Prescription period for disciplinary power over public official who managed public fundsPlazo de prescripción de la potestad disciplinaria para funcionario que manejó fondos públicos

**III. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY:** The grievance raised requires determining whether the applicable statute of limitations (prescripción) period for the exercise of the employer entity's disciplinary power was the one-month period set forth in article 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) or the special five-year period governed by numeral 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). The text of this latter provision, at the time of the investigated facts, is the one currently in force and expressly establishes:

"Article 71.-Statute of limitations for disciplinary liability. The administrative liability of the public official for infractions provided for in this Law and in the superior control and oversight framework (ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores) shall be barred according to the following rules:

• a)In cases where the irregular act is notorious, liability shall be barred in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act.
• b)In cases where the irregular act is not notorious—understood as an act that requires an inquiry (indagación) or an audit study to report on its possible irregularity—liability shall be barred in five years, counted from the date on which the report on the respective inquiry or audit is brought to the attention of the head of the institution (jerarca) or the official competent to initiate the respective procedure.

The statute of limitations shall be interrupted, with continuing effects, by the notification to the presumed responsible party of the act ordering the initiation of the administrative procedure.

When the perpetrator of the fault is the head of the institution, the period shall begin to run from the date on which he/she terminates his/her service relationship with the respective entity, company, or body.

It shall be deemed a serious fault of the official competent to initiate the sanctioning procedure, to fail to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the liability of the offender to be barred, without justified cause.

(Thus amended by subsection a) of article 45 of Law No. 8292 of July 31, 2002, Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno))” (boldface is not from the original).

From the highlighted text, it is inferred that the extended period provided for in said provision applies when the public official incurs infractions provided for in that specific law or in those contemplated by the superior control and oversight framework of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), as understood according to what is regulated in articles 1 and 8 of the related Organic Law. The Comptroller General of the Republic exercises control over the entities and bodies that comprise the Public Treasury, without prejudice to the optional regulatory oversight it may deploy regarding other entities. Now, in accordance with article 8, idem, “The Public Treasury shall consist of public funds, the powers to collect, administer, guard, conserve, manage, spend, and invest such funds, and the legal, administrative, and financial rules relative to the budget process, public procurement (contratación administrativa), internal and external control, and the liability of public officials.” (Emphasis added by the drafter). In accordance with said numeral, the Public Treasury consists of two essential components: a) public funds (and everything related to their management) and b) legal rules of an administrative and financial nature relative to the budget process, public procurement, control—both external and internal—and the liability of public servants in those matters. The law is responsible for defining what must be understood by public funds and also by superior control and oversight framework, which are the express terms contemplated by the related article 71. Thus, in canon 9, public funds are defined as all those "…resources, securities, goods, and rights owned by the State, bodies, companies, or public entities." The following numeral 10, in turn, states: "The superior control and oversight framework of the Public Treasury comprises the set of rules that govern the competence, structure, activity, relationships, procedures, responsibilities, and sanctions derived from or necessary for this oversight. This framework also comprises the rules that govern oversight over foreign entities and bodies and private funds and activities, to which this Law refers, as its fundamental rule, within the constitutional framework." That control and oversight framework has as its primary purpose "…to guarantee the legality and efficiency of internal controls and the management of public funds in the entities over which the Comptroller General of the Republic has jurisdiction, in accordance with this Law" (article 11, idem). These latter numerals must be read in conjunction with what is stipulated in the cited article 8, which expressly includes as part of the control and oversight framework the regulations related to the budget process, public procurement, internal and external control, and the liability of public officials in those matters, which are undoubtedly rules that tend to ensure the legality and efficiency not only of internal controls but also the efficient and law-abiding management of public funds. Thus, not just any fault committed by a public servant gives rise to the application of article 71 idem. Only faults committed by persons performing a public function within the exercise of those special competencies (management of public funds) and that infringe either the regulations of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic or that control and oversight framework (regulations on the budget process, public procurement, internal and external control, liabilities in that matter) give rise to an extension of the period for the exercise of disciplinary authority. In summary, the period for sanctioning actions or omissions contrary to those specific regulations, which can lead to inefficient or illegal management of public funds, is longer than the generic one provided for in numeral 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), since in such cases the five-year period contemplated by that particular rule must be applied, which undoubtedly seeks to protect a public interest of great significance, namely the transparent management of public funds. In the case under analysis, the appellant argues that these were not public funds because they involved a work fund (fondo de trabajo). The argument lacks any legal basis, as it is clear that the funds in whose management he was involved were the property of a State company, and although it was not a fund directly under his charge, it is inferred from the Internal Audit report number DPEI/FT/01.2004 that he was one of the three officials responsible for the use of institutional payment cards. From the statement of charges (imputación de cargos) made against the plaintiff, it follows that the administrative investigation took place precisely because he had incurred, among other faults, infractions provided for in superior control and oversight rules, such as the Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno), the Public Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), and the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos), to the detriment of public funds. From the related report, it is deduced that invoices suspected of illegitimacy were processed and paid, and procedures and directives contemplated both in internal regulations and in the Public Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) were bypassed. In relation to the plaintiff's specific case, it was recommended to investigate the possible liability for the following facts: a) Processing and collection of payment for four invoices, as the spending manager (gestionante del gasto), whose providers did not acknowledge them as theirs, in addition to indicating they had not performed the services listed, and no evidence was obtained of the receipt by ICE of the services referred to therein, b) approving expenditures covered by invoices whose providers did not acknowledge them as theirs and that also support acquisitions of services for which no evidence of their receipt by the Institution was obtained, c) approving expenditures covered by invoices for furniture maintenance services whose price was relatively high compared to quotes obtained from other potential providers, d) approving expenditures covered by an invoice for professional services corresponding to a provider who was not the one that supplied the service, invoices whose payment was not appropriate through the Work Fund and an invoice that supports a supposedly unnecessary expense for the Institution, e) processing payment of an irregular invoice, which was suspended on the occasion of the study being conducted by the Audit. These generic facts were duly explained in the initial resolution, according to the description made by the court, faults that it deemed accredited, without any objection being raised in this regard. Furthermore, in the resolution that initiated the procedure, articles 39 and 43 of the Internal Control Law and 108 subsections a, b, c, d, and 110, subsections a, b, e, g, h, p, q, and r of the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets were invoked as support, as well as internal regulations on the operation of work funds and the management of institutional purchasing cards. The referenced article 39 stipulates that the hierarchy and subordinate heads (titulares subordinadas) shall incur administrative liability when they unjustifiably fail to fulfill the duties assigned in the Internal Control Law. Likewise, said numeral indicates that this type of servant, as well as the generality of public officials, shall bear liability when their actions weaken the internal control system or omit carrying out the necessary actions to establish, maintain, perfect, and evaluate it, according to the applicable technical regulations. Liability shall also attach when they unjustifiably fail to fulfill the duties and functions in matters of internal control assigned to them by the hierarchy or the subordinate head, or when in generic terms they hinder the work of the audit. According to article 2 of the law, the hierarchy coincides with the person exercising the highest authority within the body or entity, and the subordinate head is that official of the active administration who is responsible for a process and has authority to order and make decisions. Now, numeral 10 of the Internal Control Law obliges heads of institutions and subordinate head personnel to establish, maintain, perfect, and evaluate the institutional internal control system. In the present matter, the plaintiff held the position of Director of the Institutional Strategic Planning Directorate, subject solely and directly to the Executive Presidency, and was therefore a subordinate head obligated to establish, maintain, and evaluate the internal control system. However, he not only omitted monitoring compliance with the regulations related to the management of the work fund, but he himself directly incurred serious anomalies that could well have been avoided with adequate control, all to the detriment of the ultimate purpose of the control and oversight rules, which is to guarantee legality and efficiency in internal controls and in the management of public funds. The facts alleged were also subsumed under the faults contemplated in article 110 of the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets, which, in the cited subsections, states: “Acts generating administrative liability. In addition to those provided for in other laws and regulations specific to the service relationship, the following shall be acts generating administrative liability, […]: a) The acquisition of goods, works, and services without regard to some of the procurement procedures established by the legal framework./ b) The omission, delay, negligence, or recklessness in the preservation and safeguarding of public assets or rights or the adoption of malicious actions against their protection, regardless of whether damage or injury has been consummated. […]/e) The use of public funds over which one has powers of use, administration, custody, or disposition, for purposes different from those for which they are intended by law, regulation, or specific administrative act, even when these purposes are equally of public interest or compatible with the aims of the entity or body in question. /Likewise, the officials competent for the adoption or implementation of corrective measures shall be responsible, if improper use is facilitated, due to internal control deficiencies that should reasonably and timely have been overcome. /g) The authorization or execution of manifestly unnecessary, exaggerated, or superfluous expenditures. /p) Causing damage, abuse, or any loss of goods in custody received by a public official, whose attributions permit or require their possession and for which he/she is responsible. /q) Allowing another person to manage or use public goods improperly. /r) Other conducts or omissions similar to the foregoing that result in a decrease, affectation, or detriment to the Financial Administration of the State or its institutions.” The situations evidenced in the audit study and based on which the dismissal was ordered fall within the factual scenarios contemplated by the transcribed numeral. If the application of article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic occurs due to incurring in what both that law and those related to the superior control and oversight framework provide as an infraction, it must be concluded, without any doubt, that the applicable period is the five-year period provided for therein, insofar as the plaintiff violated, in his capacity as a subordinate head, precepts of the Internal Control Law, and with his actions also harmed the Public Procurement Law and other internal procurement regulations, as well as the Law of the Financial Administration and Public Budgets. Consequently, the court resolved correctly by finding that the applicable rule regarding the statute of limitations for disciplinary authority is article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic and not the general one contemplated in canon 603 of the Labor Code. According to subsection b) of the cited numeral 71, when dealing with acts that are not notorious, the five-year period shall run from the date on which the report about the possible irregularity is brought to the attention of the head of the institution or the competent person to order the initiation of the administrative procedure. In this case, it has been deemed proven that the Audit report was communicated to the Executive President on July 5, 2004, and the procedure began by resolution dated October 25 next, which was notified on November 12 of the same year, a reason why the peremptory period did not elapse.” In relation to the specific case of the plaintiff, an investigation of possible liability was recommended for the following events: a) processing and collecting payment on four invoices, as expenditure manager (gestionante del gasto), whose providers did not acknowledge as their own, in addition to the fact that they indicated they had not performed the services stated, and no evidence was obtained of ICE’s receipt of the services referred to therein; b) approving expenditures supported by invoices whose providers did not acknowledge as their own and which also back acquisitions of services for which no evidence was obtained of their receipt by the Institution; c) approving expenditures supported by invoices for furniture maintenance services whose price was relatively high compared to quotations obtained from other potential providers; d) approving expenditures supported by an invoice for professional services corresponding to a provider that was not the one who supplied the service, invoices whose payment was not appropriate via the Working Fund (Fondo de Trabajo), and an invoice backing a supposedly unnecessary expense for the Institution; e) processing payment of an irregular invoice, which was suspended on the occasion of the study being conducted by the Internal Audit. These generic events were duly explained in the initial resolution, in accordance with the description made by the court, faults it deemed proven, without any objection being raised in that regard. In addition, the resolution that initiated the procedure invoked as support, among others, Articles 39 and 43 of the Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno) and 108 subparagraphs a, b, c, d and 110 subparagraphs a, b, e, g, h, p, q and r of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets Law (Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos), as well as internal regulations on the operation of working funds and the handling of institutional purchasing cards. Article 39 cited stipulates that the hierarchy (jerarquía) and subordinate heads (personas titulares subordinadas) shall incur administrative liability when they unjustifiably fail to comply with the duties assigned in the Internal Control Law. Likewise, said numeral indicates that such type of servants, as well as public officials in general, shall bear liability when their actions weaken the internal control system or when they omit taking the necessary actions to establish, maintain, perfect, and evaluate it, according to the applicable technical regulations. They shall also bear liability when they unjustifiably fail to comply with the duties and functions in matters of internal control assigned to them by the hierarchy or the subordinate head, or when they generically hinder the audit’s work. Pursuant to Article 2 of the law, the hierarchy coincides with the person exercising the highest authority within the organ or entity, and the subordinate head is that official of the active administration who is responsible for a process and who has authority to order and make decisions. Now, numeral 10 of the Internal Control Law obligates heads of entity (jerarcas) and subordinate head personnel to establish, maintain, perfect, and evaluate the institutional internal control system. In the present matter, the plaintiff held the position of Director of the Institutional Strategic Planning Directorate, subject solely and directly to the Executive Presidency, which is why he was a subordinate head and was obligated to establish, maintain, and evaluate the internal control system. However, he not only omitted to monitor compliance with the regulations related to the handling of the working fund, but he himself incurred serious anomalies that could have very well been avoided with adequate control, all to the detriment of the ultimate purpose of the control and oversight norms, which is to guarantee the legality and efficiency of internal controls and in the handling of public funds. The imputed events were also subsumed under the faults contemplated in Article 110 of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets Law, which, in the invoked subparagraphs, states: “Events generating administrative liability. In addition to those provided for in other laws and regulations specific to the employment relationship, the following shall be events generating administrative liability, […] , those mentioned below: a) The acquisition of goods, works, and services without following any of the procurement procedures established by the legal system./ b) The omission, delay, negligence, or imprudence in the preservation and safeguarding of the assets or rights of the public patrimony or the adoption of willful actions against its protection, regardless of whether damage or injury has materialized. […] / e) The use of public funds over which they have powers of use, administration, custody, or disposition, for purposes different from those for which they are destined by law, regulation, or specific administrative act, even when these purposes are equally of public interest or compatible with the ends of the entity or organ in question. /Likewise, the officials competent for the adoption or implementation of corrective measures shall be liable, if improper use is facilitated, for internal control deficiencies that should have been reasonably and timely overcome. / g) The authorization or execution of expenditures that are manifestly unnecessary, exaggerated, or superfluous./ p) Causing damage, abuse, or any loss of assets in custody received by a public official, whose attributions permit or require their possession and for which they are responsible. / q) Allowing another person to manage or use public assets improperly./ r) Other conducts or omissions similar to the foregoing that result in diminution, affectation, or detriment to the Financial Administration of the State or its institutions”. The situations evidenced in the audit study and based on which the dismissal was ordered are framed within the factual assumptions contemplated in the transcribed numeral. If the application of Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República) occurs due to incurring in what both that law and those related to the superior control and oversight regulations (ordenamiento de control y fiscalización) provide as an infraction, it must be concluded, without a doubt, that the applicable term is the five-year period provided therein, insofar as the plaintiff violated, in his capacity as subordinate head, precepts of the Internal Control Law and, with his actions, also damaged the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) and other internal regulations on procurement, as well as the Financial Administration and Public Budgets Law. Consequently, the court correctly resolved in considering that the applicable norm regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción) of the disciplinary power is Article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic and not the general one contemplated in canon 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo). According to subparagraph b) of numeral 71 cited, when dealing with events that are not notorious, the five-year term shall run from the date on which the report about the possible irregularity is made known to the hierarchy or to the person competent to order the initiation of the administrative procedure. In this case, it has been taken as proven that the Internal Audit’s report was communicated to the executive president on July 5, 2004, and the procedure began by resolution dated October 25 of the following [year], which was notified on November 12 of the same year, which is why the peremptory term did not elapse.” From the related report, it can be inferred that invoices suspected of illegitimacy were processed and paid, and procedures and guidelines contemplated both in internal regulations and in the Public Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) were bypassed. In relation to the specific case of the plaintiff, it was recommended to investigate the potential liability for the following acts: a) Processing and collection of four invoices, as the expenditure manager, whose suppliers did not recognize as their own, in addition to these suppliers stating that they had not performed the services recorded, and no evidence was obtained of ICE’s receipt of the services referred to therein, b) approving expenditures covered by invoices whose suppliers did not recognize as their own and which also support acquisitions of services for which no evidence of their receipt by the Institution was obtained, c) approving expenditures covered by invoices for furniture maintenance services whose price was relatively high compared to quotes obtained from other potential suppliers, d) approving expenditures covered by an invoice for professional services corresponding to a supplier that was not the one who provided the service, invoices whose payment should not have been made through the Working Fund (Fondo de Trabajo), and an invoice that supports an allegedly unnecessary expense for the Institution, e) processing the payment of an irregular invoice, which was suspended on the occasion of the audit study being conducted. These generic acts were duly detailed in the initial resolution, according to the description made by the court, faults that it deemed accredited, without any objection being raised in this regard. Furthermore, the resolution that initiated the procedure invoked as support, among others, articles 39 and 43 of the Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno) and 108 subsections a, b, c, d and 110, subsections a, b, e, g, h, p, q and r of the Law of Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos), as well as internal regulations on the operation of working funds and the management of institutional purchasing cards. The aforementioned Article 39 stipulates that the senior management (jerarquía) and subordinate officials (titulares subordinados) shall incur administrative liability when they unjustifiably fail to comply with the duties assigned in the Internal Control Law. Likewise, said numeral indicates that such liability shall apply to that type of employee, as well as to public officials in general, when their actions weaken the internal control system or when they omit to perform the necessary actions to establish, maintain, perfect, and evaluate it, according to the applicable technical regulations. Liability shall also apply when they unjustifiably fail to comply with the duties and functions in matters of internal control assigned to them by the senior management or the subordinate official, or when, in generic terms, they hinder the audit work. In accordance with article 2 of the law, the senior management corresponds to the person who exercises the highest authority within the organ or entity, and the subordinate official is that active administration official who is responsible for a process and has the authority to order and make decisions. Now then, numeral 10 of the Internal Control Law obligates senior management and subordinate officials to *establish, maintain, perfect, and evaluate the institutional internal control system*. In the present matter, the plaintiff held the position of director of the Institutional Strategic Planning Directorate (Dirección Planificación Estratégica Institucional), reporting solely and directly to the Executive Presidency, which is why he was a subordinate official and was obligated to establish, maintain, and evaluate the internal control system. However, he not only omitted to monitor compliance with the regulations related to the management of the working fund, but he personally incurred in serious anomalies that could well have been avoided with adequate control, all to the detriment of the ultimate purpose of the control and oversight regulations, which is to guarantee the legality and efficiency of internal controls and the management of public funds. The acts attributed to him were also subsumed under the faults contemplated in article 110 of the Law of Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets, which, in the invoked subsections, states: **“Acts giving rise to administrative liability.** In addition to those provided for in other laws and regulations specific to the employment relationship, the following shall be acts giving rise to administrative liability, [...]: **a)** The acquisition of goods, works, and services in the absence of any of the procurement procedures established by the legal system. **b)** The omission, delay, negligence, or imprudence in the preservation and safeguarding of public assets or rights, or the adoption of willful actions against their protection, regardless of whether damage or injury has materialized. [...] **e)** The use of public funds over which one has powers of use, administration, custody, or disposal, for purposes different from those for which they are intended by law, regulation, or specific administrative act, even when these purposes are equally of public interest or compatible with the goals of the entity or organ in question. Likewise, the officials competent to adopt or implement corrective measures shall be liable if improper use is facilitated due to internal control deficiencies that should have been reasonably and opportunely overcome. **g)** The authorization or execution of manifestly unnecessary, exaggerated, or superfluous expenditures. **p)** Causing damage, abuse, or any loss of assets in custody received by a public official, whose powers permit or require their possession and for which the official is responsible. **q)** Allowing another person to handle or use public assets improperly. **r)** Other conduct or omissions similar to the above that result in the reduction, impact, or detriment to the Financial Administration of the State or its institutions.” The situations evidenced in the audit study, and on the basis of which the dismissal was ordered, fall within the factual scenarios contemplated by the transcribed numeral. If the application of article 71 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República) occurs due to incurring in what both that law and those related to higher control and oversight regulations define as an infraction, it must be concluded, without a doubt, that the applicable statute of limitations is the five-year period provided for therein, insofar as the plaintiff violated, in his capacity as a subordinate official, precepts of the Internal Control Law, and with his actions also damaged the Public Procurement Law and other internal procurement regulations, as well as the Law of Financial Administration and Public Budgets. Consequently, the court correctly resolved by determining that the applicable rule regarding the statute of limitations for disciplinary power is article 71 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, and not the general rule contemplated in canon 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo). According to subsection b) of the cited numeral 71, when it concerns acts that are not notorious, the five-year period shall run from the date on which the report about the possible irregularity is brought to the attention of the senior management or the person competent to order the commencement of the administrative procedure. In this case, it has been deemed proven that the Audit report was communicated to the executive president on July 5, 2004, and the procedure commenced by resolution dated October 25 of the same year, which was notified on November 12 of the same year, for which reason the peremptory period did not elapse.”

“III.- DE LA PRESCRIPCIÓN DE LA POTESTAD DISCIPLINARIA: El agravio planteado exige determinar si el plazo de prescripción aplicable para el ejercicio del poder disciplinario del ente empleador era el de un mes que contempla el artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo o el especial de cinco años que regula el numeral 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República. El texto de esta última norma, al momento de los hechos investigados, es el que se encuentra vigente en la actualidad y, en forma expresa, establece:

“Artículo 71.-Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria. La responsabilidad administrativa del funcionario público por las infracciones previstas en esta Ley y en el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores, prescribirá de acuerdo con las siguientes reglas:

• a)En los casos en que el hecho irregular sea notorio, la responsabilidad prescribirá en cinco años, contados a partir del acaecimiento del hecho.
• b)En los casos en que el hecho irregular no sea notorio –entendido este como aquel hecho que requiere una indagación o un estudio de auditoría para informar de su posible irregularidad- la responsabilidad prescribirá en cinco años, contados a partir de la fecha en que el informe sobre la indagación o la auditoría respectiva se ponga en conocimiento del jerarca o el funcionario competente para dar inicio al procedimiento respectivo.

La prescripción se interrumpirá, con efectos continuados, por la notificación al presunto responsable del acto que acuerde el inicio del procedimiento administrativo.

Cuando el autor de la falta sea el jerarca, el plazo empezará a correr a partir de la fecha en que él termine su relación de servicio con el ente, la empresa o el órgano respectivo.

Se reputará como falta grave del funcionario competente para iniciar el procedimiento sancionatorio, el no darle inicio a este oportunamente o el dejar que la responsabilidad del infractor prescriba, sin causa justificada.

(Así reformado por el inciso a) del artículo 45 de la Ley N° 8292 de 31 de julio del 2002, Ley de Control Interno)” (la negrita no es del original).

Del texto resaltado se extrae que el plazo ampliado que prevé dicha norma resulta de aplicación cuando el o la funcionaria pública incurren en las infracciones previstas en esa ley específica o bien en las que contempla el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores de la Hacienda Pública se entiende, según lo regulado en los artículos 1° y 8 de la Ley Orgánica relacionada. La Contraloría General de la República ejerce control sobre los entes y órganos que integran la Hacienda Pública, sin perjuicio de la regulación facultativa que puede desplegar respecto de otros entes. Ahora bien, de conformidad con el artículo 8 ídem “La Hacienda Pública estará constituida por los fondos públicos, las potestades para percibir, administrar, custodiar, conservar, manejar, gastar e invertir tales fondos y las normas jurídicas, administrativas y financieras, relativas al proceso presupuestario, la contratación administrativa, el control interno y externo y la responsabilidad de los funcionarios públicos”. (Los destacados son de quien redacta). De conformidad con dicho numeral, la Hacienda Pública está constituida por dos componentes esenciales: a) los fondos públicos (y todo lo relacionado con su manejo) y b) las normas jurídicas de carácter administrativo y financiero relativas al proceso presupuestario, la contratación administrativa, el control –tanto externo como interno- y la responsabilidad de las y los servidores públicos en esas materias. La ley se encarga de definir lo que ha de entenderse por fondos públicos y también por ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores, que son los términos expresos que contempla el artículo 71 relacionado. Así, en el canon 9 se definen los fondos públicos como todos aquellos “…recursos, valores, bienes y derechos propiedad del Estado, de órganos, de empresas o de entes públicos”. El numeral 10 siguiente, por su parte, señala: “El ordenamiento de control y de fiscalización superiores de la Hacienda Pública comprende el conjunto de normas, que regulan la competencia, la estructura, la actividad, las relaciones, los procedimientos, las responsabilidades y las sanciones derivados de esa fiscalización o necesarios para esta. Este ordenamiento comprende también las normas que regulan la fiscalización sobre entes y órganos extranjeros y fondos y actividades privados, a los que se refiere esta Ley, como su norma fundamental, dentro del marco constitucional”. Ese ordenamiento de control y fiscalización tiene como finalidad primordial “…garantizar la legalidad y la eficiencia de los controles internos y del manejo de los fondos públicos en los entes sobre los cuales tiene jurisdicción la Contraloría General de la República, de conformidad con esta Ley” (artículo 11, ídem). Estos últimos numerales deben leerse en concordancia con lo estipulado en el artículo 8 citado, que expresamente incluye como parte del ordenamiento de control y fiscalización a la normativa relacionada con el proceso presupuestario, la contratación administrativa, el control interno y externo y la responsabilidad de los funcionarios públicos en esas materias, que sin duda son normas que tienden a velar por la legalidad y la eficiencia no solo de los controles internos sino también por el manejo eficiente y apegado a la ley de los fondos públicos. Así, no es cualquier falta cometida por un servidor o servidora pública la que da lugar a la aplicación del artículo 71 ídem. Son únicamente las faltas cometidas por las personas que desempeñan una función pública en el ejercicio de esas especiales competencias (manejo de los fondos públicos) y que infrinjan ya sea las regulaciones de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República o de ese ordenamiento de control y fiscalización (normativa sobre proceso presupuestario, contratación administrativa, control interno y externo, responsabilidades en esa materia) las que dan lugar a una ampliación del plazo para el ejercicio de la potestad disciplinaria. En resumen, el período para sancionar las acciones u omisiones contrarias a esas regulaciones específicas, que pueden ocasionar un manejo ineficiente o ilegal de los fondos públicos, es mayor que el genérico previsto en el numeral 603 del Código de Trabajo, pues en tales supuestos debe aplicarse el de cinco años que contempla aquella norma particular, que sin duda busca tutelar un interés público de gran trascendencia, cual es el manejo transparente de los fondos públicos. En el caso bajo análisis, el recurrente sostiene que no se trataba de fondos públicos porque se estaba en presencia de un fondo de trabajo. El argumento carece de cualquier sustento jurídico, ya que está claro que los fondos en cuyo manejo se vio involucrado eran propiedad de una empresa del Estado, y si bien no era un fondo que estuviera directamente a su cargo, del informe de la Auditoría Interna número DPEI/FT/01.2004, se extrae que él era uno de los tres funcionarios encargados del uso de las tarjetas de pago institucional. De la imputación de cargos realizada al accionante se desprende que la investigación administrativa tuvo lugar precisamente por haber incurrido, entre otras faltas, en infracciones previstas en normas de control y fiscalización superiores, como lo son la Ley de Control Interno, la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y la Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, en detrimento de los fondos públicos. Del relacionado informe se colige que se tramitaron y pagaron facturas sospechosas de ilegitimidad y se obviaron procedimientos y directrices contemplados tanto en normativa interna como en la Ley de Contratación Administrativa. En relación con el caso concreto del actor, se recomendó investigar la eventual responsabilidad por los siguientes hechos: a) Trámite y cobro de cuatro facturas, como gestionante del gasto, cuyos proveedores no reconocieron como suyas, además de que estos indicaron no haber realizado los servicios que se consignaron, y no se obtuvo evidencia del recibo por parte del ICE de los servicios que se refiere en ellas, b) aprobar gastos amparados en facturas cuyos proveedores no reconocieron como suyas y además respaldan adquisiciones de servicios de los cuales no se obtuvo evidencia de su recibo por parte de la Institución, c) aprobar gastos amparados en facturas por servicios de mantenimiento de mobiliario cuyo precio fue relativamente alto respecto de cotizaciones realizadas con otros proveedores potenciales, d) aprobar gastos amparados en factura por servicios profesionales correspondiente a un proveedor que no fue el que suministró el servicio, facturas cuyo pago no correspondía por medio del Fondo de Trabajo y factura que respalda un supuesto gasto innecesario para la Institución, e) trámite de pago de una factura irregular, que fue suspendido con ocasión del estudio que realizaba la Auditoría. Estos hechos genéricos fueron debidamente explicitados en la resolución inicial, conforme a la descripción realizada por el tribunal, faltas que tuvo por acreditadas, sin que mediara objeción alguna al respecto. Además, en la resolución que dio inicio al procedimiento se invocaron como sustento, entre otros, los artículos 39 y 43 de la Ley de Control Interno y 108 incisos a, b, c, d y 110, incisos a, b, e, g, h, p, q y r de la Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, así como normativa interna sobre la operación de los fondos de trabajo y el manejo de tarjetas de compras institucionales. El artículo 39 referido estipula que la jerarquía y las personas titulares subordinadas incurrirán en responsabilidad administrativa cuando incumplan injustificadamente los deberes asignados en la Ley de Control Interno. Asimismo, dicho numeral indica que a ese tipo de servidores, así como a la generalidad de funcionarias y funcionarios públicos, les asistirá responsabilidad cuando con su actuar debiliten el sistema de control interno u omitan realizar las acciones necesarias para establecerlo, mantenerlo, perfeccionarlo y evaluarlo, según la normativa técnica aplicable. También les asistirá responsabilidad, cuando de manera injustificada incumplan los deberes y funciones que en materia de control interno les asigne la jerarquía o la persona titular subordinada, o bien cuando en términos genéricos entorpezcan la labor de la auditoría. De conformidad con el artículo 2 de la ley, la jerarquía coincide con la persona que ejerce la máxima autoridad dentro del órgano o ente y el titular subordinado es aquel funcionario o funcionaria de la administración activa que es responsable de un proceso y que tiene autoridad para ordenar y tomar decisiones. Ahora bien, el numeral 10 de la Ley de Control Interno obliga a jerarcas y personal titular subordinado a establecer, mantener, perfeccionar y evaluar el sistema de control interno institucional. En el presente asunto, el accionante ocupaba el puesto de director de la Dirección Planificación Estratégica Institucional, sujeto única y directamente a la Presidencia Ejecutiva, razón por la cual era titular subordinado y estaba obligado a establecer, mantener y evaluar el sistema de control interno. Sin embargo, no solo omitió vigilar el cumplimiento de la normativa relacionada con el manejo del fondo de trabajo sino que él propiamente incurrió en graves anomalías que bien pudieron evitarse con un control adecuado, todo en perjuicio de la finalidad última de las normas de control y fiscalización, cual es garantizar la legalidad y la eficiencia de los controles internos y en el manejo de los fondos públicos. Los hechos endilgados también fueron subsumidos en las faltas contempladas en el artículo 110 de la Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, que en los incisos invocados, señala: “Hechos generadores de responsabilidad administrativa. Además de los previstos en otras leyes y reglamentaciones propias de la relación de servicio, serán hechos generadores de responsabilidad administrativa, […], los mencionados a continuación: a) La adquisición de bienes, obras y servicios con prescindencia de alguno de los procedimientos de contratación establecidos por el ordenamiento jurídico./ b) La omisión, el retardo, la negligencia o la imprudencia en la preservación y salvaguarda de los bienes o derechos del patrimonio público o la adopción de acciones dolosas contra su protección, independientemente de que se haya consumado un daño o lesión. […]/e) El empleo de los fondos públicos sobre los cuales tenga facultades de uso, administración, custodia o disposición, con finalidades diferentes de aquellas a las que están destinados por ley, reglamento o acto administrativo singular, aun cuando estas finalidades sean igualmente de interés público o compatibles con los fines de la entidad o el órgano de que se trate. /Asimismo, los funcionarios competentes para la adopción o puesta en práctica de las medidas correctivas serán responsables, si se facilita el uso indebido, por deficiencias de control interno que deberían haberse superado razonable y oportunamente. /g) La autorización o realización de egresos manifiestamente innecesarios, exagerados o superfluos./p) Causar daño, abuso o cualquier pérdida de los bienes en custodia que reciba un funcionario público, cuyas atribuciones permitan o exijan su tenencia y de los cuales es responsable. /q) Permitir a otra persona manejar o usar los bienes públicos en forma indebida./r) Otras conductas u omisiones similares a las anteriores que redunden en disminución, afectación o perjuicio de la Administración Financiera del Estado o sus instituciones”. Las situaciones evidenciadas en el estudio de auditoría y con base en las cuales se dispuso el despido se enmarcan en los supuestos de hecho que contempla el numeral transcrito. Si la aplicación del artículo 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República se da por incurrir en lo que tanto esa ley como las relacionadas con el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores prevén como una infracción, debe concluirse, sin lugar a dudas, que el plazo aplicable es el de cinco años ahí previsto, en el tanto en que el demandante violentó, en su condición de titular subordinado, preceptos de la Ley de Control Interno y con su actuar también lesionó la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y otra normativa interna sobre contratación, así como la Ley de la Administración Financiera y Presupuesto Públicos. Por consiguiente, el tribunal resolvió acertadamente al estimar que la norma aplicable en cuanto a la prescripción de la potestad disciplinaria es el artículo 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y no la general contemplada en el canon 603 del Código de Trabajo. Según el inciso b), del numeral 71 citado, cuando se trate de hechos que no son notorios, el plazo de cinco años correrá a partir de la fecha en que el informe acerca de la posible irregularidad es puesto en conocimiento de la jerarquía o de la persona competente para disponer el inicio del procedimiento administrativo. En este caso, se ha tenido por demostrado que el informe de la Auditoría fue comunicado al presidente ejecutivo el 5 de julio de 2004 y el procedimiento dio inicio mediante resolución fechada el 25 de octubre siguiente, la que fue notificada el 12 de noviembre del mismo año, razón por la cual el plazo perentorio no transcurrió.”