{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-551582", "citation": "Res. 00839-2012 Sala Segunda de la Corte", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "Sanción desproporcionada en despido de servidor público", "title_en": "Disproportionate sanction in public servant dismissal", "summary_es": "La Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia conoce de un recurso de casación interpuesto por la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS) contra una sentencia del Tribunal de Trabajo que confirmó la nulidad del despido de un arquitecto que laboraba en la Gerencia de Pensiones. El actor fue despedido sin responsabilidad patronal por supuestas faltas relacionadas con el manejo de fondos públicos en los procesos de licitación y contratación directa para la compra y remodelación de un inmueble. La Sala analiza, en primer lugar, la prescripción de la potestad disciplinaria, concluyendo que no operó el plazo de un mes del artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo, sino el de cinco años del artículo 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, por tratarse de infracciones al ordenamiento de control y fiscalización de la Hacienda Pública, y porque el procedimiento se inició dentro de dicho plazo. Sin embargo, al examinar la proporcionalidad de la sanción, la Sala determina que las tres faltas alegadas en el recurso (no valorar la instalación eléctrica, omitir planos visados por el CFIA y falta de addendum) están tipificadas en los incisos a), e) y h) del artículo 96 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, los cuales prevén como sanción el apercibimiento escrito, no el despido. Para que proceda el despido se requeriría una reiteración de la falta o un daño real, circunstancias no acreditadas. En consecuencia, se confirma la sentencia recurrida pero por considerar el despido injustificado por desproporcionado, no por prescripción, y se mantiene la condenatoria en costas a la demandada.", "summary_en": "The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice reviews a cassation appeal filed by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund against a Labor Court ruling that nullified the dismissal of an architect employed in the Pension Management office. The employee was dismissed without employer liability for alleged misconduct related to handling public funds during bidding and direct contracting procedures for the purchase and remodeling of a building. The Chamber first analyzes the statute of limitations for disciplinary power, concluding that the one-month period under Article 603 of the Labor Code did not apply, but rather the five-year period under Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic, given the violations involved public finance control regulations and the procedure was initiated within that timeframe. However, upon examining the proportionality of the sanction, the Chamber finds that the three faults alleged in the appeal (failure to assess the electrical installation, omission of plans approved by the CFIA, and lack of an addendum) are typified in paragraphs a), e) and h) of Article 96 of the Administrative Contracting Law, which provide a written warning as the sanction, not dismissal. Dismissal would require repeated misconduct or actual damage, neither of which were proven. Therefore, the Chamber upholds the appealed judgment on the grounds of disproportionate sanction rather than statute of limitations, and maintains the imposition of costs against the defendant.", "court_or_agency": "Sala Segunda de la Corte", "date": "21/09/2012", "year": "2012", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "potestad disciplinaria", "prescripción", "Hacienda Pública", "apercibimiento escrito", "despido sin responsabilidad patronal", "ultima ratio", "proporcionalidad", "contratación administrativa", "licitación pública" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "despido injustificado", "prescripción potestad disciplinaria", "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "artículo 71", "Código de Trabajo", "artículo 603", "Ley de Contratación Administrativa", "artículo 96", "principio de proporcionalidad", "Hacienda Pública", "manejo fondos públicos", "apercibimiento escrito", "Sala Segunda", "Recurso de casación", "CCSS", "licitación pública", "compra directa" ], "keywords_en": [ "unjustified dismissal", "statute of limitations disciplinary power", "Organic Law of the Comptroller General", "Article 71", "Labor Code", "Article 603", "Administrative Contracting Law", "Article 96", "principle of proportionality", "public finances", "public funds management", "written warning", "Second Chamber", "Cassation appeal", "CCSS", "public bidding", "direct procurement" ], "excerpt_es": "Así las cosas, en aplicación de los principios de tipicidad, proporcionalidad, razonabilidad y gradualidad que informan la materia administrativa sancionatoria, lo procedente es declarar injustificado el despido, dado que las conductas atribuidas al trabajador, según la normativa especial aplicable al efecto, debieron ser sancionadas con un apercibimiento escrito, y no con la aplicación de un despido sin responsabilidad patronal, sanción que por su gravedad debe ser la ultima ratio. En consecuencia, lo procedente debe ser confirmar el fallo recurrido, no por cuanto se considere que en el caso concreto haya operado la prescripción de la potestad sancionatoria, sino en virtud de que la sanción impuesta al actor fue desproporcionada respecto a la gravedad de las faltas cometidas.", "excerpt_en": "Thus, applying the principles of typicity, proportionality, reasonableness and graduality that govern administrative sanctioning matters, the appropriate course is to declare the dismissal unjustified, given that the conduct attributed to the worker, according to the special applicable regulations, should have been sanctioned with a written warning, and not with dismissal without employer liability, a sanction that due to its severity must be the ultima ratio. Consequently, the appealed judgment must be upheld not because the statute of limitations on disciplinary power is considered to have run in this specific case, but rather because the sanction imposed on the plaintiff was disproportionate to the seriousness of the faults committed.", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Sin lugar", "summary_en": "The appealed judgment is upheld, declaring the dismissal unjustified as disproportionate, and the defendant is ordered to pay costs.", "summary_es": "Se confirma la sentencia recurrida, declarando el despido injustificado por desproporcionado, y se condena a la demandada al pago de costas." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "Thus, applying the principles of typicity, proportionality, reasonableness and graduality that govern administrative sanctioning matters, the appropriate course is to declare the dismissal unjustified...", "quote_es": "Así las cosas, en aplicación de los principios de tipicidad, proporcionalidad, razonabilidad y gradualidad que informan la materia administrativa sancionatoria, lo procedente es declarar injustificado el despido..." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "The sanction imposed on the plaintiff was disproportionate to the seriousness of the faults committed.", "quote_es": "La sanción impuesta al actor fue desproporcionada respecto a la gravedad de las faltas cometidas." }, { "context": "Considerando III", "quote_en": "The period to sanction actions or omissions contrary to those specific regulations, which may cause inefficient or illegal management of public funds, is longer than the generic one provided in Article 603 of the Labor Code...", "quote_es": "El período para sancionar las acciones u omisiones contrarias a esas regulaciones específicas, que pueden ocasionar un manejo ineficiente o ilegal de los fondos públicos, es mayor que el genérico previsto en el numeral 603 del Código de Trabajo..." } ], "cites": [ { "id": "norm-21629", "citation": "Ley 7428", "title_en": "Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office", "title_es": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "doc_type": "law", "date": "07/09/1994", "year": "1994" }, { "id": "norm-24284", "citation": "Ley 7494", "title_en": "Administrative Procurement Law", "title_es": "Ley de Contratación Administrativa", "doc_type": "law", "date": "02/05/1995", "year": "1995" }, { "id": "norm-47258", "citation": "Ley 8131", "title_en": "Financial Administration and Public Budgets", "title_es": "Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos", "doc_type": "law", "date": "18/09/2001", "year": "2001" }, { "id": "norm-49185", "citation": "Ley 8292", "title_en": "General Law on Internal Control", "title_es": "Ley General de Control Interno", "doc_type": "law", "date": "31/07/2002", "year": "2002" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "norm-21629", "citation": "Ley 7428", "title_en": "Organic Law of the Comptroller General's Office", "title_es": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "doc_type": "law", "date": "07/09/1994", "year": "1994" }, { "id": "norm-24284", "citation": "Ley 7494", "title_en": "Administrative Procurement Law", "title_es": "Ley de Contratación Administrativa", "doc_type": "law", "date": "02/05/1995", "year": "1995" }, { "id": "norm-47258", "citation": "Ley 8131", "title_en": "Financial Administration and Public Budgets", "title_es": "Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos", "doc_type": "law", "date": "18/09/2001", "year": "2001" }, { "id": "norm-49185", "citation": "Ley 8292", "title_en": "General Law on Internal Control", "title_es": "Ley General de Control Interno", "doc_type": "law", "date": "31/07/2002", "year": "2002" } ], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0034-551582", "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-21629", "norm_num": "7428", "norm_name": "Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "07/09/1994" }, { "doc_id": "norm-24284", "norm_num": "7494", "norm_name": "Ley de Contratación Administrativa", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "02/05/1995" }, { "doc_id": "norm-47258", "norm_num": "8131", "norm_name": "Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "18/09/2001" }, { "doc_id": "norm-49185", "norm_num": "8292", "norm_name": "Ley General de Control Interno", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "31/07/2002" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "*060020900166LA*\n\n*[Placa1]*\n\n \n\nCorte Suprema de Justicia\n\nSALA SEGUNDA\n\n \n\nExp: 06-002090-0166-LA \n\nRes: 2012-000839\n\nSALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas del veintiuno de setiembre de dos mil doce.\n\n Proceso ordinario establecido ante el Juzgado de Trabajo del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, por [Nombre1], arquitecto, contra la CAJA COSTARRICENSE DE SEGURO SOCIAL, representada por su apoderada general judicial la licenciada Yorleny Quesada Monestel, vecina de Cartago. Figura como apoderado especial judicial del actor el licenciado José Miguel Villalobos Umaña, divorciado. Todos mayores, casados y vecinos de San José, con las excepciones indicadas.\n\nRESULTANDO:\n\n 1.- El actor, en escrito fechado ocho de agosto de dos mil seis, promovió la presente acción para que en sentencia se declarara nulo el despido en su contra, que se le cancelen las indemnizaciones correspondientes al preaviso, cesantía y los demás extremos laborales no cancelados, intereses, daños y perjuicios calculada de acuerdo a los salarios dejados de percibir desde la terminación del contrato el 4 de marzo de 2006, así como la cláusula penal que establece el artículo 38 de la Normativa, que consiste en un mes de salario adicional. \n\n 2.- La representación de la demandada contestó en los términos que indicó en el memorial de fecha doce de octubre de dos mil seis y opuso las excepciones de prescripción y falta de derecho.\n\n 3.- La jueza, licenciada Bertha Jiménez Alvarado, por sentencia de las diez horas del veinticinco de agosto de dos mil diez, dispuso: De conformidad con lo expuesto, citas de ley, artículos 492 siguientes y concordantes del Código de Trabajo, se declara con lugar la demanda ordinaria laboral incoada por [Nombre1], contra la CAJA COSTARRICENSE DE SEGURO SOCIAL, representado por el licenciado RANDALL ALBÁN AGUIRRE MENA, en consecuencia se declara prescrita la acción de la CAJA COSTARRICENSE DE SEGURO SOCIAL para despedir al actor y nula la decisión de despido, en consecuencia, se declara nula la resolución de las diez horas del diecinueve de agosto del año dos mil cinco, así como el oficio GDP-3530-2006 del 20 de febrero de 2006. Se declara prescrito la potestad disciplinaria de la demandada por iniciar el procedimiento más allá del mes posterior a la solicitud por parte de la Auditoria Interna de la entidad. Se ordena cancelar al actor las sumas de preaviso, auxilio de cesantía, así como los extremos laborales no cancelados, más la indemnización final por concepto de daños y perjuicios calculada de acuerdo a los salarios dejados de percibir desde la terminación del contrato el 4 de marzo de 2006 hasta quedar firme la sentencia condenatoria contra la CCSS, asimismo se ordena el pago de un mes de salario adicional de conformidad con el Artículo 38 de la Normativa. Deberá cancelarsele los intereses legales conforme las tasas de interés de los certificados de depósito a seis meses plazo del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, contados a partir de la fecha del despido y hasta su efectiva cancelación. Por la forma en que se resuelve, se omite pronunciamiento sobre el fondo del asunto. De conformidad con el artículo 494 del Código de Trabajo y 221 del Código Procesal Civil, habiéndose acogido las pretensiones del accionante, se condena a la demandada al pago de ambas costas del proceso fijándose las mismas en un 25 % del total de la condenatoria. Se advierte a las partes que, esta sentencia admite el recurso de apelación, el cual deberá interponerse ante este juzgado en el término de tres días. En ese mismo plazo y ante este órgano jurisdiccional también se deberán exponer, en forma verbal o escrita, los motivos de hecho o de derecho en que la parte recurrente apoya su inconformidad bajo el apercibimiento de declarar inatendible el recurso (artículos 500 y 501 incisos e) y d) del Código de Trabajo; votos de la Sala Constitucional números 5798 de las 16:21 horas del 11 de agosto de 1998 y 1306 de las 16:27 horas del 23 de febrero de 1999 y voto de la Sala Segunda número 386 de las 14:20 horas del 10 de diciembre de 1999). \n\n 4.- La parte demandada apeló y el Tribunal de Trabajo, Sección Segunda, del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, integrado por las licenciadas Ana Luisa Meseguer Monge, Leila Shadid Gamboa y Marniee Sissie Guerrero Lobato, por sentencia de las dieciséis horas del treinta de marzo de dos mil doce, resolvió: Se declara que no se aprecian defectos u omisiones que puedan causar nulidad o indefensión a ninguna de las partes. SE CONFIRMA la sentencia apelada.\n\n5.- La apoderada general judicial de la institución demandada formuló recurso para ante esta Sala en memorial enviado vía facsímile el quince de junio de dos mil doce , el cual se fundamenta en los motivos que se dirán en la parte considerativa.\n\n 6.- En los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones de ley.\n\nRedacta el Magistrado Blanco González; y,\n\nCONSIDERANDO:\n\nI.- ANTECEDENTES: El actor interpuso la demanda el 8 de agosto de 2006, en contra de Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS), solicitando que en sentencia se declare nulo el despido dictado en su contra por haber prescrito la potestad sancionatoria, además de haber sido adoptado por un órgano incompetente y no existir ninguna causal que lo justifique. Pide, en consecuencia, que se condene a la entidad demandada a pagarle los extremos de preaviso de despido, auxilio de cesantía, “demás extremos laborales”, una indemnización fija a título de daños y perjuicios equivalente a los salarios dejados de percibir desde el momento del despido y hasta la firmeza del fallo en que se reconozca ese derecho, un mes de salario adicional conforme el artículo 38 de la Normativa de Relaciones Laborales de la Caja, e intereses. Como fundamento de su pretensión afirmó que laboró para la Administración Pública desde febrero de 1979 hasta el 4 de marzo de 2006, fecha en la que fue despedido. El 7 de octubre de 2004, la auditoría interna de la CCSS, remitió el informe AO-262-R-2004 a los gerentes de Pensiones y Operaciones, mediante el cual se recomendó la apertura de un procedimiento administrativo para determinar su eventual responsabilidad en los hechos contenidos en ese memorial. Ese documento fue recibido por la Gerencia de Pensiones el 1° de noviembre siguiente. En aplicación de la Normativa de Relaciones Laborales de la Caja, el procedimiento administrativo debió abrirse a más tardar el 1° de diciembre siguiente, sin embargo la resolución inicial de traslado de cargos n° 066-04 se dictó cuando el plazo de un mes ya se encontraba vencido (el 2 de diciembre de 2004). Posteriormente, el proceso se mantuvo suspendido –sin que existiera ninguna causa para ello– hasta el 29 de junio de 2005, fecha en la que se efectuó la “primera audiencia”, momento en el que se solicitó “la caducidad del procedimiento”, gestión que fue rechazada por parte del órgano director “sin carácter vinculante”, dejando para el dictado de la resolución final la posibilidad de acogerla. El informe de conclusiones se emitió el 9 de agosto de 2005, y señaló como infringido el artículo 96 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, recomendando la imposición de un “apercibimiento escrito”. En ese documento expresamente se indicó que “queda por demostrado en esta investigación que la institución no sufrió un perjuicio económico”. Mediante resolución n° R-GDP-081-05 de las 10 horas del 19 de agosto de 2005, la Gerencia de Pensiones acogió la relación de hechos contenida en el informe del órgano director y al considerar la falta cometida como grave al amparo del numeral 98 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, propuso la sanción disciplinaria del despido sin responsabilidad laboral. El 1° de setiembre se opuso a la recomendación y solicitó una audiencia ante la “Junta Laboral”. Ese ente, por mayoría de siete contra tres, señaló que no encontró responsabilidad alguna en los hechos y que no existió perjuicio para la entidad, por lo que recomendó no imponer ningún tipo de sanción. La resolución de minoría recomendó una suspensión de cuatro días sin goce de salario, “por tratarse de un caso de responsabilidad menor”. Cumplido ese trámite, la gerencia omitió dictar un pronunciamiento, y no fue sino hasta el 14 de diciembre de 2005, que aparece “recibida” la resolución de la Junta Laboral por parte de la Junta Directiva de la institución, la cual en la Sesión 8021, Artículo 48 del 5 de enero de 2006, solicitó a la Dirección Jurídica “un pronunciamiento sobre el procedimiento seguido, lo que recibe esa Dirección el 23 de enero, más de un mes después de que el caso está listo para adoptar la decisión final”. El día 9 de febrero de 2006, luego de recibir el informe de la Dirección Jurídica, la Junta Directiva según Artículo 24 de la Sesión 8032, ratificó la sanción impuesta, consistente en el despido sin responsabilidad patronal. Ese órgano colegiado no tenía competencia para ratificar la recomendación de despido, ya que ello le correspondía a la Gerencia, por lo que debió de haber dictado una resolución previa de avocación, al tenor de lo normado por el artículo 93 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Al momento del despido ocupaba el cargo de Director General de Sede en la Gerencia de Pensiones y devengaba un salario promedio mensual de novecientos cincuenta y tres mil colones exactos. Los hechos que motivaron su despido se relacionan con un proceso de licitación pública promovido por la Gerencia de Pensiones (n° LP-001-2002) para la compra de un inmueble, así como la compra directa (CD-0006-2004) para la remodelación del bien adquirido. Dentro de ese proceso se le imputaron como faltas la omisión de valorar y confirmar el estado de la instalación eléctrica del edificio; la omisión de gestionar los planos de la remodelación ante el Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, así como los cuadernos de bitácora, y los contratos de servicios profesionales y consultoría; y el permitir modificaciones en la obra y las ampliaciones de los plazos sin la firma del respectivo adendum. Rechaza que haya cometido alguna de esas faltas, ya que según el cartel licitatorio no era requisito cumplir con ningún trámite ante el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos y no se efectuó ninguna modificación que implicara un aumento en el monto del contrato por lo que no se requería el addendum, y el aumento de los plazos fue para la realización de obras adicionales, no afectándose los tiempos en las labores originalmente contratadas (folios 1 al 9). El representante de la accionada contestó la demanda negativamente y opuso la excepción de falta de derecho (folios 178 al 191). El juzgado declaró prescrita la potestad disciplinaria; anuló el despido dictado mediante resolución de las 10:00 horas del 19 de agosto de 2006; y condenó a la accionada a pagarle al actor los rubros de preaviso de despido, auxilio de cesantía, así como “los extremos laborales no cancelados, más la indemnización final por concepto de daños y perjuicios calculada de acuerdo a los salarios dejados de percibir desde la terminación del contrato el 4 de marzo del 2006 hasta quedar firme la sentencia condenatoria contra la CCSS, asimismo se ordena el pago de un mes de salario adicional de conformidad con el Artículo 38 de la Normativa”. Sobre las sumas concedidas se estableció la obligación de pagar intereses legales conforme las tasas de los certificados de depósito a seis meses plazo del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, contados a partir de la fecha del despido y hasta su efectiva cancelación. Ambas costas se establecieron a cargo de la parte perdidosa, fijándose las personales en el veinticinco por ciento del importe total de la condenatoria (folios 222 al 232). Disconforme con lo resuelto, la parte demandada, apeló (folios 257 al 277) y el Tribunal de Trabajo, Sección Segunda, Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, lo confirmó (folios 286 al 297). \n\n II.- AGRAVIOS DEL RECURRENTE: El apoderado especial judicial de la accionada, formula recurso contra la sentencia del tribunal. Acusa “errónea interpretación y aplicación del artículo 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República en relación con el concepto de manejo de fondos públicos a cargo del señor H… G…”. Asegura que en la especie no pudo operar la prescripción de la potestad sancionatoria ya que los hechos “imputados y acreditados” guardan relación con la disposición y compromiso de fondos públicos, razón por la cual el plazo de prescripción aplicable es el normado por el canon 71 ídem y no el señalado en el numeral 603 del Código de Trabajo. Agrega que una vez iniciado el proceso administrativo sancionatorio, el cómputo de la prescripción se mantiene interrumpido “con efectos continuados”, sin que exista posibilidad legal de que durante su trámite opere ese término fatal. Asegura que existen dos términos de prescripción aplicable a los funcionarios públicos: de un mes para los servidores no vinculados con la hacienda pública (artículo 603 ídem); y de cinco años para los servidores relacionados con la hacienda pública, quienes tienen a su cargo el manejo y disposición de fondos públicos. Afirma que la persona que maneja fondos públicos es la que participa “en las distintas etapas de la ejecución presupuestaria de los ingresos y egresos, así como los que intervienen en el proceso de fiscalización y control de la “Hacienda Pública” o en general, participan directamente en la administración financiera del organismo público de que se trate, como así ha quedado acreditado en el presente proceso”. A juicio de la parte recurrente, en el acto final dictado por la Gerencia de Pensiones, determinó la existencia de una serie de faltas cometidas por el demandante, relacionadas con el manejo de fondos públicos, tales como: “… no valorar el estado de la instalación eléctrica del inmueble identificado como “la casona de pensiones…, incumplió con los requisitos establecidos en la legislación y normativa aplicable del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos al no estar acreditada la existencia de planos que reunieran los requisitos fijados por dicho Colegio en consecuencia al no existir visado de los mismos para efectuar la remodelación a que se contrajo la compra directa CD-006-04, omisión registrada también con respecto a la bitácora y los contratos de servicios profesionales y de consultoría… se acreditó la falta de documentación mediante addenda (sic) de las modificaciones de la obra y los plazos para su ejecución con la empresa Cotece S.A. (…)”. Por último alega que la condenatoria en costas impuesta a su representada “no es procedente y es injusta”, pues su actuación ha sido apegada a derecho y de buena fe. Con base en sus agravios la recurrente solicita que “se revoque la resolución recurrida y se emita una que se adecue al mérito de las pruebas que constan en el expediente” (folios 304 al 316). \n\nIII.- DE LA PRESCRIPCIÓN DE LA POTESTAD DISCIPLINARIA: El agravio planteado exige determinar si el plazo de prescripción aplicable para el ejercicio del poder disciplinario del ente empleador era el de un mes que contempla el artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo o el especial de cinco años que regula el numeral 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República. El texto de esta última norma, al momento de los hechos investigados, es el que se encuentra vigente en la actualidad y, en forma expresa, establece:“Artículo 71.—Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria. La responsabilidad administrativa del funcionario público por las infracciones previstas en esta Ley y en el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores, prescribirá de acuerdo con las siguientes reglas:/ a) En los casos en que el hecho irregular sea notorio, la responsabilidad prescribirá en cinco años, contados a partir del acaecimiento del hecho./ b) En los casos en que el hecho irregular no sea notorio –entendido este como aquel hecho que requiere una indagación o un estudio de auditoría para informar de su posible irregularidad- la responsabilidad prescribirá en cinco años, contados a partir de la fecha en que el informe sobre la indagación o la auditoría respectiva se ponga en conocimiento del jerarca o el funcionario competente para dar inicio al procedimiento respectivo./ La prescripción se interrumpirá, con efectos continuados, por la notificación al presunto responsable del acto que acuerde el inicio del procedimiento administrativo. /Cuando el autor de la falta sea el jerarca, el plazo empezará a correr a partir de la fecha en que él termine su relación de servicio con el ente, la empresa o el órgano respectivo. /Se reputará como falta grave del funcionario competente para iniciar el procedimiento sancionatorio, el no darle inicio a este oportunamente o el dejar que la responsabilidad del infractor prescriba, sin causa justificada. /(Así reformado por el inciso a) del artículo 45 de la Ley N° 8292 de 31 de julio del 2002, Ley de Control Interno)”. (La negrita no es del original). Del texto resaltado se extrae que el plazo ampliado que prevé dicha norma resulta de aplicación cuando el o la funcionaria pública incurren en las infracciones previstas en esa ley específica o bien en las que contempla el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores de la Hacienda Pública se entiende, según lo regulado en los artículos 1° y 8 de la Ley Orgánica relacionada. La Contraloría General de la República ejerce control sobre los entes y órganos que integran la Hacienda Pública, sin perjuicio de la regulación facultativa que puede desplegar respecto de otros entes. Ahora bien, de conformidad con el artículo 8 ídem “La Hacienda Pública estará constituida por los fondos públicos, las potestades para percibir, administrar, custodiar, conservar, manejar, gastar e invertir tales fondos y las normas jurídicas, administrativas y financieras, relativas al proceso presupuestario, la contratación administrativa, el control interno y externo y la responsabilidad de los funcionarios públicos”. (Los destacados son de quien redacta). De conformidad con dicho numeral, la Hacienda Pública está constituida por dos componentes esenciales: a) los fondos públicos (y todo lo relacionado con su manejo) y b) las normas jurídicas de carácter administrativo y financiero relativas al proceso presupuestario, la contratación administrativa, el control –tanto externo como interno- y la responsabilidad de las y los servidores públicos en esas materias. La ley se encarga de definir lo que ha de entenderse por fondos públicos y también por ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores, que son los términos expresos que contempla el artículo 71 relacionado. Así, en el canon 9 se definen los fondos públicos como todos aquellos “…recursos, valores, bienes y derechos propiedad del Estado, de órganos, de empresas o de entes públicos”. El numeral 10 siguiente, por su parte, señala: “El ordenamiento de control y de fiscalización superiores de la Hacienda Pública comprende el conjunto de normas, que regulan la competencia, la estructura, la actividad, las relaciones, los procedimientos, las responsabilidades y las sanciones derivados de esa fiscalización o necesarios para esta. Este ordenamiento comprende también las normas que regulan la fiscalización sobre entes y órganos extranjeros y fondos y actividades privados, a los que se refiere esta Ley, como su norma fundamental, dentro del marco constitucional”. Ese ordenamiento de control y fiscalización tiene como finalidad primordial “…garantizar la legalidad y la eficiencia de los controles internos y del manejo de los fondos públicos en los entes sobre los cuales tiene jurisdicción la Contraloría General de la República, de conformidad con esta Ley” (artículo 11, ídem). Estos últimos numerales deben leerse en concordancia con lo estipulado en el artículo 8 citado, que expresamente incluye como parte del ordenamiento de control y fiscalización a la normativa relacionada con el proceso presupuestario, la contratación administrativa, el control interno y externo y la responsabilidad de los funcionarios públicos en esas materias, que sin duda son normas que tienden a velar por la legalidad y la eficiencia no solo de los controles internos sino también por el manejo eficiente y apegado a la ley de los fondos públicos. Así, no es cualquier falta cometida por un servidor o servidora pública la que da lugar a la aplicación del artículo 71 ídem. Son únicamente las faltas cometidas por las personas que desempeñan una función pública en el ejercicio de esas especiales competencias (manejo de los fondos públicos) y que infrinjan ya sea las regulaciones de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República o de ese ordenamiento de control y fiscalización (normativa sobre proceso presupuestario, contratación administrativa, control interno y externo, responsabilidades en esa materia) las que dan lugar a una ampliación del plazo para el ejercicio de la potestad disciplinaria. En resumen, el período para sancionar las acciones u omisiones contrarias a esas regulaciones específicas, que pueden ocasionar un manejo ineficiente o ilegal de los fondos públicos, es mayor que el genérico previsto en el numeral 603 del Código de Trabajo, pues en tales supuestos debe aplicarse el de cinco años que contempla aquella norma particular, que sin duda busca tutelar un interés público de gran trascendencia, cual es el manejo transparente de los fondos públicos. En el caso bajo análisis, la entidad recurrente asegura que el actor fue despedido por faltas relacionadas con el manejo de fondos públicos, concretamente por: “… no valorar el estado de la instalación eléctrica del inmueble identificado como “la casona de pensiones…, incumplió con los requisitos establecidos en la legislación y normativa aplicable del Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos al no estar acreditada la existencia de planos que reunieran los requisitos fijados por dicho Colegio en consecuencia al no existir visado de los mismos para efectuar la remodelación a que se contrajo la compra directa CD-006-04, omisión registrada también con respecto a la bitácora y los contratos de servicios profesionales y de consultoría… se acreditó la falta de documentación mediante addenda (sic) de las modificaciones de la obra y los plazos para su ejecución con la empresa Cotece S.A. (…)” (ver memorial de folios 322 al 328). De la imputación de cargos realizada al accionante se desprende que la investigación administrativa tuvo lugar precisamente por haber incurrido, entre otras faltas, en infracciones previstas en normas de control y fiscalización superiores, como lo son la Ley de Control Interno, la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y la Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, en detrimento de los fondos públicos (ver traslado de cargos a folios 64 al 78). Del relacionado informe se colige que se efectuó un proceso de licitación pública y posteriormente uno de contratación directa, en los que se obviaron procedimientos y directrices contemplados tanto en normativa interna como en la Ley de Contratación Administrativa. En relación con el caso concreto del actor, se recomendó investigar la eventual responsabilidad por los siguientes hechos: “a)- Haber sido el funcionario responsable de promover el concurso bajo la modalidad Licitación Pública LP-001-2002 para la compra del inmueble denominado “Casona de Pensiones”, que albergaría ocho dependencias de la Gerencia División de Pensiones, ya que en su condición de Jefe de Proyectos le correspondía velar y supervisar que se hubiera cumplido con lo establecido por la Ley y el Reglamento de Contratación Administrativa y los diferentes procedimientos concernientes a la Adquisición y Remodelación del Inmueble(…)./ b)- … el haber prescindió (sic) de la autorización otorgada por la Gerencia División de Operaciones, quien es el Ente Institucional que permite tramitar los concursos que son diferentes a la compra directa a las diferentes unidades, según circular 22273 suscrita por el Cuerpo Gerencial de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, así como el haber omitido la razón técnica para la adquisición del inmueble que estableciera las cláusulas en el pliego de condiciones tales como la ubicación, área útil del edificio, porcentaje de área útil a nivel de calle, etc. … c)- Además de haber inducido en error a la Junta Directiva de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social para que adjudicará (sic) la compra del edificio, promovida en la Licitación Pública LP-001-2002, previo a que la Juta Directiva adjudicará (sic), el investigado [Nombre2]… …, expuso el caso ante la Comisión Especial de Licitaciones, que aparentemente efectuó en forma inadecuada el análisis técnico de las ofertas, en el cual se atribuyeron cumplimientos a la oferta adjudicada que no le correspondían, tales como construcción acorde a las normas del Código Sísmico de Costa Rica, ajustarse a la instalación eléctrica a los requerimientos de la Compañía Nacional de Fuerza y Luz, omisión de factores en la evaluación de las ofertas como el precio y la antigüedad del inmueble, que eventualmente no se realizaron, que se contradicen o carecen de veracidad, aparte de que no se contaba con el estudio de prefactibilidad que debía ser aprobado por la Dirección de Planificación Corporativa… d)- Asimismo se le imputa … que siendo miembro de la Comisión de Compras de la Gerencia de Pensiones, recomendaron al Gerente de Pensiones adjudicar la Compra Directa CD-006-2004 Remodelación Inmueble Propiedad de la Gerencia División de Pensiones, a la Empresa Corporación Comercial Euroamericana, así como en su condición de Jefe de Proyectos. Omitió suscribir el Contrato de Consultoría con la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social con el objetivo de registrar ante el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica su responsabilidad profesional, así como la de la empresa Corporación Comercial Euroamericana S.A. (COTECE) que además no estaba inscrita y habilitada en el CFIA, como empresa constructora el día en que se recibieron las ofertas, no obstante la empresa la presentó dos meses después. Sin verificar el investigado que tal acto no era subsanable, pues no cumplía con los requisitos legales en su momento… e)- Aparte de eso se le imputa, no supervisar ni verificar que los planos constructivos para la Compra Directa CD-006-2004, cumplieran con lo establecido por los sistemas arquitectónicos e ingenieros (sic), cuya solicitud fue omitida en el proceso de la adquisición de la propiedad, así como la ausencia de las firmas en las láminas por los correspondientes profesionales de la Institución y la empresa adjudicada, así como haber prescindido del respectivo trámite ante el citado Colegio del timbre de construcción y del Cuaderno de Bitácora, pues no se contaba con la confección ni inscritos los planos constructivos, tampoco se contó con el visado municipal… f)- De esta forma en su condición de Jefe de Proyectos tramitó y autorizó el contrato de Compra Directa CD-006-2004, sin ningún fundamentó (sic) técnico razones de imprevisibilidad, tomándose en cuenta que el investigado participó activamente en el proceso de Licitación Pública LP-001-2002, y teniendo pleno conocimiento de las características de la infraestructura y del interés público, así como el pertinente addendum al contrato original y su respectivo refrendo legal por el aumentó (sic) en el plazo de entrega de la obra (…)” (folios 74 vuelto al 75 frente). Además, en la resolución que dio inicio al procedimiento se invocaron como sustento, entre otros, los artículos 96 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, 39 de la Ley de Control Interno y 108 incisos a) y b) y 110, incisos b) y e) de la Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, así como normativa interna sobre el desarrollo de proyectos de obra pública. El artículo 96 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa – al momento en que acaecieron los hechos que se le endilgan al actor - estipulaba que se le impondría la sanción de apercibimiento escrito al funcionario o funcionaria que incurriera en cualquiera de las siguientes faltas: “a) No incorporar oportunamente, debiendo hacerlo, documentación atinente al expediente administrativo. b) Impedir o dificultar de manera injustificada el acceso a un expediente administrativo, de cuyo manejo o custodia esté encargado./ c) No incluir en un informe o dictamen datos relevantes para el estudio de las ofertas, cuando se determine que los conocía al rendir su dictamen./ d) Retrasar injustificadamente el trámite de pagos que deba cubrir la Administración a sus proveedores o contratistas./ e) Retrasar de modo injustificado la recepción de bienes u obras./ f) Propiciar o disponer la fragmentación ilegal de operaciones, tramitando contratos que por su monto implicarían un procedimiento más riguroso que el seguido al dividirlas./ g) No atender ni responder a tiempo e injustificadamente una prevención hecha por la Contraloría General de la República en el ejercicio de sus funciones./ h) Faltar al deber de diligencia esperada de sus condiciones personales y del puesto que ocupa, ya sea por culpa, imprudencia o impericia causando un daño real a los particulares o a la Administración, durante un procedimiento de contratación, siempre que la gravedad de las circunstancias y la cuantía del daño no ameriten una sanción mayor. i) No publicar el encargado de hacerlo, en el tiempo debido, el programa de adquisiciones según se dispone en el artículo 6 de la presente ley./ j) No enviar a la Contraloría General de la República, en el plazo establecido, los informes mencionados en el artículo 101 de esta ley. (Así reformado por el artículo 1º, inciso n), de la ley Nº 7612 de 22 de julio de 1996)”. Las conductas imputadas al accionante, relacionadas con el trámite de la Licitación Pública LP-001-2002 y la Compra Directa CD-006-2004 evidenciadas en el estudio de auditoría (ver folios 11 al 63) y con base en las cuales se dispuso el despido se enmarcan en los supuestos de hecho que contempla el numeral trascrito. Si la aplicación del artículo 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República se da por incurrir en lo que tanto esa ley como las relacionadas con el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores prevén como una infracción, debe concluirse, sin lugar a dudas, que el plazo aplicable es el de cinco años ahí previsto, en el tanto en que el demandante se le atribuyó haber violentado preceptos de la Ley de Control Interno, Ley de Contratación Administrativa y otra normativa interna sobre contratación, así como la Ley de la Administración Financiera y Presupuestos Públicos. Por consiguiente, lo correcto es estimar que la norma aplicable en cuanto a la prescripción de la potestad disciplinaria es el artículo 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y no la general contemplada en el canon 603 del Código de Trabajo. Lo anterior es así en relación con los concretos hechos contenidos en el recurso interpuesto ante esta tercera instancia rogada por la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, y que se relacionan con lo tipificado en los incisos a), e) y h) del numeral 96 citado, a saber: no haber valorado el estado de la instalación eléctrica del inmueble identificado como “la casona de pensiones”; no acreditar la existencia de planos que reunieran los requisitos fijados por el Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos; así como la falta de suscripción de un addendum que justificara las modificaciones de la obra y los plazos para su ejecución. Siendo estas faltas, las únicas posibles de considerar para efectos de determinar la existencia o no de la prescripción de la potestad disciplinaria y, eventualmente, la concurrencia de una falta grave, por cuanto respecto de las demás conductas atribuidas al actor, la Caja se conformó con su declaratoria de prescripción, al no esbozar ningún agravio al respecto en su recurso. Ahora bien, según el inciso b), del numeral 71 la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, cuando se trate de hechos que no son notorios, el plazo de cinco años correrá a partir de la fecha en que el informe acerca de la posible irregularidad es puesto en conocimiento de la jerarquía o de la persona competente para disponer el inicio del procedimiento administrativo. En este caso, se ha tenido por demostrado que el informe de la Auditoría fue comunicado a la Gerencia de Pensiones el 1 de noviembre de 2004 y el procedimiento dio inicio mediante resolución fechada el 2 de diciembre siguiente (notificada ese mismo día), razón por la cual el plazo perentorio no transcurrió. Una vez definido que la potestad disciplinaria no se encontraba prescrita en el caso concreto, procede analizarse si las faltas atribuidas al actor dan cabida al despido aplicado. Al respecto debemos indicar que las tres conductas en particular descritas en el recurso interpuesto ante esta tercera instancia rogada -que son las únicas que para la Caja constituyen faltas relacionadas con el artículo 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República-, se encuentran tipificados en los incisos a), e) y h) del numeral 96 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa como faltas sancionables mediante “apercibimiento escrito”. Para que ese tipo de conductas se configuren como una causal de despido, de conformidad con los numerales 96 bis y 96 ter de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, se requiere de su reiteración, luego de ser apercibido, en al menos dos ocasiones adicionales (ya que la primer reiteración da pie a una suspensión sin goce de salario), sin que en el caso concreto se haya acreditado que el actor se encontrara en esa especial condición. Tampoco acreditó la entidad demandada que el litigante hubiere causando un “daño real a los particulares o a la Administración, durante un procedimiento de contratación” en los términos del inciso h) del numeral 96 referido, como para que se considere que ameritaba la imposición de la sanción más drástica que prevé nuestro ordenamiento jurídico como lo es el despido sin responsabilidad patronal. Así las cosas, en aplicación de los principios de tipicidad, proporcionalidad, razonabilidad y gradualidad que informan la materia administrativa sancionatoria, lo procedente es declarar injustificado el despido, dado que las conductas atribuidas al trabajador, según la normativa especial aplicable al efecto, debieron ser sancionadas con un apercibimiento escrito, y no con la aplicación de un despido sin responsabilidad patronal, sanción que por su gravedad debe ser la ultima ratio. En consecuencia, lo procedente debe ser confirmar el fallo recurrido, no por cuanto se considere que en el caso concreto haya operado la prescripción de la potestad sancionatoria, sino en virtud de que la sanción impuesta al actor fue desproporcionada respecto a la gravedad de las faltas cometidas. \n\n IV.- CONSIDERACIONES FINALES: De conformidad con lo sustanciado, procede confirmar el fallo recurrido, incluso en cuanto le impuso a la entidad accionada el pago de la costas, por que no se considera que en la especie esa representación haya actuado con evidente buena fe, tal y como lo prescribe el numeral 222 del Código Procesal Civil (de aplicación supletoria en esta materia por mandato del ordinal 452 del Código de Trabajo), como para que pueda eximírsele del pago de esas expensas. \n\nPOR TANTO: \n\n Se confirma la sentencia recurrida. \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\nOrlando Aguirre Gómez \n\n \n\n \n\nJulia Varela Araya Rolando Vega Robert \n\n \n\n \n\nEva María Camacho Vargas Héctor Blanco González \n\n \n\n \n\n \n\n[Nombre3]\n\n 2 \n\nEXP: 06-002090-0166-LA\n\n \n\n Teléfonos: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 y 2295-4406. Facsímile: 2257-55-94. Correos Electrónicos: [...]. y mbrenesm @poder-judicial.go.cr", "body_en_text": "*060020900166LA*\n\n*[Placa1]*\n\n \n\nCorte Suprema de Justicia\n\nSALA SEGUNDA\n\n \n\nExp: 06-002090-0166-LA\n\nRes: 2012-000839\n\nSALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, at nine o'clock on the twenty-first of September of two thousand twelve.\n\n Ordinary proceeding filed before the Labor Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, by [Name1], architect, against the CAJA COSTARRICENSE DE SEGURO SOCIAL, represented by its general judicial attorney, licensed Yorleny Quesada Monestel, domiciled in Cartago. The special judicial attorney for the plaintiff is licensed José Miguel Villalobos Umaña, divorced. All of legal age, married, and domiciled in San José, with the exceptions indicated.\n\nWHEREAS:\n\n 1.- The plaintiff, in a document dated August eighth, two thousand six, filed this action so that the judgment would declare his dismissal null and void, and order the payment of the corresponding indemnities for severance pay (preaviso), seniority pay (cesantía), and other unpaid labor entitlements, interest, damages (daños y perjuicios) calculated according to the salaries not received from the termination of the contract on March 4, 2006, as well as the penalty clause established in Article 38 of the Regulations (Normativa), which consists of one additional month's salary.\n\n 2.- The defendant's representative responded in the terms stated in the brief dated October twelfth, two thousand six, and raised the defenses of statute of limitations (prescripción) and lack of right.\n\n 3.- The judge, licensed Bertha Jiménez Alvarado, by judgment at ten o'clock on August twenty-fifth, two thousand ten, ordered: In accordance with the foregoing, citations of law, and Articles 492 et seq. and concordant articles of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), the ordinary labor lawsuit filed by [Name1] against the CAJA COSTARRICENSE DE SEGURO SOCIAL, represented by licensed RANDALL ALBÁN AGUIRRE MENA, is granted. Consequently, the action of the CAJA COSTARRICENSE DE SEGURO SOCIAL to dismiss the plaintiff is declared time-barred (prescrita) and the dismissal decision is null and void. Consequently, the resolution at ten o'clock on August nineteenth of the year two thousand five is declared null and void, as is official letter GDP-3530-2006 of February 20, 2006. The disciplinary power (potestad disciplinaria) of the defendant to initiate the proceeding more than one month after the request by the entity's Internal Audit Office (Auditoría Interna) is declared time-barred. It is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sums for severance pay (preaviso), seniority pay (cesantía), as well as the unpaid labor entitlements, plus the final indemnity for damages (daños y perjuicios) calculated according to the salaries not received from the termination of the contract on March 4, 2006, until the finality of the condemnatory judgment against the CCSS. Additionally, the payment of one additional month's salary is ordered in accordance with Article 38 of the Regulations (Normativa). Legal interest must be paid based on the interest rates of six-month term deposit certificates of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, calculated from the date of dismissal until its effective full payment. Given the manner in which this is resolved, a ruling on the merits of the matter is omitted. Pursuant to Article 494 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) and 221 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Código Procesal Civil), the plaintiff's claims having been granted, the defendant is ordered to pay both types of costs of the proceeding, setting personal costs (costas personales) at 25% of the total judgment amount. The parties are warned that this judgment admits an appeal (recurso de apelación), which must be filed before this court within a three-day term. Within that same term and before this jurisdictional body, the grounds of fact or law on which the appellant bases its disagreement must also be set forth, orally or in writing, under warning of declaring the appeal inadmissible (Articles 500 and 501, subsections e) and d) of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo); rulings (votos) of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) numbers 5798 at 4:21 p.m. on August 11, 1998, and 1306 at 4:27 p.m. on February 23, 1999, and ruling (voto) of the Second Chamber (Sala Segunda) number 386 at 2:20 p.m. on December 10, 1999).\n\n 4.- The defendant appealed, and the Labor Tribunal, Second Section, of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, composed of licensed judges Ana Luisa Meseguer Monge, Leila Shadid Gamboa, and Marniee Sissie Guerrero Lobato, by judgment at four o'clock in the afternoon on March thirtieth, two thousand twelve, resolved: It is declared that no defects or omissions that could cause nullity or defenselessness to any of the parties are observed. THE APPEALED JUDGMENT IS AFFIRMED.\n\n5.- The general judicial attorney for the defendant institution filed an appeal (recurso) before this Chamber in a brief submitted via facsimile on June fifteenth, two thousand twelve, which is based on the grounds to be discussed in the considering part.\n\n 6.- The procedural requirements prescribed by law have been observed.\n\nJustice Redactor Blanco González; and,\n\nCONSIDERING:\n\nI.- BACKGROUND: The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on August 8, 2006, against Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS), requesting that the judgment declare the dismissal ordered against him null and void because his disciplinary power (potestad sancionatoria) had prescribed, in addition to having been adopted by an incompetent body and because no justified cause exists. He consequently requests that the defendant entity be ordered to pay him the entitlements for severance pay (preaviso de despido), seniority pay (cesantía), \"other labor entitlements,\" a fixed indemnity in the nature of damages (daños y perjuicios) equivalent to the salaries not received from the moment of dismissal until the finality of the ruling recognizing that right, one additional month's salary pursuant to Article 38 of the CCSS Labor Relations Regulations (Normativa de Relaciones Laborales), and interest. As grounds for his claim, he stated that he worked for the Public Administration from February 1979 until March 4, 2006, the date on which he was dismissed. On October 7, 2004, the Internal Audit Office (Auditoría Interna) of the CCSS submitted report AO-262-R-2004 to the Pension and Operations managers, recommending the opening of an administrative proceeding to determine his eventual responsibility for the facts contained in that document. That document was received by the Pension Management (Gerencia de Pensiones) on November 1st of the following year. In application of the CCSS Labor Relations Regulations (Normativa de Relaciones Laborales), the administrative proceeding should have been opened no later than December 1st following, yet the initial resolution for transfer of charges (traslado de cargos) no. 066-04 was issued when the one-month period had already expired (on December 2, 2004). Subsequently, the proceeding remained suspended—without any cause for it—until June 29, 2005, the date on which the \"first hearing\" was held, at which time \"the expiry (caducidad) of the proceeding\" was requested, a motion that was rejected by the directing body \"without binding effect,\" leaving the possibility of granting it for the final resolution. The conclusions report was issued on August 9, 2005, and cited Article 96 of the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) as infringed, recommending the imposition of a \"written warning (apercibimiento escrito).\" That document expressly stated that \"it remains demonstrated in this investigation that the institution suffered no economic harm.\" Through resolution no. R-GDP-081-05 at 10:00 a.m. on August 19, 2005, the Pension Management (Gerencia de Pensiones) accepted the statement of facts contained in the directing body's report and, considering the committed fault to be serious under the protection of Article 98 of the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), proposed the disciplinary sanction of dismissal without employer liability. On September 1st, he opposed the recommendation and requested a hearing before the \"Labor Board (Junta Laboral).\" That body, by a majority of seven to three, pointed out that it found no responsibility in the events and that there was no harm to the entity, therefore recommending not imposing any type of sanction. The minority resolution recommended a four-day suspension without pay, \"as it was a case of minor responsibility.\" Once that procedure was completed, the management omitted to issue a ruling, and it was not until December 14, 2005, that the Labor Board's (Junta Laboral) resolution appeared \"received\" by the entity's Board of Directors (Junta Directiva), which in Session 8021, Article 48 of January 5, 2006, requested from the Legal Directorate (Dirección Jurídica) \"a pronouncement on the procedure followed, which that Directorate received on January 23, more than a month after the case was ready to adopt the final decision.\" On February 9, 2006, after receiving the Legal Directorate's (Dirección Jurídica) report, the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva), according to Article 24 of Session 8032, ratified the imposed sanction, consisting of dismissal without employer liability. That collegial body lacked competence to ratify the dismissal recommendation, as this corresponded to the Management (Gerencia), so it should have issued a prior avocation (avocación) resolution, in accordance with the provisions of Article 93 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). At the time of dismissal, he held the position of Director General of Headquarters in the Pension Management (Gerencia de Pensiones) and earned an average monthly salary of exactly nine hundred fifty-three thousand colones. The events that motivated his dismissal relate to a public bidding process (licitación pública) promoted by the Pension Management (Gerencia de Pensiones) (no. LP-001-2002) for the purchase of a property, as well as the direct purchase (compra directa) (CD-0006-2004) for the remodeling of the acquired property. Within that process, the following were imputed to him as faults: the omission to assess and confirm the condition of the building's electrical installation; the omission to process the remodeling plans with the College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos), as well as the logbooks (cuadernos de bitácora), and the contracts for professional and consulting services; and allowing modifications to the work and time extensions without the signing of the respective addendum. He denies having committed any of these faults, since according to the bid specifications (cartel licitatorio), completing any procedure before the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos) was not a requirement, and no modification was made that implied an increase in the contract amount, thus no addendum was required, and the increase in the timeframes was for performing additional works, not affecting the times of the originally contracted tasks (folios 1 through 9). The defendant's representative answered the lawsuit negatively and raised the defense of lack of right (folios 178 through 191). The court declared the disciplinary power (potestad disciplinaria) time-barred; annulled the dismissal ordered via resolution at 10:00 a.m. on August 19, 2006; and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the items of severance pay (preaviso de despido), seniority pay (cesantía), as well as \"the unpaid labor entitlements, plus the final indemnity for damages (daños y perjuicios) calculated according to the salaries not received from the termination of the contract on March 4, 2006, until the finality of the condemnatory judgment against the CCSS. Additionally, the payment of one additional month's salary is ordered in accordance with Article 38 of the Regulations (Normativa).\" Regarding the awarded sums, the obligation to pay legal interest was established at the rates for six-month term deposit certificates of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, calculated from the date of dismissal until its effective payment. Both types of costs were imposed on the losing party, setting personal costs (costas personales) at twenty-five percent of the total judgment amount (folios 222 through 232). Disagreeing with the ruling, the defendant appealed (folios 257 through 277), and the Labor Tribunal, Second Section, Second Judicial Circuit of San José, affirmed it (folios 286 through 297).\n\n II.- GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT: The special judicial attorney for the defendant files an appeal (recurso) against the tribunal's judgment. He accuses it of an \"erroneous interpretation and application of Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República) in relation to the concept of handling public funds (manejo de fondos públicos) under the responsibility of Mr. H… G…\". He assures that in this case, the statute of limitations (prescripción) of the disciplinary power (potestad sancionatoria) could not have operated since the \"imputed and proven\" facts relate to the disposition and commitment of public funds (fondos públicos), which is why the applicable statute of limitations period is that established by canon 71 idem, and not that indicated in Article 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo). He adds that once the administrative disciplinary proceeding (procedimiento administrativo sancionatorio) is started, the computation of the statute of limitations remains interrupted \"with continued effects,\" without any legal possibility of that fatal term operating during its processing. He assures that two statute of limitations terms apply to public officials: one month for servants not linked to the public treasury (hacienda pública) (Article 603 idem); and five years for servants linked to the public treasury (hacienda pública), who are in charge of handling and disposing of public funds (fondos públicos). He affirms that the person who handles public funds is the one who participates \"in the different stages of budget execution of income and expenses, as well as those intervening in the process of oversight and control of the 'Public Treasury' (Hacienda Pública) or, in general, directly participate in the financial administration of the public body in question, as has been proven in this proceeding.\" In the appellant's opinion, the final act issued by the Pension Management (Gerencia de Pensiones) determined the existence of a series of faults committed by the plaintiff, related to the handling of public funds (fondos públicos), such as: \"... not assessing the condition of the electrical installation of the property identified as 'the pension house'..., failed to comply with the requirements established in the applicable legislation and regulations of the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos) as the existence of plans meeting the requirements set by said College was not accredited; consequently, since there was no approval (visado) of the same to carry out the remodeling related to direct purchase (compra directa) CD-006-04, an omission also recorded regarding the logbook (bitácora) and the contracts for professional and consulting services... the lack of documentation via addenda (sic) of the modifications to the work and the timeframes for its execution with the company Cotece S.A. (...) was proven.\" Finally, he alleges that the costs imposed on his principal \"are not appropriate and are unjust,\" as its conduct has been lawful and in good faith. Based on his grievances, the appellant requests that \"the appealed resolution be revoked and one issued that conforms to the merit of the evidence on record\" (folios 304 through 316).\n\nIII.- ON THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS OF THE DISCIPLINARY POWER: The grievance raised requires determining whether the applicable statute of limitations period for exercising the employer entity's disciplinary power was the one-month period contemplated in Article 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) or the special five-year period regulated by Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). The text of this latter norm, at the time of the investigated facts, is the one currently in force and expressly establishes: \"Article 71.—Statute of Limitations for Disciplinary Liability (Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria). The administrative liability of the public official for the infractions provided for in this Law and in the superior control and oversight regulations (ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores) shall be subject to the statute of limitations according to the following rules:/ a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, the liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act./ b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious—understood as that act requiring an investigation or audit study to report its possible irregularity—the liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date on which the report on the respective investigation or audit is brought to the attention of the hierarch (jerarca) or the competent official to initiate the respective procedure./ The statute of limitations shall be interrupted, with continued effects, by the notification to the alleged responsible person of the act agreeing to the initiation of the administrative procedure. /When the perpetrator of the fault is the hierarch, the period shall begin to run from the date on which he/she terminates his/her service relationship with the respective entity, company, or body. /The failure of the competent official to initiate the proceeding in a timely manner or allowing the offender's liability to prescribe, without justified cause, shall be considered a serious fault of that official. /(As amended by subsection a) of Article 45 of Law No. 8292 of July 31, 2002, Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno)).\" (The bold is not from the original). From the highlighted text, it is clear that the extended period provided for in said norm is applicable when the public official incurs the infractions provided for in that specific law or in those contemplated in the superior control and oversight regulations of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), it is understood, as regulated in Articles 1 and 8 of the related Organic Law. The Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) exercises control over the entities and bodies that comprise the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), without prejudice to the optional regulation it may deploy regarding other entities. Now, in accordance with Article 8 idem, \"The Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) shall be constituted by public funds (fondos públicos), the powers to collect, administer, safeguard, conserve, manage, spend, and invest such funds, and the legal, administrative, and financial norms, relating to the budget process (proceso presupuestario), administrative procurement (contratación administrativa), internal and external control, and the liability of public officials.\" (The highlights are by the redactor). In accordance with said article, the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) consists of two essential components: a) public funds (fondos públicos) (and everything related to their handling) and b) the legal norms of an administrative and financial nature relating to the budget process, administrative procurement (contratación administrativa), control—both external and internal—and the liability of public servants in these matters. The law is responsible for defining what is to be understood as public funds (fondos públicos) and also as superior control and oversight regulations, which are the express terms contemplated in related Article 71. Thus, in canon 9, public funds (fondos públicos) are defined as all those \"... resources, securities, goods, and rights owned by the State, by bodies, by companies, or by public entities.\" The following Article 10 states: \"The superior control and oversight regulations of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) comprise the set of norms that regulate the competence, structure, activity, relationships, procedures, responsibilities, and sanctions derived from that oversight or necessary for it. This regulatory framework also includes the norms that regulate oversight over foreign entities and bodies and private funds and activities, to which this Law refers, as its fundamental norm, within the constitutional framework.\" That control and oversight regulatory framework has as its primary purpose \"... to guarantee the legality and efficiency of internal controls and the handling of public funds (fondos públicos) in the entities over which the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) has jurisdiction, in accordance with this Law\" (Article 11, idem). These latter articles must be read in conjunction with the provisions of cited Article 8, which expressly includes as part of the control and oversight regulations, the regulations related to the budget process (proceso presupuestario), administrative procurement (contratación administrativa), internal and external control, and the liability of public officials in those matters, which are undoubtedly norms that tend to ensure the legality and efficiency not only of internal controls but also of the efficient and lawful handling of public funds (fondos públicos). Thus, it is not any fault committed by a public servant that triggers the application of Article 71 idem. They are solely the faults committed by persons performing a public function in the exercise of those special competencies (handling of public funds (fondos públicos)) and that infringe either the regulations of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República) or that control and oversight regulatory framework (regulations on budget process (proceso presupuestario), administrative procurement (contratación administrativa), internal and external control, responsibilities in that matter) that lead to an extension of the period for exercising the disciplinary power (potestad disciplinaria). In summary, the period to sanction actions or omissions contrary to those specific regulations, which may cause inefficient or illegal handling of public funds (fondos públicos), is longer than the generic one provided for in Article 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), as in such cases, the five-year period contemplated by that particular norm must be applied, which undoubtedly seeks to protect a public interest of great importance, namely the transparent handling of public funds (fondos públicos). In the case under analysis, the appellant entity assures that the plaintiff was dismissed for faults related to the handling of public funds (fondos públicos), specifically for: \"... not assessing the condition of the electrical installation of the property identified as 'the pension house'..., failed to comply with the requirements established in the applicable legislation and regulations of the Federated College of Engineers and Architects (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos) as the existence of plans meeting the requirements set by said College was not accredited; consequently, since there was no approval (visado) of the same to carry out the remodeling related to direct purchase (compra directa) CD-006-04, an omission also recorded regarding the logbook (bitácora) and the contracts for professional and consulting services... the lack of documentation via addenda (sic) of the modifications to the work and the timeframes for its execution with the company Cotece S.A. (...) was proven.\" (see brief at folios 322 to 328). From the transfer of charges (imputación de cargos) made to the plaintiff, it is clear that the administrative investigation took place precisely because he had incurred, among other faults, in infractions provided for in superior control and oversight norms, such as the Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno), the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), and the Law of Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos), to the detriment of public funds (fondos públicos) (see transfer of charges (traslado de cargos) at folios 64 to 78). From the related report, it is inferred that a public bidding (licitación pública) process and subsequently a direct procurement (contratación directa) process were carried out, in which procedures and guidelines contemplated in both internal regulations and the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) were bypassed. Regarding the plaintiff's specific case, it was recommended to investigate the eventual liability for the following acts: \"a)- Having been the official responsible for promoting the tender under the modality of Public Bidding (Licitación Pública) LP-001-2002 for the purchase of the property called 'Casona de Pensiones,' which would house eight dependencies of the Pension Division Management (Gerencia División de Pensiones), since in his condition as Project Manager, it was his responsibility to ensure and supervise that compliance with the provisions of the Law and the Administrative Procurement Regulations (Reglamento de Contratación Administrativa) and the different procedures concerning the Acquisition and Remodeling of the Property had been fulfilled (…)./ b)- … having dispensed with the authorization granted by the Operations Division Management (Gerencia División de Operaciones), which is the Institutional Entity that authorizes processing tenders other than direct purchase (compra directa) to the different units, according to circular 22273 signed by the Managerial Body of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, as well as having omitted the technical reason for acquiring the property that would establish the clauses in the specifications (pliego de condiciones) such as the location, useful area of the building, percentage of useful area at street level, etc. … c)- In addition to having misled the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social so that it would award the purchase of the building, promoted in Public Bidding (Licitación Pública) LP-001-2002, prior to the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) awarding it, the investigated [Name2]… …, presented the case before the Special Bidding Commission (Comisión Especial de Licitaciones), which apparently inadequately performed the technical analysis of the offers, in which compliances that did not correspond to it were attributed to the awarded offer, such as construction according to the norms of the Seismic Code of Costa Rica (Código Sísmico de Costa Rica), adjusting the electrical installation to the requirements of the Compañía Nacional de Fuerza y Luz, omission of factors in the evaluation of offers such as price and the age of the property, which eventually were not performed, which contradict or lack veracity, aside from the fact that there was no pre-feasibility study that should have been approved by the Corporate Planning Directorate (Dirección de Planificación Corporativa)… d)- Likewise, he is charged … that being a member of the Purchasing Commission (Comisión de Compras) of the Pension Management (Gerencia de Pensiones), they recommended to the Pension Manager (Gerente de Pensiones) to award Direct Purchase (Compra Directa) CD-006-2004 Remodeling of Property Owned by the Pension Division Management (Gerencia División de Pensiones), to the Company Corporación Comercial Euroamericana, as well as in his condition as Project Manager. He omitted to sign the Consulting Contract with the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social for the purpose of registering his professional responsibility with the Federated College of Engineers and Architects of Costa Rica (Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica), as well as that of the company Corporación Comercial Euroamericana S.A. (COTECE) which was also not registered and authorized with the CFIA as a construction company on the day the offers were received, however the company presented it two months later. Without the investigated party verifying that such act was not correctable, as it did not meet the legal requirements at that time… e)- Apart from that, he is charged with not supervising or verifying that the construction plans for Direct Purchase (Compra Directa) CD-006-2004 complied with the provisions of the architectural and engineering systems, the request for which was omitted in the process of acquiring the property, as well as the absence of the signatures on the sheets by the corresponding professionals of the Institution and the awarded company, as well as having dispensed with the respective procedure before the cited College regarding the construction stamp (timbre de construcción) and the Logbook (Cuaderno de Bitácora), as the construction plans were not prepared or registered, nor was there the municipal approval (visado)… f)- In this way, in his condition as Project Manager, he processed and authorized the Direct Purchase (Compra Directa) contract CD-006-2004, without any technical grounds for unforeseeability, considering that the investigated party actively participated in the Public Bidding (Licitación Pública) process LP-001-2002, and having full knowledge of the infrastructure characteristics and the public interest, as well as the pertinent addendum to the original contract and its respective legal approval (refrendo) for the increase in the delivery timeframe of the work (…)\" (folios 74 back to 75 front). Furthermore, in the resolution that initiated the procedure, Articles 96 of the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), 39 of the Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno), and 108 subsections a) and b) and 110, subsections b) and e) of the Law of Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos), as well as internal regulations on the development of public works projects, were invoked as grounds. Article 96 of the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) – at the time the acts attributed to the plaintiff occurred – stipulated that the sanction of a written warning (apercibimiento escrito) would be imposed on the official who incurred any of the following faults: \"a) Not incorporating in a timely manner, when required, documentation pertaining to the administrative file.\n\nb) Unjustifiably impeding or hindering access to an administrative file, the handling or custody of which one is charged.\nc) Not including in a report or expert opinion relevant data for the study of bids, when it is determined that they were known at the time of rendering the opinion.\nd) Unjustifiably delaying the processing of payments that the Administration must make to its suppliers or contractors.\ne) Unjustifiably delaying the receipt of goods or works.\nf) Promoting or ordering the illegal fragmentation of operations, processing contracts which, due to their amount, would entail a more rigorous procedure than the one followed by dividing them.\ng) Not attending to or responding on time and unjustifiably to a warning (prevención) made by the Contraloría General de la República in the exercise of its functions.\nh) Failing in the duty of diligence expected of one’s personal conditions and the position held, whether through fault, imprudence, or lack of skill, causing real damage to private parties or to the Administration, during a procurement procedure (procedimiento de contratación), provided that the gravity of the circumstances and the amount of the damage do not warrant a greater sanction.\ni) The person charged with doing so failing to publish, in due time, the procurement program as provided in Article 6 of this law.\nj) Not sending to the Contraloría General de la República, within the established period, the reports mentioned in Article 101 of this law. (As amended by Article 1, subsection n), of Law No. 7612 of July 22, 1996).” The conduct attributed to the claimant, related to the processing of Public Tender (Licitación Pública) LP-001-2002 and Direct Purchase (Compra Directa) CD-006-2004, evidenced in the audit study (see folios 11 to 63) and based on which the dismissal was ordered, falls within the factual circumstances contemplated by the transcribed provision. If the application of Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República occurs due to incurring in what both that law and those related to the superior control and oversight framework provide as an infraction, it must be concluded, without any doubt, that the applicable period is the five-year period provided therein, insofar as the plaintiff was attributed with having violated precepts of the Law of Internal Control (Ley de Control Interno), the Law of Administrative Procurement (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), and other internal regulations on procurement, as well as the Law of Financial Administration and Public Budgets (Ley de la Administración Financiera y Presupuestos Públicos). Consequently, the correct approach is to consider that the applicable rule regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción) of the disciplinary power is Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República and not the general one contemplated in canon 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo). The foregoing is so in relation to the specific facts contained in the appeal filed before this third instance requested by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, and which relate to what is typified in subsections a), e), and h) of the aforementioned numeral 96, namely: not having assessed the state of the electrical installation of the property identified as “la casona de pensiones”; not accrediting the existence of plans that met the requirements set by the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos; as well as the lack of signing of an addendum (addendum) that would justify the modifications to the work and the deadlines for its execution. These being the only faults possible to consider for purposes of determining the existence or not of the statute of limitations (prescripción) of the disciplinary power and, eventually, the concurrence of a serious fault, given that regarding the other conduct attributed to the actor, the Caja conformed with its declaration of prescription (prescripción), by not outlining any grievance in this regard in its appeal. Now then, according to subsection b) of numeral 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, when dealing with facts that are not notorious, the five-year period will run from the date on which the report about the possible irregularity is made known to the hierarchy or to the person competent to order the initiation of the administrative procedure. In this case, it has been held as demonstrated that the Audit report was communicated to the Gerencia de Pensiones on November 1, 2004, and the procedure began by resolution dated December 2 following (notified that same day), which is why the peremptory period did not elapse.\n\nOnce it has been determined that the disciplinary power was not time-barred (prescrita) in the specific case, it is appropriate to analyze whether the faults attributed to the actor give rise to the dismissal applied. In this regard, we must indicate that the three particular conducts described in the appeal filed before this third instance requested-which are the only ones that for the Caja constitute faults related to Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República-are typified in subsections a), e), and h) of numeral 96 of the Law of Administrative Procurement (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) as faults punishable by “written reprimand (apercibimiento escrito)”. For these types of conduct to be configured as a cause for dismissal, in accordance with numerals 96 bis and 96 ter of that same regulatory body, their reiteration is required, after being reprimanded, on at least two additional occasions (since the first reiteration gives rise to a suspension without pay), without it having been accredited in the specific case that the actor was in that special condition. Nor did the respondent entity accredit that the litigant had caused “real damage to private parties or to the Administration, during a procurement procedure (procedimiento de contratación)” in the terms of subsection h) of the referred numeral 96, such that it could be considered that the imposition of the most drastic sanction provided by our legal system, such as dismissal without employer liability, was warranted. Thus, in application of the principles of legality (tipicidad), proportionality, reasonableness, and gradualness that inform the administrative sanctioning matter, the appropriate course is to declare the dismissal unjustified, given that the conducts attributed to the worker, according to the special regulations applicable to the effect, should have been sanctioned with a written reprimand (apercibimiento escrito), and not with the application of a dismissal without employer liability, a sanction which, due to its gravity, must be the ultima ratio. Consequently, the appropriate course is to confirm the appealed ruling, not because it is considered that in the specific case the statute of limitations (prescripción) of the sanctioning power had operated, but by virtue of the fact that the sanction imposed on the actor was disproportionate with respect to the gravity of the faults committed.\n\nIV.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: In accordance with what has been substantiated, it is appropriate to confirm the appealed ruling, including insofar as it imposed on the respondent entity the payment of costs (costas), because it is not considered that in the species this representation acted with evident good faith, as prescribed by numeral 222 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) (of supplementary application in this matter by mandate of ordinal 452 of the Labor Code), such that it can be exempted from paying those expenses.\n\nTHEREFORE (POR TANTO):\n\nThe appealed sentence is confirmed.\n\nOrlando Aguirre Gómez\n\nJulia Varela Araya Rolando Vega Robert\n\nEva María Camacho Vargas Héctor Blanco González\n\n[Nombre3]\n\n2\n\nEXP: 06-002090-0166-LA\n\nThat collegiate body lacked jurisdiction to ratify the recommendation of dismissal, since that responsibility fell to Management, and therefore it should have issued a prior avocation resolution, in accordance with Article 93 of the General Public Administration Act. At the time of dismissal he held the position of Director General of Headquarters in the Pension Management division and earned an average monthly salary of exactly nine hundred fifty-three thousand colones. The acts that led to his dismissal relate to a public tender process (licitación pública) initiated by the Pension Management division (No. LP-001-2002) for the purchase of a property, as well as the direct purchase (compra directa, No. CD-0006-2004) for the remodeling of the acquired asset. Within that process, the following were imputed to him as faults: the omission to assess and confirm the condition of the building’s electrical installation; the omission to process the remodeling plans before the Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos, as well as the logbooks and the professional services and consulting contracts; and permitting modifications to the work and extensions of the deadlines without the signing of the respective addendum. He rejects having committed any of these faults, since according to the tender specifications compliance with any procedure before the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos was not a requirement and no modification was made that implied an increase in the contract amount, so no addendum was required, and the increase in deadlines was for the completion of additional works, without affecting the timelines for the originally contracted work (folios 1 to 9).\n\nThe representative of the defendant answered the complaint negatively and raised the defense of lack of right (folios 178 to 191). The court declared the disciplinary power time-barred (prescrita); annulled the dismissal ordered by resolution at 10:00 a.m. on August 19, 2006; and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the items of dismissal notice, severance pay, as well as “the unpaid labor items, plus the final compensation for damages calculated according to the salaries left unpaid from the termination of the contract on March 4, 2006, until the final judgment against the CCSS becomes final, likewise the payment of one additional month’s salary is ordered in accordance with Article 38 of the Regulations”. Regarding the sums awarded, the obligation was established to pay legal interest according to the rates for six-month certificates of deposit of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, calculated from the date of dismissal and until their effective payment. Both costs were imposed on the losing party, with the personal costs set at twenty-five percent of the total amount of the award (folios 222 to 232). Dissatisfied with the decision, the defendant appealed (folios 257 to 277) and the Labor Court, Second Section, Second Judicial Circuit of San José, confirmed it (folios 286 to 297).\n\n**II.- APPELLANT'S GRIEVANCES:** The special judicial representative of the defendant files an appeal against the court's judgment. He claims “erroneous interpretation and application of Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Contraloría General de la República in relation to the concept of management of public funds by Mr. H… G…”. He assures that in this case the time bar (prescripción) of the sanctioning power could not have operated since the “imputed and proven” acts are related to the disposition and commitment of public funds, for which reason the applicable statute of limitations is that provided for in canon 71 thereof and not that indicated in numeral 603 of the Labor Code. He adds that once the sanctioning administrative process has begun, the calculation of the prescription period remains interrupted “with continued effects”, without there being any legal possibility that this fatal term could operate during its processing. He assures that there are two statute of limitations terms applicable to public officials: one month for employees not linked to the public treasury (hacienda pública) (Article 603 thereof); and five years for employees related to the public treasury, who are responsible for the management and disposition of public funds. He states that a person who manages public funds is one who participates “in the different stages of the budgetary execution of income and expenditures, as well as those who intervene in the oversight and control process of the ‘Hacienda Pública’ or in general, participate directly in the financial administration of the public body in question, as has been proven in the present process.” In the opinion of the appellant, the final act issued by the Pension Management determined the existence of a series of faults committed by the plaintiff, related to the management of public funds, such as: “… not assessing the condition of the electrical installation of the property identified as ‘la casona de pensiones…, failed to comply with the requirements established in the applicable legislation and regulations of the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos as the existence of plans meeting the requirements set by said Colegio was not proven, consequently there being no approval (visado) of the same to carry out the remodeling for which direct purchase CD-006-04 was entered into, an omission also recorded with respect to the logbook and the professional services and consulting contracts… the lack of documentation was proven through addenda (sic) for the modifications of the work and the deadlines for its execution with the company Cotece S.A. (…)”. Finally, he alleges that the award of costs imposed on his represented party “is not appropriate and is unjust”, since its actions have been in accordance with the law and in good faith. Based on his grievances, the appellant requests that “the appealed resolution be revoked and one that conforms to the merit of the evidence in the file be issued” (folios 304 to 316).\n\n**III.- THE TIME BAR OF THE DISCIPLINARY POWER**: The grievance raised requires determining whether the applicable statute of limitations for the exercise of the employer entity's disciplinary power was the one-month period contemplated in Article 603 of the Labor Code or the special five-year period regulated by numeral 71 of the Organic Law of the Contraloría General de la República. The text of this latter norm, at the time of the investigated acts, is the one currently in force and, expressly, establishes: *“Article 71.—Statute of limitations for disciplinary liability. **The administrative liability of the public official for the infractions provided for in this Law and in the superior control and oversight regulations** shall prescribe according to the following rules:/ a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act./ b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious – understood as that act which requires an inquiry or an audit study to report its possible irregularity – liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date on which the report on the respective inquiry or audit is brought to the attention of the head or the official competent to initiate the respective procedure./ The prescription period shall be interrupted, with continued effects, by the notification to the presumed responsible party of the act ordering the initiation of the administrative procedure. /When the author of the fault is the head, the period shall begin to run from the date on which he/she terminates his/her service relationship with the entity, the company, or the respective body. /It shall be deemed a serious fault of the official competent to initiate the sanctioning procedure, not to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the infractor's liability to prescribe, without justified cause. /(Thus reformed by subsection a) of Article 45 of Law No. 8292 of July 31, 2002, Internal Control Law)”.* (Boldface is not from the original).\n\nFrom the highlighted text it is extracted that the extended period provided for in said norm is applicable when a public official incurs the infractions provided for in that specific law or those contemplated in the superior control and oversight regulations of the Hacienda Pública, understood according to what is regulated in Articles 1 and 8 of the related Organic Law. The Contraloría General de la República exercises control over the entities and bodies that make up the Hacienda Pública, without prejudice to the optional regulation it may deploy regarding other entities. Now then, in accordance with Article 8 thereof, “**Hacienda Pública** *shall be constituted by* ***public funds***, *the powers to receive, administer, safeguard, conserve, manage, spend, and invest such funds* *and the juridical, administrative, and financial norms, relating to the budgetary process, administrative procurement, internal and external control, and the liability of public officials*”. (The highlighting is by the drafter). In accordance with said numeral, the Hacienda Pública is constituted by two essential components: **a)** public funds (and everything related to their management) and **b)** the juridical norms of an administrative and financial nature relating to the budgetary process, administrative procurement, control – both external and internal – and the liability of public servants in those matters. The law is responsible for defining what is to be understood by public funds and also by superior control and oversight regulations, which are the express terms contemplated in the related Article 71. Thus, in canon 9, public funds are defined as all those “… *resources, values, goods, and rights owned by the State, bodies, companies, or public entities*”. The following numeral 10, for its part, states: “*The superior control and oversight regulations of the Hacienda Pública comprise the set of norms that regulate the jurisdiction, structure, activity, relationships, procedures, liabilities, and sanctions derived from or necessary for such oversight. This regulatory framework also comprises the norms that regulate oversight over foreign entities and bodies and over private funds and activities, referred to in this Law, as its fundamental norm, within the constitutional framework*”. That control and oversight regulatory framework has as its primary purpose “… *to guarantee the legality and efficiency of internal controls and of the management of public funds in the entities over which the Contraloría General de la República has jurisdiction, in accordance with this Law*” (Article 11, thereof). These last numerals must be read in conjunction with what is stipulated in the cited Article 8, which expressly includes as part of the control and oversight regulatory framework the regulations related to the *budgetary process, administrative procurement, internal and external control, and the liability of public officials* in those matters, which are undoubtedly norms that tend to ensure the legality and efficiency not only of internal controls but also of the efficient and lawful management of public funds. Thus, it is not just any fault committed by a public servant that gives rise to the application of Article 71 thereof. They are solely the faults committed by persons performing a public function in the exercise of those special powers (management of public funds) and that infringe either the regulations of the Organic Law of the Contraloría General de la República or that control and oversight regulatory framework (regulations on the budgetary process, administrative procurement, internal and external control, liabilities in that matter) that give rise to an extension of the period for the exercise of disciplinary power. In summary, the period for sanctioning actions or omissions contrary to those specific regulations, which may cause inefficient or illegal management of public funds, is longer than the generic one provided for in numeral 603 of the Labor Code, since in such cases the five-year period contemplated in that particular norm must be applied, which undoubtedly seeks to protect a public interest of great importance, that is, the transparent management of public funds.\n\nIn the case under analysis, the appellant entity assures that the plaintiff was dismissed for faults related to the management of public funds, specifically for: “… not assessing the condition of the electrical installation of the property identified as ‘la casona de pensiones…, failed to comply with the requirements established in the applicable legislation and regulations of the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos as the existence of plans meeting the requirements set by said Colegio was not proven, consequently there being no approval (visado) of the same to carry out the remodeling for which direct purchase CD-006-04 was entered into, an omission also recorded with respect to the logbook and the professional services and consulting contracts… the lack of documentation was proven through addenda (sic) for the modifications of the work and the deadlines for its execution with the company Cotece S.A. (…)” (see brief at folios 322 to 328). From the statement of charges made against the plaintiff, it is clear that the administrative investigation took place precisely because he incurred, among other faults, in infractions provided for in superior control and oversight norms, such as the Internal Control Law, the Administrative Procurement Law, and the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets Law, to the detriment of public funds (see transfer of charges at folios 64 to 78). From the related report it is inferred that a public tender process and subsequently a direct contracting process were carried out, in which procedures and guidelines contemplated both in internal regulations and in the Administrative Procurement Law were omitted. In relation to the specific case of the plaintiff, it was recommended to investigate the eventual liability for the following acts: “**a)-** *To have been the official responsible for promoting the tender under the Public Tender modality LP-001-2002 for the purchase of the property called ‘Casona de Pensiones’, which would house eight units of the Gerencia División de Pensiones, since in his condition as Project Chief he was responsible for ensuring and supervising that compliance with the provisions of the Law and the Regulations on Administrative Procurement and the different procedures concerning the Acquisition and Remodeling of the Property had been met (…)./* **b)-** *… to have dispensed (sic) with the authorization granted by the Gerencia División de Operaciones, which is the Institutional Entity that allows processing tenders other than direct purchases to the different units, according to circular 22273 signed by the Management Body of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, as well as having omitted the technical reason for the acquisition of the property that would establish the clauses in the terms of reference such as location, usable area of the building, percentage of usable area at street level, etc. …* **c)-** *Furthermore, to have misled the Board of Directors of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social so that it would award (sic) the purchase of the building, promoted in Public Tender LP-001-2002, before the Board of Directors would award (sic), the investigated [Name2]… …, presented the case before the Special Tenders Commission, which apparently inadequately carried out (sic) the technical analysis of the offers, in which compliances were attributed to the awarded offer that did not correspond to it, such as construction according to the norms of the Costa Rican Seismic Code, adjusting the electrical installation to the requirements of the Compañía Nacional de Fuerza y Luz, omission of factors in the evaluation of offers such as price and age of the property, which were eventually not realized, contradict themselves, or lack veracity, apart from the fact that the pre-feasibility study that should have been approved by the Dirección de Planificación Corporativa was not available…* **d)-** *Likewise, it is imputed to him … that being a member of the Purchasing Commission of the Gerencia de Pensiones, they recommended the Gerente de Pensiones to award Direct Purchase CD-006-2004 Remodeling of Property Owned by the Gerencia División de Pensiones, to the Company Corporación Comercial Euroamericana, as well as in his condition as Project Chief. Omitted signing the Consulting Contract with the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social with the objective of registering his professional liability before the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, as well as that of the company Corporación Comercial Euroamericana S.A. (COTECE) which was also not registered and authorized with the CFIA, as a construction company on the day the offers were received, notwithstanding the company presented it two months later. Without the investigated verifying that such an act was not correctable, since it did not meet the legal requirements at the time…* **e)-** *Apart from that, it is imputed to him, not supervising or verifying that the construction plans for Direct Purchase CD-006-2004, complied with what was established by the architectural and engineering systems (sic), whose request was omitted in the property acquisition process, as well as the absence of signatures on the drawings by the corresponding professionals of the Institution and the awarded company, as well as having dispensed with the respective procedure before the cited Colegio for the construction stamp and the Logbook, since they did not have the construction plans prepared or registered, nor was there the municipal approval…* **f)-** *Thus, in his condition as Project Chief, he processed and authorized the Direct Purchase contract CD-006-2004, without any sound (sic) technical reasons of unforeseeability, taking into account that the investigated actively participated in the Public Tender process LP-001-2002, and having full knowledge of the characteristics of the infrastructure and the public interest, as well as the pertinent addendum to the original contract and its respective legal countersignature due to the increase (sic) in the delivery period of the work (…)” (folios 74 verso to 75 front). In addition, the resolution that initiated the procedure invoked as support, among others, Articles 96 of the Administrative Procurement Law, 39 of the Internal Control Law, and 108 subsections a) and b) and 110, subsections b) and e) of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets Law, as well as internal regulations on the development of public works projects. Article 96 of the Administrative Procurement Law – at the time the acts attributed to the plaintiff occurred – stipulated that the sanction of a written warning would be imposed on the official who incurred any of the following faults: “*a) Not incorporating in a timely manner, when required to do so, documentation pertaining to the administrative file. b) Impeding or unjustifiably hindering access to an administrative file, whose management or custody they are responsible for./ c) Not including in a report or opinion relevant data for the study of offers, when it is determined that they knew it when rendering their opinion./ d) Unjustifiably delaying the processing of payments that the Administration must cover to its suppliers or contractors./ e) Unjustifiably delaying the receipt of goods or works./ f) Fostering or ordering the illegal fragmentation of operations, processing contracts that due to their amount would imply a more rigorous procedure than the one followed by dividing them./ g) Not attending to or unjustifiably failing to respond on time to a notice issued by the Contraloría General de la República in the exercise of its functions./ h) Failing in the duty of diligence expected of their personal conditions and the position they hold, whether through fault, imprudence, or lack of skill causing real harm to private parties or the Administration, during a procurement procedure, provided that the seriousness of the circumstances and the amount of the harm do not warrant a more severe sanction. i) The person in charge failing to timely publish the procurement schedule as provided in Article 6 of this law./ j) Not sending to the Contraloría General de la República, within the established period, the reports mentioned in Article 101 of this law. (Thus reformed by Article 1, subsection n), of Law No. 7612 of July 22, 1996)*”. The conduct imputed to the plaintiff, related to the processing of Public Tender LP-001-2002 and Direct Purchase CD-006-2004, evidenced in the audit study (see folios 11 to 63) and on the basis of which the dismissal was ordered, falls within the factual scenarios contemplated by the transcribed numeral.\n\nIf the application of Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República is triggered by incurring in what both that law and those related to the superior control and oversight framework provide for as an infraction, it must be concluded, without a doubt, that the applicable statute of limitations (plazo) is the five-year period therein provided, insofar as the plaintiff was alleged to have violated provisions of the Ley de Control Interno, Ley de Contratación Administrativa, and other internal contracting regulations, as well as the Ley de la Administración Financiera y Presupuestos Públicos. Consequently, it is correct to consider that the applicable rule regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción) for the disciplinary power is Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República and not the general one contemplated in canon 603 of the Código de Trabajo. The foregoing is so in relation to the specific facts contained in the appeal (recurso) filed before this third instance requested by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, and which relate to what is typified in subsections a), e), and h) of the cited numeral 96, namely: failure to assess the condition of the electrical installation of the property identified as “la casona de pensiones”; failure to certify the existence of plans meeting the requirements set by the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos; as well as the failure to sign an addendum justifying the modifications to the work and the timelines for its execution.\n\nThese faults being the only ones that can be considered for purposes of determining whether or not the statute of limitations (prescripción) for the disciplinary power exists and, eventually, the occurrence of a serious fault, since regarding the other conduct attributed to the plaintiff (actor), the Caja conformed with their declaration of the expiry of the statute of limitations (prescripción), by not outlining any grievance in that regard in its appeal. Now, according to subsection b) of numeral 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, when dealing with facts that are not notorious, the five-year term shall run from the date on which the report about the possible irregularity is brought to the attention of the hierarchy or the person competent to order the initiation of the administrative procedure. In this case, it has been proven that the Auditor's report was communicated to the Gerencia de Pensiones on November 1, 2004, and the procedure was initiated by a resolution dated the following December 2 (notified that same day), which is why the peremptory term did not elapse. Once it has been determined that the disciplinary power was not time-barred (prescrita) in the specific case, it is appropriate to analyze whether the faults attributed to the plaintiff justify the dismissal applied. In this regard, we must indicate that the three specific conducts described in the appeal filed before this third instance requested – which are the only ones that for the Caja constitute faults related to Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República – are typified in subsections a), e), and h) of numeral 96 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa as faults punishable by “written reprimand (apercibimiento escrito)”. For these types of conduct to constitute a grounds for dismissal, in accordance with numerals 96 bis and 96 ter of that same normative body, their reiteration is required, after being reprimanded, on at least two additional occasions (since the first reiteration gives rise to a suspension without pay), without it having been proven in the specific case that the plaintiff was in that special condition. Nor did the defendant entity prove that the litigant had caused “real harm to individuals or to the Administration, during a contracting procedure” under the terms of subsection h) of the referred numeral 96, so as to consider that it warranted the imposition of the most drastic sanction provided for in our legal system, which is dismissal without employer liability. Thus, in application of the principles of typicality, proportionality, reasonableness, and graduality that inform administrative sanctioning matters, the appropriate course is to declare the dismissal unjustified, given that the conduct attributed to the worker, according to the special regulations applicable for this purpose, should have been sanctioned with a written reprimand (apercibimiento escrito), and not with the application of a dismissal without employer liability, a sanction which, due to its severity, must be the last resort (ultima ratio). Consequently, the appropriate course must be to confirm the appealed judgment, not because it is considered that the statute of limitations (prescripción) for the sanctioning power has operated in the specific case, but by virtue of the fact that the sanction imposed on the plaintiff was disproportionate to the seriousness of the faults committed.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n**IV.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS:** In accordance with what has been substantiated, it is appropriate to confirm the appealed judgment, including insofar as it imposed the payment of costs on the defendant entity, because it is not considered that in this instance said representation acted with evident good faith, as prescribed by numeral 222 of the Código Procesal Civil (of supplementary application in this matter by mandate of ordinal 452 of the Código de Trabajo), so that it could be exempted from paying those expenses.\n\n**POR TANTO:**\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe appealed judgment is confirmed.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n*Orlando Aguirre Gómez*\n\n\n\n\n\n\n*Julia Varela Araya* *Rolando Vega Robert*\n\n\n\n\n\n\n*Eva María Camacho Vargas* *Héctor Blanco González*\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n*[Name3]*\n\n 2\n\nEXP: 06-002090-0166-LA\n\n\n\n Teléfonos: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 y 2295-4406. Facsímile: 2257-55-94. Correos Electrónicos: [...].\n\ny mbrenesm @poder-judicial.go.cr

\n\nc)- In addition to having misled the Board of Directors of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social so that it would award (sic) the purchase of the building, promoted in Public Tender LP-001-2002, before the Board of Directors awarded (sic), the investigated party [Name1]… …, presented the case before the Special Tender Commission, which apparently carried out the technical analysis of the offers in an inadequate manner, in which compliance was attributed to the awarded offer that did not correspond to it, such as construction in accordance with the standards of the Costa Rican Seismic Code, adapting the electrical installation to the requirements of the Compañía Nacional de Fuerza y Luz, omission of factors in the evaluation of the offers such as the price and the age of the property, which eventually were not carried out, are contradictory or lack veracity, apart from the fact that the pre-feasibility study that had to be approved by the Corporate Planning Directorate was not available… \n\nd)- Likewise, he is accused … that being a member of the Purchasing Commission of the Pensions Management, they recommended to the Pensions Manager to award Direct Purchase CD-006-2004 Remodeling of Property Owned by the Pensions Division Management, to the company Corporación Comercial Euroamericana, as well as in his capacity as Project Manager. He omitted to sign the Consultancy Contract with the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social with the objective of registering his professional responsibility before the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica (CFIA), as well as that of the company Corporación Comercial Euroamericana S.A. (COTECE) which was also not registered and enabled with the CFIA, as a construction company on the day the offers were received, however the company presented it two months later. Without the investigated party verifying that such an act was not correctable, as it did not meet the legal requirements at the time… \n\ne)- Apart from that, he is accused of not supervising or verifying that the construction plans for Direct Purchase CD-006-2004 complied with the provisions of the architectural and engineering systems (sic), whose request was omitted in the property acquisition process, as well as the absence of signatures on the sheets by the corresponding professionals of the Institution and the awarded company, as well as having dispensed with the respective procedure before the aforementioned Colegio concerning the construction stamp and the Logbook, since the construction plans were neither prepared nor registered, nor was municipal approval obtained… \n\nf)- In this way, in his capacity as Project Manager, he processed and authorized the Direct Purchase CD-006-2004 contract, without any technical basis (sic) for reasons of unforeseeability, taking into account that the investigated party actively participated in the Public Tender LP-001-2002 process, and having full knowledge of the characteristics of the infrastructure and the public interest, as well as the pertinent addendum to the original contract and its respective legal approval for the increase (sic) in the delivery period of the work (…)” (folios 74 verso to 75 front). Furthermore, the resolution that initiated the procedure invoked as support, among others, Articles 96 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa, 39 of the Ley de Control Interno and 108 subsections a) and b) and 110, subsections b) and e) of the Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, as well as internal regulations on the development of public works projects. Article 96 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa – at the time the events attributed to the plaintiff occurred – stipulated that the sanction of a written reprimand (apercibimiento escrito) would be imposed on the official who incurred in any of the following faults: “a) Not incorporating in a timely manner, when required, documentation pertaining to the administrative file. b) Unjustifiably impeding or hindering access to an administrative file, whose handling or custody they are responsible for./ c) Not including in a report or opinion relevant data for the study of the offers, when it is determined that they knew of it when rendering their opinion./ d) Unjustifiably delaying the processing of payments that the Administration must cover to its suppliers or contractors./ e) Unjustifiably delaying the receipt of goods or works./ f) Propitiating or arranging the illegal fragmentation of operations, processing contracts that due to their amount would imply a more rigorous procedure than the one followed by dividing them./ g) Not attending to or responding on time and unjustifiably to a warning (prevención) made by the Contraloría General de la República in the exercise of its functions./ h) Failing in the duty of care (diligencia) expected of their personal conditions and the position they occupy, whether through fault, imprudence or incompetence causing real harm to individuals or to the Administration, during a contracting procedure, provided that the gravity of the circumstances and the amount of the harm do not warrant a greater sanction. i) The person in charge failing to publish, in due time, the procurement program as provided in Article 6 of this law./ j) Not sending to the Contraloría General de la República, within the established period, the reports mentioned in Article 101 of this law. (Thus amended by Article 1, subsection n), of Law No. 7612 of July 22, 1996)”. The conduct attributed to the plaintiff, related to the processing of Public Tender LP-001-2002 and Direct Purchase CD-006-2004 evidenced in the audit study (see folios 11 to 63) and on the basis of which the dismissal was ordered, fall within the factual scenarios contemplated by the transcribed article. If the application of Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República occurs due to incurring in what both that law and those related to the higher control and oversight framework provide as an infraction, it must be concluded, without a doubt, that the applicable term is the five years provided therein, insofar as the plaintiff was attributed with having violated precepts of the Ley de Control Interno, the Ley de Contratación Administrativa and other internal contracting regulations, as well as the Ley de la Administración Financiera y Presupuestos Públicos. Therefore, it is correct to consider that the applicable norm regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción) of the disciplinary power is Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República and not the general one contemplated in canon 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo). The foregoing is so in relation to the specific facts contained in the appeal filed before this third instance requested by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, and which relate to what is typified in subsections a), e) and h) of the cited article 96, namely: failure to assess the state of the electrical installation of the property identified as “the pensions house”; failure to prove the existence of plans that met the requirements set by the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos; as well as the lack of signing an addendum that justified the modifications of the work and the deadlines for its execution. These faults being the only ones possible to consider for the purposes of determining the existence or not of the statute of limitations of the disciplinary power and, eventually, the occurrence of a serious fault, since regarding the other conduct attributed to the plaintiff, the Caja conformed to its declaration of statute of limitations, by not outlining any grievance in this regard in its appeal. Now, according to subsection b), of article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, when dealing with facts that are not notorious, the five-year term shall run from the date on which the report about the possible irregularity is made known to the hierarchy or the person competent to order the initiation of the administrative procedure. In this case, it has been deemed proven that the Audit report was communicated to the Pensions Management on November 1, 2004, and the procedure began by resolution dated December 2 following (notified that same day), reason for which the peremptory period did not lapse. Having defined that the disciplinary power was not time-barred in the specific case, it is appropriate to analyze whether the faults attributed to the plaintiff give rise to the applied dismissal. In this regard, we must indicate that the three specific conducts described in the appeal filed before this third instance requested—which are the only ones that for the Caja constitute faults related to Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República—are typified in subsections a), e) and h) of Article 96 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa as faults punishable by “written reprimand (apercibimiento escrito)”. For these types of conduct to constitute grounds for dismissal, in accordance with articles 96 bis and 96 ter of that same regulatory body, their recurrence is required, after being reprimanded, on at least two additional occasions (since the first recurrence leads to a suspension without pay), without it having been proven in the specific case that the plaintiff was in that special condition. Nor did the defendant entity prove that the litigant had caused “real harm to individuals or to the Administration, during a contracting procedure” in the terms of subsection h) of the referred article 96, such as to consider that it warranted the imposition of the most drastic sanction provided for by our legal system, which is dismissal without employer liability (despido sin responsabilidad patronal). This being the case, in application of the principles of legality (tipicidad), proportionality, reasonableness, and graduality that inform the administrative sanctioning matter, it is appropriate to declare the dismissal unjustified, given that the conduct attributed to the worker, according to the special regulations applicable to the effect, should have been sanctioned with a written reprimand, and not with the application of a dismissal without employer liability, a sanction that due to its gravity must be the last resort (ultima ratio). Consequently, it is appropriate to confirm the appealed ruling, not because it is considered that the statute of limitations of the sanctioning power has occurred in the specific case, but rather by virtue of the fact that the sanction imposed on the plaintiff was disproportionate with respect to the gravity of the faults committed.”\n\n4.- The defendant appealed and the Labor Tribunal, Second Section, of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, composed of licensed attorneys Ana Luisa Meseguer Monge, Leila Shadid Gamboa, and Marniee Sissie Guerrero Lobato, by judgment at sixteen hundred hours on March thirtieth, two thousand twelve, **ruled**: It is declared that no defects or omissions that could cause nullity or defenselessness to any of the parties are observed. **THE APPEALED SENTENCE IS CONFIRMED**.\n\n5.- The general judicial representative of the defendant institution filed an appeal before this Chamber in a brief sent via facsimile on June fifteenth, two thousand twelve, which is based on the grounds that will be stated in the recitals section.\n\n6.- The procedures have observed the prescriptions of law.\n\n**Drafted by Judge Blanco González; and,**\n\n**WHEREAS:**\n\n**I.- BACKGROUND:** The plaintiff filed the lawsuit on August 8, 2006, against the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, CCSS), requesting that the judgment declare the dismissal ordered against him null and void because the sanctioning authority had prescribed, in addition to having been adopted by an incompetent body and there being no cause to justify it. Consequently, he requests that the defendant entity be ordered to pay him the severance pay items of dismissal notice, unemployment assistance (auxilio de cesantía), \"other labor entitlements\", a fixed indemnity for damages equivalent to the wages not received from the moment of dismissal until the finality of the ruling recognizing that right, one additional month's salary in accordance with Article 38 of the CCSS Labor Relations Regulations, and interest. As the basis for his claim, he asserted that he worked for the Public Administration from February 1979 until March 4, 2006, the date on which he was dismissed. On October 7, 2004, the CCSS internal audit sent report AO-262-R-2004 to the Pension and Operations managers, recommending the opening of an administrative procedure to determine his possible responsibility for the facts contained in that memorandum. That document was received by the Pension Management on the following November 1st. In application of the CCSS Labor Relations Regulations, the administrative procedure should have been opened no later than the following December 1st; however, the initial resolution of transfer of charges No. 066-04 was issued when the one-month period had already expired (on December 2, 2004). Subsequently, the process remained suspended—without any cause for it—until June 29, 2005, the date on which the \"first hearing\" was held, at which time the \"lapse of the procedure (caducidad del procedimiento)\" was requested, a petition that was rejected by the directing body \"without binding character,\" leaving the possibility of accepting it for the issuance of the final resolution. The conclusions report was issued on August 9, 2005, and it identified Article 96 of the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) as infringed, recommending the imposition of a \"written warning (apercibimiento escrito).\" That document expressly stated that \"it remains demonstrated in this investigation that the institution suffered no economic loss.\" Through resolution No. R-GDP-081-05 at 10:00 a.m. on August 19, 2005, the Pension Management accepted the statement of facts contained in the directing body's report and, considering the committed fault as serious under the provisions of numeral 98 of the Administrative Contracting Law, proposed the disciplinary sanction of dismissal without employer liability. On September 1st, he opposed the recommendation and requested a hearing before the \"Labor Board (Junta Laboral).\" That body, by a majority of seven to three, indicated that it found no responsibility in the facts and that no prejudice existed for the entity, therefore recommending that no type of sanction be imposed. The minority resolution recommended a four-day suspension without pay, \"as this is a case of minor responsibility.\" Once that procedure was completed, the management failed to issue a pronouncement, and it was not until December 14, 2005, that the Labor Board's resolution appears as \"received\" by the institution's Board of Directors (Junta Directiva), which in Session 8021, Article 48 of January 5, 2006, requested from the Legal Directorate \"a pronouncement on the procedure followed, which that Directorate receives on January 23, more than a month after the case is ready for the final decision to be adopted.\" On February 9, 2006, after receiving the report from the Legal Directorate, the Board of Directors, according to Article 24 of Session 8032, ratified the imposed sanction, consisting of dismissal without employer liability. That collegiate body was not competent to ratify the dismissal recommendation, as this corresponded to the Management, for which it should have issued a prior avocación resolution, in accordance with the provisions of Article 93 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). At the time of dismissal, he held the position of General Director of Headquarters in the Pension Management and earned an average monthly salary of exactly nine hundred fifty-three thousand colones. The facts that motivated his dismissal relate to a public tender process promoted by the Pension Management (No. LP-001-2002) for the purchase of a property, as well as a direct purchase (No. CD-0006-2004) for the remodeling of the acquired asset. Within that process, the faults attributed to him were the omission of evaluating and confirming the condition of the building's electrical installation; the omission of managing the remodeling plans with the College of Engineers and Architects, as well as the logbooks (cuadernos de bitácora), and the professional services and consulting contracts; and allowing modifications in the work and extensions of the deadlines without the signature of the respective addendum. He denies having committed any of these faults, since according to the tender specifications, complying with any procedure before the Federated College of Engineers and Architects was not a requirement, no modification was made that implied an increase in the contract amount, so no addendum was required, and the extension of deadlines was for the execution of additional works, without affecting the timelines for the originally contracted tasks (folios 1 to 9). The representative of the defendant answered the lawsuit negatively and raised the exception of lack of right (folios 178 to 191). The court declared the disciplinary authority expired (prescrita); annulled the dismissal ordered by resolution at 10:00 a.m. on August 19, 2006; and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the items of dismissal notice, unemployment assistance, as well as \"the unpaid labor entitlements, plus the final indemnity for damages calculated according to the wages not received from the termination of the contract on March 4, 2006, until the judgment against the CCSS becomes final, likewise the payment of one additional month's salary is ordered in accordance with Article 38 of the Regulations.\" On the granted sums, the obligation was established to pay legal interest according to the deposit certificate rates at a six-month term of the National Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Nacional de Costa Rica), counted from the date of dismissal until its effective payment. Both costs were established at the charge of the losing party, with the personal costs set at twenty-five percent of the total amount of the judgment (folios 222 to 232). Dissatisfied with the ruling, the defendant party appealed (folios 257 to 277) and the Labor Tribunal, Second Section, Second Judicial Circuit of San José, confirmed it (folios 286 to 297).\n\n**II.- GRIEVANCES OF THE APPELLANT:** The special judicial representative of the defendant files an appeal against the tribunal's judgment. They accuse \"erroneous interpretation and application of Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República) in relation to the concept of management of public funds by Mr. H… G…\". They assert that in the instant case, the prescription of the sanctioning authority could not operate since the \"attributed and accredited facts\" relate to the disposition and commitment of public funds, for which reason the applicable prescription period is the one regulated by canon 71 ibidem and not the one indicated in numeral 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo). They add that once the administrative sanctioning process began, the computation of the prescription remains interrupted \"with continued effects,\" without there being any legal possibility for this fatal term to operate during its processing. They assert that there are two prescription terms applicable to public officials: one month for employees not linked to the public treasury (Article 603 ibidem); and five years for employees related to the public treasury, who are responsible for the management and disposition of public funds. They state that a person who manages public funds is one who participates \"in the different stages of the budgetary execution of income and expenses, as well as those who intervene in the oversight and control process of the \"Public Treasury\" or in general, directly participate in the financial administration of the public body in question, as has been accredited in this process.\" In the opinion of the appellant, in the final act issued by the Pension Management, the existence of a series of faults committed by the plaintiff, related to the management of public funds, was determined, such as: \"... failing to evaluate the condition of the electrical installation of the property identified as \"la casona de pensiones…, failed to comply with the requirements established in the applicable legislation and regulations of the Federated College of Engineers and Architects as the existence of plans meeting the requirements set by said College was not accredited, consequently there being no approval (visado) of the same to carry out the remodeling to which direct purchase CD-006-04 referred, omission also recorded with respect to the logbook and the professional services and consulting contracts… the lack of documentation via addenda (sic) of the modifications to the work and the deadlines for its execution with the company Cotece S.A. was accredited (…).\" Finally, they claim that the costs assessed against their represented entity \"are not appropriate and are unjust,\" since their actions have been in accordance with the law and in good faith. Based on their grievances, the appellant requests that \"the appealed resolution be revoked and one be issued that conforms to the merit of the evidence contained in the case file\" (folios 304 to 316).\n\n**III.- REGARDING THE EXPIRATION OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY**: The grievance raised requires determining whether the applicable prescription period for the exercise of the disciplinary power of the employer entity was the one-month period contemplated in Article 603 of the Labor Code, or the special five-year period regulated by numeral 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic. The text of this latter norm, at the time of the investigated facts, is the one currently in force and expressly establishes: \"Article 71.—Prescription of disciplinary responsibility. The administrative responsibility of the public official for the infractions provided for in this Law and in the superior control and oversight regulations, shall prescribe according to the following rules:/ a) In cases where the irregular fact is notorious, the responsibility shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the fact./ b) In cases where the irregular fact is not notorious—understood as that fact which requires an inquiry or an audit study to report its possible irregularity—the responsibility shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date on which the respective inquiry or audit report is brought to the attention of the head of the entity or the competent official to initiate the respective procedure./ The prescription shall be interrupted, with continued effects, by the notification to the alleged responsible person of the act that orders the initiation of the administrative procedure. /When the author of the fault is the head of the entity, the period shall begin to run from the date on which their service relationship with the entity, company, or respective body ends. /It shall be considered a serious fault of the official competent to initiate the sanctioning procedure, not to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the responsible party's responsibility to prescribe, without justified cause. /(As reformed by subsection a) of Article 45 of Law No. 8292 of July 31, 2002, Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno)).\" (The bold is not from the original). From the highlighted text, it is deduced that the extended period provided for by that norm is applicable when the public official incurs in the infractions provided for in that specific law or in those contemplated by the superior control and oversight regulations of the Public Treasury, as understood according to the provisions of Articles 1 and 8 of the related Organic Law. The Comptroller General of the Republic exercises control over the entities and bodies that make up the Public Treasury, without prejudice to the optional regulation it can deploy regarding other entities. Now then, in accordance with Article 8 ibidem, \"The Public Treasury shall be constituted by the public funds, the powers to receive, administer, guard, conserve, manage, spend, and invest such funds and the legal, administrative, and financial norms relative to the budgetary process, administrative contracting, internal and external control, and the responsibility of public officials.\" (The highlights are by the drafter). In accordance with said numeral, the Public Treasury is constituted by two essential components: a) public funds (and everything related to their management) and b) the legal norms of an administrative and financial nature relative to the budgetary process, administrative contracting, control—both external and internal—and the responsibility of public servants in those matters. The law is responsible for defining what is to be understood by public funds and also by superior control and oversight regulations, which are the express terms contemplated in the related Article 71. Thus, in canon 9, public funds are defined as all those \"... resources, values, goods, and rights owned by the State, by bodies, by companies, or by public entities.\" The following numeral 10, for its part, states: \"The superior control and oversight regulations of the Public Treasury comprise the set of norms that regulate the competence, structure, activity, relationships, procedures, responsibilities, and sanctions derived from such oversight or necessary for it. These regulations also comprise the norms that regulate oversight over foreign entities and bodies and private funds and activities, to which this Law refers, as its fundamental norm, within the constitutional framework.\" The primary purpose of these control and oversight regulations is \"... to guarantee the legality and efficiency of internal controls and of the management of public funds in the entities over which the Comptroller General of the Republic has jurisdiction, in accordance with this Law\" (Article 11, ibidem). These last numerals must be read in accordance with the stipulations of Article 8 cited, which expressly includes as part of the control and oversight regulations the norms related to the budgetary process, administrative contracting, internal and external control, and the responsibility of public officials in those matters, which are undoubtedly norms tending to ensure the legality and efficiency not only of internal controls but also of the efficient and lawful management of public funds. Thus, not any fault committed by a public servant gives rise to the application of Article 71 ibidem. They are solely the faults committed by persons performing a public function in the exercise of those special competencies (management of public funds) and that infringe either the regulations of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic or of those control and oversight regulations (norms on the budgetary process, administrative contracting, internal and external control, responsibilities in that matter) that give rise to an extension of the period for the exercise of the disciplinary authority. In summary, the period to sanction actions or omissions contrary to those specific regulations, which can cause inefficient or illegal management of public funds, is greater than the generic one provided for in numeral 603 of the Labor Code, since in such cases the five-year period contemplated by that particular norm must be applied, which undoubtedly seeks to protect a public interest of great significance, which is the transparent management of public funds. In the case under analysis, the appellant entity asserts that the plaintiff was dismissed for faults related to the management of public funds, specifically for: \"... failing to evaluate the condition of the electrical installation of the property identified as \"la casona de pensiones…, failed to comply with the requirements established in the applicable legislation and regulations of the Federated College of Engineers and Architects as the existence of plans meeting the requirements set by said College was not accredited, consequently there being no approval (visado) of the same to carry out the remodeling to which direct purchase CD-006-04 referred, omission also recorded with respect to the logbook and the professional services and consulting contracts… the lack of documentation via addenda (sic) of the modifications to the work and the deadlines for its execution with the company Cotece S.A. was accredited (…)\" (see brief at folios 322 to 328). From the imputation of charges made against the plaintiff, it is clear that the administrative investigation took place precisely for having incurred, among other faults, in infractions provided for in superior control and oversight norms, such as the Internal Control Law, the Administrative Contracting Law, and the Organic Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos), to the detriment of public funds (see transfer of charges at folios 64 to 78). From the related report, it can be gathered that a public tender process and subsequently a direct contracting process were carried out, in which procedures and guidelines contemplated both in internal regulations and in the Administrative Contracting Law were overlooked.\n\nIn relation to the specific case of the plaintiff, it was recommended to investigate the potential liability for the following acts: \"**a)-** *Having been the official responsible for promoting the tender under the Public Tender modality LP-001-2002 for the purchase of the property called \"Casona de Pensiones,\" which would house eight departments of the Pension Division Management, since in his condition as Project Manager he was responsible for ensuring and supervising that the provisions of the Law and the Regulations on Administrative Procurement and the different procedures concerning the Acquisition and Remodeling of the Property had been complied with (…). /* **b)-** *… having dispensed with the authorization granted by the Operations Division Management, which is the Institutional Entity that allows processing tenders that are different from direct purchase to the different units, according to circular 22273 signed by the Management Body of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, as well as having omitted the technical reason for the acquisition of the property that would establish the clauses in the tender documents such as the location, usable area of the building, percentage of usable area at street level, etc. …* **c)-** *In addition to having misled the Board of Directors of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social into awarding the purchase of the building, promoted in Public Tender LP-001-2002, before the Board of Directors awarded, the investigated [Name2]… …, presented the case to the Special Tenders Commission, which apparently carried out the technical analysis of the offers in an inadequate manner, in which compliances were attributed to the awarded offer that did not correspond to it, such as construction according to the standards of the Código Sísmico de Costa Rica, adjusting the electrical installation to the requirements of the Compañía Nacional de Fuerza y Luz, omission of factors in the evaluation of the offers such as the price and the age of the property, which eventually were not carried out, which contradict themselves or lack veracity, apart from the fact that the pre-feasibility study that should have been approved by the Corporate Planning Directorate was not available…* **d)-** *Likewise, he is accused … that as a member of the Purchasing Commission of the Pension Management, they recommended to the Pension Manager to award Direct Purchase CD-006-2004 Remodeling of Property Owned by the Pension Division Management, to the Company Corporación Comercial Euroamericana, as well as in his condition as Project Manager. He omitted to sign the Consultancy Contract with the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social with the objective of registering his professional responsibility before the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, as well as that of the company Corporación Comercial Euroamericana S.A. (COTECE) which was also not registered and authorized in the CFIA, as a construction company on the day the offers were received, despite the company presenting it two months later. Without the investigated verifying that such an act was not correctable, since it did not meet the legal requirements at the time…* **e)-** *Apart from that, he is accused of not supervising or verifying that the construction plans for Direct Purchase CD-006-2004 complied with the provisions of the architectural and engineering systems, whose request was omitted in the property acquisition process, as well as the absence of signatures on the sheets by the corresponding professionals of the Institution and the awarded company, as well as having dispensed with the respective process before the cited College for the construction stamp and the Logbook, since the construction plans were not prepared or registered, nor was there municipal approval…* **f)-** *In this way, in his condition as Project Manager, he processed and authorized the Direct Purchase contract CD-006-2004, without any technical basis or reasons of unforeseeability, taking into account that the investigated actively participated in the Public Tender process LP-001-2002, and having full knowledge of the characteristics of the infrastructure and the public interest, as well as the pertinent addendum to the original contract and its respective legal endorsement for the increase in the delivery period of the work (…)\" (folios 74 verso to 75 recto). Furthermore, in the resolution that initiated the procedure, the following were invoked as support, among others, articles 96 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa, 39 of the Ley de Control Interno, and 108 subsections a) and b) and 110, subsections b) and e) of the Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, as well as internal regulations on the development of public works projects. Article 96 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa – at the time the acts attributed to the plaintiff occurred – stipulated that the sanction of a written reprimand would be imposed on the official who incurred in any of the following faults: \"*a) Failing to incorporate in a timely manner, when obliged to do so, documentation pertaining to the administrative file. b) Unjustifiably impeding or hindering access to an administrative file, whose handling or custody they are responsible for./ c) Failing to include in a report or opinion relevant data for the study of the offers, when it is determined that they knew of it when rendering their opinion./ d) Unjustifiably delaying the processing of payments that the Administration must cover to its suppliers or contractors./ e) Unjustifiably delaying the reception of goods or works./ f) Promoting or arranging the illegal fragmentation of operations, processing contracts that due to their amount would imply a more rigorous procedure than the one followed by dividing them./ g) Failing to address or respond in a timely and unjustified manner to a warning made by the Contraloría General de la República in the exercise of its functions./ h) Failing in the duty of diligence expected from their personal conditions and the position they hold, whether through fault, imprudence, or lack of skill, causing real harm to individuals or the Administration, during a procurement procedure, provided that the severity of the circumstances and the amount of the harm do not warrant a greater sanction. i) The person responsible for doing so failing to publish, in due time, the procurement program as provided in article 6 of this law./ j) Failing to send to the Contraloría General de la República, within the established period, the reports mentioned in article 101 of this law. (Thus amended by article 1, subsection n), of law Nº 7612 of July 22, 1996)*\". The conducts attributed to the plaintiff, related to the processing of Public Tender LP-001-2002 and Direct Purchase CD-006-2004, evidenced in the audit study (see folios 11 to 63) and based on which the dismissal was ordered, fall within the factual assumptions contemplated in the transcribed numeral. If the application of article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República is due to incurring in what both that law and those related to the superior control and oversight order provide as an infraction, it must be concluded, without any doubt, that the applicable period is the five years provided therein, insofar as the plaintiff was attributed with having violated precepts of the Ley de Control Interno, Ley de Contratación Administrativa and other internal regulations on procurement, as well as the Ley de la Administración Financiera y Presupuestos Públicos. Consequently, the correct approach is to consider that the applicable rule regarding the statute of limitations of disciplinary power is article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República and not the general one contemplated in canon 603 of the Código de Trabajo. The foregoing is so in relation to the specific acts contained in the appeal filed before this third instance rogated by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, and which relate to what is typified in subsections a), e) and h) of cited numeral 96, namely: not having assessed the state of the electrical installation of the property identified as \"la casona de pensiones\"; not accrediting the existence of plans that met the requirements set by the Colegio Federado de Ingenieros y Arquitectos; as well as the failure to sign an addendum justifying the modifications to the work and the deadlines for its execution. These faults being the only ones possible to consider for the purpose of determining the existence or not of the statute of limitations of the disciplinary power and, eventually, the concurrence of a serious fault, since regarding the other conducts attributed to the plaintiff, the Caja conformed with their declaration of prescription, by not outlining any grievance in this regard in its appeal. Now, according to subsection b), of numeral 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, when dealing with acts that are not notorious, the five-year period shall run from the date on which the report about the possible irregularity is made known to the hierarchy or the person competent to order the initiation of the administrative procedure. In this case, it has been taken as proven that the Audit report was communicated to the Pension Management on November 1, 2004, and the procedure began by resolution dated the following December 2 (notified that same day), for which reason the peremptory period did not elapse. Having defined that the disciplinary power was not time-barred in the specific case, it is appropriate to analyze whether the faults attributed to the plaintiff give rise to the dismissal applied. In this regard, we must indicate that the three particular conducts described in the appeal filed before this third instance rogated - which are the only ones that for the Caja constitute faults related to article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República -, are typified in subsections a), e) and h) of numeral 96 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa as faults punishable by means of \"*written reprimand*\". For that type of conduct to be configured as a cause for dismissal, in accordance with numerals 96 bis and 96 ter of that same regulatory body, its reiteration is required, after being reprimanded, on at least two additional occasions (since the first reiteration gives rise to a suspension without pay), without it having been accredited in the specific case that the plaintiff was in that special condition. Nor did the defendant entity prove that the litigant had caused \"*real harm to individuals or the Administration, during a procurement procedure*\" in the terms of subsection h) of referred numeral 96, such as to consider that it warranted the imposition of the most drastic sanction provided for in our legal system, which is dismissal without employer liability. This being the case, in application of the principles of legality, proportionality, reasonableness, and graduality that inform the sanctioning administrative matter, the appropriate course is to declare the dismissal unjustified, given that the conducts attributed to the worker, according to the special regulations applicable to the effect, should have been sanctioned with a written reprimand, and not with the application of a dismissal without employer liability, a sanction that due to its gravity must be the ultima ratio. Consequently, the appropriate course must be to confirm the appealed ruling, not because it is considered that in the specific case the statute of limitations of the sanctioning power has operated, but by virtue of the fact that the sanction imposed on the plaintiff was disproportionate with respect to the gravity of the faults committed.\n\n**IV.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS:** In accordance with what has been substantiated, it is appropriate to confirm the appealed ruling, even insofar as it imposed on the defendant entity the payment of costs, because it is not considered that, in this case, that representation has acted with evident good faith, as prescribed by numeral 222 of the Código Procesal Civil (of supplementary application in this matter by mandate of ordinal 452 of the Código de Trabajo), such that it could be exempted from paying those expenses.\n\n**POR TANTO:**\n\nThe appealed judgment is confirmed.\n\n***Orlando Aguirre Gómez***\n\n***Julia Varela Araya*** ***Rolando Vega Robert***\n\n***Eva María Camacho Vargas*** ***Héctor Blanco González***\n\n***[Name3]***\n\n2\n\nEXP: 06-002090-0166-LA\n\nTelephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 and 2295-4406. Facsimile: 2257-55-94. Electronic Mail: [...]. and mbrenesm @poder-judicial.go.cr" }