V.- ON THE POSITION OF THE PARTIES.- In summary and without prejudice to the literalness of their arguments, which have been studied in their entirety by this Court, each of the parties alleges what is detailed below in this section. PLAINTIFF: That on October 20, 2016, at approximately one fifteen in the afternoon, she was driving her vehicle on National Route 39, built and administered by CONAVI, specifically at Dirección13578 , taking the overpass on route to Santa Marta and Dirección3898, an area where drivers become aware of the loud noise produced by the manhole covers when cars pass over them. That on the date and time mentioned in the previous point, she was traveling in the left lane, at the authorized speed of eighty kilometers per hour, and observed through the rearview mirror that three motorcyclists were advancing on her right, which alerted her that she could not move into that lane without putting their lives at risk. That behind her was another vehicle driven by someone who, after the events, identified himself as Nombre112465 , ID number CED89028. That she, for her part, was behind another vehicle at a prudent distance, when suddenly, from beneath the vehicle ahead, she noticed that in front of her there was a manhole on the roadway of her lane, which had its cover raised, that is, instead of being horizontal covering the manhole opening, it was in a vertical position, with half inside the opening and the rest protruding above the street, forming an obstacle on the road. That at that moment she had the metal railing of the edge of the overpass on her left and the motorcyclists on her right. That she lost control of the vehicle, its steering did not respond, she felt the entire environment spinning around her, while loose objects in the car floated or fell around her, such as her purse, the car mats, her cell phone, and an umbrella. That immediately thereafter, in a matter of seconds, the manhole cover struck the windshield of the car she was driving, which fractured into a multitude of cracks and filaments on the front, generating a shower of glass fragments onto her, specifically onto her face and head, without her being clear at that moment about what was happening. That Mr. Adolfo Jiménez Lacayo, a resident of the area, and Mr. Nombre112465 , who was driving his vehicle behind her, observed how her car, upon passing over the cover in question, lifted completely into the air, together with the manhole cover which, upon hitting her car's tire, the kinetic force caused it to come out of its place, rise up with her car, and, spinning in the air, impact against the windshield of her vehicle, then fall to the street, landing about four meters from its corresponding manhole and four meters from the railing, almost on the dividing line between lanes. That her vehicle spun several times in the air, hit the ground, and finally fell onto the street, landing on its side on the driver's side, where the momentum still caused it to drag along the ground for a stretch, ending up overturned and lying across the right lane, about twelve meters from the manhole and three and a half meters from the street railing; the front license plate was left twisted like a rag on the road. That after falling onto the street, her vehicle continued sliding sideways along it with her inside, shocked and held to the driver's seat by the seatbelt, which, although it kept her in the seat, being in an inclined position and pulled by gravity, cut off her breathing. That residents of the area report that, for a long time before the accident relevant to this lawsuit, the malfunctioning manhole cover has caused minor and serious accidents at that same point. That the newspaper CR-Hoy, of national circulation, on February 13, 2017, reported that several more accidents have occurred at the same location, due to the malfunctioning manhole cover, given that, in fact, the report indicates that it has broken and disappeared, leaving the opening unprotected. That the original cover, which identified it as a municipal manhole, was replaced by another that says Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillado. That the accident, as stated in the medical opinions, caused the plaintiff a shock which altered her peace and tranquility, her personal life was profoundly disrupted emotionally, which has caused her states of anguish, depression, and anxiety; the first few days she could not sleep well and needed medication to fall asleep, in addition to periodic headaches that lasted between two and three months; today, despite the time elapsed, she still suffers from periodic states of anxiety and sadness. That the accident caused the total loss of the vehicle, whose reported value in the used car market is at least nine million colones, but the insurance gave her compensation in the sum of six million colones, so that implied a patrimonial loss of at least three million. That at this moment, in order to buy a vehicle in the same conditions as the first one, but new, she had to make an installment purchase for an investment of thirty-one thousand nine hundred dollars of the United States of America. That she is an independent person who provides for her own maintenance, works as a real estate broker and, mainly, in the care of elderly persons in a state of disability or senility, so the accident, due to the movement limitations it caused her, such as pain in her hands, back, head, and stress, prevented her from carrying out said activity, since she could not be responsible for holding an elderly person with her hands to move or transfer them, without the risk of causing a fall and injuries, so that in reality she could not work and support herself for six months, from October 2016 until April 2017; which caused her to lose regular clients she had at that time and prevented her from performing her work activities in general. That consequently, her gross income, from an average of ¢7,500,000 monthly, decreased by ¢4,500,000 monthly, which after expenses represents a net loss of income over six months due to being unable to work, of ¢4,164,784.92. That the loss of her vehicle and the need to travel to medical appointments, coordinate with her clients, attend therapy, and manage her other pending commitments, forced her to rent a vehicle for one month in the sum of six hundred thousand colones, a cost that became impossible for her to maintain continuously. That on Sunday, July 23, 2017, at approximately 4 in the afternoon, she was traveling in her new vehicle on the same highway where the accident occurred and despite the fact that since that day she takes the extreme right lane, at that moment, due to repairs on an overpass bridge, the two right lanes were closed and traffic was diverted only through the left lane. That it was then that she faced the fact of having to pass through the accident site and entered a state of panic and was paralyzed, unable to continue. That due to the traffic jam she caused, a traffic officer came over who did her the favor of taking the wheel and crossing the accident site. That two days later she returned for an appointment with the psychiatrist at INS, who renewed her medication treatment. That in light of what occurred, the responsibility is fully that of the authorities responsible for the installation and maintenance of the highway, the manhole, and the cover of the latter, for which they are sued jointly because their actions have generated the malfunctioning of the highway service and consequently the damages caused. CONAVI: That the plaintiff's statement is inaccurate when she indicates that she was driving \"at the authorized speed of eighty kilometers per hour,\" since as can be accredited from the evidence offered by the plaintiff herself, that in Official Report No. 2016-248600029, Ticket #Identificacion533 prepared by Inspector No. 2486, Mr. Pablo Agüero Rojas, excessive speed at which she was driving is described as a risk factor. That in this regard, the following was textually recorded: \"Risk Factor: Excessive speed,\" in the accident that occurred on October 20, 2016, at \"1:18:46 p.m.\" That the plaintiff indicates that the stormwater manhole cover had engraved the legend \"alcantarillado pluvial municipal.\" That notwithstanding this, it is the lack of skill and imprudence of the plaintiff in driving at excessive speed that causes the accident, and therefore, she cannot attempt to attribute any responsibility to the Consejo Nacional de Vialidad on this account. That in any case, regarding water management, the considerations issued by the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia in matters of sewer systems are of mandatory observance, in which they indicate the administrative instances of the Poder Ejecutivo which are responsible for the construction and operation of systems for providing potable water and evacuating sewage -Judgment No. 2007-05894 of eleven hours and fifty-eight minutes of April twenty-seventh, two thousand seven-. There being clarity, as to which it corresponds to the Municipalidad (Municipality) to administer local services and interests, guaranteeing, among others, good systems for providing potable water and evacuating wastewater, through adequate aqueduct and sewer systems, therefore, the definitive solution in the matter of stormwater and residual water management falls to the Municipalidad and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. STATE: That as reported by CONAVI in its response to this lawsuit, in view of the complexity of the road project where the accident is alleged to have occurred, careful follow-up was carried out on each of its stages -design and construction-, both by CONAVI plant personnel, as well as by external professionals and the contracted Supervisory Consortium, this in conjunction with the supervision of the contracting company itself. Resulting in the guarantee that the works complied with the technical and structural parameters contained in the public works contract. AyA: That upon conducting the inspections by AyA technicians at the site of the event, it was determined that the manhole described in the accident is administered by CONAVI for the stormwater maintenance system of the bypass road. That the covers throughout the entire country are cast by the cover manufacturer with the inscription of the AyA initials, however these covers are freely sold, any person can buy this type of cover and put them in their projects without this signifying that the structure is ours. That thus, it is very difficult to see covers like those described for San José stormwater manhole systems, since these covers are made for them in a very exclusive manner. That the stormwater system is the responsibility of each Municipalidad and for this reason the Gobierno Central assigns a budget to each Local Government for the annual maintenance of these stormwater systems. That AyA does not receive any type of budget for stormwater maintenance, thus relieving it of responsibility for stormwater events, since the use of AyA funds for these matters of maintaining stormwater structures would constitute an irregular diversion of public funds. That despite the fact that the Municipalidades are the ones who must provide this type of care for stormwater systems, on National Highways this responsibility is shared with CONAVI, and can be fully delegated to the Municipal entity entirely, according to specific situations. MUNICIPALIDAD DE SAN JOSÉ: That indeed the manhole in question has a cover identified as property of Acueductos y Alcantarillado, so this point confirms that the Municipalidad de San José is not responsible for the placement, replacement, or maintenance of manhole covers on national routes, as is the one where the incident alleged by the plaintiff occurred. That it is unknown if previously there existed a municipal cover on said manhole, and if so, it was not this Municipalidad that placed it, as it does not have the competence to do so, since it involves a route that is beyond municipal administration. That the acts denounced in this lawsuit occurred on Highway 39 as stated by the plaintiff, the same one that corresponds to the classification of Red Vial Nacional, so that both the construction of the road, as well as its administration and subsequent maintenance, are beyond the competency, functional, and operational scope of the Municipalidad de San José.
VI.- ON THE BASIS OF THE LAWSUIT AND ITS EVALUATION BY THIS COURT: As can be appreciated from the factual scenario and the claims of the lawsuit, in this case we are facing a typical Civil Proceeding against the Treasury, in which the extracontractual liability of a Public Administration is being claimed. Certainly, as the co-defendant Administrations argue, the plaintiff does not identify the entity or body with instrumental legal personality -the case of CONAVI- that caused the damages for which compensation is sought. Rather, she acts against all of them, given the factual-legal uncertainty in which not only she, but also the defendant Administrations find themselves, who argue they have no liability, either because in their opinion they did everything very well -the case of CONAVI supported by the State- or because matters relating to stormwater manholes are outside their competencies -the case of AyA and the Municipalidad de San José-. A simple reading of the responses to the lawsuit is enough to notice the said uncertainty, which they curiously allege as a flaw that would require declaring -according to their opinion- the inadmissibility of the lawsuit. That is, from what is argued in their responses, it is evident that the respondent Administrations do not have a clear idea of where their competencies reach on the subject of stormwater manholes, precisely because it is a topic that is not simple at all. But despite this, they all seek to exempt themselves from responsibility for what happened to the plaintiff, using as a basic argument that the manhole on the occasion of which the accident occurred has nothing to do with each of them. Faced with such a panorama, the only logical option for the plaintiff was to proceed as she did; that is, suing those who from her perspective could have some involvement in the operation of the manhole causing the mishap. And this, in the judgment of this Court, in no way diminishes the exercise of her right of action and much less, the possibility of obtaining reparation for all, some, or any of the damages for which compensation is sought. Having clarified the above, it must be remembered that Costa Rica is a Social and Democratic State of Law, in which, from the Constitución Política (Political Constitution) itself, the indisputable foundations of the liability of the State -Central and Decentralized- are laid. (Articles 9, 11, 18, 33, 41, 45, 49, 50, 74, 140.8, 139.4, 148, 149, 150, 154, 188, and 191). Constitutional precepts that are developed, among others, by the Ley General de la Administración Pública -ordinals 190 et seq.-, where, in summary, the liability of the Administration for damages caused by its legitimate, illegitimate, normal, and abnormal operation is established, excepting force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party. The doctrinal and jurisprudential development of the cited norms and many others that deal with the subject has been more than abundant, existing coincidence that the administered party must be guaranteed not only access to justice, but also their constitutional right to full compensation, provided they prove the existence of: i) A conduct -formal, material, or omissive- of a Public Administration. ii) A damage that they are not obligated to bear. iii) A causal link (cause-effect relationship) between that conduct and the damage experienced. Thus then, those are the three presuppositions, which, as indicated in previous lines, must be demonstrated by anyone seeking compensation derived from the actions of a Public Administration. This said, it is more than obvious from a simple reading of the constitutional and legal norms indicated above, that the right to full compensation is not conditioned on the administered party being registered with the Dirección General de Tributación or having paid the corresponding taxes, as argued by CONAVI supported by the State Representation. Such a position is untenable in light of the ordinals indicated above, in none of which did the constituent power on the one hand, and the ordinary legislator on the other, establish such conditions to access Costa Rican justice and obtain from it -when the presuppositions indicated above are proven- full compensation for the damages caused by a Public Administration. In this case, as has been said, CONAVI and the Procuraduría General de la República, stated on various occasions -both representations in writing and the Special Judicial Attorney of CONAVI orally at Trial- that it was necessary to request from the Ministerio de Hacienda the Tax Returns of the plaintiff, in the three periods prior to the year in which the accident occurred. Evidence absolutely irrelevant for this type of case -for the reasons given in this Judgment-, but which was admitted by the Case Management Judge without him processing it in a timely manner. In view of this, this Chamber did its part and by resolution at fourteen hours five minutes of July first, two thousand twenty-one, ordered the Ministerio de Hacienda to remit the Tax Returns corresponding to the periods 2014, 2015, and 2016, which as of the date this Ruling is issued have not been remitted to the Court. Nevertheless, the absence of said evidence in no way prevents ruling on this matter nor causes defenselessness to the co-defendant parties that requested it, since as has been said it is absolutely irrelevant and in any case, there is no controversy as to the fact that the plaintiff was not paying taxes when the accident occurred, since her Special Judicial Attorney has had no qualms in expressly acknowledging -even in the Oral and Public Hearing- that his client was not registered as a taxpayer at that time -meaning the time of the mishap-. That is, the plaintiff expressly and undoubtedly acknowledges that she was not paying taxes when the events on which she bases her lawsuit occurred, but even so the cited Administrations insisted on such evidence, despite it being absolutely irrelevant for the reasons indicated below: i) The right to full compensation for damage caused by a Public Administration has absolutely nothing to do with the tax status of the injured party. ii) The constituent power and the ordinary legislator did not establish being registered as a taxpayer or as an independent worker as a presupposition to access that full compensation. iii) In a Proceeding such as the one before us, determining the tax status of an administered party is outside the object of the same. iv) If the Dirección General de Tributación or the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social were to consider that they must proceed against an administered party who brings action in court seeking reparation for the damages they claim to have experienced due to conduct of any Public Administration, it is a power that they have, but which in no way affects the object of this Proceeding. Thus then, the tax status of the plaintiff here has no transcendence nor can it stand as a parameter or any limitation, to rule on this matter as Law corresponds, doing without, as is done, the referred evidence. Now then, as has been said, all the defendant Administrations argue that they have nothing to do with the manhole that caused the accident suffered by the plaintiff here, but the truth is that one of them, in light of constitutional jurisprudence, is certainly directly linked. Hence, in the following lines, norms and jurisprudence from the Sala Constitucional will be cited, in which the subject matter relating to the topic that concerns us is addressed. As the parties will surely remember, Mr. CONAVI Engineer Kennet Enrique Solano Carmona, stated at Trial that in the Project for said highway the construction of stormwater manholes was contemplated, since in that sector stormwater combined with sewage flowed, it being on occasion of this a contaminated body of water that discharges into the río María Aguilar and for which reason, he affirmed that at some point a consultation was formulated to the Municipalidad de San José. What was thus stated by the referred witness regarding the stormwater manhole system is confirmed by Engineer Willian Reinilgen Sancho, an AyA official, who in his Report DRyT-OMSR-2017-00849 of October 27, 2017, insofar as he indicates that:
\"In the place there is no sanitary sewer network, administered by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA). The existence of a stormwater network was observed, which is not administered by AyA ... \" (The underline and bold correspond to the original).
Thus, in the area where the accident occurred what exists is a stormwater manhole network or system, it being irrelevant on the occasion of what will be said, that said infrastructure is on a National Route, as argued by the Municipalidad de San José. Now then, regarding this type of system and more specifically to whom its administration corresponds, it is clear that there is no uniformity of criteria in this case, so it is necessary to resort both to the norms relevant to the topic, and to the constitutional jurisprudence that has been issued in this regard. In this line, ordinals 1 and 2 of Ley No. 2726 of April 14, 1961: Ley Constitutiva Instituto Costarricense Acueductos y Alcantarillados, expressly establish:
\"ARTICLE 1º.- With the object of directing, setting policies, establishing and applying norms, carrying out and promoting the planning, financing, and development, and of resolving everything related to the supply of potable water and collection and evacuation of sewage and liquid industrial waste, as well as the normative aspect of stormwater manhole systems in urban areas, for the entire national territory the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is created, as an autonomous institution of the State”.
\"ARTICLE 2º.- It corresponds to the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y
Alcantarillados:
V.- THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS.- In summary and without prejudice to the literalness of their arguments, which have been studied in their entirety by this Court, each of the parties alleges what is detailed below in this section. PLAINTIFF: That on October 20, 2016, at approximately one-fifteen in the afternoon, she was driving her vehicle on national highway 39, built and administered by CONAVI, specifically at Dirección13578 , taking the overpass on the route to Santa Marta and Dirección3898, an area in which drivers notice the loud noise produced by the manhole covers when cars pass over them. That on the date and time referred to in the previous point, she was traveling in the left lane, at the authorized speed of eighty kilometers per hour; she observed in the rearview mirror that three motorcyclists were advancing on her right, which alerted her that she could not move into that lane without putting their lives at risk. That behind her came another vehicle driven by a person who, after the events, identified himself as Nombre112465 , ID number CED89028. That she, for her part, was traveling behind another vehicle, at a safe distance, when suddenly, from underneath the vehicle ahead, she noticed that there was a manhole in front of her on the driving path of her lane, which had its cover raised; that is, instead of being horizontal covering the manhole opening, it was in a vertical position, with half inside the opening and the rest protruding over the street, forming an obstacle in the road. That at that moment, she had the metal guardrail of the edge of the overpass on her left and the motorcyclists on her right. That she lost control of the vehicle, the steering did not respond, she felt the entire environment spinning around her, while loose objects in the car floated or fell around her, such as her purse, the car mats, her cell phone, and her umbrella. That immediately afterwards and in a matter of seconds, the manhole cover struck the windshield of the car she was driving, which shattered into a multitude of cracks and filaments on the front part, generating a shower of small glass pieces over her, specifically on her face and head, without her being clear at that moment what was happening. That Mr. Adolfo Jiménez Lacayo, a neighbor of the area, and Mr. Nombre112465 , who was driving his vehicle behind her, observed how her car, upon passing over the cover in question, became completely airborne, along with the manhole cover which, upon striking the tire of her car, the kinetic force caused it to come out of its place, rise up along with her car, and, veering in the air, impact the windshield of my vehicle, then fall onto the street, ending up about four meters from the manhole it belonged to and four meters from the guardrail, almost on the line dividing the lanes. That her vehicle flipped several times in the air, hit the ground, and finally fell onto the street, ending up on its side, on the driver's side, where the momentum still caused it to drag on the ground for a stretch, ending up overturned and lying across the width of the right lane, about twelve meters from the manhole and three and a half from the street guardrail; the front license plate was left twisted like a rag on the highway. That after falling onto the street, her vehicle continued to drag on its side along it with her inside, concussed and held to the driver's seat by the seatbelt, which, although holding her to the seat, being in an inclined position and pulled by gravity, cut off her breathing. That residents of the area report that, for a long time before the accident relevant to this lawsuit, the malfunction of the manhole cover has caused minor and serious accidents at that same point. That the newspaper CR-Hoy, of national circulation, on February 13, 2017, reports that several more accidents have occurred at the same location by virtue of the malfunction of the manhole cover, given that, in fact, the report indicates that it has broken and disappeared, leaving the opening unprotected. That the original cover, which identified it as a municipal manhole, was replaced by another one that says Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillado. That the accident, as stated in the medical reports, caused the plaintiff a concussion that altered her peace and tranquility; her personal life was profoundly disrupted emotionally, which has caused her states of anguish, depression, and anxiety; the first few days she could not sleep well and needed medication to fall asleep, in addition to periodic headaches that lasted between two and three months; today, despite the time elapsed, she still suffers from periodic states of anxiety and sadness. That the accident caused the total loss of the vehicle, whose reported value in the used car market is at least nine million colones, but the insurance gave her compensation for the sum of six million colones, meaning that this implied a patrimonial loss (pérdida patrimonial) of at least three million. That at this time, in order to buy a vehicle in the same condition as the first one, but new, she had to make an installment purchase for an investment of thirty-one thousand nine hundred dollars of the United States of America. That she is an independent person who looks after her own maintenance; she works as a real estate broker and, mainly, caring for elderly persons in a state of disability or senility, so the accident, due to the movement limitations it caused her, such as pain in her hands, back, head, and stress, prevented her from performing said activity, as she could not be responsible for holding an elderly person with her hands to move or transfer them, without the risk of causing them a fall and injuries, so in reality she could not work and support herself for six months, from October 2016 until April 2017; which caused her the loss of the fixed clients she had at that time and prevented her from carrying out her work activities in general. That consequently, her gross income, from an average of ¢7,500,000 monthly, decreased by ¢4,500,000 monthly, which after expenses represents a net loss of her income over six months for being unable to work, of ¢4,164,784.92. That the loss of her vehicle and the need to travel to medical appointments, coordinate with her clients, attend therapy, and meet her other pending commitments, forced her to rent a vehicle for one month for the sum of six hundred thousand colones, a cost she found impossible to maintain continuously. That on Sunday, July 23, 2017, at approximately 4 in the afternoon, she was traveling in her new vehicle on the same highway where the accident occurred, and although since that day she takes the far-right lane, at that moment, due to repairs on an overpass, the two right lanes were closed and traffic was diverted only through the left lane. That it was then that she faced having to pass through the place of the accident and she entered a state of panic and became paralyzed, unable to continue. That due to the traffic jam she caused, a traffic police officer appeared who did her the favor of taking the wheel and crossing the place of the accident. That two days later, she returned to an appointment with the psychiatrist at INS, who renewed her medication treatment. That on the occasion of what happened, the responsibility is full on the part of the authorities responsible for the installation and maintenance of the highway, the manhole (alcantarilla), and the cover of the latter, for which reason they are sued jointly by virtue of the fact that their conduct has generated the malfunction of the highway service and consequently the damages caused. CONAVI: That the plaintiff’s assertion is inaccurate when she states she was driving \"at the authorized speed of eighty kilometers per hour,\" since, as can be credited from the evidence offered by the plaintiff herself, in the Official Report (Parte Oficial) No. 2016-248600029, Ticket #Identificacion533 prepared by Inspector No. 2486, Mr. Pablo Agüero Rojas, excessive speed at which she was driving is described as a risk factor. That in this regard, the following was textually recorded: \"Risk Factor: Excessive speed,\" in the accident that occurred on October 20, 2016, at \"1:18:46 p.m.\" That the plaintiff indicates that the stormwater manhole cover had the inscription \"municipal stormwater manhole\" (alcantarillado pluvial municipal). That notwithstanding this, it is the lack of skill and imprudence of the plaintiff in driving at excessive speed that causes the accident, and therefore, she cannot seek to attribute any responsibility to the Consejo Nacional de Vialidad for this concept. That in any case, regarding water management, the considerations issued by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) of the Supreme Court of Justice on matters of sewerage are of obligatory observation, in which it indicates the administrative instances of the Executive Branch to which the construction and operation of potable water supply and black water evacuation systems correspond - Judgment No. 2007-05894 at eleven hours and fifty-eight minutes on April twenty-seventh, two thousand seven-. There being clarity that the Municipality is responsible for the administration of local services and interests, guaranteeing, among others, good potable water supply and wastewater evacuation systems, through adequate aqueduct and sewerage systems, so the definitive solution regarding stormwater and residual water management is the responsibility of the Municipality and the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados. STATE: That as reported by CONAVI in its response to the present lawsuit, in view of the complexity of the road project where the accident is alleged to have occurred, careful follow-up was carried out on each of its stages -design and construction-, both by CONAVI's permanent staff, as well as by external professionals and the contracted Supervisory Consortium (Consorcio Supervisor), this hand-in-hand with the supervision of the contractor company itself. Resulting in the guarantee that the works complied with the technical and structural parameters contained in the public works contract. AyA: That upon carrying out inspections by AyA technicians at the site of the event, it was determined that the Manhole (Alcantarilla) described in the accident is under the Administration of CONAVI for the stormwater maintenance system of the beltway (circunvalación). That the covers throughout the country are cast by the cover manufacturer with the inscription of the AyA initials; however, these covers are freely sold; anyone can buy this type of cover and place them in their projects without this meaning that the structure is ours. That this being the case, it is very difficult to see covers like those described for stormwater sewer systems in San José, as covers for them are made very exclusively. That the Stormwater System (Sistema Pluvial) is the responsibility of each Municipality, and for this reason, the Central Government assigns a budget to each Local Government for the annual maintenance of these stormwater systems. That AyA does not receive any type of budget for stormwater maintenance, thus relieving it of responsibility for stormwater events, given that the use of AyA funds for these matters of maintaining stormwater structures would constitute an irregular diversion of public funds. That despite the fact that Municipalities are the ones who must provide this type of care to stormwater systems, on National Roads this responsibility is shared with CONAVI, and may be fully delegated to the Municipal entity according to specific situations. MUNICIPALIDAD DE SAN JOSÉ: That effectively, the manhole in question has a cover identified as property of Acueductos y Alcantarillado, thus this point confirms that the Municipalidad de San José is not responsible for the placement, replacement, or maintenance of manhole covers on national routes, such as the one where the incident alleged by the plaintiff occurred. That it is unknown if a municipal cover previously existed on said manhole, and if so, it was not this Municipality who placed it, as it lacks the competence to do so, given that it is a route beyond municipal administration. That the events reported in the present lawsuit occurred on highway 39, as stated by the plaintiff, which falls under the classification of the National Road Network (Red Vial Nacional), meaning that both the construction of the road, as well as its administration and subsequent maintenance, lie outside the jurisdictional, functional, and operational scope of the Municipalidad de San José.
VI.- LEGAL BASIS OF THE LAWSUIT AND ITS ASSESSMENT BY THIS COURT: As can be appreciated from the factual background and the claims of the lawsuit, in this case, we are faced with a typical Civil Treasury Proceeding (Proceso Civil de Hacienda), in which the non-contractual liability (responsabilidad extracontractual) of a Public Administration is being claimed. Certainly, as the co-defendant Administrations allege, the plaintiff does not identify the entity or organ with instrumental legal personality -in the case of CONAVI- that caused the damages for which she seeks compensation. Rather, she directs her action against all of them, given the factual-legal uncertainty in which not only she finds herself, but also the defendant Administrations, who allege having no responsibility, either because in their opinion they did everything very well -in the case of CONAVI, seconded by the State- or because matters relating to stormwater sewerage are outside their competencies -in the case of AyA and the Municipalidad de San José-. A simple reading of the responses to the lawsuit is enough to notice said uncertainty, which they curiously argue as a deficiency that would require declaring, according to their view, the inadmissibility of the lawsuit. That is, from what is argued in their responses, it is evident that the sued Administrations do not have a clear idea of the extent of their competencies regarding stormwater sewer systems, precisely because it is a topic that is not simple at all. Yet despite this, they all seek to exempt themselves from responsibility for what happened to the plaintiff, using as a basic argument that the manhole on the occasion of which the accident occurred has nothing to do with each one of them. Faced with such a scenario, the only logical option for the plaintiff was to proceed as she did; that is, suing those who, from her perspective, could have some involvement in the functioning of the manhole causing the mishap. And this, in the judgment of this Court, in no way diminishes the exercise of her right of action, much less the possibility of obtaining the repair of all, some, or any of the damages for which she seeks compensation. Having clarified the above, it must be remembered that Costa Rica is a Social and Democratic Rule of Law State, in which, the indisputable foundations of State responsibility -Central and Decentralized- are established in the Political Constitution itself. (Articles 9, 11, 18, 33, 41, 45, 49, 50, 74, 140.8, 139.4, 148, 149, 150, 154, 188, and 191). Constitutional precepts that are developed, among others, by the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) -ordinals 190 and following -, which, by way of summary, establishes the Administration's liability for damages caused by its legitimate, illegitimate, normal, and abnormal functioning, except for force majeure (fuerza mayor), fault of the victim, or act of a third party. The doctrinal and jurisprudential development of the cited norms and many others that deal with the topic has been more than abundant, with coincidence that the administered party must be guaranteed not only access to justice but also their constitutional right to full compensation, provided they prove the existence of: i) Conduct -formal, material, or by omission- of a Public Administration. ii) Damage that they are not obligated to bear. iii) A causal link (cause-effect relationship) between that conduct and the damage experienced. Thus, those are the three requirements that, as indicated in preceding lines, anyone seeking compensation derived from the actions of a Public Administration must demonstrate. That said, it is more than notorious from a simple reading of the constitutional and legal norms indicated above, that the right to full compensation is not contingent on the administered party being registered with the Dirección General de Tributación or having paid the corresponding taxes, as argued by CONAVI, seconded by the State Representation. Such a position is untenable in light of the ordinals indicated above, in which none of such conditions were established, on one hand by the constitutional legislator and on the other by the ordinary legislator, to access Costa Rican justice and obtain from it -when the requirements indicated above are proven- full compensation for damages caused by a Public Administration. In this case, as stated, CONAVI and the Procuraduría General de la República stated on several occasions -both representations in writing, and orally at trial by the Special Judicial Representative of CONAVI- that it was necessary to request the Income Tax Returns of the plaintiff from the Ministerio de Hacienda, for the three periods prior to the year in which the accident occurred. Evidence absolutely irrelevant for this type of case -for the reasons given in this Judgment-, but which was admitted by the Processing Judge without them managing it in a timely manner. Given this, this Chamber did the appropriate thing and, by resolution at fourteen hours five minutes on July first, two thousand twenty-one, ordered the Ministerio de Hacienda to send the Income Tax Returns corresponding to the periods 2014, 2015, and 2016, which as of the date this Ruling is issued have not been remitted to the Court. However, the absence of said evidence in no way prevents ruling on this matter nor causes defenselessness to the co-defendant parties that requested it, because as stated, it is absolutely irrelevant and in any case, there is no controversy regarding the fact that the plaintiff was not paying taxes when the accident occurred, as her Special Judicial Representative has had no qualms in expressly acknowledging -even in the Oral and Public Trial (Juicio Oral y Público)- that her client was not registered as a taxpayer at that time -meaning at the time of the mishap-. That is, the plaintiff expressly and undoubtedly acknowledges that she was not paying taxes when the events on which she bases her lawsuit occurred, but even so, the cited Administrations insisted on such evidence, even though it is absolutely irrelevant for the reasons indicated below: i) The right to full compensation for damage caused by a Public Administration has absolutely nothing to do with the tax status of the injured party. ii) The constitutional legislator and the ordinary legislator did not establish registration as a taxpayer or as an independent worker as a requirement to access that full compensation. iii) In a Proceeding (Proceso) such as the one at hand, determining the tax status of an administered party is alien to the subject matter of the proceeding. iv) If the Dirección General de Tributación or the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social deem that they must proceed against an administered party who files a legal action seeking repair for damages they claim to have experienced due to conduct of any Public Administration, it is a power that said entities have, but which in no way affects the subject matter of this Proceeding. Thus, the tax status of the plaintiff herein has no significance whatsoever, nor can it be erected as a parameter or any limitation to rule on this matter as required by Law, dispensing with said evidence as is done here. Now then, as stated, all defendant Administrations allege having nothing to do with the manhole that caused the accident suffered by the plaintiff herein, but the truth is that one of them, in light of constitutional jurisprudence, is certainly directly linked. Hence, in the following lines, norms and jurisprudence from the Constitutional Chamber will be cited, addressing the subject matter related to the issue at hand. As the parties will surely remember, CONAVI Engineer Kennet Enrique Solano Carmona stated at trial that the stormwater sewerage (alcantarillado pluvial) construction was contemplated in the Project for said highway, as stormwater combined with black water (aguas negras) ran through that sector, thus constituting a contaminated body of water that discharges into the Río María Aguilar, and for this reason, he affirmed that at some point a query was made to the Municipalidad de San José. What was so stated by the aforementioned witness regarding the stormwater sewer system is confirmed by Engineer Willian Reinilgen Sancho, an AyA official, in his Report DRyT-OMSR-2017-00849 of October 27, 2017, where he states that:
\"In the location there is no sanitary sewer network (red de alcantarillado sanitario), administered by the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados (AyA). The existence of a stormwater (pluvial) network was observed, which is not under the administration of AyA ... \" (The underlining and bold correspond to the original).
Thus, in the area where the accident occurred, what exists is a stormwater sewer network or system, and it is irrelevant, on the occasion of what will be stated, whether said infrastructure is on a National Route, as argued by the Municipalidad de San José. Now, regarding this type of system and more specifically who is responsible for its administration, it is clear that there is no uniformity of criteria in this case, so it is necessary to resort to both the legislation relevant to the subject and the constitutional jurisprudence that has been issued in this regard. Along these lines, ordinals 1 and 2 of Law No. 2726 of April 14, 1961: Constitutive Law of the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados, expressly establish:
\"ARTICLE 1.- In order to direct, set policies, establish and apply standards, carry out and promote planning, financing, and development, and to resolve everything related to the supply of potable water and the collection and evacuation of black water (aguas negras) and liquid industrial waste, as well as the normative aspect of stormwater sewer systems (sistemas de alcantarillado pluvial) in urban areas, for the entire national territory the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is created, as an autonomous institution of the State”.
\"ARTICLE 2.- It corresponds to the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y
Alcantarillados: