de nulidad. \n\nII.- El recurrente argumenta dos agravios, el primero de ellos, ineficacia del contrato. Señala, a pesar de que el Tribunal Arbitral en distintas ocasiones previas al dictado del laudo informó sobre la ineficacia del Contrato de Plantación de Teca como elemento probatorio, al no cumplirse con el pago de las especies fiscales que señala el Código Fiscal (numerales 285 y 286). El Tribunal Arbitral tuvo 9 hechos demostrados conforme a esa prueba. Como intento de enmendar su error, el Tribunal Arbitral justificó la existencia del contrato conforme a otros medios probatorios incorporados al proceso. Luego, advierte, ningún testigo especificó la existencia de una cláusula penal, o bien de sus condiciones, no obstante, el Tribunal lo extrae del contrato el cual es ineficaz, generando así una total indefensión a los accionados. Segundo reparo, errónea valoración probatoria y adelanto de criterio. Afirma, el Tribunal sobrepasó sus límites en la audiencia complementaria al evacuar a la testigo Barbara Casablanca, pues esta fue llamada únicamente para declarar en su condición de representante de Motor France, y al señor Gabriel Clare Facio a nombre de Mator Explotación CR S.A., no obstante, la parte accionante realizó preguntas a la señora Casablanca sobre Mator Explotación CR S.A. A pesar de hacerse oposición en cuanto al interrogatorio, el Tribunal de forma ilegitima permitió el cuestionamiento, provocando así un adelanto de criterio al señalar que ambas sociedades son la misma, además de infringir las reglas del interrogatorio. Resalta, uno de los temas en discusión en el litigio era precisamente determinar si existe o no un grupo de interés económico entre ambas sociedades. Todo lo anterior violenta el numeral 67 incisos e) y f) de la Ley de Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social RAC.\n\nIII.- Previo a determinar lo que corresponda para cada uno de los reproches esgrimidos, conviene analizar lo señalado por esta Sala, en torno a las particularidades del recurso de nulidad previsto para el control de los laudos arbitrales. En lo de interés, se ha indicado, la posibilidad de revisar aquellos extremos desfavorables para el recurrente dentro del laudo, cuando estos se encuentren dentro de alguna de las causales de nulidad que en forma taxativa contempla el artículo 67 de la Ley RAC. Al respecto, esta Sala ha afirmado: “[…] la nulidad del laudo solo podrá ser declarada en los siguientes supuestos: a) cuando su dictado sobrepase el plazo acordado por las partes para ese fallo, b) si no abarca todos los aspectos sometidos al arbitraje necesarios para su eficacia y validez, c) cuando resuelva sobre puntos no sometidos a arbitraje, d) si versare sobre un tema no susceptible de arbitraje, e) violare el principio del debido proceso, f) fuere pronunciado contrariando normas imperativas o de orden público, y, g) si el Tribunal Arbitral encargado de resolver la controversia no fuere competente. Visto así, el examen se limita a aspectos procesales, de ahí que el laudo no pueda ser revisado por el fondo. La única salvedad, aún sea de manera indirecta, ocurre cuando se ataca con base en las causales de los incisos e) y f) del referido precepto 67. No obstante, aún ante las excepciones, el escrutinio se limita a confrontar la parte decisoria con el contenido del debido proceso y de las normas imperativas o de orden público invocadas, respectivamente, sin que pueda la Sala darle un contenido nuevo en caso de llegarse a anular (en relación entre otras, de esta Cámara, fallos no. 504 de las 11 horas 45 minutos del 17 de junio de 2004 y no. 154 de las 11 horas 5 minutos del 3 de marzo de 2004).” (Sentencia Nro. 1538-2013 de las nueve horas 55 minutos del 14 de noviembre de 2013). Por tanto, la competencia funcional de esta Cámara se circunscribe a determinados supuestos de control, fuera de los cuales, le fue vedado el examen, por disposición expresa del legislador. Es por ello, a diferencia de lo que se reguló para el recurso de casación, tratándose de la revisión del laudo, pese a que el recurso carece de especiales formalidades (únicamente claridad y precisión al evidenciar el yerro) este Órgano está impedido a propiciar una nueva valoración del fondo de lo decidido o de las pruebas allegadas al proceso, pues la elección de la vía alterna de solución de controversias, impide el reexamen del derecho sustantivo aplicado (véase resoluciones de esta Sala Núm. 970-2006 de las 14 horas 45 minutos del 11 de diciembre de 2006, 751-2007 de las nueve horas 10 minutos del 19 de octubre de 2007, 1538 de las 9 horas 55 minutos del 14 de noviembre de 2013 y 965 de las 10 horas 36 minutos del 17 de agosto de 2017). A partir de lo anterior, ha de precisarse lo que corresponde, para cada uno de los reparos formulados.\n\nIV.- En cuanto al primer agravio, básicamente el casacionista advierte sobre una posible ineficacia del “Contrato de mantenimiento de un Programa de Plantación de Teca” como elemento probatorio, al no cumplirse con el pago de las especies fiscales que estipula los numerales 285 y 286 del Código Fiscal. Criterio de la Sala: el recurrente aduce motivos de disconformidad relacionados con la valoración probatoria, dejando en evidencia que su reclamo atañe al fondo de lo resuelto. El análisis probatorio que sobre el caso efectúe el Tribunal Arbitral no es revisable en esta instancia. Adentrarse en esa labor extralimitaría las facultades de esta Cámara, pues implicaría avocarse al estudio de fondo de la controversia, situación ajena a la naturaleza del recurso planteado y disconforme con la causal de nulidad alegada (véase entre otros, el voto Nro. 55-F-2024 de las 08 horas con 58 minutos del 12 de enero de 2024 de esta Sala). No obstante, esta Cámara ha reiterado que la falta de timbres fiscales en un contrato (incluso si incluye cláusulas arbitrales) no lo vuelve inválido. Aunque la ley fiscal exige el pago de timbres, su omisión no anula el acuerdo entre las partes. Lo que se ve afectado es la eficacia del contrato como prueba documental, pero no su validez como negocio jurídico. En el presente caso, el Tribunal Arbitral confirmó la existencia del contrato de mantenimiento de plantación de teca mediante prueba testimonial, por lo que, al comprobarse el contrato por otros medios, el reclamo basado en la falta de timbres fiscales no resultaría procedente. En cuanto al segundo reparo, argumenta la casacionista errónea valoración probatoria, pues a su criterio el Tribunal sobrepasó sus límites en la audiencia complementaria al evacuar a la testigo Barbara Casablanca quien se refirió a Mator Explotación CR S.A., cuando esta fue llamada a testiguar únicamente sobre Motor France. Criterio de la Sala: además de lo señalado con anterioridad en cuanto al tema de valoración probatoria, la procedencia de la nulidad del laudo cuando se haya violado el principio al debido proceso, acontece cuando existe quebranto a normas esenciales e irrenunciables del procedimiento o a fases relevantes acordadas por las partes, cuya vulneración no pudo ser subsanada en el curso del proceso y derive en un perjuicio al reclamante. Se trata de desatenciones que posicionan a una parte en un estado de grotesca indefensión, imposibilitándole su derecho de defensa, lo que no sucede en el sublite (véase, entre otros, el voto número 170-F-2025 de las 09 horas con 40 minutos del 06 de febrero del 2025). Observa esta Cámara que la testigo Bárbara Casablanca fue convocada correctamente para declarar, sin restricciones sobre los hechos a tratar. Las partes fueron debidamente notificadas sobre la audiencia de pruebas y tuvieron tres días hábiles para manifestarse, pero no hicieron objeción alguna. Además, se comprobó que la señora Casablanca figuraba como Tesorera de Mator Explotación CR S.A. desde 2014, por lo que era razonable que declarara sobre los movimientos económicos de la empresa. En consecuencia, se rechaza el agravio presentado.\n\nSAS Mator France. Motivos de nulidad. \n\nV.- El codemandado estableció un único agravio, nulidad por violación al debido proceso, al permitirse ampliación en la demanda de forma ilegitima. Estima, el Tribunal incurrió en un error al permitir de forma ilícita bajo la figura del saneamiento procesal, la ampliación de pretensiones en su contra cuando la litis ya había sido trabada y existía contestación de la demanda en tiempo y forma. Lo anterior, señala, violenta el numeral 35.6 del Código Procesal Civil -CPC-, así como el principio de preclusión e igualdad procesal (artículos 2.1 y 2.9 CPC). Resaltó, en su momento interpuso recurso de revocatoria, el cual fue rechazado por el Tribunal. Criterio de la Sala: no comparte los argumentos expuestos por el recurrente. En efecto, la denominada “ampliación de demanda” a la que alude el casacionista, no constituye una actuación autónoma o caprichosa del Tribunal Arbitral, sino que responde a una consecuencia procesal derivada de la admisión de la excepción de falta de integración del litisconsorcio pasivo necesario, declarada mediante auto de fecha 12 de agosto de 2021. La ampliación permitida a la parte actora tuvo como único propósito permitirle dirigir su pretensión frente al nuevo sujeto pasivo del proceso, esto es, SAS Motor France, cuya incorporación fue considerada indispensable por el Tribunal Arbitral dada la naturaleza sustancial de la relación jurídica debatida. Así, el señalamiento efectuado por el órgano arbitral encuentra respaldo normativo tanto en el artículo 22.1 del Código Procesal Civil como en el numeral 39 de la Ley N.º 7727 (Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social - Ley RAC), los cuales obligan a garantizar la adecuada conformación de la litis cuando se trate de relaciones jurídicas que exijan la intervención de todos los sujetos pasivos vinculados materialmente. Por ende, el agravio formulado carece de asidero y debe ser rechazado.\n\nVI.- En mérito de lo expuesto, se declararán sin lugar los recursos de nulidad planteados por ambas partes accionadas.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nSe declara sin lugar los recursos de nulidad de laudo arbitral interpuesto por ambas partes accionadas. \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nLuis Guillermo Rivas Loaiciga\n\n \n\nRocío Rojas Morales\n\n \n\nDamaris Vargas Vásquez\n\nJorge Leiva Poveda\n\n \n\nCarlos Guillermo Zamora Campos\n\n \n\n \n\nDocumento Firmado Digitalmente\n\n-- Código verificador --\n\n\n\n N2MHEXXDMZM61 \n\nTeléfonos: (506) 2295-3658 o 2295-3659, correo electrónico sala_primera@poder-judicial.go.cr", "body_en_text": "SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at thirteen hours fourteen minutes on the fourth of September, two thousand twenty-five.\n\nIn an arbitration proceeding filed by ARTAL FOREST S.A., represented by Carlos Ramírez Aguilar, Ángel Castillo Vanegas, and Manuella Tanchella Chacón, against MATOR EXPLOTACIÓN CR S.A. and SAS MATOR FRANCE, represented by Douglas Beard Holst and Manuel Antonio Rodríguez Espinoza, the Conciliation and Arbitration Center of the Costa Rican Chamber of Commerce (Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje de la Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica) issued the Arbitral Award (Laudo Arbitral) at 2:00 p.m. on May 12, 2022. Both respondent parties (partes accionadas) file a motion for annulment (recurso de nulidad) against the decision.\n\nCONSIDERING (CONSIDERANDO)\n\nI.- Artal Forest S.A. filed an arbitration proceeding before the Conciliation and Arbitration Center of the Costa Rican Chamber of Commerce (CCA) against Mator Explotación CR S.A. and SAS Mator France. In its initial brief, it mentions a unilateral rescission of the Teak Plantation Maintenance Services Contract (Contrato de servicios de mantenimiento de plantación de Teca) entered into by the parties. This was due to a claim for non-payment of services provided during the years 2017, 2018, and 2019, as well as the enforcement of the penalty clause (cláusula penal) contained in said contract. Therefore, they requested a declaration ordering payment for the services provided during the years 2017 to 2019, ordering Mator Explotación CR S.A. to pay the sum of $120,374.30 corresponding to invoices numbers 0948, 0089, and 0439 plus default interest (intereses moratorios), calculated from the date they became due until September 11, 2020. Additionally, ordering the payment of default interest (intereses moratorios) as established in Article VII of the Contract, calculated from the date of filing the arbitration claim (demanda arbitral) until its effective payment. Also, ordering Mator Explotación CR S.A. to pay the percentage of 20% on the amounts Artal Forest S.A. ceased to receive. The respondent parties contested the action, and in general terms raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of enforceability (falta de exigibilidad), lack of passive standing (falta de legitimación pasiva), statute of limitations (prescripción), and payment. The Tribunal composed of Alberto Pauly Sáenz, Álvaro Meza Lazarus, and Anayansy Rojas Chan, by means of an arbitral award (laudo arbitral) at 2:00 p.m. on May 12, 2022, decided to reject the defenses of lack of right, statute of limitations (prescripción), lack of enforceability (falta de exigibilidad), payment, and passive standing (legitimación pasiva), and jointly and severally ordered the respondents Mator Explotación CR S.A. and SAS Mator France to pay the amounts concerning the maintenance services corresponding to the years 2017 and 2018, for a total of $95,127.82. They rejected the claim for collection of the balance claimed for services for the 2019 period. They also jointly and severally ordered the defendants (demandadas) to pay interest on the sums owed for maintenance services from the date they became due until their effective payment. They jointly and severally ordered the co-defendants (codemandadas) to pay $127,627.50 for damages (daños y perjuicios), applying the penalty clause (cláusula penal) agreed between the parties. They also ordered the respondents (accionadas) to jointly and severally pay the procedural and personal costs of the arbitration proceeding, and, finally, ordered them to pay the attorney's fees of the plaintiff (parte actora).\n\nMator Explotación CR S.A. Grounds for annulment (Motivos de nulidad).\n\nII.- The appellant argues two grievances, the first of which is the ineffectiveness of the contract (ineficacia del contrato). It points out that, despite the Arbitral Tribunal informing on several occasions prior to issuing the award about the ineffectiveness of the Teak Plantation Contract (Contrato de Plantación de Teca) as a piece of evidence, since the payment of the fiscal stamps (especies fiscales) required by the Fiscal Code (Código Fiscal) (articles 285 and 286) was not met, the Arbitral Tribunal had 9 proven facts (hechos demostrados) based on that evidence. In an attempt to correct its error, the Arbitral Tribunal justified the existence of the contract based on other evidentiary means incorporated into the proceeding. It then warns that no witness specified the existence of a penalty clause (cláusula penal), nor its conditions; however, the Tribunal extracts it from the contract, which is ineffective, thus generating a complete defenselessness (indefensión) for the respondents (accionados). Second objection: erroneous evidentiary assessment (errónea valoración probatoria) and advancement of opinion (adelanto de criterio). It states that the Tribunal overstepped its limits in the supplementary hearing (audiencia complementaria) when examining witness Barbara Casablanca, as she was called only to testify in her capacity as representative of Motor France, and Mr. Gabriel Clare Facio on behalf of Mator Explotación CR S.A.; however, the plaintiff (parte accionante) asked questions to Mrs. Casablanca about Mator Explotación CR S.A. Despite an objection being made regarding the questioning, the Tribunal illegitimately allowed the examination, thus causing an advancement of opinion (adelanto de criterio) by indicating that both companies are the same, in addition to violating the rules of questioning. It highlights that one of the issues under discussion in the litigation was precisely to determine whether or not a group of economic interest exists between both companies. All of the above violates article 67, subsections e) and f) of the Alternative Conflict Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace Law (Ley de Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social - Ley RAC).\n\nIII.- Before determining what is appropriate for each of the objections raised, it is pertinent to analyze what this Chamber has indicated regarding the particularities of the annulment motion (recurso de nulidad) provided for the review of arbitral awards. In relevant part, it has been indicated that it is possible to review those aspects unfavorable to the appellant within the award, when these fall within any of the grounds for annulment exhaustively set forth in article 67 of the RAC Law (Ley RAC). In this regard, this Chamber has stated: “[…] the annulment of the award may only be declared in the following cases: a) when its issuance exceeds the deadline agreed by the parties for that ruling, b) if it does not cover all the aspects submitted to arbitration necessary for its efficacy and validity, c) when it decides on points not submitted to arbitration, d) if it deals with a matter not subject to arbitration, e) if it violates the principle of due process (debido proceso), f) if it is issued contrary to mandatory rules or public policy (normas imperativas o de orden público), and, g) if the Arbitral Tribunal responsible for resolving the dispute is not competent. Seen this way, the examination is limited to procedural aspects, hence the award cannot be reviewed on its merits. The only exception, even if indirectly, occurs when it is challenged based on the grounds of subsections e) and f) of the aforementioned article 67. However, even under the exceptions, the scrutiny is limited to comparing the operative part with the content of due process (debido proceso) and the mandatory rules or public policy (normas imperativas o de orden público) invoked, respectively, without the Chamber being able to give it new content should it be annulled (related, among others, to this Chamber, rulings no. 504 of 11:45 a.m. on June 17, 2004, and no. 154 of 11:05 a.m. on March 3, 2004).” (Judgment No. 1538-2013 of nine hours fifty-five minutes on November 14, 2013). Therefore, the functional competence of this Chamber is limited to certain review criteria, outside of which examination is prohibited, by express provision of the legislator. That is why, unlike what is regulated for the cassation appeal, when it comes to the review of the award, even though the motion lacks special formalities (only clarity and precision when evidencing the error), this Body is prevented from promoting a new assessment of the merits of the decision or of the evidence presented in the proceeding, since the choice of the alternative dispute resolution pathway prevents the re-examination of the substantive law applied (see resolutions of this Chamber Nos. 970-2006 of 2:45 p.m. on December 11, 2006; 751-2007 of nine hours ten minutes on October 19, 2007; 1538 of 9:55 a.m. on November 14, 2013; and 965 of 10:36 a.m. on August 17, 2017). Based on the foregoing, what is appropriate for each of the formulated objections must be specified.\n\nIV.- Regarding the first grievance, the appellant basically warns about a possible ineffectiveness (ineficacia) of the \"Maintenance Contract for a Teak Plantation Program\" (Contrato de mantenimiento de un Programa de Plantación de Teca) as a piece of evidence, since the payment of the fiscal stamps (especies fiscales) stipulated by articles 285 and 286 of the Fiscal Code (Código Fiscal) was not met. Chamber's opinion: the appellant alleges reasons of disagreement related to the evidentiary assessment (valoración probatoria), revealing that its claim concerns the merits of the decision. The evidentiary analysis that the Arbitral Tribunal carries out in the case is not reviewable in this instance. Delving into that task would exceed the powers of this Chamber, as it would imply undertaking a substantive study of the dispute, a situation alien to the nature of the motion filed and inconsistent with the alleged ground for annulment (see, among others, vote No. 55-F-2024 of 08:58 a.m. on January 12, 2024, of this Chamber). However, this Chamber has reiterated that the lack of fiscal stamps (timbres fiscales) in a contract (even if it includes arbitration clauses) does not make it invalid. Although the fiscal law requires the payment of stamps, its omission does not annul the agreement between the parties. What is affected is the contract's efficacy as documentary evidence, but not its validity as a legal transaction (negocio jurídico). In the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal confirmed the existence of the teak plantation maintenance contract through testimonial evidence, therefore, since the contract was proven by other means, the claim based on the lack of fiscal stamps (timbres fiscales) would not be admissible. Regarding the second objection, the appellant argues an erroneous evidentiary assessment (errónea valoración probatoria), since in its opinion the Tribunal overstepped its limits in the supplementary hearing (audiencia complementaria) when examining the witness Barbara Casablanca, who referred to Mator Explotación CR S.A., when she was called to testify only about Motor France. Chamber's opinion: in addition to what was previously indicated regarding the issue of evidentiary assessment (valoración probatoria), the admissibility of the annulment of the award when the principle of due process (debido proceso) has been violated occurs when there is a breach of essential and non-waivable procedural rules or relevant phases agreed upon by the parties, whose violation could not be corrected during the course of the proceeding and results in harm to the claimant. These are inattentions that place a party in a state of grotesque defenselessness (indefensión), making it impossible for them to exercise their right of defense, which does not happen in the present case (see, among others, vote number 170-F-2025 of 09:40 a.m. on February 6, 2025). This Chamber observes that the witness Bárbara Casablanca was correctly summoned to testify, without restrictions on the facts to be addressed. The parties were duly notified about the evidentiary hearing and had three business days to respond, but made no objection. Furthermore, it was proven that Mrs. Casablanca had been serving as Treasurer of Mator Explotación CR S.A. since 2014, so it was reasonable for her to testify about the company's economic movements. Consequently, the grievance presented is rejected.\n\nSAS Mator France. Grounds for annulment (Motivos de nulidad).\n\nV.- The co-defendant (codemandado) established a single grievance: annulment for violation of due process (debido proceso), by illegitimately allowing an expansion of the complaint (ampliación en la demanda). It believes that the Tribunal erred by illicitly allowing, under the guise of procedural correction (saneamiento procesal), the expansion of claims (ampliación de pretensiones) against it when the litis had already been joined and there was a timely response to the complaint. The foregoing, it points out, violates article 35.6 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil -CPC-), as well as the principle of preclusion and procedural equality (articles 2.1 and 2.9 CPC). It highlighted that it had at the time filed a motion for reversal (recurso de revocatoria), which was rejected by the Tribunal. Chamber's opinion: it does not share the arguments put forth by the appellant. Indeed, the so-called \"expansion of the complaint\" (ampliación de demanda) to which the appellant alludes does not constitute an autonomous or capricious action by the Arbitral Tribunal; rather, it responds to a procedural consequence derived from the admission of the defense of lack of necessary passive joinder (falta de integración del litisconsorcio pasivo necesario), declared by means of a resolution dated August 12, 2021. The expansion permitted to the plaintiff (parte actora) had the sole purpose of allowing it to direct its claim against the new passive subject of the proceeding, that is, SAS Motor France, whose incorporation was considered indispensable by the Arbitral Tribunal given the substantial nature of the legal relationship under debate. Thus, the indication made by the arbitral body finds normative support in both article 22.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) and article 39 of Law No. 7727 (Alternative Conflict Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace Law - RAC Law), which require guaranteeing the proper constitution of the litis when dealing with legal relationships that demand the intervention of all materially linked passive subjects. Therefore, the formulated grievance lacks foundation and must be rejected.\n\nVI.- By virtue of the foregoing, the motions for annulment (recursos de nulidad) filed by both respondent parties (partes accionadas) will be declared without merit.\n\nTHEREFORE (POR TANTO)\n\nThe motions for annulment of the arbitral award (recurso de nulidad de laudo arbitral) filed by both respondent parties are declared without merit.\n\nand **SAS MATOR FRANCE**, represented by Douglas Beard Holst and Manuel Antonio Rodríguez Espinoza, the Conciliation and Arbitration Center (Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje) of the Costa Rican Chamber of Commerce (Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica) issued the Arbitral Award at 2:00 p.m. on May 12, 2022. Both defendant parties filed an appeal for annulment against the decision.\n\n**WHEREAS (CONSIDERANDO)**\n\n**I.-** Artal Forest S.A. initiated arbitration proceedings before the Conciliation and Arbitration Center of the Costa Rican Chamber of Commerce (CCA), against Mator Explotación CR S.A. and SAS Mator France. In its initial filing, it mentions a unilateral rescission of the Teak Plantation Maintenance Services Contract signed by the parties. This occurred due to a claim for non-payment of services provided during the years 2017, 2018, and 2019, as well as the enforcement of the penalty clause (cláusula penal) set forth in said contract. Therefore, they requested a declaration for the payment of services rendered during the years 2017 to 2019, that Mator Explotación CR S.A. be ordered to pay the sum of $120,374.30 corresponding to invoices numbers 0948, 0089, and 0439 plus default interest, calculated from the moment they became due until September 11, 2020. Furthermore, that payment of default interest be ordered in accordance with the provisions of Article VII of the Contract, calculated from the date of filing the arbitral claim until its effective payment. Also, that Mator Explotación C.R., S.A. be ordered to pay the 20% percentage on the amounts not received by Artal Forest S.A. The defendant parties answered the action, and in general terms, they raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of enforceability, lack of passive legitimation (falta de legitimación pasiva), statute of limitations (prescripción), and payment. The Tribunal composed of Alberto Pauly Sáenz, Álvaro Meza Lazarus, and Anayansy Rojas Chan, through the arbitral award issued at 2:00 p.m. on May 12, 2022, resolved to reject the defenses of lack of right, statute of limitations, lack of enforceability, payment, and passive legitimation, and jointly and severally ordered the defendants Mator Explotación CR S.A. and SAS Mator France to pay the amounts concerning the maintenance services corresponding to the years 2017 and 2018, for a total of $95,127.82. They rejected the claim for collection of the balance claimed for services from the 2019 period. They also jointly and severally ordered the defendants to pay interest on the sums owed for maintenance services from the date they became due until their effective payment. They jointly and severally ordered the co-defendants to pay $127,627.50 for damages (daños y perjuicios), in application of the penalty clause agreed upon between the parties. They also ordered the defendants to jointly and severally pay the procedural and personal costs of the arbitration process, and, finally, they ordered them to pay the plaintiff's attorney's fees.\n\n**Mator Explotación CR S.A. Grounds for Annulment.**\n\n**II.-** The appellant argues **two** grievances, the **first** of them being the ineffectiveness of the contract. It points out, despite the Arbitral Tribunal informing on several occasions prior to the issuance of the award about the ineffectiveness of the Teak Plantation Contract as a probative element, due to non-compliance with the payment of fiscal stamps required by the Fiscal Code (Código Fiscal) (articles 285 and 286). The Arbitral Tribunal had 9 proven facts based on that evidence. In an attempt to correct its error, the Arbitral Tribunal justified the existence of the contract based on other evidentiary means incorporated into the process. Then, it warns, no witness specified the existence of a penalty clause, or its conditions; however, the Tribunal extracts it from the contract, which is ineffective, thus generating a complete defenselessness (indefensión) for the defendants. **Second** objection, erroneous evidentiary assessment and advance of criteria (adelanto de criterio). It states that the Tribunal overstepped its limits in the complementary hearing when examining the witness Barbara Casablanca, since she was called solely to testify in her capacity as representative of Motor France, and Mr. Gabriel Clare Facio on behalf of Mator Explotación CR S.A.; however, the plaintiff asked Mrs. Casablanca questions about Mator Explotación CR S.A. Despite an objection being raised regarding the questioning, the Tribunal illegitimately allowed the questioning, thereby causing an advance of criteria by indicating that both companies are the same entity, in addition to infringing the rules of questioning. It highlights that one of the issues under discussion in the litigation was precisely to determine whether or not an economic interest group (grupo de interés económico) exists between the two companies. All of the foregoing violates Article 67, subsections e) and f) of the Law on Alternative Conflict Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace (Ley de Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social RAC).\n\n**III.-** Prior to determining what corresponds for each of the objections raised, it is pertinent to analyze what this Chamber has stated regarding the particularities of the annulment appeal (recurso de nulidad) provided for the review of arbitral awards. In the relevant part, it has been indicated the possibility of reviewing those unfavorable aspects for the appellant within the award, when these fall under one of the grounds for annulment exhaustively contemplated in Article 67 of the RAC Law. In this regard, this Chamber has stated: *“[...] the annulment of the award may only be declared in the following cases: a) when its issuance exceeds the deadline agreed upon by the parties for that decision, b) if it does not cover all aspects submitted to arbitration necessary for its effectiveness and validity, c) when it decides on points not submitted to arbitration, d) if it deals with a matter not susceptible to arbitration, e) if it violates the principle of due process, f) if it was issued contrary to mandatory rules or public policy, and, g) if the Arbitral Tribunal responsible for resolving the dispute is not competent. Viewed this way, the review is limited to procedural aspects, hence the award cannot be reviewed on its merits. The only exception, even if indirectly, occurs when it is challenged based on the grounds of subsections e) and f) of the aforementioned precept 67. Nevertheless, even with these exceptions, the scrutiny is limited to comparing the operative part of the decision with the content of due process and the mandatory rules or public policy invoked, respectively, without this Chamber being able to give it new content if it were to be annulled (in relation, among others, to this Chamber's rulings no. 504 at 11:45 a.m. on June 17, 2004, and no. 154 at 11:05 a.m. on March 3, 2004).”* (Judgment No. 1538-2013 at nine fifty-five a.m. on November 14, 2013). Therefore, the functional jurisdiction of this Chamber is limited to specific cases of review, beyond which its examination is prohibited by express provision of the legislator. That is why, unlike what is regulated for the cassation appeal (recurso de casación), in the case of the review of the award, despite the fact that the appeal lacks special formalities (only clarity and precision in evidencing the error) **this Body is precluded from promoting a new assessment of the merits of what was decided or of the evidence presented in the process**, because the choice of the alternative dispute resolution method prevents the re-examination of the applied substantive law (see resolutions of this Chamber No. 970-2006 at 2:45 p.m. on December 11, 2006, 751-2007 at nine ten a.m. on October 19, 2007, 1538 at 9:55 a.m. on November 14, 2013, and 965 at 10:36 a.m. on August 17, 2017). Based on the foregoing, it is necessary to specify what corresponds for each of the objections formulated.\n\n**IV.-** Regarding the **first** grievance, the appellant essentially warns about a possible ineffectiveness of the \"Teak Plantation Program Maintenance Contract\" as a probative element, due to non-compliance with the payment of the fiscal stamps stipulated in Articles 285 and 286 of the Fiscal Code. *Chamber's Criterion*: the appellant raises grounds of disagreement related to the evidentiary assessment, making it evident that its claim concerns the merits of the decision. The probative analysis that the Arbitral Tribunal conducted on the case is not reviewable in this instance. Delving into that task would exceed the powers of this Chamber, as it would imply addressing the substantive study of the controversy, a situation alien to the nature of the appeal filed and inconsistent with the grounds for annulment alleged (see, among others, ruling No. 55-F-2024 at 08:58 a.m. on January 12, 2024, of this Chamber). However, this Chamber has reiterated that the lack of fiscal stamps on a contract (even if it includes arbitration clauses) does not render it invalid. Although fiscal law requires the payment of stamps, its omission does not annul the agreement between the parties. What is affected is the effectiveness of the contract as documentary evidence, but not its validity as a legal transaction (negocio jurídico). In the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal confirmed the existence of the teak plantation maintenance contract through testimonial evidence; therefore, since the contract was proven by other means, the claim based on the lack of fiscal stamps would not be admissible. Regarding the **second** objection, the appellant argues erroneous evidentiary assessment, since in its view the Tribunal overstepped its limits in the complementary hearing when examining the witness Barbara Casablanca, who referred to Mator Explotación CR S.A., when she was called to testify solely about Motor France. *Chamber's Criterion*: in addition to what was previously indicated regarding the issue of evidentiary assessment, the admissibility of the annulment of the award when the principle of due process has been violated occurs when there is a breach of essential and non-waivable procedural rules or relevant phases agreed upon by the parties, **whose violation could not have been remedied during the course of the proceedings and results in harm to the claimant**. These are disregardings that place a party in a state of grotesque defenselessness, making their right of defense impossible, which does not occur in the present case (see, among others, ruling number 170-F-2025 at 09:40 a.m. on February 6, 2025). This Chamber observes that the witness Bárbara Casablanca was correctly summoned to testify, without restrictions on the facts to be discussed. The parties were duly notified of the evidentiary hearing and had three business days to make statements, but they made no objection. Furthermore, it was proven that Mrs. Casablanca had been listed as Treasurer of Mator Explotación CR S.A. since 2014, so it was reasonable for her to testify about the company's economic movements. Consequently, the grievance presented is rejected.\n\n**SAS Mator France. Grounds for Annulment.**\n\n**V.-** The co-defendant established a **single** grievance, annulment for violation of due process, by allowing an illegitimate amendment to the complaint. It considers that the Tribunal committed an error by unlawfully allowing, under the guise of procedural remediation (saneamiento procesal), the amendment of claims against it when the dispute (litis) had already been joined and there was a timely and proper answer to the complaint.\n\nThe foregoing, it is argued, violates numeral 35.6 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil -CPC-), as well as the principle of preclusion (preclusión) and procedural equality (articles 2.1 and 2.9 CPC). It highlighted that, at the time, it filed a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria), which was rejected by the Tribunal.\n\n**Criteria of the Chamber (Criterio de la Sala):** it does not share the arguments put forward by the appellant. In effect, the so-called \"amendment of the complaint (ampliación de demanda)\" to which the cassation appellant alludes does not constitute an autonomous or capricious action by the Arbitral Tribunal, but rather corresponds to a procedural consequence derived from the admission of the exception of failure to join a necessary passive litisconsortium (falta de integración del litisconsorcio pasivo necesario), declared through an order dated August 12, 2021. The amendment permitted to the plaintiff had the sole purpose of allowing it to direct its claim against the new passive subject of the proceeding, that is, SAS Motor France, whose inclusion was considered indispensable by the Arbitral Tribunal given the substantive nature of the legal relationship under debate. Thus, the indication made by the arbitral body finds normative support both in article 22.1 of the Civil Procedure Code and in numeral 39 of Law No. 7727 (Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace - Ley RAC), which obligate ensuring the proper constitution of the litis when dealing with legal relationships that require the intervention of all materially bound passive subjects. Therefore, the grievance formulated lacks foundation and must be rejected.\n\n**VI.-** By virtue of the foregoing, the annulment remedies (recursos de nulidad) filed by both defendant parties shall be declared without merit.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nThe annulment remedies of the arbitral award filed by both defendant parties are declared without merit.\n\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n

\nLuis Guillermo Rivas Loaiciga\n

\n		\n

\nRocío Rojas Morales\n

\n		\n

\nDamaris Vargas Vásquez\n

\n
\n\n\n| --- | --- | --- |\n|

\"\"

Jorge Leiva Poveda

|

 

|

\"\"

Carlos Guillermo Zamora Campos

|\nDocument Digitally Signed\n\n-- Verification Code --\n\n\n\nN2MHEXXDMZM61\n\nPhones: (506) 2295-3658 or 2295-3659, e-mail sala_primera@poder-judicial.go.cr\n\nIt grants the possibility of reviewing those unfavorable aspects for the appellant within the award that are exhaustively contemplated in one of the grounds for annulment of precept 67 of the Ley RAC. The examination (functional competence) is limited to procedural aspects, hence the award cannot be reviewed on the merits, except, indirectly, when subsections e and f ibidem are challenged. See resolutions 504-2004, 154-2004 and 1538-2013 of the Sala Primera. Despite the fact that the appeal lacks special formalities (only clarity and precision in evidencing the error), the Chamber is prevented from promoting a new assessment of the merits of what was decided or of the evidence submitted to the process, since the choice of the alternative dispute resolution route prevents the re-examination of the substantive law applied. See resolutions 970-2006, 751-2007 and 965-2017.  In the present case, grounds of disagreement are alleged regarding the evidentiary assessment of the Arbitral Tribunal, a claim that pertains to the merits of what was resolved and is not reviewable in this instance. See resolution 55-2024 (voto 1258-F-2025).\\n\\r\\n\"\n\nThe lack of tax stamps (timbres fiscales) on a contract (even if it includes arbitration clauses) does not render it invalid. Although the tax law requires the payment of tax stamps, their omission does not annul the agreement between the parties. What is affected is the efficacy of the contract as documentary evidence, but not its validity as a legal transaction. In this case, the Arbitral Tribunal confirmed the existence of a contract through testimonial evidence, so that, since it was proven by other means, the claim based on the lack of tax stamps is inadmissible (voto 1258-F-2025).\n\nThe viability of the annulment of the award due to violation of the due process principle occurs when there is a breach of essential and inalienable procedural rules or relevant phases agreed upon by the parties, whose violation could not be remedied during the course of the process and which results in harm to the claimant. These are disregardful actions that place a party in a state of grotesque defenselessness, making their right of defense impossible. See resolution 170-2025 of the Sala Primera. This Chamber observes that the witness was correctly summoned to testify, without restrictions on the facts to be addressed. The parties were duly notified of the evidence hearing and had three business days to comment, but did not object (voto 1258-F-2025).\n\nThe amendment of the claim (ampliación de la demanda) responds to a procedural consequence derived from the admission of the defense of failure to include a necessary passive joinder of parties (litisconsorcio pasivo necesario). The amendment allowed to the plaintiff had the sole purpose of enabling it to direct its claim against the new passive subject of the process, whose inclusion was considered essential by the Arbitral Tribunal, given the substantive nature of the legal relationship under debate. Thus, the indication made by the arbitral body finds support in cardinal precepts 22.1 of the Código Procesal Civil and 39 of the Ley RAC, which require ensuring the adequate composition of the litigation when it involves legal relationships that demand the intervention of all materially linked passive subjects (voto 1258-F-2025).\n\nThe foregoing arose from a claim for non-payment of services rendered during the years 2017, 2018, and 2019, as well as the enforcement of the penalty clause contemplated in said contract. They therefore requested that payment be ordered for the services provided during the years 2017 through 2019, that Mator Explotación CR S.A. be ordered to pay the sum of $120,374.30 corresponding to invoices numbers 0948, 0089, and 0439, plus default interest (intereses moratorios), calculated from the date they became due until September 11, 2020. Furthermore, that payment of default interest (intereses moratorios) be ordered in accordance with the provisions of Article VII of the Contract, calculated from the date of filing of the arbitration claim until its effective payment. Also, that Mator Explotación C R, S.A. be ordered to pay the percentage of 20% on the amounts not received by Artal Forest S.A. The responding parties answered the action, and in general terms raised the defenses of lack of right, lack of enforceability, lack of passive legal standing (falta de legitimación pasiva), statute of limitations (prescripción), and payment. The Tribunal, composed of Alberto Pauly Sáenz, Álvaro Meza Lazarus, and Anayansy Rojas Chan, by arbitral award issued at 2:00 p.m. on May 12, 2022, resolved to reject the defenses of lack of right, statute of limitations (prescripción), lack of enforceability, payment, and passive legal standing (legitimación pasiva), and jointly and severally ordered the respondents Mator Explotación CR S.A. and SAS Mator France to pay the amounts concerning the maintenance services corresponding to the years 2017 and 2018, for a total of $95,127.82. They rejected the claim for collection of the balance claimed for services from the 2019 period. They also jointly and severally ordered the respondents to pay interest on the sums owed for maintenance services from the date they became due until their effective payment. They jointly and severally ordered the co-respondents to pay $127,627.50 for damages (daños y perjuicios), in application of the penalty clause agreed between the parties. They also ordered the respondents to jointly and severally pay the procedural and personal costs of the arbitration process, and, finally, ordered them to pay the attorney's fees of the claimant.\n\n**Mator Explotación CR S.A. Grounds for annulment.**\n\n**II.-** The appellant argues **two** grievances, the **first** of them being the ineffectiveness of the contract. It points out that the Arbitral Tribunal, on several occasions prior to issuing the award, reported on the ineffectiveness of the Teca Plantation Contract as an evidentiary element, due to non-compliance with the payment of the fiscal stamps stipulated by the Fiscal Code (numerals 285 and 286). The Arbitral Tribunal had 9 proven facts based on that evidence. In an attempt to correct its error, the Arbitral Tribunal justified the existence of the contract based on other evidentiary elements incorporated into the process. Then, it warns, no witness specified the existence of a penalty clause, or its conditions; however, the Tribunal extracted it from the contract, which is ineffective, thus generating a complete defenselessness (indefensión) for the respondents. **Second** objection, erroneous evidentiary assessment and advance of opinion. It affirms that the Tribunal overstepped its limits in the complementary hearing when examining the witness Barbara Casablanca, since she was called solely to testify in her capacity as representative of Motor France, and Mr. Gabriel Clare Facio on behalf of Mator Explotación CR S.A.; however, the claimant asked Ms. Casablanca questions about Mator Explotación CR S.A. Despite the opposition raised regarding the questioning, the Tribunal illegitimately allowed the questioning, thus causing an advance of opinion by indicating that both companies are the same, in addition to infringing the rules of questioning. It highlights that one of the subjects under discussion in the litigation was precisely to determine whether or not there is a group of economic interest (grupo de interés económico) between both companies. All of the foregoing violates numeral 67, subsections e) and f) of the Alternative Dispute Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace Law (Ley de Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social RAC).\n\n**III.-** Before determining what corresponds for each of the objections raised, it is appropriate to analyze what has been indicated by this Chamber regarding the particularities of the annulment recourse provided for the control of arbitral awards. In what is relevant, it has been indicated the possibility of reviewing those unfavorable aspects for the appellant within the award, when these fall under any of the grounds for annulment exhaustively set forth in Article 67 of the RAC Law. In this regard, this Chamber has affirmed: “[...] the nullity of the award may only be declared in the following cases: a) when its issuance exceeds the time period agreed upon by the parties for that ruling, b) if it does not cover all aspects submitted to arbitration necessary for its efficacy and validity, c) when it resolves points not submitted to arbitration, d) if it deals with a matter not subject to arbitration, e) violates the principle of due process, f) is pronounced contrary to mandatory rules or public policy (normas imperativas o de orden público), and, g) if the Arbitral Tribunal entrusted with resolving the dispute was not competent. Seen in this way, the examination is limited to procedural aspects, hence the award cannot be reviewed on the merits. The only exception, even if indirectly, occurs when it is challenged based on the grounds in subsections e) and f) of the aforementioned precept 67. However, even under the exceptions, the scrutiny is limited to confronting the operative part with the content of due process and the mandatory rules or public policy (normas imperativas o de orden público) invoked, respectively, without this Chamber being able to give it a new content should it be annulled (related, among others, to this Chamber, rulings no. 504 of 11:45 a.m. on June 17, 2004 and no. 154 of 11:05 a.m. on March 3, 2004).\" (Judgment No. 1538-2013 of nine hours fifty-five minutes on November 14, 2013). Therefore, the functional competence of this Chamber is limited to certain control cases, outside of which examination is forbidden by express provision of the legislator. That is why, unlike what was regulated for the cassation recourse, in the case of the review of the award, even though the recourse lacks special formalities (only clarity and precision in evidencing the error), **this Body is prevented from promoting a new assessment of the merits of what was decided or of the evidence adduced to the process**, since the choice of the alternative means of dispute resolution prevents the reexamination of the substantive law applied (see resolutions of this Chamber No. 970-2006 of 2:45 p.m. on December 11, 2006, 751-2007 of nine hours ten minutes on October 19, 2007, 1538 of 9:55 a.m. on November 14, 2013 and 965 of 10:36 a.m. on August 17, 2017). Based on the foregoing, what corresponds for each of the formulated objections must be specified.\n\n**IV.-** Regarding the **first** grievance, the cassation appellant basically warns about a possible ineffectiveness of the “Maintenance Contract for a Teca Plantation Program” as an evidentiary element, due to non-compliance with the payment of the fiscal stamps stipulated by numerals 285 and 286 of the Fiscal Code. Chamber's Opinion: the appellant alleges reasons for disagreement related to the evidentiary assessment, revealing that its claim concerns the merits of what was decided. The evidentiary analysis that the Arbitral Tribunal performed on the case is not reviewable in this instance. Delving into that task would exceed the powers of this Chamber, as it would imply addressing the study of the merits of the dispute, a situation foreign to the nature of the recourse filed and inconsistent with the alleged ground for annulment (see, among others, vote No. 55-F-2024 of 08 hours 58 minutes on January 12, 2024 of this Chamber). However, this Chamber has reiterated that the lack of fiscal stamps on a contract (even if it includes arbitration clauses) does not render it invalid. Although the fiscal law requires the payment of stamps, its omission does not annul the agreement between the parties. What is affected is the effectiveness of the contract as documentary evidence, but not its validity as a legal transaction. In the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal confirmed the existence of the teca plantation maintenance contract through testimonial evidence, so, since the contract was proven by other means, the claim based on the lack of fiscal stamps would not be admissible. As for the **second** objection, the cassation appellant argues erroneous evidentiary assessment, since in its opinion the Tribunal overstepped its limits in the complementary hearing when examining the witness Barbara Casablanca, who referred to Mator Explotación CR S.A., when she was called to testify solely about Motor France. Chamber's Opinion: in addition to what was previously indicated regarding the issue of evidentiary assessment, the admissibility of the annulment of the award when the principle of due process has been violated occurs when there is a breach of essential and non-waivable procedural rules or of relevant phases agreed upon by the parties, **whose violation could not be remedied during the course of the process and results in harm to the claimant**. These are inobservances that place a party in a state of gross defenselessness (indefensión), making its right of defense impossible, which does not happen in the present case (see, among others, vote number 170-F-2025 of 09 hours 40 minutes on February 6, 2025). This Chamber observes that the witness Bárbara Casablanca was correctly summoned to testify, without restrictions on the facts to be addressed. The parties were duly notified about the evidentiary hearing and had three business days to express themselves but made no objection. Furthermore, it was proven that Ms. Casablanca had been listed as Treasurer of Mator Explotación CR S.A. since 2014, so it was reasonable for her to testify about the company's economic movements. Consequently, the grievance presented is rejected.\n\n**SAS Mator France. Grounds for annulment.**\n\n**V.-** The co-respondent established a **single** grievance, annulment for violation of due process, by illegitimately allowing an amendment (ampliación) to the claim. It considers that the Tribunal incurred an error by illicitly allowing, under the concept of procedural cure (saneamiento procesal), the amendment of claims (ampliación de pretensiones) against it when the litis was already joined and a timely and proper answer to the claim existed. The foregoing, it points out, violates numeral 35.6 of the Civil Procedure Code -CPC-, as well as the principle of preclusion and procedural equality (articles 2.1 and 2.9 CPC). It highlighted that it timely filed a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria), which was rejected by the Tribunal. Chamber's Opinion: it does not share the arguments put forth by the appellant. In effect, the so-called “amendment of the claim (ampliación de demanda)” to which the cassation appellant alludes does not constitute an autonomous or capricious action by the Arbitral Tribunal, but rather responds to a procedural consequence derived from the admission of the defense of failure to join a necessary passive joinder of parties (litisconsorcio pasivo necesario), declared by means of an order dated August 12, 2021.\n\nThe extension granted to the claimant had the sole purpose of allowing it to direct its claim against the new passive party to the proceeding, that is, SAS Motor France, whose incorporation was deemed indispensable by the Arbitral Tribunal given the substantive nature of the legal relationship at issue. Thus, the indication made by the arbitral body finds regulatory support both in Article 22.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) and in numeral 39 of Law No. 7727 (Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace - Ley RAC), which require ensuring the proper composition of the legal dispute (litis) when it involves legal relationships that demand the intervention of all materially linked passive parties. Therefore, the grievance raised lacks merit and must be dismissed.\n\n**VI.-** By virtue of the foregoing, the annulment motions (recursos de nulidad) filed by both respondent parties shall be declared without merit.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nThe annulment motions of the arbitral award filed by both respondent parties are declared without merit.\n\n

\n\n| | | | |\n| :--- | :--- | :--- | :--- |\n| ![image]() | *Luis Guillermo Rivas Loaiciga* | *Rocío Rojas Morales* | *Damaris Vargas Vásquez* |\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n
\n

\n \"\"\n

\n

\n Jorge Leiva Poveda\n

\n 		\n

\n  \n

\n 		\n

\n \"\"\n

\n

\n Carlos Guillermo Zamora Campos\n

\n
\n

\n  \n

\n

\n  \n

\n

\n Digitally Signed Document\n

\n

\n -- Verification code --\n

\n

\n \n

\n

\n  N2MHEXXDMZM61 \n

" }