{ "id": "nexus-sen-1-1011-999189", "citation": "Res. 00108-2020 Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda", "section": "nexus_decisions", "doc_type": "court_decision", "title_es": "No se requiere acto final para recuperar sumas pagadas de más si se informa adecuadamente al funcionario", "title_en": "No final administrative act required for recovery of overpayments if employee is properly notified", "summary_es": "La sentencia aborda el recurso de casación interpuesto por la actora contra el fallo que declaró sin lugar su demanda de nulidad de telegramas de cobro y condena al Estado por daños y perjuicios. La recurrente alegó que la Administración omitió emitir un acto final en el procedimiento de cobro de sumas pagadas en exceso, lo que le causó indefensión y violó el debido proceso. El Tribunal de Casación desestima el recurso, basándose en jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional, la cual establece que para recuperar montos pagados indebidamente a funcionarios públicos no es necesario tramitar un procedimiento administrativo ordinario. Basta con que se comunique al trabajador las sumas adeudadas, el origen de la deuda, el número de tractos, el monto de la deducción y el período de aplicación, garantizando así el derecho de defensa. El tribunal verifica que, en el caso concreto, la actora fue informada oportunamente y tuvo la posibilidad de presentar pruebas y oponerse tanto en sede administrativa como judicial. Se enfatiza el deber de buena fe del funcionario y el imperativo de tutelar la Hacienda Pública. Se confirma la sentencia recurrida y se condena en costas a la parte actora.", "summary_en": "The judgment addresses the cassation appeal filed by the plaintiff against the decision that dismissed her claim seeking annulment of collection telegrams and compensation from the State. The appellant argued that the Administration failed to issue a final act in the procedure for recovering overpaid sums, which left her defenseless and violated due process. The Cassation Court rejects the appeal, relying on Constitutional Chamber jurisprudence which holds that recovery of amounts improperly paid to public officials does not require an ordinary administrative procedure. It suffices that the employee is informed of the amounts owed, the origin of the debt, the number of installments, the deduction amount, and the application period, thus guaranteeing the right to defense. The court verifies that, in the specific case, the plaintiff was timely informed and had the opportunity to present evidence and oppose both at the administrative and judicial levels. The employee's duty of good faith and the imperative to protect the Public Treasury are emphasized. The appealed judgment is upheld and costs are imposed on the plaintiff.", "court_or_agency": "Tribunal de Casación Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda", "date": "09/07/2020", "year": "2020", "topic_ids": [ "_off-topic" ], "primary_topic_id": "_off-topic", "es_concept_hints": [ "sumas giradas de más", "cobro administrativo", "debido proceso", "acto final", "Hacienda Pública", "buena fe", "tractos", "Sala Constitucional" ], "article_citations": [], "keywords_es": [ "sumas pagadas de más", "cobro administrativo", "debido proceso", "derecho de defensa", "acto final", "hacienda pública", "funcionario público", "deducción salarial", "buena fe laboral", "jurisprudencia Sala Constitucional", "telegrama de cobro", "procedimiento administrativo ordinario", "recuperación de pagos en exceso" ], "keywords_en": [ "overpaid sums", "administrative collection", "due process", "right to defense", "final administrative act", "public treasury", "public official", "salary deduction", "good faith in employment", "Constitutional Chamber jurisprudence", "collection telegram", "ordinary administrative procedure", "recovery of excess payments" ], "excerpt_es": "V. [E]l meollo del presente asunto reside en la determinación de la necesidad de emisión de un acto final de un procedimiento y el resguardo del derecho de defensa de previo al cobro de sumas pagadas indebidamente o en exceso, a funcionarios públicos. Asuntos similares han sido resueltos por la Sala Constitucional, al conocer de recursos de amparo en los que se ha acusado transgresión a los mismos derechos que señala la recurrente vulnerados en la especie frente a cobros de este tipo. La Sala ha señalado: “En ese sentido, la Sala ha estimado que, tales rebajos, son aceptables siempre y cuando se comunique previamente al trabajador –al menos- las sumas adeudadas, el número de tractos en los que procede el reintegro, el monto mensual de la deducción y la suma a deducir mensualmente que le permita recibir un monto de salario suficiente para satisfacer sus necesidades básicas. Bajo esta perspectiva, se estima entonces, que al haberse comunicado al funcionario el monto adeudado y la forma en que el Estado iba a proceder a su reintegro antes de la interposición de este recurso, no se ha producido la infracción del derecho al salario por la falta de comunicación previa; y se ha garantizado, en este caso, el derecho del recurrente de ejercer su derecho a la defensa, así como también proponer arreglos de pago u otros mecanismos para ajustar a derecho su situación, si la Administración los considerara pertinentes. En virtud de lo expuesto, se procede a desestimar el recurso en todos sus extremos, lo que en efecto se dispone.” (Sentencia 7113 de las 9 horas 20 minutos del 26 de abril de 2019). En similar sentido se pronunció antes, entre muchas otras, en la sentencia no. 2012 de las 16 horas 30 minutos del 22 de agosto de 2012, donde indicó que: “…en lo que se refiere al segundo extremo planteado en el amparo, sea la necesaria comunicación que debe existir al trabajador, sobre los montos adeudados y la forma en que se procederá a su rebajo, debe recordarse que si bien, la Sala ha aceptado que la Administración puede recuperar por medio del rebajo salarial, los montos pagados en exceso para lo que no se requiere seguir el procedimiento ordinario que fija la Ley General de la Administración Pública (…), lo cierto es que también ha aclarado que, tales rebajos, son aceptables siempre y cuando se comunique previamente al trabajador –al menos- las sumas adeudadas, el número de tractos en los que procede el reintegro, el monto mensual de la deducción y la suma a deducir mensualmente que le permita recibir un monto de salario suficiente para satisfacer sus necesidades básicas.”", "excerpt_en": "V. [T]he crux of this matter lies in determining the need to issue a final act of a procedure and safeguarding the right to defense prior to the collection of sums unduly or excessively paid to public officials. Similar matters have been resolved by the Constitutional Chamber when hearing amparo appeals in which a violation of the same rights invoked by the appellant in this case regarding such collections was alleged. The Chamber has stated: “In that sense, the Chamber has held that such deductions are acceptable provided that the employee is previously informed —at least— of the amounts owed, the number of installments applicable for repayment, the monthly deduction amount, and the monthly sum to be deducted that allows the employee to receive a sufficient salary to meet basic needs. From this perspective, it is therefore held that, since the official was informed of the amount owed and the manner in which the State would proceed with repayment before this appeal was filed, no violation of the right to salary due to lack of prior communication has occurred; and the appellant's right to exercise the right to defense has been guaranteed in this case, as well as to propose payment arrangements or other mechanisms to adjust the situation in accordance with the law, if the Administration considers them pertinent. In light of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed in its entirety, which is hereby ordered.” (Judgment 7113 of 9:20 a.m. on April 26, 2019). Similarly, among many others, in judgment no. 2012 of 4:30 p.m. on August 22, 2012, it stated: “… regarding the second point raised in the amparo, namely the necessary communication that must be made to the employee regarding the amounts owed and the manner in which the deduction will proceed, it should be recalled that although the Chamber has accepted that the Administration may recover overpaid amounts through salary deductions, which do not require following the ordinary procedure established by the General Public Administration Act (…), it has also clarified that such deductions are acceptable provided that the employee is previously informed —at least— of the amounts owed, the number of installments for repayment, the monthly deduction amount, and the monthly sum to be deducted that allows the employee to receive a sufficient salary to meet basic needs.”", "outcome": { "label_en": "Denied", "label_es": "Rechazado", "summary_en": "The cassation appeal is rejected, upholding the judgment that dismissed the claim to annul the administrative collections, as the issuance of a final procedural act was not necessary, since the employee's right to defense was guaranteed through prior detailed communication of the debt.", "summary_es": "Se rechaza el recurso de casación, confirmando la sentencia que declaró sin lugar la demanda de nulidad de los cobros administrativos, al considerar que no era necesaria la emisión de un acto final del procedimiento, pues se garantizó el derecho de defensa de la funcionaria mediante la previa comunicación detallada de la deuda." }, "pull_quotes": [ { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "In the present case, the appellant does not challenge before this court the assessment made by the lower court that she indeed owes the amounts being deducted and that the aforementioned information was provided to her, but rather that a final procedural act was not issued.", "quote_es": "En la especie, la recurrente no reprocha ante esta cámara lo valorado por el tribunal con respecto a que efectivamente debe las sumas que se le han debido rebajar y que sí se le suministró la información recién indicada, sino el que no se haya emitido un acto final de un procedimiento." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "In accordance with the cited constitutional jurisprudence, there is no violation of the fundamental rights of a person governed by an employment relationship when salary deductions are made for amounts owed due to improper or excess payments, provided that the necessary information is supplied to allow the exercise of the right to defense.", "quote_es": "Conforme a la jurisprudencia constitucional referida, no existe lesión a los derechos fundamentales de la persona sujeta a una relación funcionarial, cuando se le realizan rebajos a su salario por sumas adeudadas por pagos indebidos o en exceso, siempre y cuando se le suministre la información necesaria a efectos de que ejerza el derecho de defensa." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "The constitutional court has expressly rejected the need for an ordinary administrative procedure to be carried out so that the employing Administration can recover sums that have been improperly paid to one of its employees.", "quote_es": "Expresamente ha rechazado el tribunal constitucional la necesidad de que se realice un procedimiento administrativo ordinario para que pueda la Administración empleadora recuperar las sumas que se le hayan girado indebidamente a un empleado suyo." }, { "context": "Considerando V", "quote_en": "Clearly, it is expected conduct within the framework of an employment relationship that whoever receives higher payments than what is owed has the duty of good faith that corresponds to them, to inform about the situation and urge the restoration of normality.", "quote_es": "Es claro, es una conducta esperable, en el marco de una relación laboral, que quien recibe pagos mayores a los que se le deben, tiene el deber propio de la buena fe que le corresponde, de informar la situación e instar el restablecimiento de la normalidad." } ], "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-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" }, { "id": "norm-53738", "citation": "Ley 8422", "title_en": "Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office", "title_es": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "doc_type": "law", "date": "06/10/2004", "year": "2004" } ], "cited_by": [ { "id": "nexus-ext-1-0034-318757", "citation": "Res. 00120-2022 Tribunal de Apelación Civil y Trabajo Alajuela Sede Alajuela Materia Laboral", "title_en": "Recovery of Excess Salary Payments to Public Employees", "title_es": "Recuperación de salarios pagados en exceso a empleados públicos", "doc_type": "court_decision", "date": "26/04/2022", "year": "2022" }, { "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-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" }, { "id": "norm-53738", "citation": "Ley 8422", "title_en": "Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office", "title_es": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "doc_type": "law", "date": "06/10/2004", "year": "2004" } ], "references": { "internal": [], "external": [ { "ref_id": "nexus-sen-1-0034-1085152", "url": "", "kind": "related_voto", "label": "", "nexus_id": "sen-1-0034-1085152" } ] }, "source_url": "https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-1011-999189", "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-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" }, { "doc_id": "norm-53738", "norm_num": "8422", "norm_name": "Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública", "tipo_norma": "Ley", "norm_fecha": "06/10/2004" } ], "sentencias_relacionadas": [ "sen-1-0034-1085152" ], "temas_y_subtemas": [], "cascade_only": false, "amendment_count": 0, "body_es_text": "Documento PJEDITOR\n\n*150102251027CA*\n\nExp. 15-010225-1027-CA \n\nRes. 000108-F-TC-2020\n\n TRIBUNAL DE CASACIÓN DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. San José, a las nueve horas cuarenta minutos del nueve de julio de dos mil veinte. \n\n Proceso de conocimiento tramitado ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, Sección Sexta, interpuesto por la señora NOEMY CECILIA ELIZONDO MORA, cédula de identidad número 7-0083-0689, representada por su apoderado judicial, licenciado Edilberto Escobar Cascante, carné 8856, contra el ESTADO, representado por la Procuradora Adjunta, Ana Lorena Pérez Mora, carné 5861. La parte actora presenta recurso de casación en contra de la sentencia 137-2017-VI de las 10 horas 15 minutos del 17 de noviembre de 2017, dictada por el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, Sección Sexta, integrada por los jueces José Roberto Garita Navarro, Cinthya Abarca Gómez y José Martín Conejo Cantillo.\n\n \n\n Redacta la magistrada Vargas Vásquez y,\n\n \n\n \n\nCONSIDERANDO\n\nI.- De conformidad con los hechos probados en la sentencia recurrida, no rebatidos en el recurso, la señora Noemy Elizondo Zamora registra inicio de labores en propiedad a partir del 01 de febrero de 2002 en el Colegio Técnico Profesional de Batan. Mediante el oficio DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 del 22 de abril del 2014 de la Unidad de Cobros Administrativos de la Dirección de Recursos Humanos del MEP, se indicó a la actora que atendiendo a su solicitud dentro del proceso cobratorio por incapacidades, esa dirección había procedido a determinar la fórmula de cálculo de las deducciones salariales por concepto de incapacidades otorgadas por el Instituto Nacional de Seguros, por lo que de conformidad con esa normativa se dispuso mantener el rebajo del 30% del salario bruto por la obligación que mantenía con el Estado por incapacidades. Señaló además que a esa fecha adeudaba la suma de ¢4.331.718.00 (cuatro millones trescientos treinta y un mil setecientos dieciocho colones). En fecha 23 de septiembre del 2015 la Dirección de Recursos Humanos del MEP realizó estudio de sumas giradas de más a la accionante, en el que se determinó una deuda por acreditaciones que no corresponden. Por voto No. 2015-015736 de las 10 horas 20 minutos del 09 de octubre del 2015, dictado en el proceso de amparo tramitado bajo el expediente 15-012099-0007-CO, interpuesto por la accionante contra el MEP, se dispuso: \"Se declara con lugar el recurso por violación del debido proceso. Se ordena a Yaxinia Díaz Mendoza, en su condición de Directora de Recursos Humanos del Ministerio de Educación Pública, o a quien ocupe su cargo, que dentro del plazo de TRES DÍAS, contado a partir de la notificación de esta resolución, enderece los procedimientos existentes, a fin de comunicar a la amparada, Noemy Cecilia Elizondo Zamora, cédula de identidad 0700830689, sobre los montos pagados de más, el saldo que adeuda y la forma en que se procederá a su cancelación definitiva. (...)\". Mediante solicitud de envío de telegrama, expediente número 04577, se estableció el siguiente detalle por probables sumas pagadas de más: -período 2003: ¢56.810,47 (cincuenta y seis mil ochocientos diez colones cuarenta y siete céntimos); -período 2004: ¢115.070,20 (ciento quince mil setenta colones con veinte céntimos); -período 2008: ¢233.472,72 (doscientos treinta y tres mil cuatrocientos setenta y dos colones con setenta y dos céntimos); -período 2009: ¢128.312,84 (ciento veintiocho mil trescientos doce colones con ochenta y cuatro céntimos); -período 2015: ¢1.222.066,40 (un millón doscientos veintidós mil sesenta y seis colones con cuarenta céntimos); -ausencias 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012: ¢254.793.71 (doscientos cincuenta y cuatro mil setecientos noventa y tres colones setenta y un céntimos), para un monto total de ¢2.010.526.34 (dos millones diez mil quinientos veintiséis colones con treinta y cuatro céntimos). Mediante telegrama número TL004160904-MEP entregado a la demandante el 20 de octubre del 2015, se le informó: \"ÚNICO TELEGRAMA. Se le comunica que debe presentarse a la Unidad de Cobros Administrativos el día 30/10/2015 a las 1:00 pm. Asunto: acreditaciones que no corresponden por un monto total de ¢2.010.526.34; en caso de no presentarse, su salario se verá afectado a partir de la primera quincena del mes de noviembre del 2015, en tractos de ¢154.655.87 quincenales (...)\". En acta de comparecencia No. 3421-2015 levantada por la Unidad de Cobros Administrativos del MEP, se indica que a las 09:15 horas del 13 de octubre del 2015, la accionante se apersonó a dicha oficina y fue informada del procedimiento de cobro de sumas giradas de más iniciado en su contra. Fijó como medio de comunicación el correo electrónico noemy.elizondo4@hotmail.com. Se especificó que se le mostró el expediente y la oportunidad de aportar prueba dentro del plazo de diez días. Además, que se presentaba mediante telegrama TL0041160904 y se daba por enterada de la deuda por un monto de ¢2.010.526.34 (dos millones diez mil quinientos veintiséis colones con treinta y cuatro céntimos), correspondientes a diferencias salariales entre histórico de pagos y estados actuales del 2003, disminución de lecciones interinas del 2004, 2008, 2009 y una eliminación de recargo de funciones 2015. Se indicó finalmente que de vencerse el citado plazo se continuaría con el proceso de cobro administrativo, mediante el rebajo de nómina de 13 tractos quincenales de ¢154.655.87 (ciento cincuenta y cuatro mil seiscientos cincuenta y cinco con ochenta y siete céntimos), a partir de la segunda quincena de noviembre del 2015, hasta terminar de cancelar la deuda. Dicha acta fue firmada por la analista Jenniffer Mora Esquivel y la actora en fecha 30 de octubre del 2015. En nota levantada a mano el 30 de octubre del 2015, presentado en la Plataforma de Servicio del MEP en esa misma fecha, la accionante solicitó copia del expediente de cobros administrativos. Por correo electrónico remitido a la accionante a la dirección noemy.elizondo4@hotmail.com, por parte de Cobros Administrativos se indicó a la actora que de acuerdo a su solicitud, se le remitía copia escaneada del expediente peticionado. En oficio Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 del 03 de noviembre del 2015 de la Secretaría Adjunta de Asuntos Laborales de la Asociación Nacional de Educadores (ANDE), se indicó a la actora \"...En realidad existen los sobregiros y las ausencias, de acuerdo al estudio realizado, a continuación se detalla: Para este 2015, le suspenden el recargo del 40% a 36 lecciones, de febrero a mayo. Para el 2009, le suspenden 4 lecciones, quedando con 36 y en febrero y marzo se las rebajaron. Para el 2008, bajan las lecciones de 48 a 40, y en febrero y marzo le pagaron 48, por lo tanto las adeuda. En el 2004, bajan las lecciones de 38 a 32, en febrero y marzo y primera quincena de abril le pagaron con 38. En el 2003, tiene demás en febrero, julio y agosto. Por lo tanto, lo que le están cobrando está correcto.\" Mediante escrito del 12 de noviembre del 2015, la actora solicitó al Departamento de Recursos Humanos del MEP la revisión de la situación relacionada al monto adeudado por las ausencias de los años 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011 y 2012 y una prórroga por 15 días del plazo para presentar la prueba correspondiente sobre las supuestas sumas giradas de más. Por escrito presentado el 13 de noviembre del 2015, la accionante presentó reclamo administrativo ante el Departamento de Recursos Humanos del MEP contra los cobros administrativos que le fueron imputados. Mediante el oficio DRH-DR-UCA-918-2015 del 20 de noviembre del 2015, la Unidad de Cobros Administrativos del MEP comunica a la Dirección Jurídica de ese ministerio aspectos relacionados con los procesos de cobro entablados contra la actora. En ese sentido, señaló que se tramitan dos procedimientos. El primero por recuperación de acreditaciones no correspondientes por la suma de ¢2.010.526.34 (dos millones diez mil quinientos veintiséis colones con treinta y cuatro céntimos) correspondientes al período 2003: ¢56.810.47 (cincuenta y seis mil ochocientos diez colones cuarenta y siete céntimos) por diferencia salarial y sumas giradas de más por cambio del sistema SAP a SIGRH; ¢115.070.20 (ciento quince mil setenta colones con veinte céntimos) por disminución de lecciones interinas del período 2004 según acción de personal 1647321; ¢233.472.72 (doscientos treinta y tres mil cuatrocientos setenta y dos colones con setenta y dos céntimos) por disminución de lecciones interinas del período 2008 según acción de personal 5104453; ¢128.312.84 (ciento veintiocho mil trescientos doce colones con ochenta y cuatro céntimos) por disminución de lecciones interinas del período 2009 según acción de personal 6210119; ¢1.222.066.40 (un millón doscientos veintidós mil sesenta y seis colones con cuarenta céntimos) por eliminación de recargo de funciones según acción de personal 201506-MP-1315860 del período 2015. Respecto de ese trámite indica que se notificó el telegrama TL0041160904 del 20 de octubre del 2015, se levantó el acta de comparecencia 3421-2015 y en el expediente no constaba ningún tipo de prueba aportada, por lo que se procedería a realizar los rebajos por nómina por un monto de 13 tractos de ¢154.655.87 (ciento cincuenta y cuatro mil seiscientos cincuenta y cinco colones con 87/100) por quincena. El segundo expediente por cobro de incapacidades por un monto de ¢4.495.172.00 (cuatro millones cuatrocientos noventa y cinco mil ciento setenta y dos colones), por incapacidades que van del 06 de marzo del 2013 al 31 de marzo del 2014. Relata además la gestión de readecuación del monto de rebajo por deuda de incapacidades y la emisión del oficio DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014. Expone que en este proceso se empieza a aplicar los rebajos por nómina a partir de la primera quincena de junio del 2015 en tractos de ¢202.360.00 (doscientos dos mil trescientos sesenta colones) quincenales. Dice que esto luego fue anulado por la sentencia 2015015736 de la Sala Constitucional y se confecciona el telegrama TL004177153-MEP que establece la misma cuota de rebajo a partir de la primera quincena de noviembre del 2015. Mediante el telegrama número TL004181820-MEP, entregado el 26 de noviembre del 2015, se informó a la actora: \"ÚNICO TELEGRAMA. Se le comunica que registra deuda por incapacidades por un monto total de ¢4.292.812.82; el cual se estará rebajando a partir de la primera quincena del mes de noviembre del 2015, en tractos de ¢202.360.00 quincenales...\"\n\nII. El 5 de octubre de 2016, la señora Noemy Elizondo Zamora demandó al Estado. Pretendió, se declare la nulidad absoluta de los telegramas de fecha 9 de octubre y 3 de noviembre, ambos de 2015, por medio de los que se le comunica en los meses de octubre y noviembre de 2015 que se le va a rebajar su salario la suma de ¢402.000,00, así como el expediente administrativo en poder el MEP, en el que se ampara para rebajar su salario. Además, se condene al Estado al pago de todos los daños y perjuicios, por las sumas de ¢50.000.000,00 por concepto de daño moral subjetivo y ¢25.000.000,00 por daño patrimonial causado con los rebajos, más los intereses de las sumas y ambas costas. La abogada del Estado se opuso a la demanda e interpuso la excepción de falta de derecho. En sentencia, el tribunal acogió la defensa incoada por la representación estatal y declaró sin lugar la demanda, imponiendo a la actora el pago de ambas costas. Inconforme, la actora acude ante esta cámara. Plantea un único agravio. \n\nIII. En su única censura, la casacionista arguye una violación a normas sustantivas. Reclama la inaplicación de los artículos 11, 16, 17 y 19 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP), así como una aplicación indebida de los numerales 214, 216 y 23 de la LGAP, 194 y 195 del Código Procesal Civil. Sostiene, fue sorprendida, puesto que se le afectó sin que el procedimiento administrativo seguido en su contra se hubiera terminado con un acto final que resolviera qué procedía, por lo que no pudo recurrirlo, conforme a la ley, a la naturaleza de los procedimientos administrativos y a los derechos de las partes a un debido proceso, a la defensa y al principio de seguridad jurídica, siendo que al privársele de recursos previstos en la LGAP y el Estatuto del Servicio Civil (ESC) se le colocó en estado de indefensión. No obstante ello, los juzgadores consideraron que dicha omisión se justifica, obviando con ello que se conculcó de forma antijurídica su derecho a la defensa. Desaplicaron sin fundamento el artículo 223 de la LGAP “al afirmar la sentencia la potestad indiscriminada de la Administración”, aún cuando se omitieron formalidades sustanciales del procedimiento administrativo. Continúa, el no tomar el tribunal en cuenta dichos preceptos consideró erróneamente los hechos cuando se configuró una omisión de una formalidad sustancial del procedimiento que de ejecutarse cambia la decisión final, por lo que hay un vicio de nulidad absoluta. Agrega, de los numerales 194 y 195 del Código Procesal Civil se desprende que ante la omisión de formalidades sustanciales se produce indefensión a la parte y a su vez la nulidad de todo lo actuado. Además, se lesionó su derecho a una celeridad procedimental, aspecto que el tribunal “no resaltó”. Solicita se anule la sentencia.\n\nIV. La disconformidad planteada por la recurrente se refiere, esencialmente, a que no se consideró por el tribunal necesaria la emisión del acto final del procedimiento como una formalidad sustancial que no podía obviarse, y a que se le causó indefensión. Por ende, resulta necesario, para una mejor resolución del agravio, señalar lo que el tribunal resolvió al respecto. Estimó, sobre la posibilidad de que Administración Pública realice rebajos salariales (por nómina) a funcionarios respecto de los cuales se ha determinado, de previo, la existencia de sumas pagadas de más en sus salarios, que conforme a jurisprudencia de la Sala Constitucional (los votos no. 1427-2003, 2573-2010, 7309-2001 y 11507-2012), es menester antes la necesaria y motivada acreditación de la existencia de los montos pagados en exceso, lo que implica que la Administración debe realizar los análisis internos necesarios para establecer de manera certera y objetiva lo ocurrido. Para ello, debe ponerse a disposición del agente público el detalle de la cuantía de las sumas, origen de la deuda con referencia de períodos y montos concretos por cada lapso de tiempo, así como de los tractos y cuota a aplicar para el pago respectivo, para lo cual no es necesaria la tramitación del procedimiento administrativo ordinario regulado en la LGAP, aunque si es necesario poner en conocimiento previo al funcionario de la deuda y sus antecedentes, cuotas y plazo a fin de que pueda aportar elementos de prueba en su favor y ejercer su derecho de defensa en cuanto a la existencia del pasivo, su dimensión económica, o bien, pueda proponer sistemas alternos de pago. Acotó, conforme al numeral 173, 413 y 414 del Código de Trabajo, dicho cobro puede realizarse en tanto perdure la relación de empleo. En el caso en concreto, estimó, se cumplió con los presupuestos necesarios para que los rebajos aplicados al salario de la actora fueran procedentes. Con respecto al cobro administrativo del expediente CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, explicó, mediante solicitud de envío de telegrama, expediente número 4577, se estableció el detalle de las probables sumas pagadas de más, en los siguientes términos: “¢56.810.47 (cincuenta y seis mil ochocientos diez colones cuarenta y siete céntimos); -período 2004: ¢115.070.20 (ciento quince mil setenta colones con veinte céntimos); -período 2008: ¢233.472.72 (doscientos treinta y tres mil cuatrocientos setenta y dos colones con setenta y dos céntimos); - período 2009: ¢128.312.84 (ciento veintiocho mil trescientos doce colones con ochenta y cuatro céntimos); -período 2015: ¢1.222.066.40 (un millón doscientos veintidós mil sesenta y seis colones con cuarenta céntimos); -ausencias 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012: ¢254.793.71 (doscientos cincuenta y cuatro mil setecientos noventa y tres colones setenta y un céntimos), para un monto total de ¢2.010.526.34 (dos millones diez mil quinientos veintiséis colones con treinta y cuatro céntimos).” Producto de lo anterior, por telegrama número TL004160904-MEP entregado a la demandante el 20 de octubre del 2015, se le informa: \"ÚNICO TELEGRAMA. Se le comunica que debe presentarse a la Unidad de Cobros Administrativos el día 30/10/2015 a las 1:00 pm. Asunto: acreditaciones que no corresponden por un monto total de ¢2.010.526.34; en caso de no presentarse, su salario se verá afectado a partir de la primera quincena del mes de noviembre del 2015, en tractos de ¢154.655.87 quincenales (...)\". Además, estimó, según lo consignado en el acta de comparecencia No. 3421-2015 levantada por la Unidad de Cobros Administrativos del MEP, a las 09 horas 15 minutos del 13 de octubre del 2015, la accionante se apersonó a dicha oficina y fue informada del procedimiento de cobro de sumas giradas de más iniciado en su contra y fijó correo electrónico como medio de comunicaciones. Se especificó que se le mostró el expediente y la oportunidad de aportar prueba dentro del plazo de diez días, además de que se presentaba mediante telegrama TL0041160904 y se daba por enterada de la deuda por un monto de ¢2.010.526,34, correspondientes a diferencias salariales entre histórico de pagos y estados actuales del 2003, disminución de lecciones interinas del 2004, 2008, 2009 y una eliminación de recargo de funciones 2015. Se indicó finalmente que de vencerse el citado plazo se continuaría con el proceso de cobro administrativo, mediante el rebajo de nómina de 13 tractos quincenales de ¢154.655,87, a partir de la segunda quincena de noviembre del 2015, hasta terminar de cancelar la deuda. Acotó el tribunal, dicha acta fue firmada por la actora el día 30 de octubre de 2015, misma fecha en la que presentó nota levantada a mano, en la que solicitó copia del expediente de cobros administrativos, lo que se remitió por medio de correo electrónico. Agregó, no consta que una vez transcurrido el plazo conferido para aportar probanzas de descargo, la actora haya aportado alguna. Si bien es cierto la reclamante luego presentó escrito del 12 de noviembre del 2015, en el que pedía la revisión de la situación relacionada al monto adeudado por las ausencias de los años 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011 y 2012 y gestionó una prórroga de 15 días más el plazo para presentar la prueba correspondiente sobre las supuestas sumas giradas de más y luego el 13 de noviembre del 2015, presentó reclamo administrativo ante el Departamento de Recursos Humanos del MEP contra los cobros administrativos en cuestión, lo cierto del caso es que dentro de este proceso no ha logrado desacreditar la existencia de las sumas pagadas en exceso en sus remuneraciones salariales, en los períodos intimados, por lo que el motivo del cobro no ha sido desvirtuado. Trajo a colación, asimismo, que en el oficio Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 del 03 de noviembre del 2015 de la Secretaría Adjunta de Asuntos Laborales de la Asociación Nacional de Educadores (ANDE) se indicó a la actora \"...En realidad existen los sobregiros y las ausencias, de acuerdo al estudio realizado, a continuación se detalla: Para este 2015, le suspenden el recargo del 40% a 36 lecciones, de febrero a mayo. Para el 2009, le suspenden 4 lecciones, quedando con 36 y en febrero y marzo se las rebajaron. Para el 2008, bajan las lecciones de 48 a 40, y en febrero y marzo le pagaron 48, por lo tanto las adeuda. En el 2004, bajan las lecciones de 38 a 32, en febrero y marzo y primera quincena de abril le pagaron con 38. En el 2003, tiene demás en febrero, julio y agosto. Por lo tanto, lo que le están cobrando está correcto.\" Consideró, lo anterior, así como la petición formulada por la accionante para obtener copias del expediente, ponen en evidencia que sí conocía a plenitud la existencia de esas diligencias cobratorias, así como el detalle de las razones de la deuda, cuantía, períodos, cuotas y período a partir del cual aplicarían los rebajos. Por ello rechaza que se trate de un cobro sorpresivo, intempestivo o infundado. En lo referente al expediente CA-INCAP-2015-0001-07-0083-0689, por cobro de incapacidades por un monto de ¢4.495.172.00 (cuatro millones cuatrocientos noventa y cinco mil ciento setenta y dos colones), por incapacidades que van del 06 de marzo del 2013 al 31 de marzo del 2014, al igual que el expediente previamente analizado, la accionante conocía de antemano el detalle del cobro, en cuanto a sus causas, montos, períodos, plazo para el pago y monto de la deducción quincenal; lo cual valoró conforme a: 1. Oficio DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 del 22 de abril de 2014 la Unidad de Cobros Administrativos de la Dirección de Recursos Humanos del MEP le indicó a la actora que se había procedido a determinar la fórmula de cálculo de las deducciones salariales por concepto de incapacidades otorgadas por el INS, por lo que conforme a dicha normativa se le mantendría el rebajo del 30% del salario bruto y que a la fecha adeudaba ¢4.331.718,00, rebajos que se empezaron a aplicar por nómina a partir de la primera quincena de junio de 2015. 2. Mediante telegrama número TLOO4181820-MEP entregado el 26 de noviembre de 2015 a la actora y emitido en acatamiento de lo dispuesto en la sentencia de la Sala Constitucional no. 2015-15736 de las 10 horas 20 minutos del 9 de octubre de 2015, se informó a esta el monto de la deuda que tenía por incapacidades, a partir de cuándo se rebajaría y la suma a descontarse por tracto. De igual manera, no consta en autos prueba alguna que permita refutar la procedencia de ese cobro.\n\nV. Como ya se mencionó, el meollo del presente asunto reside en la determinación de la necesidad de emisión de un acto final de un procedimiento y el resguardo del derecho de defensa de previo al cobro de sumas pagadas indebidamente o en exceso, a funcionarios públicos. Asuntos similares han sido resueltos por la Sala Constitucional, al conocer de recursos de amparo en los que se ha acusado transgresión a los mismos derechos que señala la recurrente vulnerados en la especie frente a cobros de este tipo. La Sala ha señalado: “En ese sentido, la Sala ha estimado que, tales rebajos, son aceptables siempre y cuando se comunique previamente al trabajador –al menos- las sumas adeudadas, el número de tractos en los que procede el reintegro, el monto mensual de la deducción y la suma a deducir mensualmente que le permita recibir un monto de salario suficiente para satisfacer sus necesidades básicas. Bajo esta perspectiva, se estima entonces, que al haberse comunicado al funcionario el monto adeudado y la forma en que el Estado iba a proceder a su reintegro antes de la interposición de este recurso, no se ha producido la infracción del derecho al salario por la falta de comunicación previa; y se ha garantizado, en este caso, el derecho del recurrente de ejercer su derecho a la defensa, así como también proponer arreglos de pago u otros mecanismos para ajustar a derecho su situación, si la Administración los considerara pertinentes. En virtud de lo expuesto, se procede a desestimar el recurso en todos sus extremos, lo que en efecto se dispone.” (Sentencia 7113 de las 9 horas 20 minutos del 26 de abril de 2019). En similar sentido se pronunció antes, entre muchas otras, en la sentencia no. 2012 de las 16 horas 30 minutos del 22 de agosto de 2012, donde indicó que: “…en lo que se refiere al segundo extremo planteado en el amparo, sea la necesaria comunicación que debe existir al trabajador, sobre los montos adeudados y la forma en que se procederá a su rebajo, debe recordarse que si bien, la Sala ha aceptado que la Administración puede recuperar por medio del rebajo salarial, los montos pagados en exceso para lo que no se requiere seguir el procedimiento ordinario que fija la Ley General de la Administración Pública (…), lo cierto es que también ha aclarado que, tales rebajos, son aceptables siempre y cuando se comunique previamente al trabajador –al menos- las sumas adeudadas, el número de tractos en los que procede el reintegro, el monto mensual de la deducción y la suma a deducir mensualmente que le permita recibir un monto de salario suficiente para satisfacer sus necesidades básicas.”. Ese criterio ha sido reiterado en múltiples resoluciones; en ese sentido, pueden consultarse los votos no. 19833 de las 9 horas 20 minutos del 11 de octubre de 2019 y 17024 de las 9 horas 15 minutos del 12 de octubre de 2018, todas de dicho órgano jurisdiccional. Conforme a la jurisprudencia constitucional referida, no existe lesión a los derechos fundamentales de la persona sujeta a una relación funcionarial, cuando se le realizan rebajos a su salario por sumas adeudadas por pagos indebidos o en exceso, siempre y cuando se le suministre la información necesaria a efectos de que ejerza el derecho de defensa, por lo que debe comunicarse la razón del rebajo, los montos adeudados, su concepto específico, la forma en que se hará al deducción, la cantidad total de tractos y el quantum periódico a deducir. En la especie, la recurrente no reprocha ante esta cámara lo valorado por el tribunal con respecto a que efectivamente debe las sumas que se le han debido rebajar y que sí se le suministró la información recién indicada, sino el que no se haya emitido un acto final de un procedimiento. Sostiene que de no haberse generado tal vicio, la decisión final habría variado, pero sin explicar de qué forma; pretende se case la sentencia y se decrete la nulidad de las actuaciones llevadas a cabo para recuperar los dineros que le fueron girados de más sin explicar por qué razón resultaba improcedente tal recuperación por parte de la Administración. Conforme se indicó, ya existen precedentes constitucionales referentes específicamente a la transgresión de los derechos fundamentales que invoca la recurrente, lo que se ha rechazado cuando se pone en conocimiento del interesado, al menos la información antes señalada, que le permita ejercer su derecho de defensa. Expresamente ha rechazado el tribunal constitucional la necesidad de que se realice un procedimiento administrativo ordinario para que pueda la Administración empleadora recuperar las sumas que se le hayan girado indebidamente a un empleado suyo. En la especie, se realizaron múltiples actos informativos al recurrente, quien ante esto ha podido cuestionar tanto administrativa como jurisdiccionalmente lo actuado, sin que haya acreditado en el sub lite que no debiera las sumas que le fueron cobradas y le han sido rebajadas, y sin traer a casación argumento alguno al respecto, más allá de la emisión de un acto final que pudiese recurrir, agravio que no es procedente por cuanto los telegramas que le fueron notificados a la accionante, informándole de las deudas que sostenía con la Administración, su monto, concepto, y forma de cobro a aplicarse, constituyen actividad formal de la Administración por medio de la cual se le pone en conocimiento de la deuda y de la forma en la que se realizarán los rebajos, actos frente a los cuales puede ejercer el derecho de defensa en sede administrativa o jurisdiccional, lo cual, de hecho, ha procedido a realizar la actora, sin haber logrado desacreditar la procedencia de los cobros y consecuente recuperación por parte de la Administración. Además, en el expediente CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, se realizó incluso una comparecencia llevada a cabo el día 13 de octubre de 2015 en la Unidad de Cobros Administrativos del Departamento de Remuneraciones del Ministerio de Educación Pública, donde se hizo constar que se informaba a la actora de la deuda, su concepto, monto, forma de cobro, quantum y periodicidad de los rebajos, concediéndole plazo para presentar prueba y se le indicó que una vez vencido este se procedería a realizar las deducciones. En igual forma, mediante oficio Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 del 03 de noviembre del 2015 de la Secretaría Adjunta de Asuntos Laborales de la Asociación Nacional de Educadores (ANDE), se le indicó a la actora un detalle de sobregiros y ausencias y que “lo que le están cobrando está correcto.” (Hecho probado 10) Sobre el expediente CA-INCAP-2015-0001-07-0083-0689, por cobro de incapacidades, según los hechos probados se remitió, vía Correos de Costa Rica, el telegrama número TL004181820-MEP, en el que se indica: “Se le comunica que registra deuda por incapacidades por un monto total de ¢4.292.812.82; el cual se estará rebajando a partir de la primera quincena del mes de noviembre del 2015, en tractos de ¢202.360.00 quincenales...\"(hecho probado 14). Adicionalmente, desde el 22 de abril de 2014, mediante Oficio DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 del 22 de abril de 2014, se había indicado a la actora que, atendiendo a su solicitud dentro del proceso cobratorio por incapacidades, se había procedido a determinar la fórmula de cálculo de las deducciones salariales por concepto de incapacidades otorgadas por el INS, por lo que se dispuso mantener un rebajo del 30% del salario bruto por la obligación que mantenía con el Estado por incapacidades y que, a esa fecha, adeudaba ¢4.331.718,00 (hecho probado segundo). Con respecto a dichos rebajos, los que empezaron a aplicarse en junio de 2015, se tramitó el recurso de amparo bajo el expediente 15-12099-0007-CO, donde la Sala Constitucional ordenó, mediante el voto 2015-15736 de las 10 horas 20 minutos del 9 de octubre de 2015, comunicar a la amparada “…sobre los montos pagados de más, el saldo que adeuda y la forma en que se procederá a su cancelación definitiva…” y posteriormente, se emitió el telegrama TL004181820-MEP, antes referido. Aunado a ello, según el hecho probado nueve de la sentencia, no rebatido por la casacionista, a folio 49 del expediente administrativo CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689 consta que a la actora se le remitió copia del expediente administrativo, comunicación que indica como fecha el lunes 2 de noviembre de 2015. Revisado dicho expediente, nota este tribunal, efectivamente en el mismo consta documentación de diversa índole relacionada a los rebajos realizados a la actora. Así, consta “Reporte de Análisis de Posibles Sumas Giradas de Más” con fecha 7 de setiembre de 2015 (folio 45), “Estudio de Sumas Giradas de Más” fechado 23 del mismo mes y año (Folio 44 y 43), entre otras. Además, conjuntamente con la demanda, la misma actora aportó copia del telegrama TL004181820-MEP, así como de documento de fecha 16 de setiembre de 2016, según consta a imagen 49 del escrito inicial incorporado al escritorio virtual el 5 de octubre de 2016, donde se detalla un desglose de deudas a cargo de la actora por concepto de rebajos por incapacidad, todo lo que evidencia que efectivamente tuvo conocimiento de los montos que se adeudaba, así como su concepto, de qué forma se harían los rebajos y por cuánto tiempo. Pese a todo ello, en casación, como se explicó, no se argumentó nada relacionado a la existencia o no de la deuda, a la proporción del monto de los rebajos fijados por el MEP, y ni siquiera a la información misma que se le suministró a la actora, la cual tuvo oportunidad de ofrecer prueba, tanto en sede administrativa como jurisdiccional, a efectos de contradecir lo resuelto por la Administración, nada de lo cual invoca ante esta sede, cuando lo lógico y lo que le correspondía si pretendía impugnar una irregularidad en las formalidades del procedimiento (lo que no acaeció según se explicó), era que fundamentara de forma adecuada su trascendencia, y explicara por qué razón resulta improcedente la recuperación que pretende la Administración. Incluso, en el hecho probado 13 de la resolución recurrida se hace referencia al Oficio DRH-DR-UCA-918-2015 del 20 de noviembre del 2015, emitido por la Unidad de Cobros Administrativos, el cual consta de folios 69 a 71 del expediente administrativo CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689 aportado por el Estado, el que efectivamente contiene un detalle de lo cobrado a la actora tanto por concepto de incapacidades que van del 6 de marzo de 2013 al 31 de marzo de 2014, por un monto de ¢4.495.172,00, así como un desglose de los ¢2.010.526,34 por “acreditaciones no correspondientes”, sin que la casacionista cuestione en modo alguno tales débitos a su cargo. Además de lo anterior, resulta conveniente destacar algunas particularidades de los derechos y deberes de las partes de una relación de empleo público frente a situaciones como la que ha generado el presente asunto. En primer lugar, en el marco de una relación laboral, sea de naturaleza pública o privada, el patrono tiene el derecho de recuperar los pagos hechos en exceso o por error. Dicha facultad se encuentra prevista en el artículo 173 del Código de Trabajo, conforme al cual “Las deudas que el trabajador contraiga con el patrono por concepto de anticipos o por pagos hechos en exceso, se amortizarán durante la vigencia del contrato en un mínimo de cuatro períodos de pago y no devengarán intereses. Es entendido que al terminar el contrato el Patrono podrá hacer la liquidación definitiva que proceda.” Además, a criterio de este tribunal, es consecuencia natural del principio de buena fe en la relación contractual, la preocupación mutua de las partes por que la otra no se vea afectada ilegítimamente y sufra menoscabos patrimoniales sin causa. En el numeral 19 del Código de Trabajo se establece que: “El contrato de trabajo obliga tanto a lo que se expresa en él, como a las consecuencias que del mismo se deriven según la buena fe, la equidad, el uso, la costumbre o la ley.” La Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, sobre el principio de buena fe ha manifestado: “…el principio de buena fe, es de los elementos principales del contenido ético del contrato de trabajo, que sirve como parámetro para valorar la conducta de las partes de la relación de trabajo en el cumplimiento de sus obligaciones, por la que cada una puede esperar de la otra ´…una actuación leal, fiando y confiando en que su actuación sea social y contractualmente correcta...´, caracterizada por valores de consideración, respeto y correcto actuar. Lo que es aplicable no solo en las relaciones de empleo propiamente privadas, sino también en las que se dan en el sector público, denominadas estatutarias o de servicio…” (Sentencia 543, de las 10:46 horas, ambas del 9 de abril de 2010). En el mismo sentido, en el voto no. 46 de las 15:00 horas del 24 de febrero de 1999, dicho órgano casacional señaló: “…el deber de fidelidad en materia laboral, se caracteriza por una celosa actitud personal del trabajador, de no perjudicar a la empresa o al patrono al que sirve, y de contribuir al desenvolvimiento de sus actividades y a su prosperidad. Igual que en toda relación jurídica sinalagmática, el contrato de trabajo impone obligaciones recíprocas de consideración, de protección y de ayuda, entre las partes, para alcanzar el fin común…”. Es claro, es una conducta esperable, en el marco de una relación laboral, que quien recibe pagos mayores a los que se le deben, tiene el deber propio de la buena fe que le corresponde, de informar la situación e instar el restablecimiento de la normalidad. Aunado a ello, los depósitos que se acrediten en exceso o sin causa a las cuentas de las personas funcionarias públicas se constituyen en un error aritmético o “de hecho”, con efectos patrimoniales adversos a la Administración. Ante tal situación, la Administración puede, en cualquier tiempo, conforme al numeral 157 de la LGAP, realizar la corrección correspondiente. Sin embargo, debe precisarse, cuando tales errores repercuten en la Hacienda Pública, no es una mera facultad, sino un deber de primer orden, tanto a cargo de la Administración empleadora, como de la propia persona funcionaria, el realizar cuanto esté a su alcance para resguardar la integridad de la Hacienda Pública; puesto que es una responsabilidad conjunta de las partes de la relación funcionarial la tutela de los fondos públicos y su gestión conforme al bloque de juridicidad, lo cual encuentra fundamento, en un amplio, vasto y coherente sistema normativo del que se desprenden principios, deberes y responsabilidades vinculadas a ello, entre los cuales se encuentran los artículos 9, 11, 24, 183 y 193 de la Carta Magna; 110 de la Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos; 8, 9 y 10 de la Ley General de Control interno; 11, 203, 206 y 210 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública; 2 y 3 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública; 1, 8, 9 y 11 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República. Claro está, la recuperación por parte de la Administración incide en los intereses económicos del funcionario, por lo que debe cumplirse con garantías mínimas que le permitan a este ejercer su derecho de defensa y tener claridad de lo acaecido, sobre lo cual ya existe abundante jurisprudencia constitucional, según se explicó. Por todo ello, es claro que si la actora estima que se le cobró indebidamente sumas que no le fueron giradas sin causa, debió demostrarlo. No obstante, únicamente alegó ante esta cámara aspectos referentes a las formalidades que, a su criterio, deben seguirse en este tipo de procedimientos, los cuales son improcedentes al ajustarse lo resuelto por el Ad-quo y lo actuado por el MEP a los parámetros fijados por la misma Sala Constitucional a efectos de que se resguarden los derechos e intereses de las personas funcionarias involucradas en situaciones como la acaecida en la especie, sin que sea menester en supuestos como el presente la tramitación de un procedimiento ordinario en los términos de la LGAP, aunado al deber que tienen los mismos funcionarios de procurar la tutela de la Hacienda Pública cuando se realizan pagos indebidos, por lo cual se deberá denegar el recurso.\n\n VI. Por lo expuesto, deberá rechazarse el recurso, con las costas a cargo de quien lo interpuso, conforme al artículo 150 inciso 3) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en el tanto el fallo recurrido es claro y se ajusta a Derecho en forma evidente, sin que aprecie esta cámara que hubiese motivo suficiente para recurrir. \n\n \n\nPOR TANTO\n\n \n\nSe rechaza el recurso, con las costas a cargo de quien lo interpuso.\n\n \n\n \n\nLuis Guillermo Rivas Loáiciga\n\n \n\n \n\n Román Solís Zelaya Damaris Vargas Vásquez\n\n \n\n \n\nAMENAC \n\nEXP: 15-010225-1027-CA\n\nTeléfonos: (506) 2295-3658 o 2295-3659, correo electrónico sala_primera@poder-judicial.go.cr", "body_en_text": "**150102251027CA**\n\n**Exp. 15-010225-1027-CA**\n**Res. 000108-F-TC-2020**\n\n**CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL HACIENDA COURT OF APPEALS.** San José, at nine hours forty minutes on the ninth of July, two thousand twenty.\n\nOrdinary proceeding heard before the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Hacienda Court, Section Six, brought by Mrs. NOEMY CECILIA ELIZONDO MORA, identity card number 7-0083-0689, represented by her legal counsel, attorney Edilberto Escobar Cascante, Bar Association ID 8856, against the STATE, represented by the Deputy Attorney General, Ana Lorena Pérez Mora, Bar Association ID 5861. The plaintiff files a cassation appeal against judgment 137-2017-VI of 10 hours 15 minutes on November 17, 2017, issued by the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Hacienda Court, Section Six, composed of judges José Roberto Garita Navarro, Cinthya Abarca Gómez, and José Martín Conejo Cantillo.\n\n**Drafted by Judge Vargas Vásquez and,**\n\n**WHEREAS**\n\n**I.-** In accordance with the proven facts in the appealed judgment, which are not challenged in the appeal, Mrs. Noemy Elizondo Zamora registers the start of employment in property as of February 1, 2002, at the Colegio Técnico Profesional de Batan. By official letter DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 of April 22, 2014, from the Administrative Collections Unit of the MEP's Human Resources Directorate, the plaintiff was informed that, in response to her request within the collection process for sick leave (incapacidades), that directorate had proceeded to determine the calculation formula for salary deductions for sick leave (incapacidades) granted by the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, and therefore, in accordance with those regulations, it was decided to maintain the 30% deduction from her gross salary for the obligation she maintained with the State for sick leave (incapacidades). It further indicated that as of that date, she owed the sum of ¢4,331,718.00 (four million three hundred thirty-one thousand seven hundred eighteen colones). On September 23, 2015, the MEP's Human Resources Directorate conducted a study of sums overpaid to the plaintiff, which determined a debt for unearned credits. By Vote No. 2015-015736 of 10 hours 20 minutes on October 9, 2015, issued in the amparo proceeding processed under case file 15-012099-0007-CO, filed by the plaintiff against the MEP, it was ordered: \"The appeal is granted due to violation of due process. Yaxinia Díaz Mendoza, in her capacity as Human Resources Director of the Ministry of Public Education, or whoever holds her position, is ordered, within a period of THREE DAYS, counted from the notification of this resolution, to correct the existing procedures, in order to inform the protected party, Noemy Cecilia Elizondo Zamora, identity card 0700830689, of the overpaid amounts, the outstanding balance, and the manner in which its definitive cancellation will proceed. (...)\". By means of a request for sending a telegram, case file number 04577, the following detail was established for probable overpaid sums: -period 2003: ¢56,810.47 (fifty-six thousand eight hundred ten colones and forty-seven céntimos); -period 2004: ¢115,070.20 (one hundred fifteen thousand seventy colones and twenty céntimos); -period 2008: ¢233,472.72 (two hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred seventy-two colones and seventy-two céntimos); -period 2009: ¢128,312.84 (one hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twelve colones and eighty-four céntimos); -period 2015: ¢1,222,066.40 (one million two hundred twenty-two thousand sixty-six colones and forty céntimos); -absences (ausencias) 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012: ¢254,793.71 (two hundred fifty-four thousand seven hundred ninety-three colones and seventy-one céntimos), for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones and thirty-four céntimos). By telegram number TL004160904-MEP, delivered to the plaintiff on October 20, 2015, she was informed: \"SOLE TELEGRAM. You are hereby informed that you must appear at the Administrative Collections Unit on October 30, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. Subject: unearned credits (acreditaciones que no corresponden) for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34; in case of failure to appear, your salary will be affected starting from the first half of November 2015, in installments of ¢154,655.87 bi-weekly (...)\". In the appearance record (acta de comparecencia) No. 3421-2015 prepared by the MEP's Administrative Collections Unit, it is indicated that at 9:15 a.m. on October 13, 2015, the plaintiff appeared at that office and was informed of the proceedings for the collection of overpaid sums initiated against her. She set the email address noemy.elizondo4@hotmail.com as the means of communication. It was specified that she was shown the case file and the opportunity to present evidence within a period of ten days. Furthermore, that she appeared by telegram TL0041160904 and was informed of the debt in the amount of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones and thirty-four céntimos), corresponding to salary differences between payment history and current status for 2003, a reduction of interim lessons for 2004, 2008, 2009, and an elimination of duty overload (recargo de funciones) for 2015. It was finally indicated that if the aforementioned period expired, the administrative collection process would continue, through payroll deduction of 13 bi-weekly installments of ¢154,655.87 (one hundred fifty-four thousand six hundred fifty-five colones and eighty-seven céntimos), starting from the second half of November 2015, until the debt is fully paid. Said record was signed by the analyst Jenniffer Mora Esquivel and the plaintiff on October 30, 2015. In a handwritten note on October 30, 2015, submitted to the MEP Service Platform on that same date, the plaintiff requested a copy of the administrative collections case file. By email sent to the plaintiff at the address noemy.elizondo4@hotmail.com, from Administrative Collections, the plaintiff was informed that, according to her request, a scanned copy of the requested case file was being sent. In official letter Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 of November 3, 2015, from the Deputy Secretariat of Labor Affairs of the Asociación Nacional de Educadores (ANDE), the plaintiff was informed \"... In reality, the overpayments (sobregiros) and absences (ausencias) exist, according to the study conducted, it is detailed below: For this 2015, they suspend the 40% overload (recargo) for 36 lessons, from February to May. For 2009, they suspend 4 lessons, leaving you with 36, and in February and March they deducted them. For 2008, they reduce the lessons from 48 to 40, and in February and March they paid you for 48, therefore you owe them. In 2004, they reduce the lessons from 38 to 32, in February and March and the first half of April they paid you for 38. In 2003, you have excess in February, July, and August. Therefore, what they are charging you is correct.\" Through a filing dated November 12, 2015, the plaintiff requested the MEP's Department of Human Resources to review the situation related to the amount owed for the absences (ausencias) of the years 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and a 15-day extension of the period to present the corresponding evidence regarding the alleged overpaid sums. Through a filing submitted on November 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed an administrative claim before the MEP's Department of Human Resources against the administrative charges imputed to her. By official letter DRH-DR-UCA-918-2015 of November 20, 2015, the MEP's Administrative Collections Unit communicated to the Legal Directorate of that ministry aspects related to the collection processes initiated against the plaintiff. In that regard, it noted that two procedures are being processed. The first, for the recovery of unearned credits (acreditaciones no correspondientes) in the sum of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones and thirty-four céntimos) corresponding to the period 2003: ¢56,810.47 (fifty-six thousand eight hundred ten colones and forty-seven céntimos) for salary difference and overpaid sums due to change from the SAP system to SIGRH; ¢115,070.20 (one hundred fifteen thousand seventy colones and twenty céntimos) for reduction of interim lessons for the period 2004 according to personnel action 1647321; ¢233,472.72 (two hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred seventy-two colones and seventy-two céntimos) for reduction of interim lessons for the period 2008 according to personnel action 5104453; ¢128,312.84 (one hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twelve colones and eighty-four céntimos) for reduction of interim lessons for the period 2009 according to personnel action 6210119; ¢1,222,066.40 (one million two hundred twenty-two thousand sixty-six colones and forty céntimos) for elimination of duty overload (recargo de funciones) according to personnel action 201506-MP-1315860 for the period 2015. Regarding this procedure, it indicates that telegram TL0041160904 of October 20, 2015, was notified, appearance record (acta de comparecencia) 3421-2015 was prepared, and there was no evidence provided in the case file, so payroll deductions would proceed in an amount of 13 installments of ¢154,655.87 (one hundred fifty-four thousand six hundred fifty-five colones with 87/100) per fortnight. The second case file, for the collection of sick leave (incapacidades) in the amount of ¢4,495,172.00 (four million four hundred ninety-five thousand one hundred seventy-two colones), for sick leave (incapacidades) from March 6, 2013, to March 31, 2014. It also recounts the management to readjust the deduction amount for the sick leave debt and the issuance of official letter DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014. It explains that in this process, payroll deductions begin to be applied starting from the first half of June 2015 in bi-weekly installments of ¢202,360.00 (two hundred two thousand three hundred sixty colones). It states that this was later annulled by judgment 2015015736 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) and telegram TL004177153-MEP was prepared, establishing the same deduction quota starting from the first half of November 2015. By telegram number TL004181820-MEP, delivered on November 26, 2015, the plaintiff was informed: \"SOLE TELEGRAM. You are hereby informed that you register a debt for sick leave (incapacidades) in a total amount of ¢4,292,812.82; which will be deducted starting from the first half of November 2015, in bi-weekly installments of ¢202,360.00...\"\n\n**II.** On October 5, 2016, Mrs. Noemy Elizondo Zamora sued the State. She sought a declaration of absolute nullity of the telegrams dated October 9 and November 3, both of 2015, by means of which she was informed in the months of October and November 2015 that the sum of ¢402,000.00 was going to be deducted from her salary, as well as the administrative case file held by the MEP, on which it relies to deduct her salary. Furthermore, that the State be ordered to pay all damages (daños y perjuicios), for the sums of ¢50,000,000.00 for subjective moral damages (daño moral subjetivo) and ¢25,000,000.00 for pecuniary damage (daño patrimonial) caused by the deductions, plus interest on the sums and costs. The State's attorney opposed the lawsuit and raised the defense of lack of right. In the judgment, the court upheld the defense raised by the State's representation and declared the lawsuit without merit, imposing the payment of costs on the plaintiff. Disagreeing, the plaintiff comes before this chamber. She raises a single grievance.\n\n**III.** In her sole objection, the appellant argues a violation of substantive rules. She claims the non-application of Articles 11, 16, 17, and 19 of the General Law of Public Administration (LGAP), as well as an improper application of sections 214, 216, and 223 of the LGAP, and 194 and 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She maintains that she was surprised, since she was affected without the administrative procedure brought against her having concluded with a final act (acto final) that resolved what was appropriate, so she could not appeal it, in accordance with the law, the nature of administrative procedures, and the parties' rights to due process, defense, and the principle of legal certainty, and by being deprived of remedies provided in the LGAP and the Civil Service Statute (ESC), she was placed in a state of defenselessness. Notwithstanding this, the judges considered that this omission is justified, thereby ignoring that her right to defense was unlawfully violated. They applied Article 223 of the LGAP without basis \"by affirming in the judgment the indiscriminate power of the Administration\", even though substantial formalities of the administrative procedure were omitted. She continues, by not taking into account those precepts, the court erroneously considered the facts when a substantial formality of the procedure was omitted, which, if executed, would change the final decision, therefore there is a defect of absolute nullity. She adds, from sections 194 and 195 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is inferred that before the omission of substantial formalities, defenselessness is caused to the party and, in turn, the nullity of all proceedings. Furthermore, her right to procedural swiftness was harmed, an aspect the court \"did not highlight\". She requests that the judgment be annulled.\n\n**IV.** The disagreement raised by the appellant refers, essentially, to the court's failure to consider the issuance of the final act (acto final) of the procedure as a substantial formality that could not be disregarded, and that she was caused defenselessness. Therefore, for a better resolution of the grievance, it is necessary to point out what the court resolved in this regard. It considered, regarding the possibility for the Public Administration to make salary deductions (by payroll) from officials for whom the existence of overpaid sums in their salaries has been previously determined, that according to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (Votes no. 1427-2003, 2573-2010, 7309-2001, and 11507-2012), the necessary and reasoned accreditation of the existence of the overpaid amounts is required beforehand, which implies that the Administration must carry out the necessary internal analyses to establish what occurred in a certain and objective manner. For this, the public agent must be provided with the detail of the amount of the sums, the origin of the debt with reference to specific periods and amounts for each period, as well as the installments and quota to be applied for the respective payment, for which the processing of the ordinary administrative procedure regulated in the LGAP is not necessary, although it is necessary to give prior notice to the official of the debt and its background, quotas, and term so that they can provide elements of evidence in their favor and exercise their right of defense regarding the existence of the liability, its economic dimension, or can propose alternate payment systems. It added, according to sections 173, 413, and 414 of the Labor Code, such collection can be carried out as long as the employment relationship lasts. In the specific case, it estimated that the necessary conditions for the deductions applied to the plaintiff's salary to be appropriate were met. Regarding the administrative collection of case file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, it explained, by means of the request to send a telegram, case file number 4577, the detail of the probable overpaid sums was established, in the following terms: \"¢56,810.47 (fifty-six thousand eight hundred ten colones and forty-seven céntimos); -period 2004: ¢115,070.20 (one hundred fifteen thousand seventy colones and twenty céntimos); -period 2008: ¢233,472.72 (two hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred seventy-two colones and seventy-two céntimos); - period 2009: ¢128,312.84 (one hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twelve colones and eighty-four céntimos); -period 2015: ¢1,222,066.40 (one million two hundred twenty-two thousand sixty-six colones and forty céntimos); -absences (ausencias) 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012: ¢254,793.71 (two hundred fifty-four thousand seven hundred ninety-three colones and seventy-one céntimos), for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones and thirty-four céntimos).\" As a result of the foregoing, by telegram number TL004160904-MEP delivered to the plaintiff on October 20, 2015, she is informed: \"SOLE TELEGRAM. You are hereby informed that you must appear at the Administrative Collections Unit on October 30, 2015, at 1:00 p.m. Subject: unearned credits (acreditaciones que no corresponden) for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34; in case of failure to appear, your salary will be affected starting from the first half of November 2015, in installments of ¢154,655.87 bi-weekly (...)\". Additionally, it considered, according to what is recorded in the appearance record (acta de comparecencia) No. 3421-2015 prepared by the MEP's Administrative Collections Unit, at 9:15 a.m. on October 13, 2015, the plaintiff appeared at that office and was informed of the procedure for the collection of overpaid sums initiated against her and set an email address as the means of communication. It was specified that she was shown the case file and the opportunity to present evidence within a period of ten days, in addition to appearing by telegram TL0041160904 and being informed of the debt in the amount of ¢2,010,526.34, corresponding to salary differences between payment history and current status for 2003, reduction of interim lessons for 2004, 2008, 2009, and an elimination of duty overload (recargo de funciones) for 2015. It was finally indicated that if the aforementioned period expired, the administrative collection process would continue, through payroll deduction of 13 bi-weekly installments of ¢154,655.87, starting from the second half of November 2015, until the debt is fully paid. The court noted that said record was signed by the plaintiff on October 30, 2015, the same date on which she submitted a handwritten note requesting a copy of the administrative collections case file, which was sent by email. It added that there is no evidence that, once the period granted to provide exculpatory evidence had elapsed, the plaintiff provided any. While it is true that the claimant later submitted a filing on November 12, 2015, requesting a review of the situation related to the amount owed for the absences (ausencias) of the years 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and requested a 15-day extension of the period to present the corresponding evidence regarding the alleged overpaid sums, and then on November 13, 2015, filed an administrative claim before the MEP's Department of Human Resources against the administrative collections in question, the truth of the matter is that within this process she has not managed to disprove the existence of the overpaid sums in her salary remunerations, in the periods indicated, so the reason for the collection has not been refuted. It also brought up that in official letter Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 of November 3, 2015, from the Deputy Secretariat of Labor Affairs of the Asociación Nacional de Educadores (ANDE), the plaintiff was informed \"... In reality, the overpayments (sobregiros) and absences (ausencias) exist, according to the study conducted, it is detailed below: For this 2015, they suspend the 40% overload (recargo) for 36 lessons, from February to May. For 2009, they suspend 4 lessons, leaving you with 36, and in February and March they deducted them. For 2008, they reduce the lessons from 48 to 40, and in February and March they paid you for 48, therefore you owe them. In 2004, they reduce the lessons from 38 to 32, in February and March and the first half of April they paid you for 38. In 2003, you have excess in February, July, and August. Therefore, what they are charging you is correct.\" It considered that the foregoing, as well as the request made by the plaintiff to obtain copies of the case file, demonstrate that she was fully aware of the existence of these collection proceedings, as well as the detail of the reasons for the debt, the amount, periods, quotas, and the period from which the deductions would apply. Therefore, it rejects that it was a surprising, untimely, or unfounded collection. Regarding case file CA-INCAP-2015-0001-07-0083-0689, for the collection of sick leave (incapacidades) in the amount of ¢4,495,172.00 (four million four hundred ninety-five thousand one hundred seventy-two colones), for sick leave (incapacidades) from March 6, 2013, to March 31, 2014, like the previously analyzed case file, the plaintiff knew beforehand the detail of the collection, in terms of its causes, amounts, periods, payment term, and bi-weekly deduction amount; which it assessed based on: 1. Official letter DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 of April 22, 2014, the Administrative Collections Unit of the MEP's Human Resources Directorate informed the plaintiff that the calculation formula for salary deductions for sick leave (incapacidades) granted by the INS had been determined, so according to said regulations, the 30% deduction from her gross salary would be maintained and that as of that date she owed ¢4,331,718.00, deductions that began to be applied by payroll starting from the first half of June 2015. 2. By telegram number TLOO4181820-MEP delivered on November 26, 2015, to the plaintiff and issued in compliance with the provisions of Constitutional Chamber judgment no. 2015-15736 of 10 hours 20 minutes on October 9, 2015, she was informed of the amount of the debt she had for sick leave (incapacidades), from when it would be deducted, and the sum to be discounted per installment. Likewise, there is no evidence whatsoever in the records that allows refuting the appropriateness of that collection.\n\n**V.** As already mentioned, the crux of this matter lies in determining the necessity of issuing a final act (acto final) of a procedure and safeguarding the right of defense prior to the collection of sums paid improperly or in excess to public officials. Similar matters have been resolved by the Constitutional Chamber, when hearing amparo appeals in which a violation of the same rights that the appellant claims were violated in this case has been alleged in the face of collections of this type. The Chamber has stated: \"In that sense, the Chamber has considered that such deductions are acceptable provided that the worker is previously informed - at least - of the sums owed, the number of installments in which the reimbursement will proceed, the monthly deduction amount, and the sum to be deducted monthly that allows them to receive a sufficient salary amount to meet their basic needs. Under this perspective, it is considered then, that having communicated to the official the amount owed and the way in which the State was going to proceed with its reimbursement before the filing of this appeal, no infringement of the right to salary has occurred due to lack of prior communication; and the appellant's right to exercise their right to defense has been guaranteed in this case, as well as to propose payment arrangements or other mechanisms to adjust their situation to the law, if the Administration considered them pertinent. By virtue of the foregoing, we proceed to dismiss the appeal in all its aspects, which is hereby ordered.\" (Judgment 7113 of 9 hours 20 minutes on April 26, 2019). In a similar vein, it previously ruled, among many others, in judgment no. 2012 of 16 hours 30 minutes on August 22, 2012, where it indicated that: \"…regarding the second point raised in the amparo, i.e., the necessary communication that must exist to the worker about the amounts owed and the way in which the deduction will be carried out, it must be remembered that although the Chamber has accepted that the Administration may recover, through salary deduction, the amounts overpaid, for which it is not necessary to follow the ordinary procedure established in the General Law of Public Administration (…), the truth is that it has also clarified that such deductions are acceptable provided that the worker is previously informed – at least – of the sums owed, the number of installments in which the reimbursement will proceed, the monthly deduction amount, and the sum to be deducted monthly that allows them to receive a sufficient salary amount to meet their basic needs.\" This criterion has been reiterated in multiple rulings; in this regard, see Votes no. 19833 of 9 hours 20 minutes on October 11, 2019, and 17024 of 9 hours 15 minutes on October 12, 2018, all from that jurisdictional body. According to the constitutional jurisprudence cited, there is no injury to the fundamental rights of the person subject to an employment relationship when deductions are made to their salary for sums owed due to improper or excess payments, provided that they are supplied with the necessary information to exercise the right of defense. Therefore, the reason for the deduction, the amounts owed, their specific concept, the manner in which the deduction will be made, the total number of installments, and the periodic amount to be deducted must be communicated. In this case, the appellant does not reproach before this chamber what the court assessed regarding the fact that she effectively owes the sums that had to be deducted and that she was indeed supplied with the information just indicated, but rather that a final act (acto final) of a procedure was not issued. She maintains that had such a defect not occurred, the final decision would have varied, but without explaining how; she requests that the judgment be overturned and the nullity of the actions taken to recover the monies that were overpaid to her be decreed, without explaining why such recovery by the Administration was improper. As indicated, there are already constitutional precedents specifically referring to the violation of the fundamental rights invoked by the appellant, which has been rejected when the interested party is informed of at least the information previously indicated, allowing them to exercise their right of defense. The constitutional court has expressly rejected the need for an ordinary administrative procedure to be carried out for the employing Administration to recover the sums that were improperly paid to one of its employees. In this case, multiple informative acts were performed for the appellant, who, faced with this, has been able to challenge what has been acted upon both administratively and jurisdictionally, without having proven in this sub lite that she did not owe the sums that were charged and deducted from her, and without bringing to cassation any argument in this regard, beyond the issuance of a final act (acto final) that could be appealed. This grievance is not admissible because the telegrams that were notified to the plaintiff, informing her of the debts she held with the Administration, their amount, concept, and method of collection to be applied, constitute formal activity of the Administration by means of which she is made aware of the debt and the manner in which the deductions will be made, acts against which she can exercise the right of defense in administrative or jurisdictional venues, which, in fact, the plaintiff has proceeded to do, without having been able to disprove the appropriateness of the charges and consequent recovery by the Administration. Furthermore, in case file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, an appearance was even carried out on October 13, 2015, at the Administrative Collections Unit of the Remunerations Department of the Ministry of Public Education, where it was recorded that the plaintiff was informed of the debt, its concept, amount, method of collection, amount, and frequency of the deductions, granting her a period to present evidence, and she was informed that once this period expired, the deductions would proceed. Likewise, by official letter Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 of November 3, 2015, from the Deputy Secretariat of Labor Affairs of the Asociación Nacional de Educadores (ANDE), the plaintiff was provided with a detail of overpayments (sobregiros) and absences (ausencias) and that \"what they are charging you is correct.\" (Proven fact 10). Regarding case file CA-INCAP-2015-0001-07-0083-0689, for the collection of sick leave (incapacidades), according to the proven facts, telegram number TL004181820-MEP was sent via Correos de Costa Rica, which states: \"You are hereby informed that you register a debt for sick leave (incapacidades) in a total amount of ¢4,292,812.82; which will be deducted starting from the first half of November 2015, in bi-weekly installments of ¢202,360.00...\" (proven fact 14).\n\nAdditionally, since April 22, 2014, through Official Communication DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 of April 22, 2014, the plaintiff had been informed that, in response to her request within the collection process for disability benefits, the formula for calculating salary deductions for disability benefits granted by the INS had been determined, and it was therefore ordered that a deduction of 30% of gross salary be maintained for the obligation she owed to the State for disability benefits and that, as of that date, she owed ¢4,331,718.00 (proven fact two). With respect to these deductions, which began to be applied in June 2015, an amparo appeal was processed under expediente 15-12099-0007-CO, in which the Constitutional Chamber ordered, by means of vote 2015-15736 at 10:20 a.m. on October 9, 2015, that the protected party be informed \"…about the amounts overpaid, the balance owed, and the manner in which its definitive cancellation will proceed…\" and subsequently, the telegram TL004181820-MEP, previously referenced, was issued. In addition to this, according to proven fact nine of the judgment, not rebutted by the cassation appellant, on folio 49 of the administrative file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, it is recorded that a copy of the administrative file was sent to the plaintiff, a communication indicating the date of Monday, November 2, 2015. Upon reviewing said file, this court notes that it indeed contains documentation of various kinds related to the deductions made from the plaintiff. Thus, it contains a \"Report on the Analysis of Possible Overpaid Sums\" (Reporte de Análisis de Posibles Sumas Giradas de Más) dated September 7, 2015 (folio 45), a \"Study of Overpaid Sums\" (Estudio de Sumas Giradas de Más) dated the 23rd of the same month and year (Folio 44 and 43), among others. Furthermore, jointly with the complaint, the plaintiff herself provided a copy of telegram TL004181820-MEP, as well as a document dated September 16, 2016, as recorded on image 49 of the initial brief incorporated into the virtual desktop on October 5, 2016, which details a breakdown of debts owed by the plaintiff for disability deduction concepts, all of which demonstrates that she effectively had knowledge of the amounts owed, as well as their concept, the manner in which the deductions would be made, and for how long. Despite all this, in cassation, as explained, nothing related to the existence or non-existence of the debt was argued, nor the proportionality of the deduction amount set by the MEP, nor even the information itself that was provided to the plaintiff, who had the opportunity to offer evidence, both in the administrative and jurisdictional venues, for the purpose of contradicting the Administration's decision, none of which is invoked before this court, when the logical thing, and what was appropriate if she intended to challenge an irregularity in the procedural formalities (which did not occur, as explained), was to adequately substantiate its significance and explain why the recovery sought by the Administration is improper. Even in proven fact 13 of the appealed resolution, reference is made to Official Communication DRH-DR-UCA-918-2015 of November 20, 2015, issued by the Administrative Collections Unit (Unidad de Cobros Administrativos), which appears on folios 69 to 71 of the administrative file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689 provided by the State, which effectively contains a detail of what was collected from the plaintiff both for disability benefits covering March 6, 2013, to March 31, 2014, in the amount of ¢4,495,172.00, as well as a breakdown of the ¢2,010,526.34 for \"non-corresponding credits\" (acreditaciones no correspondientes), without the cassation appellant questioning in any way such debits charged to her. In addition to the above, it is convenient to highlight some particularities of the rights and duties of the parties in a public employment relationship in situations like the one that has generated this matter. First, within the framework of an employment relationship, whether public or private, the employer has the right to recover payments made in excess or by mistake. This power is provided for in Article 173 of the Labor Code, according to which \"Debts that the worker incurs with the employer for advances or for payments made in excess shall be amortized during the term of the contract over a minimum of four payment periods and shall not accrue interest. It is understood that upon termination of the contract, the Employer may proceed with the definitive settlement that is appropriate.\" Furthermore, in this court's view, it is a natural consequence of the principle of good faith in the contractual relationship, the mutual concern of the parties to ensure the other is not illegitimately affected and suffers unjustified financial losses. Numeral 19 of the Labor Code establishes that: \"The employment contract obligates both to what is expressed therein, as well as to the consequences derived from it according to good faith, equity, usage, custom, or the law.\" The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, regarding the principle of good faith, has stated: \"…the principle of good faith is one of the main elements of the ethical content of the employment contract, which serves as a parameter for evaluating the conduct of the parties to the employment relationship in fulfilling their obligations, whereby each can expect from the other '...loyal conduct, trusting and confiding that their conduct is socially and contractually correct...', characterized by values of consideration, respect, and correct acting. This is applicable not only in purely private employment relationships, but also in those occurring in the public sector, known as statutory or service relationships…\" (Judgment 543, at 10:46 a.m., both dated April 9, 2010). In the same sense, in vote no. 46 at 3:00 p.m. on February 24, 1999, said cassation body stated: \"…the duty of fidelity in labor matters is characterized by a zealous personal attitude of the worker, not to harm the company or the employer they serve, and to contribute to the development of its activities and its prosperity. Just as in any synallagmatic legal relationship, the employment contract imposes reciprocal obligations of consideration, protection, and assistance among the parties, to achieve the common goal…\". It is clear, and it is an expected behavior within the framework of an employment relationship, that whoever receives payments greater than those owed has the corresponding duty of good faith to inform the situation and urge the restoration of normalcy. In addition to this, deposits credited in excess or without cause to the accounts of public officials constitute an arithmetic or \"de facto\" error, with adverse financial effects for the Administration. Faced with such a situation, the Administration may, at any time, in accordance with numeral 157 of the LGAP, make the corresponding correction. However, it must be specified that when such errors affect the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), it is not a mere power, but a primary duty, both on the part of the employing Administration and on the part of the official themselves, to do everything within their power to safeguard the integrity of the Public Treasury; since the protection of public funds and their management in accordance with the legal framework is a joint responsibility of the parties to the employment relationship, which finds its basis in a broad, vast, and coherent normative system from which principles, duties, and responsibilities linked thereto are derived, among which are Articles 9, 11, 24, 183, and 193 of the Magna Carta; 110 of the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets; 8, 9, and 10 of the General Law of Internal Control; 11, 203, 206, and 210 of the General Law of Public Administration; 2 and 3 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office; 1, 8, 9, and 11 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic. Clearly, the recovery by the Administration affects the economic interests of the official, so minimum guarantees must be met that allow the latter to exercise their right of defense and have clarity about what has occurred, on which there is already abundant constitutional jurisprudence, as explained. For all these reasons, it is clear that if the plaintiff believes she was improperly charged sums that were not disbursed to her without cause, she should have demonstrated it. However, she only alleged before this chamber aspects referring to the formalities that, in her view, must be followed in this type of procedure, which are improper since the decision of the lower court (Ad-quo) and the actions of the MEP conform to the parameters set by the same Constitutional Chamber in order to safeguard the rights and interests of the officials involved in situations such as that which occurred in this case, without it being necessary in cases like the present one to process an ordinary procedure under the terms of the LGAP, in addition to the duty that the same officials have to ensure the protection of the Public Treasury when undue payments are made, for which reason the appeal must be denied.\n\nVI. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal must be rejected, with costs to be borne by the party who filed it, in accordance with Article 150, subsection 3) of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, insofar as the appealed ruling is clear and evidently conforms to Law, without this chamber appreciating that there was sufficient motive to appeal.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nSe rechaza el recurso, con las costas a cargo de quien lo interpuso.\n\nLuis Guillermo Rivas Loáiciga\n\nRomán Solís Zelaya Damaris Vargas Vásquez\n\nAMENAC\nEXP: 15-010225-1027-CA\nTeléfonos: (506) 2295-3658 o 2295-3659, correo electrónico sala_primera@poder-judicial.go.cr\n\nYaxinia Díaz Mendoza, in her capacity as Director of Human Resources of the Ministry of Public Education, or whoever holds her position, is ordered, within a period of THREE DAYS, counted from the notification of this resolution, to correct the existing procedures, in order to notify the protected party, Noemy Cecilia Elizondo Zamora, identity card number 0700830689, of the overpaid amounts, the outstanding balance, and the manner in which its definitive cancellation will proceed. (...)\". By means of a request to send a telegram, case file number 04577, the following detail was established for probable overpaid sums: -period 2003: ¢56,810.47 (fifty-six thousand eight hundred ten colones forty-seven céntimos); -period 2004: ¢115,070.20 (one hundred fifteen thousand seventy colones with twenty céntimos); -period 2008: ¢233,472.72 (two hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred seventy-two colones with seventy-two céntimos); -period 2009: ¢128,312.84 (one hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twelve colones with eighty-four céntimos); -period 2015: ¢1,222,066.40 (one million two hundred twenty-two thousand sixty-six colones with forty céntimos); -absences 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012: ¢254,793.71 (two hundred fifty-four thousand seven hundred ninety-three colones seventy-one céntimos), for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones with thirty-four céntimos). By telegram number TL004160904-MEP delivered to the plaintiff on October 20, 2015, she was informed: \"SOLE TELEGRAM. You are hereby notified that you must appear before the Administrative Collections Unit on 10/30/2015 at 1:00 pm. Subject: credits that do not correspond for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34; in the event of your failure to appear, your salary will be affected starting from the first half of November 2015, in biweekly installments of ¢154,655.87 (...)\". In summons record No. 3421-2015 drawn up by the MEP's Administrative Collections Unit, it is stated that at 09:15 hours on October 13, 2015, the plaintiff appeared at said office and was informed of the collection procedure for overpaid sums initiated against her. She designated the email noemy.elizondo4@hotmail.com as the means of communication. It was specified that she was shown the case file and given the opportunity to provide evidence within a period of ten days. Furthermore, that she was presented by telegram TL0041160904 and acknowledged the debt in the amount of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones with thirty-four céntimos), corresponding to salary differences between the payment history and current statements from 2003, a decrease in interim teaching periods (lecciones interinas) from 2004, 2008, 2009, and an elimination of a functions surcharge (recargo de funciones) 2015. It was finally indicated that upon expiration of the cited period, the administrative collection process would continue, through the payroll deduction of 13 biweekly installments of ¢154,655.87 (one hundred fifty-four thousand six hundred fifty-five colones with eighty-seven céntimos), starting from the second half of November 2015, until the debt is fully paid. Said record was signed by the analyst Jenniffer Mora Esquivel and the plaintiff on October 30, 2015. In a handwritten note dated October 30, 2015, submitted to the MEP Service Platform on that same date, the plaintiff requested a copy of the administrative collections case file. By email sent to the plaintiff at noemy.elizondo4@hotmail.com by Administrative Collections, the plaintiff was informed that, in accordance with her request, a scanned copy of the petitioned case file was being sent. In official memorandum Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 of November 3, 2015, from the Assistant Secretariat for Labor Affairs of the National Association of Educators (ANDE), the plaintiff was informed: \"...There are indeed overpayments (sobregiros) and absences, according to the study carried out, detailed as follows: For this 2015, they are suspending the 40% surcharge on 36 teaching periods (lecciones), from February to May. For 2009, they suspend 4 teaching periods, leaving her with 36, and in February and March they were deducted. For 2008, the teaching periods are reduced from 48 to 40, and in February and March she was paid for 48, therefore she owes them. In 2004, the teaching periods are reduced from 38 to 32, in February and March and the first half of April she was paid for 38. In 2003, she has excess payments in February, July, and August. Therefore, what they are charging you is correct.\" By means of a brief dated November 12, 2015, the plaintiff requested the MEP's Department of Human Resources to review the situation related to the amount owed for absences from the years 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and a 15-day extension of the period to submit the corresponding evidence regarding the alleged overpaid sums. By a brief submitted on November 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed an administrative claim before the MEP's Department of Human Resources against the administrative charges that were imputed to her. Through official memorandum DRH-DR-UCA-918-2015 of November 20, 2015, the MEP's Administrative Collections Unit informed the Legal Directorate of that ministry of aspects related to the collection proceedings initiated against the plaintiff. In that regard, it noted that two proceedings are being processed. The first, for the recovery of non-corresponding credits in the sum of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones with thirty-four céntimos) corresponding to the period 2003: ¢56,810.47 (fifty-six thousand eight hundred ten colones forty-seven céntimos) for salary difference and overpaid sums due to the change from the SAP system to SIGRH; ¢115,070.20 (one hundred fifteen thousand seventy colones with twenty céntimos) for the decrease in interim teaching periods for the period 2004 according to personnel action (acción de personal) 1647321; ¢233,472.72 (two hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred seventy-two colones with seventy-two céntimos) for the decrease in interim teaching periods for the period 2008 according to personnel action 5104453; ¢128,312.84 (one hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twelve colones with eighty-four céntimos) for the decrease in interim teaching periods for the period 2009 according to personnel action 6210119; ¢1,222,066.40 (one million two hundred twenty-two thousand sixty-six colones with forty céntimos) for the elimination of a functions surcharge according to personnel action 201506-MP-1315860 for the period 2015. Regarding this proceeding, it indicates that telegram TL0041160904 of October 20, 2015, was notified, summons record 3421-2015 was drawn up, and the file contained no evidence provided, so payroll deductions would proceed in the amount of 13 installments of ¢154,655.87 (one hundred fifty-four thousand six hundred fifty-five colones with 87/100) per half-month. The second case file, for the collection of sick leave payments (incapacidades) in an amount of ¢4,495,172.00 (four million four hundred ninety-five thousand one hundred seventy-two colones), for sick leave periods from March 6, 2013, to March 31, 2014. It also recounts the management to readjust the deduction amount for the sick leave debt and the issuance of memorandum DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014. It explains that, in this process, payroll deductions began to be applied starting from the first half of June 2015 in biweekly installments of ¢202,360.00 (two hundred two thousand three hundred sixty colones). It states that this was subsequently annulled by judgment 2015015736 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) and telegram TL004177153-MEP was prepared, establishing the same deduction quota starting from the first half of November 2015. By telegram number TL004181820-MEP, delivered on November 26, 2015, the plaintiff was informed: \"SOLE TELEGRAM. You are hereby notified that you have a debt for sick leave payments in a total amount of ¢4,292,812.82; which will be deducted starting from the first half of November 2015, in biweekly installments of ¢202,360.00...\"\n\n**II.** On October 5, 2016, Ms. **Noemy Elizondo Zamora** sued the State. She sought a declaration of absolute nullity of the telegrams dated October 9 and November 3, both from 2015, by which she was notified in the months of October and November 2015 that the sum of ¢402,000.00 would be deducted from her salary, as well as the administrative file held by the MEP, on which the salary deduction is based. Furthermore, she sought to condemn the State to pay all damages and losses, for the sums of ¢50,000,000.00 for subjective moral damages and ¢25,000,000.00 for material damages caused by the deductions, plus interest on the sums and both costs. The State's attorney opposed the lawsuit and filed the defense of lack of right. In the judgment, the court upheld the defense raised by the State's representation and dismissed the lawsuit, imposing on the plaintiff the payment of both costs. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff appears before this chamber, raising a single grievance.\n\n**III.** In her sole objection, the appellant argues a violation of substantive norms. She claims the non-application of Articles 11, 16, 17, and 19 of the General Law of Public Administration (LGAP), as well as an improper application of articles 214, 216, and 23 of the LGAP, and 194 and 195 of the Civil Procedure Code. She maintains that she was taken by surprise, as she was affected without the administrative proceeding followed against her having concluded with a final act resolving what was appropriate, and therefore she could not appeal it, in violation of the law, the nature of administrative proceedings, and the parties' rights to due process, defense, and the principle of legal certainty. By being deprived of remedies provided for in the LGAP and the Civil Service Statute (ESC), she was placed in a state of defenselessness. Despite this, the judges considered that said omission was justified, thereby overlooking that her right to defense was unlawfully violated. They groundlessly failed to apply Article 223 of the LGAP \"when the judgment affirmed the indiscriminate power of the Administration,\" even though substantial formalities of the administrative proceeding were omitted. She continues, stating that the court's failure to take said precepts into account erroneously considered the facts when an omission of a substantial formality of the proceeding occurred, which, if enforced, changes the final decision, thus constituting a defect of absolute nullity. She adds that from Articles 194 and 195 of the Civil Procedure Code, it follows that the omission of substantial formalities causes defenselessness to the party and, in turn, the nullity of all actions taken. Furthermore, her right to procedural celerity was harmed, an aspect that the court \"did not highlight.\" She requests that the judgment be annulled.\n\n**IV.** The disagreement raised by the appellant essentially concerns the court's failure to consider the issuance of the final act of the proceeding as a substantial formality that could not be omitted, and that it caused her defenselessness. Therefore, for a better resolution of the grievance, it is necessary to indicate what the court resolved in this regard. It considered, regarding the possibility of the Public Administration making salary deductions (via payroll) from officials for whom the existence of overpaid sums in their salaries had been previously determined, that according to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Chamber (votes no. 1427-2003, 2573-2010, 7309-2001, and 11507-2012), the necessary and motivated accreditation of the existence of excess payments is first required, which implies that the Administration must carry out the internal analyses necessary to establish in a certain and objective manner what occurred. To this end, the public official must be provided with the detail of the amount of the sums, the origin of the debt with reference to specific periods and amounts for each time frame, as well as the installments and quota to be applied for the respective payment, for which the processing of the ordinary administrative procedure regulated in the LGAP is not necessary. However, it is necessary to inform the official beforehand of the debt and its background, installments, and term so that the official may provide evidence in their favor and exercise their right of defense regarding the existence of the liability, its economic dimension, or may propose alternative payment systems. It noted, in accordance with Articles 173, 413, and 414 of the Labor Code, that such collection can be made as long as the employment relationship persists. In the specific case, it considered that the prerequisites for the deductions applied to the plaintiff's salary to be appropriate were met. Regarding the administrative collection of case file **CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689**, it explained, by means of a telegram-sending request, case file number 4577, the detail of the probable overpaid sums was established, in the following terms: \"¢56,810.47 (fifty-six thousand eight hundred ten colones forty-seven céntimos); -period 2004: ¢115,070.20 (one hundred fifteen thousand seventy colones with twenty céntimos); -period 2008: ¢233,472.72 (two hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred seventy-two colones with seventy-two céntimos); - period 2009: ¢128,312.84 (one hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twelve colones with eighty-four céntimos); -period 2015: ¢1,222,066.40 (one million two hundred twenty-two thousand sixty-six colones with forty céntimos); -absences 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012: ¢254,793.71 (two hundred fifty-four thousand seven hundred ninety-three colones seventy-one céntimos), for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones with thirty-four céntimos).\" As a result of the above, by telegram number TL004160904-MEP delivered to the plaintiff on October 20, 2015, she is informed: \"SOLE TELEGRAM. You are hereby notified that you must appear before the Administrative Collections Unit on 10/30/2015 at 1:00 pm.\n\nSubject: non-corresponding accreditations for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34; if not presented, your salary will be affected starting from the first half of November 2015, in installments of ¢154,655.87 biweekly (...)\". Furthermore, it found, according to what was recorded in appearance record No. 3421-2015 issued by the Administrative Collections Unit of the MEP, at 09:15 on October 13, 2015, the plaintiff appeared at said office and was informed of the procedure for collecting sums overpaid initiated against her, and set email as the means of communication. It was specified that she was shown the case file and given the opportunity to provide evidence within a ten-day period, in addition to being served via telegram TL0041160904 and being considered notified of the debt in the amount of ¢2,010,526.34, corresponding to salary differences between payment history and current statuses from 2003, reduction of interim lessons from 2004, 2008, 2009, and an elimination of a function bonus 2015. It was finally indicated that if said period expired, the administrative collection process would continue, through payroll deduction of 13 biweekly installments of ¢154,655.87, starting from the second half of November 2015, until the debt is fully repaid. The court noted that said record was signed by the plaintiff on October 30, 2015, the same date she submitted a handwritten note, in which she requested a copy of the administrative collections file, which was sent via email. It added that there is no evidence in the record that, once the period granted to submit exculpatory evidence had elapsed, the plaintiff provided any. Although it is true that the claimant later submitted a brief on November 12, 2015, requesting review of the situation related to the amount owed for absences from the years 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012 and requested an extension of 15 more days for the period to present the corresponding evidence on the alleged sums overpaid, and then on November 13, 2015, filed an administrative claim before the Human Resources Department of the MEP against the administrative collections in question, the fact remains that within this process she has not managed to discredit the existence of the sums overpaid in her salary remuneration, during the periods notified, so the reason for the collection has not been refuted. It also brought up that in official letter Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 of November 3, 2015, from the Deputy Secretariat of Labor Affairs of the National Association of Educators (ANDE), the plaintiff was told \"...the overdrafts and absences actually exist, according to the study conducted, detailed below: For this 2015, they suspend the 40% bonus for 36 lessons, from February to May. For 2009, they suspend 4 lessons, leaving her with 36, and in February and March they were deducted. For 2008, lessons decrease from 48 to 40, and in February and March they paid her for 48, therefore she owes them. In 2004, lessons decrease from 38 to 32, in February and March and the first half of April they paid her for 38. In 2003, she has overpayments in February, July, and August. Therefore, what they are charging you is correct.\" It considered that the foregoing, as well as the request made by the plaintiff to obtain copies of the file, shows that she was fully aware of the existence of these collection proceedings, as well as the details of the reasons for the debt, amount, periods, installments, and the period from which the deductions would apply. Therefore, it rejects the claim that this was a surprising, sudden, or unfounded collection.\n\nRegarding case file CA-INCAP-2015-0001-07-0083-0689, for collection of sick leave overpayments in the amount of ¢4,495,172.00 (four million four hundred ninety-five thousand one hundred seventy-two colones), for sick leaves from March 6, 2013, to March 31, 2014, like the previously analyzed file, the plaintiff knew in advance the details of the collection, regarding its causes, amounts, periods, payment deadline, and the amount of the biweekly deduction; which it assessed based on: 1. Official letter DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 of April 22, 2014, from the Administrative Collections Unit of the Human Resources Directorate of the MEP indicated to the plaintiff that a determination had been made regarding the calculation formula for salary deductions for sick leave granted by the INS, so that pursuant to said regulations, the 30% deduction from gross salary would be maintained and that to date she owed ¢4,331,718.00, deductions that began to be applied via payroll starting from the first half of June 2015. 2. By means of telegram number TLOO4181820-MEP delivered on November 26, 2015, to the plaintiff and issued in compliance with the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) no. 2015-15736 of 10:20 on October 9, 2015, she was informed of the amount of debt she had for sick leave overpayments, from when it would be deducted, and the sum to be discounted per installment. Likewise, there is no evidence in the record that allows refuting the appropriateness of that collection.\n\nV. As already mentioned, the core of the present matter lies in determining the necessity of issuing a final act of a procedure and safeguarding the right of defense prior to the collection of sums unduly overpaid to public officials. Similar matters have been resolved by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) when hearing amparo appeals in which violation of the same rights the appellant claims were violated in this case against collections of this type has been alleged. The Chamber has stated: \"In that sense, the Chamber has considered that such deductions are acceptable provided that the worker is previously informed of – at least – the sums owed, the number of installments in which the repayment is to be made, the monthly amount of the deduction, and the sum to be deducted monthly, allowing them to receive a salary amount sufficient to meet their basic needs. From this perspective, it is therefore considered that, since the official was informed of the amount owed and the manner in which the State would proceed with its repayment before the filing of this appeal, no violation of the right to salary due to lack of prior communication has occurred; and the appellant's right to exercise their right to defense has been guaranteed in this case, as well as to propose payment arrangements or other mechanisms to adjust their situation to the law, if the Administration deems them pertinent. By virtue of the foregoing, the appeal is dismissed in all its aspects, which is indeed ordered.\" (Judgment 7113 of 9:20 on April 26, 2019). It had previously ruled in a similar sense, among many others, in judgment no. 2012 of 16:30 on August 22, 2012, where it indicated that: \"...regarding the second point raised in the amparo, namely the necessary communication that must exist with the worker regarding the amounts owed and the manner in which their deduction will proceed, it should be remembered that although the Chamber has accepted that the Administration may recover, through salary deductions, amounts overpaid without needing to follow the ordinary procedure established by the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) (...), the truth is that it has also clarified that such deductions are acceptable provided that the worker is previously informed of – at least – the sums owed, the number of installments in which the repayment is to be made, the monthly amount of the deduction, and the sum to be deducted monthly, allowing them to receive a salary amount sufficient to meet their basic needs.\" This criterion has been reiterated in multiple resolutions; in this sense, reference can be made to rulings no. 19833 of 9:20 on October 11, 2019, and 17024 of 9:15 on October 12, 2018, all from said jurisdictional body. According to the referenced constitutional jurisprudence, there is no violation of the fundamental rights of the person subject to an employment relationship when deductions are made from their salary for sums owed due to undue overpayments, provided they are supplied with the necessary information to exercise the right of defense, which requires communication of the reason for the deduction, the amounts owed, their specific concept, the manner in which the deduction will be made, the total number of installments, and the periodic quantum to be deducted.\n\nIn the instant case, the appellant does not reproach this chamber for the court's assessment regarding the fact that she indeed owes the sums that have had to be deducted from her and that the recently indicated information was indeed supplied to her, but rather that a final act of a procedure was not issued. She maintains that had such a defect not occurred, the final decision would have varied, but without explaining how; she seeks to have the judgment quashed and the nullity decreed of the actions carried out to recover the funds that were overpaid to her, without explaining why such recovery by the Administration was inappropriate. As indicated, constitutional precedents already exist referring specifically to the transgression of the fundamental rights invoked by the appellant, which has been rejected when the interested party is made aware of at least the previously indicated information, allowing them to exercise their right of defense. The constitutional court has expressly rejected the need for an ordinary administrative procedure for the employing Administration to recover sums unduly paid to one of its employees. In this case, multiple informative actions were carried out with the appellant, who, faced with this, has been able to question the actions both administratively and jurisdictionally, without having proven in the sub lite that she did not owe the sums that were charged and have been deducted from her, and without bringing any argument whatsoever in cassation regarding that, beyond the issuance of a final act that could be appealed; a grievance that is not admissible because the telegrams notified to the plaintiff, informing her of the debts she held with the Administration, their amount, concept, and the form of collection to be applied, constitute formal activity of the Administration by which she is made aware of the debt and the manner in which the deductions will be made, acts against which she can exercise the right of defense in administrative or jurisdictional venues, which, in fact, the plaintiff has proceeded to do, without having managed to discredit the appropriateness of the collections and consequent recovery by the Administration.\n\nFurthermore, in case file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, an appearance session was even held on October 13, 2015, at the Administrative Collections Unit of the Remunerations Department of the Ministry of Public Education (Ministerio de Educación Pública), where it was recorded that the plaintiff was informed of the debt, its concept, amount, form of collection, quantum, and periodicity of the deductions, granting her a period to present evidence and she was informed that once this period expired, the deductions would proceed. Similarly, by official letter Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 of November 3, 2015, from the Deputy Secretariat of Labor Affairs of the National Association of Educators (ANDE), the plaintiff was given a detail of overdrafts and absences and that \"what they are charging you is correct.\" (Proven fact 10) Regarding case file CA-INCAP-2015-0001-07-0083-0689, for collection of sick leave overpayments, according to the proven facts, telegram number TL004181820-MEP was sent via Correos de Costa Rica, which states: \"You are hereby notified that you have a debt for sick leave overpayments in the total amount of ¢4,292,812.82; which will be deducted starting from the first half of November 2015, in biweekly installments of ¢202,360.00...\" (proven fact 14). Additionally, since April 22, 2014, by Official Letter DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 of April 22, 2014, the plaintiff had been informed that, in response to her request within the collection process for sick leave overpayments, the formula for calculating salary deductions for sick leaves granted by the INS had been determined, so it was ordered to maintain a 30% deduction from the gross salary for the obligation she held with the State for sick leaves and that, at that date, she owed ¢4,331,718.00 (proven fact two). Regarding these deductions, which began to be applied in June 2015, the amparo appeal was processed under case file 15-12099-0007-CO, where the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) ordered, through ruling 2015-15736 of 10:20 on October 9, 2015, to communicate to the protected party \"...about the overpaid amounts, the balance she owes, and the manner in which its definitive cancellation will proceed...\" and subsequently, the previously mentioned telegram TL004181820-MEP was issued. In addition to this, according to proven fact nine of the judgment, not rebutted by the cassation appellant, on folio 49 of the administrative file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, it is recorded that a copy of the administrative file was sent to the plaintiff, a communication indicating Monday, November 2, 2015, as the date. Having reviewed said file, this court notes that indeed it contains documentation of various kinds related to the deductions made from the plaintiff. Thus, it contains a \"Report on Analysis of Possible Sums Overpaid\" (Reporte de Análisis de Posibles Sumas Giradas de Más) dated September 7, 2015 (folio 45), a \"Study of Sums Overpaid\" (Estudio de Sumas Giradas de Más) dated the 23rd of the same month and year (Folios 44 and 43), among others. Furthermore, along with the complaint, the plaintiff herself provided a copy of telegram TL004181820-MEP, as well as a document dated September 16, 2016, as recorded in image 49 of the initial brief incorporated into the virtual desktop on October 5, 2016, which details a breakdown of debts charged to the plaintiff for sick leave deductions, all of which shows that she indeed had knowledge of the amounts she owed, as well as their concept, the manner in which the deductions would be made, and for how long. Despite all this, in cassation, as explained, nothing was argued regarding the existence or non-existence of the debt, the proportionality of the amount of deductions set by the MEP, and not even regarding the information itself that was supplied to the plaintiff, who had the opportunity to offer evidence, both in administrative and jurisdictional venues, in order to contradict what was resolved by the Administration, none of which is invoked before this venue, when what was logical and what she should have done if she intended to challenge an irregularity in the formalities of the procedure (which did not occur, as explained), was to adequately substantiate its transcendence and explain why the recovery sought by the Administration is inappropriate. Even proven fact 13 of the appealed resolution refers to Official Letter DRH-DR-UCA-918-2015 of November 20, 2015, issued by the Administrative Collections Unit, which appears on folios 69 to 71 of the administrative file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689 provided by the State, which indeed contains a detail of what was charged to the plaintiff both for sick leaves from March 6, 2013, to March 31, 2014, in the amount of ¢4,495,172.00, as well as a breakdown of the ¢2,010,526.34 for \"non-corresponding accreditations,\" without the cassation appellant questioning in any way such debits charged to her.\n\nIn addition to the above, it is convenient to highlight some particularities of the rights and duties of the parties in a public employment relationship when faced with situations such as the one that has generated this matter. First, within the framework of an employment relationship, whether of a public or private nature, the employer has the right to recover payments made in excess or in error.\n\nThis power is provided for in Article 173 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), according to which \"Debts that the worker incurs with the employer for advances or overpayments shall be amortized during the term of the contract over a minimum of four payment periods and shall not accrue interest. It is understood that upon termination of the contract, the Employer may make the final settlement that is appropriate.\" Furthermore, in the opinion of this court, it is a natural consequence of the principle of good faith in the contractual relationship, the mutual concern of the parties that the other not be illegitimately affected and suffer patrimonial harm without cause. Article 19 of the Labor Code establishes that: \"The employment contract binds both to what is expressed in it, and to the consequences that derive from it according to good faith, equity, use, custom, or the law.\" The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), regarding the principle of good faith, has stated: \"…the principle of good faith is one of the main elements of the ethical content of the employment contract, which serves as a parameter to assess the conduct of the parties in the employment relationship in the fulfillment of their obligations, by which each can expect from the other '…loyal conduct, trusting and confiding that their conduct is socially and contractually correct...', characterized by values of consideration, respect, and correct action. This is applicable not only in properly private employment relationships but also in those occurring in the public sector, called statutory or service relationships…\" (Judgment 543, at 10:46 hours, both of April 9, 2010). In the same vein, in decision no. 46 at 15:00 hours of February 24, 1999, that cassation body stated: \"…the duty of fidelity in labor matters is characterized by a zealous personal attitude of the worker, not to harm the company or employer they serve, and to contribute to the development of its activities and its prosperity. As in any synallagmatic legal relationship, the employment contract imposes reciprocal obligations of consideration, protection, and assistance between the parties, to achieve the common goal…\" It is clear, it is expected conduct, within the framework of an employment relationship, that whoever receives payments greater than those owed to them has the own duty of good faith that corresponds to them, to report the situation and urge the restoration of normality. In addition to this, deposits that are credited in excess or without cause to the accounts of public officials constitute an arithmetic or \"factual\" error (\"de hecho\"), with adverse patrimonial effects on the Administration. Faced with such a situation, the Administration may, at any time, pursuant to Article 157 of the LGAP, make the corresponding correction. However, it must be specified, when such errors affect the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), it is not a mere power, but a first-order duty, both on the part of the employing Administration and on the part of the official themselves, to do everything within their reach to safeguard the integrity of the Public Treasury; since the protection of public funds and their management in accordance with the legal framework is a joint responsibility of the parties in the public employment relationship, which is grounded in a broad, vast, and coherent regulatory system from which principles, duties, and responsibilities linked to this are derived, among which are Articles 9, 11, 24, 183, and 193 of the Constitution (Carta Magna); 110 of the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos); 8, 9, and 10 of the General Internal Control Law (Ley General de Control Interno); 11, 203, 206, and 210 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública); 2 and 3 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública); 1, 8, 9, and 11 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). Of course, the recovery by the Administration affects the economic interests of the official, so minimum guarantees must be met that allow them to exercise their right of defense and have clarity regarding what occurred, on which there is already abundant constitutional jurisprudence, as explained. For all these reasons, it is clear that if the plaintiff considered that sums that were not remitted to her without cause were improperly charged to her, she had to demonstrate it. Nevertheless, she only alleged before this chamber aspects referring to the formalities that, in her opinion, must be followed in this type of procedure, which are inappropriate since what was resolved by the lower court (Ad-quo) and the actions of the MEP are in accordance with the parameters set by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) itself so that the rights and interests of the officials involved in situations such as the one that occurred in this case are safeguarded, without it being necessary in cases like the present to process an ordinary procedure in the terms of the LGAP, in addition to the duty that the officials themselves have to seek the protection of the Public Treasury when undue payments are made, for which reason the appeal must be denied.\n\nVI. For the foregoing, the appeal must be rejected, with costs to be borne by the party who filed it, in accordance with Article 150, subsection 3) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), insofar as the appealed ruling is clear and clearly conforms to the Law, without this chamber appreciating that there was sufficient reason to appeal.\n\nPOR TANTO\n\nThe appeal is rejected, with costs to be borne by the party who filed it.\n\nLuis Guillermo Rivas Loáiciga\n\n          Román Solís Zelaya                                                 Damaris Vargas Vásquez\n\nAMENAC\n\nEXP: 15-010225-1027-CA\n\nTeléfonos: (506) 2295-3658 o 2295-3659, correo electrónico sala_primera@poder-judicial.go.cr\n\n2012 at 4:30 p.m. on August 22, 2012, where it indicated that: “…as regards the second point raised in the amparo action, namely the necessary communication that must be given to the worker regarding the amounts owed and the manner in which their deduction will proceed, it must be recalled that although this Chamber has accepted that the Administration may recover, through salary deductions, amounts paid in excess without the need to follow the ordinary procedure established by the Ley General de la Administración Pública (…), the truth is that it has also clarified that such deductions are acceptable provided that the worker is previously informed of –at least– the amounts owed, the number of installments in which the reimbursement will proceed, the monthly amount of the deduction, and the sum to be deducted monthly, allowing them to receive a sufficient salary to satisfy their basic needs.” This criterion has been reiterated in multiple rulings; in this regard, see votes no. 19833 at 9:20 a.m. on October 11, 2019, and 17024 at 9:15 a.m. on October 12, 2018, all from this jurisdictional body. In accordance with the referenced constitutional jurisprudence, there is no violation of the fundamental rights of a person subject to an employment relationship when deductions are made from their salary for amounts owed due to undue or excess payments, provided that the necessary information is supplied to them so they may exercise the right of defense, meaning the reason for the deduction, the amounts owed, their specific concept, the manner in which the deduction will be made, the total number of installments, and the periodic amount to be deducted must be communicated.\n\nIn the present case, the appellant does not challenge before this chamber what was assessed by the lower court regarding the fact that she effectively owes the sums that have had to be deducted and that the aforementioned information was indeed provided to her, but rather that no final act of a proceeding was issued. She maintains that if such a defect had not occurred, the final decision would have varied, but without explaining how; she seeks to have the judgment overturned and the nullity of the actions taken to recover the monies overpaid to her decreed, without explaining why such recovery by the Administration was improper. As indicated, constitutional precedents already exist specifically regarding the transgression of the fundamental rights invoked by the appellant, which have been rejected when the interested party is made aware of, at least, the aforementioned information, allowing them to exercise their right of defense. The constitutional court has expressly rejected the need for an ordinary administrative proceeding to be carried out so the employing Administration can recover sums unduly disbursed to one of its employees. In the present case, multiple informative acts were performed regarding the appellant, who has been able to challenge what was done both administratively and jurisdictionally, without having proven in the sub lite matter that she did not owe the sums that were charged to her and have been deducted, and without bringing to cassation any argument whatsoever in this regard, beyond the issuance of a final act that she could appeal, an injury that is not appropriate because the telegrams that were notified to the plaintiff, informing her of the debts she held with the Administration, their amount, concept, and the form of collection to be applied, constitute formal activity of the Administration through which she is made aware of the debt and the manner in which the deductions will be made, acts against which she can exercise the right of defense in administrative or jurisdictional venues, which, in fact, the plaintiff has proceeded to do, without having succeeded in discrediting the appropriateness of the charges and consequent recovery by the Administration. Moreover, in file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, a hearing was even held on October 13, 2015, in the Unidad de Cobros Administrativos of the Departamento de Remuneraciones of the Ministerio de Educación Pública, where it was recorded that the plaintiff was informed of the debt, its concept, amount, form of collection, quantum, and periodicity of the deductions, granting her a period to present evidence and she was told that once this period expired, the deductions would proceed. Similarly, through official communication Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 of November 3, 2015, from the Secretaría Adjunta de Asuntos Laborales of the Asociación Nacional de Educadores (ANDE), a detail of overdrafts and absences was indicated to the plaintiff, and that “what they are charging you is correct.” (Proven fact 10) Regarding file CA-INCAP-2015-0001-07-0083-0689, for the collection of sick leave payments, according to the proven facts, telegram number TL004181820-MEP was sent via Correos de Costa Rica, which states: “You are hereby notified that you have a debt for sick leave in the total amount of ¢4,292,812.82; which will be deducted starting the first half of November 2015, in biweekly installments of ¢202,360.00...” (proven fact 14). Additionally, since April 22, 2014, through Official Communication DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 of April 22, 2014, it had been indicated to the plaintiff that, attending to her request within the collection process for sick leave, the formula for calculating salary deductions for sick leave granted by the INS had been determined, and it was ordered to maintain a deduction of 30% of the gross salary for the obligation she held with the State for sick leave, and that, as of that date, she owed ¢4,331,718.00 (proven fact two). Regarding these deductions, which began to be applied in June 2015, an amparo action was processed under file 15-12099-0007-CO, where the Sala Constitucional ordered, through vote 2015-15736 at 10:20 a.m. on October 9, 2015, to communicate to the protected party “…the overpaid amounts, the outstanding balance owed, and the manner in which its definitive cancellation will proceed…” and subsequently, the aforementioned telegram TL004181820-MEP was issued. In addition to this, according to proven fact nine of the judgment, not rebutted by the appellant, at folio 49 of administrative file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689 it is recorded that a copy of the administrative file was sent to the plaintiff, a communication dated Monday, November 2, 2015. Having reviewed said file, this court notes that effectively, it contains documentation of various kinds related to the deductions made to the plaintiff. Thus, there is a “Report of Analysis of Possible Overpaid Sums” dated September 7, 2015 (folio 45), a “Study of Overpaid Sums” dated the 23rd of the same month and year (Folios 44 and 43), among others. Furthermore, together with the complaint, the plaintiff herself provided a copy of telegram TL004181820-MEP, as well as a document dated September 16, 2016, as recorded in image 49 of the initial brief incorporated into the virtual desktop on October 5, 2016, which details a breakdown of debts chargeable to the plaintiff for sick leave deductions, all of which evidences that she effectively had knowledge of the amounts owed, as well as their concept, in what manner the deductions would be made, and for how long. Despite all this, in cassation, as explained, no argument was made regarding the existence or not of the debt, the proportionality of the deduction amounts set by the MEP, nor even regarding the information itself that was supplied to the plaintiff, who had the opportunity to offer evidence, both in administrative and jurisdictional venues, in order to contradict what was decided by the Administration, none of which is invoked in this venue, when the logical course, and what was incumbent upon her if she intended to challenge an irregularity in the procedural formalities (which did not occur as explained), was to adequately substantiate its significance and explain why the recovery sought by the Administration is improper. Even in proven fact 13 of the appealed judgment, reference is made to Official Communication DRH-DR-UCA-918-2015 of November 20, 2015, issued by the Unidad de Cobros Administrativos, which appears on folios 69 to 71 of administrative file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689 provided by the State, which effectively contains a detail of what was charged to the plaintiff both for sick leave ranging from March 6, 2013, to March 31, 2014, in the amount of ¢4,495,172.00, as well as a breakdown of the ¢2,010,526.34 for “non-corresponding accreditations,” without the appellant questioning in any way these debits against her. In addition to the foregoing, it is convenient to highlight some particularities of the rights and duties of the parties to a public employment relationship when facing situations such as the one that has generated the present matter. In the first place, within the framework of an employment relationship, whether of a public or private nature, the employer has the right to recover payments made in excess or by mistake. This power is provided for in Article 173 of the Código de Trabajo, according to which “Debts that the worker incurs with the employer for advances or for excess payments made shall be amortized during the term of the contract in a minimum of four payment periods and shall not accrue interest. It is understood that upon termination of the contract, the Employer may make the definitive settlement that applies.” Furthermore, in the opinion of this court, it is a natural consequence of the principle of good faith in the contractual relationship that the parties are mutually concerned that the other is not illegitimately affected and suffers undue patrimonial harm.\n\nNumber 19 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) establishes that: \"The employment contract obligates both to what is expressed in it, as well as to the consequences that derive from it according to good faith (buena fe), equity, usage, custom, or the law.\" The Second Chamber (Sala Segunda) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia), regarding the principle of good faith (buena fe) has stated: \"…the principle of good faith (buena fe) is one of the main elements of the ethical content of the employment contract, which serves as a parameter to evaluate the conduct of the parties to the employment relationship in the fulfillment of their obligations, by which each can expect from the other loyal conduct, trusting and confiding that their conduct is socially and contractually correct... characterized by values of consideration, respect, and correct action. This is applicable not only in strictly private employment relations, but also in those that occur in the public sector, called statutory or service relations…\" (Judgment 543, at 10:46 a.m., both of April 9, 2010). In the same vein, in vote (voto) no. 46 at 3:00 p.m. on February 24, 1999, said cassation body pointed out: \"…the duty of fidelity in labor matters is characterized by a zealous personal attitude of the worker, not to harm the company or the employer they serve, and to contribute to the development of their activities and their prosperity. Just as in any synallagmatic legal relationship, the employment contract imposes reciprocal obligations of consideration, protection, and assistance between the parties, to achieve the common goal…\". It is clear, it is an expected conduct, within the framework of an employment relationship, that anyone who receives payments greater than those owed to them has the duty inherent in the good faith (buena fe) that corresponds to them, to report the situation and urge the restoration of normality. Added to this, deposits credited in excess or without cause to the accounts of public officials constitute an arithmetic or \"de facto\" error, with adverse patrimonial effects to the Administration. Faced with such a situation, the Administration may, at any time, in accordance with numeral 157 of the LGAP, make the corresponding correction. However, it must be specified, when such errors affect the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), it is not a mere faculty, but a duty of the first order, both for the employing Administration and for the official themselves, to do everything within their power to safeguard the integrity of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública); since the protection of public funds and their management in accordance with the block of legality is a joint responsibility of the parties to the civil service relationship, which finds its basis in a broad, vast, and coherent normative system from which principles, duties, and responsibilities linked to it are derived, among which are articles 9, 11, 24, 183, and 193 of the Magna Carta; 110 of the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos); 8, 9, and 10 of the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno); 11, 203, 206, and 210 of the General Law of Public Administration (LGAP); 2 and 3 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública); 1, 8, 9, and 11 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). Of course, recovery by the Administration affects the economic interests of the official, so minimum guarantees must be met that allow them to exercise their right of defense and have clarity of what happened, on which there is already abundant constitutional jurisprudence, as explained. For all this, it is clear that if the plaintiff believes that sums not transferred to her without cause were improperly charged to her, she should have proven it. However, she only alleged before this chamber aspects referring to the formalities that, in her opinion, must be followed in this type of procedure, which are improper as what was resolved by the Ad-quo and acted upon by the MEP conforms to the parameters set by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) itself for the purpose of safeguarding the rights and interests of the officials involved in situations such as the one that occurred in the species, without it being necessary in cases such as the present one to process an ordinary procedure in the terms of the LGAP, added to the duty that the same officials have to seek the protection of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) when improper payments are made, for which reason the appeal must be denied\".\n\nThe plaintiff files a cassation appeal against judgment 137-2017-VI of 10:15 a.m. on November 17, 2017, issued by the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court, Sixth Section, composed of Judges José Roberto Garita Navarro, Cinthya Abarca Gómez, and José Martín Conejo Cantillo.\n\n**Justice Vargas Vásquez writes the opinion and,**\n\n**CONSIDERING**\n\n**I.-** In accordance with the facts proven in the appealed judgment, not rebutted in the appeal, Ms. Noemy Elizondo Zamora records a start of work on the property as of February 1, 2002, at the Colegio Técnico Profesional de Batan. Through official letter DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 of April 22, 2014, from the Administrative Collections Unit of the MEP Human Resources Directorate, the plaintiff was informed that, in response to her request within the collection process for sick leaves (*incapacidades*), that directorate had determined the calculation formula for salary deductions for sick leaves granted by the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, so in accordance with those regulations, it was ordered to maintain the deduction of 30% of gross salary for the obligation owed to the State for sick leaves. It also noted that as of that date, she owed the sum of ¢4,331,718.00 (four million three hundred thirty-one thousand seven hundred eighteen colones). On September 23, 2015, the MEP Human Resources Directorate conducted a study of sums overpaid to the plaintiff, in which a debt was determined for payments (*acreditaciones*) that did not correspond. By Vote No. 2015-015736 of 10:20 a.m. on October 9, 2015, issued in the amparo proceeding processed under file 15-012099-0007-CO, filed by the plaintiff against the MEP, it was ordered: \"*The appeal is granted for violation of due process. Yaxinia Díaz Mendoza, in her capacity as Director of Human Resources of the Ministry of Public Education, or whoever holds her position, is ordered, within a period of THREE DAYS, counted from the notification of this resolution, to correct the existing procedures, in order to inform the protected party, Noemy Cecilia Elizondo Zamora, identity card 0700830689, about the amounts overpaid, the balance owed, and the manner in which its final cancellation will proceed. (...)*\". By means of a telegram dispatch request, file number 04577, the following detail was established for probable sums overpaid: - period 2003: ¢56,810.47 (fifty-six thousand eight hundred ten colones forty-seven céntimos); - period 2004: ¢115,070.20 (one hundred fifteen thousand seventy colones with twenty céntimos); - period 2008: ¢233,472.72 (two hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred seventy-two colones with seventy-two céntimos); - period 2009: ¢128,312.84 (one hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twelve colones with eighty-four céntimos); - period 2015: ¢1,222,066.40 (one million two hundred twenty-two thousand sixty-six colones with forty céntimos); - absences (*ausencias*) 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012: ¢254,793.71 (two hundred fifty-four thousand seven hundred ninety-three colones seventy-one céntimos), for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones with thirty-four céntimos). Through telegram number TL004160904-MEP delivered to the plaintiff on October 20, 2015, she was informed: \"*SINGLE TELEGRAM. You are notified that you must appear before the Administrative Collections Unit on 10/30/2015 at 1:00 pm. Subject: payments that do not correspond for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34; in the event of non-appearance, your salary will be affected starting from the first two-week pay period of November 2015, in installments of ¢154,655.87 biweekly (...)*\". In appearance record No. 3421-2015 drawn up by the MEP Administrative Collections Unit, it is stated that at 9:15 a.m. on October 13, 2015, the plaintiff appeared at said office and was informed of the collection procedure for overpaid sums initiated against her. She set as a means of communication the email noemy.elizondo4@hotmail.com. It was specified that she was shown the file and given the opportunity to submit evidence within a period of ten days. Furthermore, that she was appearing via telegram TL0041160904 and was acknowledging the debt for an amount of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones with thirty-four céntimos), corresponding to salary differences between payment history and current statuses from 2003, a reduction of interim lessons (*lecciones interinas*) in 2004, 2008, 2009, and an elimination of a functional bonus (*recargo de funciones*) in 2015. Finally, it was indicated that if said period expired, the administrative collection process would continue, through payroll deduction of 13 biweekly installments of ¢154,655.87 (one hundred fifty-four thousand six hundred fifty-five colones with eighty-seven céntimos), starting from the second two-week pay period of November 2015, until the debt was fully paid. Said record was signed by analyst Jenniffer Mora Esquivel and the plaintiff on October 30, 2015. In a handwritten note dated October 30, 2015, submitted to the MEP Service Platform on that same date, the plaintiff requested a copy of the administrative collections file. By email sent to the plaintiff at the address noemy.elizondo4@hotmail.com, from Administrative Collections, the plaintiff was informed that, in accordance with her request, a scanned copy of the requested file was being remitted to her. In official letter Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 of November 3, 2015, from the Deputy Secretariat of Labor Affairs of the National Association of Educators (ANDE), the plaintiff was informed \"*...In reality, the overpayments and the absences exist, according to the study conducted, the following is detailed: For this 2015, they suspended the 40% bonus for 36 lessons, from February to May. For 2009, they suspended 4 lessons, leaving her with 36, and in February and March they deducted them. For 2008, the lessons dropped from 48 to 40, and in February and March they paid her 48, therefore she owes them. In 2004, the lessons dropped from 38 to 32, in February and March and the first half of April they paid her with 38. In 2003, she has overpayments in February, July, and August. Therefore, what they are charging you is correct.*\" By a written submission dated November 12, 2015, the plaintiff requested the MEP Human Resources Department to review the situation related to the amount owed for absences from the years 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and requested a 15-day extension of the period to present the corresponding evidence regarding the alleged overpaid sums. By a written submission filed on November 13, 2015, the plaintiff filed an administrative claim before the MEP Human Resources Department against the administrative charges imputed to her. Through official letter DRH-DR-UCA-918-2015 of November 20, 2015, the MEP Administrative Collections Unit informed the Legal Directorate of that ministry about aspects related to the collection proceedings brought against the plaintiff. In that regard, it pointed out that two procedures were being processed. The first for recovery of non-corresponding payments for the sum of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones with thirty-four céntimos) corresponding to the period 2003: ¢56,810.47 (fifty-six thousand eight hundred ten colones forty-seven céntimos) for salary differences and sums overpaid due to the change from the SAP system to SIGRH; ¢115,070.20 (one hundred fifteen thousand seventy colones with twenty céntimos) for a reduction of interim lessons for the 2004 period according to personnel action 1647321; ¢233,472.72 (two hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred seventy-two colones with seventy-two céntimos) for a reduction of interim lessons for the 2008 period according to personnel action 5104453; ¢128,312.84 (one hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twelve colones with eighty-four céntimos) for a reduction of interim lessons for the 2009 period according to personnel action 6210119; ¢1,222,066.40 (one million two hundred twenty-two thousand sixty-six colones with forty céntimos) for elimination of a functional bonus according to personnel action 201506-MP-1315860 for the 2015 period. Regarding that proceeding, it indicates that telegram TL0041160904 of October 20, 2015, was served, appearance record 3421-2015 was drawn up, and the file contained no evidence whatsoever provided, so payroll deductions would proceed for an amount of 13 installments of ¢154,655.87 (one hundred fifty-four thousand six hundred fifty-five colones with 87/100) per two-week pay period. The second file for the collection of sick leave debts for an amount of ¢4,495,172.00 (four million four hundred ninety-five thousand one hundred seventy-two colones), for sick leaves ranging from March 6, 2013, to March 31, 2014. It also relates the re-adjustment management of the deduction amount for the sick leave debt and the issuance of official letter DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014. It states that in this process, payroll deductions began to be applied starting from the first two-week pay period of June 2015, in biweekly installments of ¢202,360.00 (two hundred two thousand three hundred sixty colones). It says this was later annulled by ruling 2015015736 of the Constitutional Chamber and telegram TL004177153-MEP was drafted, establishing the same deduction quota starting from the first two-week pay period of November 2015. Through telegram number TL004181820-MEP, delivered on November 26, 2015, the plaintiff was informed: \"*SINGLE TELEGRAM. You are notified that you have a debt for sick leaves for a total amount of ¢4,292,812.82; which will be deducted starting from the first two-week pay period of November 2015, in biweekly installments of ¢202,360.00...* \"\n\n**II.** On October 5, 2016, Ms. Noemy Elizondo Zamora sued the State. She sought a declaration of absolute nullity of the telegrams dated October 9 and November 3, both of 2015, through which she was informed in October and November of 2015 that the sum of ¢402,000.00 would be deducted from her salary, as well as the administrative file held by the MEP, on which it relied to deduct her salary. Furthermore, she sought to order the State to pay all damages and losses, for the sums of ¢50,000,000.00 for subjective moral damage (*daño moral subjetivo*) and ¢25,000,000.00 for patrimonial damage (*daño patrimonial*) caused by the deductions, plus interest on the sums and both sets of costs. The State's attorney opposed the lawsuit and filed the defense of lack of right. In the judgment, the court upheld the defense raised by the state representation and dismissed the lawsuit, ordering the plaintiff to pay both sets of costs. Disagreeing, the plaintiff appears before this chamber. She raises a single grievance.\n\n**III.** In her sole challenge, the appellant alleges a violation of substantive rules. She claims the non-application of Articles 11, 16, 17, and 19 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP), as well as an improper application of articles 214, 216, and 23 of the LGAP, and 194 and 195 of the Código Procesal Civil. She maintains she was surprised, since she was affected without the administrative proceeding followed against her having concluded with a final act resolving what was applicable, so she could not appeal it, in accordance with the law, with the nature of administrative proceedings, and with the parties' rights to due process (*debido proceso*), defense, and the principle of legal certainty, being that by being deprived of remedies provided in the LGAP and the Estatuto del Servicio Civil (ESC), she was placed in a state of defenselessness. Despite this, the judges considered that said omission was justified, thereby ignoring that her right to defense was anti-juridically violated. They groundlessly disregarded Article 223 of the LGAP \"*by the judgment affirming the indiscriminate power of the Administration*\", even though substantial formalities of the administrative procedure were omitted. She continues, by the court not taking said precepts into account, it erroneously considered the facts when an omission of a substantial formality of the procedure occurred, which, if carried out, changes the final decision, so there is a defect of absolute nullity. She adds, from articles 194 and 195 of the Código Procesal Civil it follows that in the face of the omission of substantial formalities, the party is left defenseless and, in turn, everything acted upon is rendered null. Furthermore, her right to procedural speed was harmed, an aspect the court \"*did not highlight*\". She requests the judgment be annulled.\n\n**IV.** The disagreement raised by the appellant essentially refers to the fact that the court did not consider the issuance of the final act of the procedure necessary as a substantial formality that could not be omitted, and that it caused her defenselessness. Therefore, for a better resolution of the grievance, it is necessary to point out what the court resolved in that regard. It considered, regarding the possibility of the Public Administration making salary deductions (by payroll) for officials regarding whom the existence of overpaid sums in their salaries has been previously determined, that according to Constitutional Chamber jurisprudence (votes no.\n\n1427-2003, 2573-2010, 7309-2001 and 11507-2012), the necessary and reasoned accreditation of the existence of the amounts overpaid is required first, which implies that the Administration must carry out the necessary internal analyses to establish in a certain and objective manner what occurred. To do so, the detail of the sum total, the origin of the debt with reference to specific periods and amounts for each timeframe, as well as the installments (tractos) and quota to be applied for the respective payment must be made available to the public agent, for which the processing of the ordinary administrative procedure regulated in the LGAP is not necessary, although it is necessary to give prior notice to the official of the debt and its background, quotas, and term so that they may provide evidence in their favor and exercise their right of defense regarding the existence of the liability, its economic dimension, or may propose alternative payment systems. It noted, in accordance with numerals 173, 413, and 414 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), said collection may be carried out as long as the employment relationship lasts. In the specific case, it held, the necessary assumptions for the deductions applied to the plaintiff's salary to be appropriate were met.\n\nRegarding the administrative collection of file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, it explained, through a request to send a telegram, file number 4577, the detail of the probable overpaid sums was established, in the following terms: “¢56,810.47 (fifty-six thousand eight hundred ten colones and forty-seven céntimos); -2004 period: ¢115,070.20 (one hundred fifteen thousand seventy colones and twenty céntimos); -2008 period: ¢233,472.72 (two hundred thirty-three thousand four hundred seventy-two colones and seventy-two céntimos); -2009 period: ¢128,312.84 (one hundred twenty-eight thousand three hundred twelve colones and eighty-four céntimos); -2015 period: ¢1,222,066.40 (one million two hundred twenty-two thousand sixty-six colones and forty céntimos); -absences 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012: ¢254,793.71 (two hundred fifty-four thousand seven hundred ninety-three colones and seventy-one céntimos), for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34 (two million ten thousand five hundred twenty-six colones and thirty-four céntimos).”\nProduct of the foregoing, by telegram number TL004160904-MEP delivered to the claimant on October 20, 2015, she was informed: \"SINGLE TELEGRAM. You are hereby notified that you must appear at the Administrative Collections Unit (Unidad de Cobros Administrativos) on 10/30/2015 at 1:00 p.m. Subject: credits that do not correspond for a total amount of ¢2,010,526.34; in case of non-appearance, your salary will be affected starting from the first fortnight of November 2015, in biweekly installments (tractos) of ¢154,655.87 (...)\". Furthermore, it held, according to what was recorded in appearance record No. 3421-2015 drawn up by the Administrative Collections Unit of the MEP, at 9:15 a.m. on October 13, 2015, the plaintiff appeared at said office and was informed of the collection procedure for overpaid sums initiated against her and established email as a means of communication. It was specified that she was shown the file and given the opportunity to provide evidence within a ten-day period, in addition to being served via telegram TL0041160904 and being made aware of the debt in the amount of ¢2,010,526.34, corresponding to salary differences between payment history and current statuses from 2003, reduction of interim lessons from 2004, 2008, 2009, and an elimination of a functions surcharge for 2015. It was finally indicated that upon expiration of said period, the administrative collection process would continue, by means of a payroll deduction of 13 biweekly installments (tractos) of ¢154,655.87, starting from the second fortnight of November 2015, until the debt is fully paid. The court noted, said record was signed by the plaintiff on October 30, 2015, the same date on which she submitted a handwritten note requesting a copy of the administrative collections file, which was sent via email. It added, there is no record that once the period granted to provide exculpatory evidence had elapsed, the plaintiff provided any. While it is true that the claimant later filed a brief on November 12, 2015, requesting a review of the situation related to the amount owed for the absences of 2003, 2004, 2008, 2010, 2011, and 2012, and requested a 15-day extension to the deadline to present the corresponding evidence on the allegedly overpaid sums, and then on November 13, 2015, filed an administrative complaint before the MEP Human Resources Department against the administrative collections in question, the fact of the matter is that within this process she has not managed to disprove the existence of the sums paid in excess in her salary remunerations, in the notified periods, so the reason for the collection has not been invalidated. It also brought up that in official letter Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 of November 3, 2015, from the Assistant Secretariat for Labor Affairs of the National Association of Educators (ANDE), the plaintiff was told \"...In reality, the overdrafts and absences exist, according to the study carried out, it is detailed below: For 2015, they suspend the 40% surcharge for 36 lessons, from February to May. For 2009, they suspend 4 lessons, leaving her with 36, and in February and March they were deducted. For 2008, the lessons drop from 48 to 40, and in February and March they paid her for 48, therefore she owes them. In 2004, the lessons drop from 38 to 32, in February and March and the first fortnight of April they paid her for 38. In 2003, she has an overage in February, July, and August. Therefore, what they are charging you is correct.\" It considered that the foregoing, as well as the request made by the plaintiff to obtain copies of the file, demonstrate that she was fully aware of the existence of these collection proceedings, as well as the detail of the reasons for the debt, the amount, periods, quotas, and the period from which the deductions would apply. Therefore, it rejects the claim that this was a surprising, untimely, or unfounded collection.\n\nRegarding file CA-INCAP-2015-0001-07-0083-0689, for the collection of disability payments in the amount of ¢4,495,172.00 (four million four hundred ninety-five thousand one hundred seventy-two colones), for disabilities ranging from March 6, 2013, to March 31, 2014, like the previously analyzed file, the plaintiff knew in advance the detail of the collection, regarding its causes, amounts, periods, term for payment, and amount of the biweekly deduction; which it assessed according to: 1. Official letter DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 of April 22, 2014, the Administrative Collections Unit of the MEP Human Resources Department indicated to the plaintiff that the formula for calculating salary deductions for disabilities granted by the INS had been determined, therefore, in accordance with said regulations, a deduction of 30% of gross salary would be maintained, and that as of that date she owed ¢4,331,718.00, deductions which began to be applied via payroll starting the first fortnight of June 2015. 2. By means of telegram number TLOO4181820-MEP delivered on November 26, 2015, to the plaintiff and issued in compliance with the provisions of Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) judgment no. 2015-15736 at 10:20 a.m. on October 9, 2015, she was informed of the amount of the debt she had for disabilities, from when it would be deducted, and the sum to be deducted per installment (tracto). Likewise, there is no evidence whatsoever in the record to refute the appropriateness of that collection.\n\nV. As already mentioned, the crux of this matter lies in determining the necessity of issuing a final act of a procedure and safeguarding the right of defense prior to the collection of sums paid improperly or in excess, from public officials. Similar matters have been resolved by the Constitutional Chamber, when hearing amparo (amparo) appeals in which violation of the same rights the appellant claims to have been violated in the present case against collections of this type has been alleged. The Chamber has stated: \"In that sense, the Chamber has held that such deductions are acceptable as long as the worker is previously notified of –at least- the amounts owed, the number of installments (tractos) in which the refund is applicable, the monthly deduction amount, and the sum to be deducted monthly that allows them to receive a sufficient salary amount to satisfy their basic needs. Under this perspective, it is therefore held that, since the official was notified of the amount owed and the way in which the State was going to proceed to its refund before the filing of this appeal, the violation of the right to salary due to lack of prior communication has not occurred; and the appellant's right to exercise their right of defense has been guaranteed, in this case, as well as to propose payment arrangements or other mechanisms to bring their situation into legal compliance, if the Administration deems them pertinent. By virtue of the foregoing, we proceed to dismiss the appeal in its entirety, which is hereby ordered.\" (Judgment 7113 at 9:20 a.m. on April 26, 2019). In a similar vein, it previously pronounced, among many others, in judgment no. 2012 at 4:30 p.m. on August 22, 2012, where it indicated: \"...regarding the second aspect raised in the amparo, which is the necessary communication that must exist to the worker, regarding the amounts owed and the form in which their deduction will proceed, it must be recalled that, while the Chamber has accepted that the Administration can recover, by means of salary deduction, amounts overpaid, for which it is not necessary to follow the ordinary procedure established by the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) (...), the truth is that it has also clarified that such deductions are acceptable as long as the worker is previously notified of –at least- the amounts owed, the number of installments (tractos) in which the refund is applicable, the monthly deduction amount, and the sum to be deducted monthly that allows them to receive a sufficient salary amount to satisfy their basic needs.\" This criterion has been reiterated in multiple resolutions; in that sense, votes no. 19833 at 9:20 a.m. on October 11, 2019, and 17024 at 9:15 a.m. on October 12, 2018, all from said jurisdictional body, may be consulted.\n\nIn line with the referenced constitutional jurisprudence, there is no injury to the fundamental rights of the person subject to an employment relationship with the government when deductions are made from their salary for sums owed due to improper or excess payments, as long as the necessary information is provided to them for purposes of exercising their right of defense, which is why the reason for the deduction, the amounts owed, their specific concept, the manner in which the deduction will be made, the total number of installments (tractos), and the periodic quantum to be deducted must be communicated. In the present case, the appellant does not reproach before this chamber what was assessed by the court regarding the fact that she indeed owes the sums that have had to be deducted from her and that she was provided the just-indicated information, but rather that a final act of a procedure was not issued. She argues that had such a defect not occurred, the final decision would have varied, but without explaining in what way; she seeks to have the judgment overturned and a declaration of nullity of the actions taken to recover the monies that were overpaid to her, without explaining why such recovery by the Administration was inappropriate. As indicated, constitutional precedents already exist specifically referring to the transgression of the fundamental rights invoked by the appellant, which has been rejected when the interested party is made aware of, at least, the previously indicated information, which allows them to exercise their right of defense. The constitutional court has expressly rejected the need for an ordinary administrative procedure to be carried out so that the employing Administration can recover the sums that have been unduly paid to one of its employees. In the present case, multiple informative acts were carried out for the appellant, who, faced with this, has been able to question both administratively and jurisdictionally what was acted upon, without having proven in the sub lite that she did not owe the sums that were collected from her and have been deducted, and without bringing any argument whatsoever in this regard to the appeal (casación), beyond the issuance of a final act that could be appealed, a grievance that is not appropriate because the telegrams that were notified to the plaintiff, informing her of the debts she held with the Administration, their amount, concept, and the form of collection to be applied, constitute formal activity of the Administration by means of which she is made aware of the debt and the way in which the deductions will be made, acts against which she can exercise her right of defense in administrative or jurisdictional venues, which, in fact, the plaintiff has proceeded to do, without having managed to disprove the appropriateness of the collections and consequent recovery by the Administration.\n\nFurthermore, in file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, an appearance was even held on October 13, 2015, at the Administrative Collections Unit of the Remunerations Department of the Ministry of Public Education, where it was recorded that the plaintiff was informed of the debt, its concept, amount, form of collection, quantum, and periodicity of the deductions, granting her a period to present evidence, and she was told that once this expired, the deductions would proceed. In the same manner, through official letter Laborales-5607-KSL-2015 of November 3, 2015, from the Assistant Secretariat for Labor Affairs of the National Association of Educators (ANDE), a detail of overdrafts and absences was indicated to the plaintiff, and that \"what they are charging you is correct.\" (Proven fact 10)\n\nRegarding file CA-INCAP-2015-0001-07-0083-0689, for the collection of disability payments, according to the proven facts, telegram number TL004181820-MEP was sent via Correos de Costa Rica, stating: \"You are hereby notified that you have a debt for disabilities in the total amount of ¢4,292,812.82; which will be deducted starting from the first fortnight of November 2015, in biweekly installments (tractos) of ¢202,360.00...\" (proven fact 14). Additionally, as of April 22, 2014, through Official Letter DRH-DR-UCA-1115-2014 of April 22, 2014, the plaintiff had been told that, in response to her request within the collection process for disabilities, the formula for calculating salary deductions for disabilities granted by the INS had been determined, thus a 30% deduction from gross salary was ordered to be maintained for the obligation she held with the State due to disabilities and that, as of that date, she owed ¢4,331,718.00 (proven fact two). Regarding said deductions, which began to be applied in June 2015, the amparo appeal was processed under file 15-12099-0007-CO, where the Constitutional Chamber ordered, through vote 2015-15736 at 10:20 a.m. on October 9, 2015, to notify the petitioner \"…regarding the overpaid amounts, the balance she owes, and the manner in which its definitive cancellation will proceed…\" and subsequently, the aforementioned telegram TL004181820-MEP was issued. Added to this, according to proven fact nine of the judgment, not refuted by the appellant in this appeal (casacionista), on folio 49 of the administrative file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689, it is recorded that a copy of the administrative file was sent to the plaintiff, a communication indicating as its date Monday, November 2, 2015. Having reviewed said file, this court notes that indeed it contains documentation of various types related to the deductions made to the plaintiff.\n\nThus, the record includes the \"Reporte de Análisis de Posibles Sumas Giradas de Más\" dated September 7, 2015 (folio 45), the \"Estudio de Sumas Giradas de Más\" dated the 23rd of the same month and year (Folio 44 and 43), among others. Furthermore, together with the complaint, the plaintiff herself provided a copy of the telegram TL004181820-MEP, as well as a document dated September 16, 2016, as recorded in image 49 of the initial filing incorporated into the virtual desktop on October 5, 2016, which details a breakdown of debts charged to the plaintiff for deductions due to disability, all of which demonstrates that she effectively had knowledge of the amounts owed, their concept, how the deductions would be made, and for how long. Despite all this, in cassation, as explained, no arguments were made related to the existence or non-existence of the debt, the proportion of the deduction amounts set by the MEP, or even the information itself that was provided to the plaintiff, who had the opportunity to offer evidence, both in administrative and jurisdictional venues, to contradict the Administration's decision, none of which is invoked before this court, when the logical course, and what was required if she intended to challenge an irregularity in the procedural formalities (which did not occur, as explained), was to adequately substantiate its significance and explain why the recovery sought by the Administration is improper. Even more, proven fact 13 of the appealed decision refers to Official Communication DRH-DR-UCA-918-2015 of November 20, 2015, issued by the Unidad de Cobros Administrativos, which appears on folios 69 to 71 of administrative file CA-2015-04577-07-0083-0689 provided by the State, and which effectively contains a detail of what was charged to the plaintiff, for disabilities from March 6, 2013, to March 31, 2014, totaling ¢4,495,172.00, as well as a breakdown of the ¢2,010,526.34 for \"acreditaciones no correspondientes,\" without the appellant in cassation questioning in any way such debits to her charge.\n\nIn addition to the above, it is convenient to highlight some particularities of the rights and duties of the parties in a public employment relationship when faced with situations like the one that has given rise to the present matter. First, within the framework of an employment relationship, whether public or private in nature, the employer has the right to recover excess or erroneous payments. This authority is provided for in Article 173 of the Labor Code, according to which \"Las deudas que el trabajador contraiga con el patrono por concepto de anticipos o por pagos hechos en exceso, se amortizarán durante la vigencia del contrato en un mínimo de cuatro períodos de pago y no devengarán intereses. Es entendido que al terminar el contrato el Patrono podrá hacer la liquidación definitiva que proceda.\" Furthermore, in the opinion of this tribunal, it is a natural consequence of the principle of good faith in the contractual relationship that the parties mutually ensure that the other is not illegitimately affected and suffers unjustified economic detriment. Article 19 of the Labor Code establishes that: \"El contrato de trabajo obliga tanto a lo que se expresa en él, como a las consecuencias que del mismo se deriven según la buena fe, la equidad, el uso, la costumbre o la ley.\" The Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has stated regarding the principle of good faith: \"…the principle of good faith is one of the main elements of the ethical content of the employment contract, which serves as a parameter to evaluate the conduct of the parties in the employment relationship in the fulfillment of their obligations, by which each can expect from the other '...a loyal performance, trusting and believing that their action is socially and contractually correct…', characterized by values of consideration, respect, and correct conduct. This is applicable not only in strictly private employment relationships but also in those occurring in the public sector, called statutory or service relationships…\" (Sentencia 543, at 10:46 a.m., both of April 9, 2010). In the same vein, in Voto no. 46 at 3:00 p.m. of February 24, 1999, that cassation body indicated: \"…the duty of fidelity in labor matters is characterized by a zealous personal attitude on the part of the worker, not to harm the company or the employer they serve, and to contribute to the development of its activities and its prosperity. Just as in any synallagmatic legal relationship, the employment contract imposes reciprocal obligations of consideration, protection, and assistance between the parties, to achieve the common goal…\" It is clear, and expected conduct within the framework of an employment relationship, that whoever receives payments greater than those owed has the duty, inherent in the good faith that corresponds to them, to inform about the situation and urge the restoration of normality.\n\nAdded to this, deposits credited in excess or without cause to the accounts of public officials constitute an arithmetic or \"de facto\" error, with adverse economic effects on the Administration. Faced with such a situation, the Administration may, at any time, in accordance with Article 157 of the LGAP, make the corresponding correction. However, it must be specified that when such errors affect the Public Treasury, it is not a mere authority but a primary duty, incumbent both on the employing Administration and on the official themselves, to do everything within their power to safeguard the integrity of the Public Treasury; since the protection of public funds and their management in accordance with the framework of legality is a joint responsibility of the parties in the official relationship. This finds its basis in a broad, vast, and coherent normative system from which principles, duties, and responsibilities linked to it are derived, among which are Articles 9, 11, 24, 183, and 193 of the Magna Carta; 110 of the Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos; 8, 9, and 10 of the Ley General de Control interno; 11, 203, 206, and 210 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública; 2 and 3 of the Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública; 1, 8, 9, and 11 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República. Clearly, the recovery by the Administration affects the financial interests of the official, so minimum guarantees must be met that allow them to exercise their right of defense and have clarity about what occurred, on which there is already abundant constitutional jurisprudence, as explained. For all these reasons, it is clear that if the plaintiff believes she was improperly charged sums that were not disbursed to her without cause, she should have proven it. However, she only alleged before this Chamber aspects referring to the formalities that, in her opinion, must be followed in this type of proceeding, which are improper because what was decided by the Ad-quo and the actions of the MEP conform to the parameters set by the Constitutional Chamber itself to protect the rights and interests of the officials involved in situations such as the one that occurred in this case, without it being necessary in scenarios like the present one to process an ordinary procedure under the terms of the LGAP, in addition to the duty that these officials themselves have to seek the protection of the Public Treasury when improper payments are made. Therefore, the appeal must be denied.\n\n**VI.** Based on the foregoing, the appeal must be rejected, with costs charged to the party who filed it, pursuant to Article 150, subsection 3) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, insofar as the appealed judgment is clear and clearly conforms to the Law, and this Chamber does not perceive that there was sufficient cause to appeal.\n\n**POR TANTO**\n\nThe appeal is rejected, with costs charged to the party who filed it.\n\n**Luis Guillermo Rivas Loáiciga**\n\n**Román Solís Zelaya Damaris Vargas Vásquez**\n\nAMENAC\n\nEXP: 15-010225-1027-CA\n\nTeléfonos: (506) 2295-3658 o 2295-3659, correo electrónico sala_primera@poder-judicial.go.cr" }