Private school withholds grades due to unpaid feesColegio privado retiene calificaciones por deuda

**I.- On the admissibility of the amparo action.** In the case of amparo actions brought against private subjects, as in the specific case, this Chamber has been clear in stating that, given their special nature, prior to the substantive analysis of the alleged constitutional violation, it must be examined whether, in the instant case, one of the assumptions that make such an action admissible is present or not, and in the affirmative, to determine whether it is admissible or not (see, in that sense, judgment number 00151-97 of fifteen hours twenty-seven minutes of January eighth, nineteen ninety-seven). Article 57 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional states that the amparo action is available against actions or omissions of subjects of private law, when they act or must act in the exercise of public functions or powers, or are, in law or in fact, in a position of power against which common jurisdictional remedies are clearly insufficient or tardy to guarantee the fundamental rights or liberties referred to in Article 2, paragraph a) of the same Law. In the case under study, it is the opinion of this Court that the Saint Gregory School educational center is in a position of power, given that a possible withholding of the certification of grades obtained by the protected minor, due to default in the payment of monthly fees, if proven, could constitute a violation of her right to education, an injury against which common jurisdictional remedies are insufficient and tardy for the protection of the constitutional right that the petitioner seeks to protect. Hence, the action is admissible, and the respective substantive analysis is hereby undertaken.

**IV.- Purpose of the action.** The petitioner alleges that, because he is in default on the payment of monthly fees at Saint Gregory School, the administrative authorities of that educational center are not providing him with the grades of his protected daughter, corresponding to the two thousand and nine school year, which violates his daughter's right to education, since she cannot be enrolled in another educational center.

**V.- On the right to education.** The Political Constitution enshrines the right of all minors to receive an integrated education as well as the obligation of the State to provide, guarantee, and promote that educational process (Articles 77 and 78 of the Constitution). Regarding Human Rights Law, it is necessary to indicate that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (approved and ratified by our country, through Ley No. 7184 of July eighteenth, nineteen ninety, which entered into force, according to numeral 2 of that legal instrument, on the day of its publication in La Gaceta No. 149 of August ninth, nineteen ninety) establishes the right to education in harmony with the human dignity of children, with the aim of developing the personality, aptitudes, and mental and physical capacity of the child to the maximum of their possibilities, as well as the strengthening of the cultural values that shape the identity of each country and the preparation of the child to live peacefully in society (Articles 27, 28, and 29). At the sub-constitutional (infraconstitucional) level, the Código de la Niñez y de la Adolescencia (Ley No. 7739), establishes the right of minors to receive an education that takes into account their individuality in order to develop their potential (Article 56). Article 60 of that same regulatory body sets forth a series of principles that must be respected in matters of education, such as: a) equality of conditions for access and permanence in the country's educational centers; b) respect for the rights of organization, participation, association, and opinion; c) respect for due process; and d) respect for cultural, ethnic, artistic, and historical values of creation and access to the sources of cultures.

**VI.- On the specific case.** After studying the evidentiary elements provided in this amparo action, and taking into consideration the proven and unproven facts of this judgment, this Chamber considers that the amparo action filed must be granted, in accordance with what will be explained. In this regard, this Court has duly proven that the protected minor was a regular seventh-year student at Saint Gregory School during the year two thousand nine. Likewise, it is inferred from the evidence that, to date, the petitioner is in default with the respondent educational center, specifically in the payment of several monthly fees for his protected daughter, an amount that totals 878,774 colones. Finally, as referenced, it is not considered proven in this case that the respondent educational center had provided the grade certification of the protected minor to her parents at the end of the two thousand nine school year, because the respondent authority does not present any type of documentary proof, record, registration, or any other suitable means to demonstrate that it effectively delivered the grade certification in question to the parents of the protected minor. Having examined these facts, it is concluded that the petitioner is correct in stating that the right to education of his protected daughter has been violated, because the delivery of the grades from the two thousand nine school year was denied to her. On this matter, although in the response rendered to this Chamber, the Academic Director (Directora Académica) of the respondent school has assured that at no time was the delivery of such documents refused, but rather, on the contrary, that said grade certification was given to the petitioner, in his capacity as parent, on the same date it was given to the other parents; the truth is that, as stated above, the respondent Director (Directora) does not provide any evidentiary element to prove her statement, or where the signature of receipt of any of the parents of the protected minor would have been recorded, after providing them with the grade document. The respondent Director (Directora) must be reminded that the statements she makes before this jurisdiction cannot be taken as true in themselves, since they are not given under oath—as are those given by public officials—which makes it necessary to provide all evidence deemed appropriate to substantiate her allegations, a matter that was not done in the case under study. Thus, this Chamber considers that the respondent's conduct has been arbitrary and therefore injurious to the fundamental rights of the protected party, which is why the action must be granted, as is hereby ordered.

**VII.- Conclusion.** Based on the foregoing considerations, this Constitutional Chamber considers that with her conduct, the respondent authority has injured the fundamental rights invoked by the petitioner, and it is therefore appropriate to grant the present amparo action, as it was not considered accredited in this matter that the petitioner had been given the grade certification of his protected daughter, corresponding to the two thousand nine school year, which violates the exercise of the minor's right to education.

**I.- On the admissibility of the appeal.** In the case of amparo actions brought against private subjects, as in the specific case, the Chamber has been clear in stating that, given their special nature, prior to the analysis of the merits regarding the alleged constitutional violation, it must be examined whether, in the case at hand, one of the scenarios that make said appeal admissible is present or not, and if so, to determine whether or not it is admissible (see in this regard judgment number 00151-97 of fifteen hours twenty-seven minutes of January eighth, nineteen hundred and ninety-seven). The Law of the Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) states in Article 57 that the amparo appeal is appropriate against actions or omissions of subjects of private law, when these act or must act in the exercise of public functions or powers, or, are, de jure or de facto, in a position of power against which common jurisdictional remedies are clearly insufficient or tardy to guarantee the fundamental rights or freedoms referred to in Article 2, subsection a) of the same Law. In the case under study, it is the opinion of this Court that the educational center Saint Gregory School is in a position of power, given that, a potential withholding of the certification of grades obtained by the protected minor, due to delinquency in the payment of tuition fees, if proven, could constitute a violation of her right to education, an injury against which common jurisdictional remedies are insufficient and tardy for the protection of the constitutional right that the appellant seeks to protect. Hence, the appeal is admissible, and the respective analysis of the merits proceeds.

**IV.- Object of the appeal.** The appellant alleges that because he is delinquent in the payment of tuition fees at the Saint Gregory School, the administrative authorities of that educational center are not giving him the grades of his protected daughter, corresponding to the two thousand nine school year, which violates his daughter's right to education, since she cannot be enrolled in another educational center.

**V.- On the right to education.** The Political Constitution (Constitución Política) enshrines the right that all minors have to receive an integrated education as well as the State's obligation to provide, guarantee, and foster that educational process (constitutional Articles 77 and 78). Regarding Human Rights Law, it is necessary to indicate that the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (approved and ratified by our country, through Law No. 7184 of July eighteenth, nineteen hundred and ninety, which entered into force, according to numeral 2 of that legal instrument, on the day of its publication in La Gaceta No. 149 of August ninth, nineteen hundred and ninety) establishes the right to education in harmony with the human dignity of children, in order to develop the child's personality, talents, and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential, as well as the strengthening of the cultural values that make up the identity of each country and the preparation of the child to live peacefully in society (Articles 27, 28, and 29). At the infra-constitutional level, the Childhood and Adolescence Code (Ley No. 7739) establishes the right that minors have to receive an education that takes into account their individuality in order to develop their potential (Article 56). Section 60 of that same normative body develops a series of principles that must be respected in matters of education, such as: a) equality of conditions for access and permanence in the country's educational centers; b) respect for the rights of organization, participation, association, and opinion; c) respect for due process; and d) respect for cultural, ethnic, artistic, and historical values of creation and access to the sources of cultures.

**VI.- On the specific case.** After studying the evidentiary elements provided to this amparo appeal, and taking into consideration the proven and unproven facts of this judgment, the Chamber considers that the amparo appeal filed must be granted, in accordance with what will be explained. In this regard, this Court has duly demonstrated that the protected minor was a regular seventh-year student at the Saint Gregory School during the year two thousand nine. Likewise, from the evidence, it is extracted that, to date, the appellant is delinquent with the defendant educational center, specifically in the payment of several tuition fees for his protected daughter, an amount that totals 878,774 colones. Lastly, as was referred to, it is not considered proven in this case that the defendant educational center had delivered the certification of grades of the protected minor to her parents, at the end of the two thousand nine school year, the foregoing because the defendant authority does not present any type of documentary proof, record, registry, or any other suitable means to demonstrate that, effectively, it delivered the certification of grades in question to the parents of the protected minor. Upon examination of these facts, it is concluded that the plaintiff is correct in affirming that the right to education of his protected daughter has been violated, because the delivery of the grades from the two thousand nine school year has been denied to her. On this point, although in the response provided to the Chamber, the Academic Director of the defendant school has assured that at no time was the delivery of such documents denied, but on the contrary, said certification of grades was delivered to the appellant, in his capacity as parent, on the same date it was delivered to the other parents; the truth is that, as was stated above, the defendant Director does not provide any evidentiary element that demonstrates her claim, or where the signature of receipt by one of the parents of the protected minor had been recorded, after delivering the grade document to them. The defendant Director must be reminded that the statements rendered before this jurisdiction cannot be taken as true by themselves, since they are not rendered under oath—as are those rendered by public officials—which makes it necessary to provide all the evidence deemed appropriate to substantiate her claims, a matter that was not done in the case under study. Thus, this Chamber considers that the defendant's action has been arbitrary and therefore injurious to the fundamental rights of the protected party, which is why the appeal must be granted, as is hereby ordered.

**VII.- Conclusion.** Based on the foregoing considerations, this Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) considers that through its action, the defendant authority has injured the fundamental rights invoked by the appellant, and therefore the appropriate course is to grant this amparo appeal, since it was not considered proven in this matter that the certification of grades of his protected daughter, corresponding to the two thousand nine school year, had been delivered to the appellant, which violates the exercise of the minor's right to education."

“I.- Sobre la admisibilidad del recurso. En tratándose de acciones de amparo dirigidas contra sujetos privados, como es el caso concreto, la Sala ha sido clara al decir que dada su especial naturaleza, previo al análisis de fondo acerca de la vulneración constitucional alegada, debe examinarse si, en la especie, se está o no ante alguno de los supuestos que hacen admisible dicho recurso, y en caso afirmativo, dilucidar si es o no admisible (ver en ese sentido sentencia número 00151-97 de las quince horas veintisiete minutos del ocho de enero de mil novecientos noventa y siete). Indica la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional en el artículo 57, que procede el recurso de amparo contra las acciones u omisiones de sujetos de derecho privado, cuando éstos actúen o deban actuar en ejercicio de funciones o potestades públicas, o, se encuentren, de derecho o de hecho, en una posición de poder frente a la cual los remedios jurisdiccionales comunes resulten claramente insuficientes o tardíos para garantizar los derechos o libertades fundamentales a que se refiere el artículo 2, inciso a) de la misma Ley. En el caso en estudio, es criterio de este Tribunal que el centro educativo Saint Gregory School se encuentra en una posición de poder, dado que, una eventual retención de la certificación de notas obtenidas por la menor amparada, debido a morosidad en el pago de las mensualidades, en caso de demostrarse, podría constituir una vulneración al derecho a la educación de ésta, lesión frente a la cual los remedios jurisdiccionales comunes son insuficientes y tardíos para la protección del derecho constitucional que el recurrente pretende amparar. De allí que el recurso sea admisible, por lo que se procede al análisis de fondo respectivo.

IV.- Objeto del recurso. Alega el recurrente que debido a que está moroso en el pago de las mensualidades en el Saint Gregory School, las autoridades administrativas de ese centro educativo no le entregan las calificaciones de su hija amparada, correspondientes al curso lectivo del año dos mil nueve, lo cual vulnera el derecho a la educación de su hija, ya que no se le puede matricular en otro centro educativo.

V.- Sobre el derecho a la educación. La Constitución Política consagra el derecho que tienen todos los menores de edad de recibir una educación integrada así como la obligación del Estado de proveer, garantizar y fomentar ese proceso educativo (artículos 77 y 78 constitucionales). En lo que atañe al Derecho de los Derechos Humanos, es preciso indicar que la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño de las Naciones Unidas (aprobada y ratificada por nuestro país, mediante, la Ley No. 7184 del dieciocho de julio de mil novecientos noventa, la cual entró en vigencia, a tenor del numeral 2 de ese instrumento legal, el día de su publicación en La Gaceta No. 149 del nueve de agosto de mil novecientos noventa) establece el derecho a la educación en armonía con la dignidad humana de los niños, con el fin de desarrollar la personalidad, las aptitudes y la capacidad mental y física del niño hasta el máximo de sus posibilidades, así como el fortalecimiento de los valores culturales que conforman la identidad de cada país y la preparación del niño para convivir pacíficamente en la sociedad (artículos 27, 28 y 29). En el plano infraconstitucional, el Código de la Niñez y de la Adolescencia (Ley No. 7739), establece el derecho que tienen los menores de edad de recibir una educación que tome en cuenta su individualidad con el fin desarrollar sus potencialidades (artículo 56). El ordinal 60 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo desarrolla una serie de principios que deben respetarse en materia de educación como lo son: a) igualdad de condiciones para el acceso y permanencia en los centros educativos del país; b) respeto de los derechos de organización, participación, asociación y opinión; c) respeto al debido proceso y d) respeto a los valores culturales, étnicos, artísticos e históricos de creación y el acceso a las fuentes de las culturas.

VI.- Sobre el caso concreto. Luego del estudio de los elementos probatorios aportados a este recurso de amparo, y tomando en consideración los hechos probados y no probados de esta sentencia, estima la Sala que se debe declarar con lugar el recurso de amparo interpuesto, de conformidad con lo que se explicará. Al respecto, tiene debidamente demostrado este Tribunal que la menor amparada fue estudiante regular de sétimo año del Saint Gregory School durante el año dos mil nueve. Asimismo, de la prueba se extrae que, a la fecha, el recurrente se encuentra moroso con el centro educativo accionado, concretamente en el pago de varias mensualidades de su hija amparada, monto que asciende a la suma de 878.774 colones. Por último, tal y como se hizo referencia, no se estima demostrado en este caso que el centro educativo recurrido hubiera hecho entrega de la certificación de notas de la menor tutelada a sus padres, al finalizar el curso lectivo del dos mil nueve, lo anterior por cuanto la autoridad recurrida no presenta ningún tipo de prueba documental, constancia, registro o cualquier otro medio idóneo para demostrar que, efectivamente, hizo entrega de la certificación de notas en cuestión a los padres de la menor amparada. Examinados esos hechos, se concluye que lleva razón el accionante al afirmar que se ha vulnerado el derecho a la educación de su hija tutelada, debido a que se le ha negado la entrega de las notas del curso lectivo de dos mil nueve. Sobre el particular, si bien en la contestación rendida a la Sala, la Directora Académica del colegio accionado ha asegurado que en ningún momento se le ha denegado la entrega de tales documentos, sino que por el contrario, dicha certificación de notas le fue entregada al recurrente, en su condición de padre de familia, en la misma fecha en que se le entregó a los demás padres de familia; lo cierto es que, según se dijo líneas arriba, la Directora recurrida no aporta algún elemento probatorio que demuestre su dicho, o donde se hubiera consignado la firma de recibido de alguno de los padres de la menor tutelada, luego de hacerle entrega del documento de calificaciones. Debe recordársele a la Directora accionada que las manifestaciones que rinde ante esta jurisdicción no se pueden tener por ciertas por sí mismas, ya que no son rendidas bajo la fe de juramento –como sí se tienen las rendidas por los funcionarios públicos-, lo cual hace necesario que se aporte toda la prueba que se estime conveniente para acreditar sus alegatos, cuestión que no se hizo en el caso bajo estudio. Así, estima esta Sala que la actuación de la accionada ha sido arbitraria y por lo tanto lesiva de los derechos fundamentales de la amparada, razón por la que debe declararse con lugar el recurso, como en efecto se dispone.

VII.- Conclusión. Con fundamento en las anteriores consideraciones, estima esta Sala Constitucional que con su actuación, la autoridad recurrida ha lesionado los derechos fundamentales invocados por el recurrente, por lo que lo procedente es declarar con lugar el presente recurso de amparo, pues no se tuvo por acreditado en este asunto que se le hubiera entregado al recurrente la certificación de notas de su hija tutelada, correspondiente al curso lectivo de dos mil nueve, lo cual vulnera el ejercicio del derecho a la educación de la menor.”