ICE Payment Withholdings Annulled for Improper Penalty Clause ApplicationNulidad de retenciones del ICE por aplicación indebida de cláusula penal

• II)ON THE MERITS: II.1) ON THE PENALTY CLAUSE IN ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING AND ITS LEGAL EFFECTS: The penalty clause (cláusula penal) is defined as a "contractual stipulation by which the contracting Administration liquidates in advance the damages and losses derived from premature or late execution by the contractor. The purpose of this clause is to provide the contracting administration with an agile mechanism to obtain reparation for the damages and losses caused by premature advancement or delay, considering that in certain cases the execution deadline is of vital importance. (...) Given its specific purpose, it must be executed upon the non-compliance with the execution deadline of the agreed obligations, and through it any misalignment—by prematurity or delay—in the contractual execution deadline is punished (...)." (Jinesta Lobo Ernesto. Contratación Administrativa. Tomo IV, first edition, Ediciones Guayacán, San José Costa Rica, page 396). Thus, the setting of the penalty clause in the bidding terms (cartel) constitutes a sum that will cover the possible damages and losses attributable to the contractor due to delay or misalignment in the deadline for executing the obligations, which is prefixed in advance at the administrative level for the reparation of the losses that would be caused by an eventual delay in the established deadline. In this regard, the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled in judgment 1019 at 16:25 on December 21, 2005, that it is an "alternative administrative sanction system, which seeks to establish in advance what the economic effects of non-compliance will be (...) which cannot exceed one quarter (25%) of the principal obligation, so that if it exceeds that portion it will be abusive, disproportionate and illegal for being contrary" and would generate unjust enrichment to the detriment of the contractor. For its part, vote 750-F-2006 at 10:45 on October 5, 2006, from the same Court of Cassation is forceful in maintaining that these types of pecuniary sanctions "constitute mechanisms that seek to ensure the faithful observance of what was agreed, or failing that, to achieve compensation for the injury suffered. Hence, they have two basic functions, the compulsive and the compensatory. They appear in the administrative contract as eventual sanctions, which seek to better guarantee the Administration that the contracting party will fulfill the provision within the deadline and with the agreed conditions, prefixing in advance the reparation of the losses that would be caused by an eventual delay in the indicated deadline or a non-compliance." Regarding the topic of the penalty clause and its effects in administrative contracting matters, the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Act (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), number 33411 of September 27, 2006, in its Third Section, provides in its numeral 50, that the "penalty clause applies for late or premature execution of contractual obligations, the assumptions and amounts must be included in the respective bidding terms and the provisions indicated in the previous articles will be applicable." So applying the previous provisions to the penalty clause, it is feasible to indicate that for its establishment in the bidding terms, criteria of proportionality and reasonableness must be applied, and in the event that the object is composed of different lines, the maximum amount for charging fines will be considered on the greater value of each one and not on the totality of the contract, provided that the non-compliance of one line does not affect the rest of the obligations (numeral 47 ibid). Likewise, for charging the penalty clause, it will not be necessary to demonstrate the existence of damage or loss, and the charge may be made against the price withholdings (retenciones del precio) that have been made and the pending payment balances (article 48). However, its application is not automatic, or simply based on mere appreciations, conjectures or assumptions not reliably accredited of having incurred in premature or late execution of the obligation; that would be abusive, unfair, and would imply the exercise of sanctioning powers based on mere presumptions, indications and not on clear and overwhelming evidence. Thus, for the application or execution of the penalty clause, there must be a clear and evident reason that must be based on the verification of having incurred a delay in the delivery deadline, that is, the occurrence of the assumptions for which it was created. In this regard, it has been expressed that the abusive execution or application without proven reason, based on mere discretion, would imply the violation of the principles of the right of defense and due process. Therefore, it has been said that an administrative procedure must be initiated, since even though "Certainly, the quantum of the fine is established in the bidding terms and the contract and the offeror who is awarded the contract accepted it, however, the non-compliance as such—existence of the damage or loss—must be accredited as it constitutes the factual assumption for execution. What the contracting administration is relieved from is accrediting that the defective, late or premature non-compliance causes it a patrimonial injury, given that, precisely, when stipulating the fine or the penalty clause, injury to the public interest is presumed (...) Otherwise, the contracting administration could arbitrarily execute a penalty clause or a fine, without the contractor having incurred, effectively, in non-compliance" (Jinesta Lobo Ernesto. Contratación Administrativa. Tomo IV, first edition, Ediciones Guayacán, San José Costa Rica, pages 398 and 399). In that sense, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) expressed in vote 17517-2005 at 19:02 on December 20, 2005, that "In relation to the procedure followed for the application of fines for contractual non-compliance, the Chamber considers that the informants are correct, since these are aspects typified in the contract signed between the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad and Condicel Limitada. The pertinence or reasonableness of said fines—as stated—escape the object of this appeal, but the truth is that, having contractual clauses that establish the parameters and evaluation mechanisms, as well as the consequences for non-compliance, the Administration is perfectly enabled to contractually sanction its counterparty through a simple procedure (of mere verification). Respect for the fundamental right to due process occurs in such cases through the issuance of duly reasoned resolutions, in addition to allowing the affected party to exercise the corresponding appeals against the decision that sanctions it. In these cases, the Administration cannot be required in each case to carry out an ordinary procedure before imposing each contractual fine for the omission or inadequate fulfillment of what was agreed. Precisely, we are facing a situation that fits within this assumption, so the procedure followed to date is understood to be respectful of the right of defense, which in any case has been exercised by the protected party in a thorough manner. It is for the foregoing that regarding this point, the appeal must be dismissed." Regarding the requirements it must contain for its constitution or setting in the bidding terms, it is essential to indicate that the amounts cannot be arbitrary, nor disproportionate, must not generate unjust enrichment in favor of the contracting Administration, must conform as expressed to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and not be left to mere administrative discretion. In this regard, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice expressed in vote 1176-F-S1-2011, at 9:15 on September 22, 2011, that "the establishment of the penalty clause does not have as its basis the discretionary criterion of the Administration, since to set it, it must have elements that not only rule out unjust enrichment, (...) and particularly, that the public purpose unsatisfied by the delay in compliance be compensated according to the parameter set by canon 41 of the Political Constitution, that is, in an integral manner. For this, it must be accredited then that the clause was the result of an analysis that took into account three variables; the amount of the contract, the agreed deadline and the repercussions of an eventual delay in compliance. If these elements are found lacking, the clause cannot be acted upon." In turn, numeral 34 of the Administrative Contracting Act (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), number 7494 of May 2, 1995, provides that when there is a penalty clause for delay in execution, the guarantee cannot be executed based on this reason, unless the contractor refuses to cancel the corresponding amounts for that concept, since the execution of the performance guarantee does not exempt the contractor from compensating the Administration for the damages and losses not covered by that guarantee. This regulation is consistent with what is set forth in article 41 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Act, which provides that the performance guarantee "may be executed for delay in the execution of the contractual object, in the event that a penalty clause has not been agreed for that reason; otherwise, the execution of the latter will proceed." Regarding the topic, and concerning the contracts made by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, the Internal Regulation for Administrative Contracting of said entity, number 5881 of August 25, 2009, provides in its article 8 subsection 11), in accordance with ordinal 20 of Law 8660 of August 8, 2008, on Strengthening of Public Entities of the Telecommunications Sector, that it is the responsibility of the Administrative Contracting Coordinator to process before the Supply Department (Proveeduría) the execution of the penalty clauses and payment withholdings. In turn, numeral 107 of said norm expresses that penalty clauses will be executed automatically in strict adherence to what is indicated in ordinal 41 of the Regulation to Law number 8660 or in the bidding terms or specifications once the non-compliance is detected, it being the responsibility of said official to request their charge from the Supply Department through a duly reasoned act. In this regard, the charging of penalty clauses will be made against the price withholdings that have been made and pending payment balances, empowering the administrative contracting coordinator at the time of requesting from the Supply Department the procedure for charging the penalty clause, having to make as a precautionary measure the provisional withholding of the fine amount in the pending payment invoices, a payment deduction that will be made after communicating to the Area of Administration of Guarantees, Registries and Sanctions of the Supply Department so that the contractor is thus notified (ordinal 108 of the regulation ibid). In turn, the Supply Department will be in charge of communicating and managing the charge to the contractor. It will not be necessary to demonstrate the damage and/or loss, but this does not exclude that the ICE must issue a duly reasoned act in its decision to charge. Said resolution will be communicated in due course to the contractor, and in the case of fines, penalty clauses or charges contemplated in the bidding terms and originating from contracts made through the Eligible Registries, the Unit that promotes the contracting will be in charge of communicating and making the payment deduction, for which the procedure established in the respective bidding terms will be used (ordinal 109 of the regulation ibid). For its part, the Regulation to Title II of the aforementioned Law 8660, number 35148 of February 24, 2009, in its article 41, referring to fines, states that "the ICE may establish in the bidding terms the payment of fines for defects in the execution of the contract, considering for this aspects such as amount, deadline, risk, repercussions of an eventual non-compliance for the service provided or for the public interest and the possibility of partial non-compliances or by lines, provided that it is considered the suitable means for the fulfillment and satisfaction of the contractual obligations. All the foregoing in accordance with criteria of proportionality and reasonableness. In the event that the object is composed of different lines, the maximum amount for charging fines will be considered on the greater value of each one and not on the totality of the contract, provided that the non-compliance of one line does not affect the rest of the obligations. The non-compliances that originate the charging of the fine must be detailed in the bidding terms. Once the bidding terms are final, the fine amount is understood to be definitive, so no subsequent claims will be accepted. In relation to the charging of fines, it will not be necessary to demonstrate the damage and/or loss, but this does not exclude that the ICE must reach a duly reasoned act in its decision to charge." In turn, numeral 43 ibid, states regarding penalty clauses that "it applies for late or premature execution of the contractual obligations, the assumptions and amounts must be included in the respective bidding terms and the provisions indicated in the previous articles will be applicable to them. In charging the penalty clause, it will not be necessary to demonstrate the damage and/or loss, but this does not exclude that the ICE must reach a duly reasoned act in its decision to charge." Norms, which as observed contain special stipulations characteristic of administrative contracting carried out by the ICE, which by virtue of the aforementioned ordinal 20, will regulate the acquisition of goods and services carried out by said entity, which is subject to the special provisions contained in Law 8660 and its Regulation, so the Administrative Contracting Act, No. 7494, of May 1, 1996, its amendments, and its Regulation will be applied supplementarily.

II. 2) SPECIFIC CASE: Applying the foregoing to the resolution of the present matter, we find that the petitioner is partially correct in his claims, since the nullity of the withholdings (retenciones) made through official notices 4050-1298-2010 of July 15, 2010, 4050-1341-2910 of July 23, 2010, 4050-1607-2010 of September 2, 2010, 4050-494-2011 of March 31, 2011, and 4050-703-2011 of May 19, 2011, which imposed the application of the penalty clause that has involved the withholdings of invoices for delivery of contracted materials, is observed, and that as a consequence thereof, the amount of $43,614.90 left unpaid by the ICE for the concept of excess of Props (Ademes) must be returned to it, which was imputed as payment offset for the imposed withholdings, as well as the payment of $43,615.40 for being the amount retained in excess by the ICE, exceeding 25% of the value of the contract which was the maximum amount withheld, as was admitted at trial. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is not observed that the penalty clause imposed in itself is null, as will be analyzed later. As was accredited in the proven facts, the testimonial statements offered by the parties and from the legal basis expressed in the substantive consideration II.1, it is clear that the essential conditions for declaring the absolute nullity of the cited official notices by which the amount of $9,125.90 was withheld, the 4050-1341-2910 of July 23, 2010 which implied the confirmation of the withheld $9,125.90, the 4050-1607-2010 of September 2, 2010 on the confirmation of the imposed withholding, the 4050-494-2011 of March 31, 2011 on the withholding of invoice 1615 for the amount of $255,342.32 and the 4050-703-2011 of May 19, 2011 in which the amount of $89,698.00 was withheld for delay in the delivery of the supply and that subsequently the note would be sent to the Supply Department to proceed with formal notification (folio 7 ibid) occur in the present case. In this sense, it is feasible to indicate that as stated in the proven facts, a series of withholdings were made on payments made by the ICE to the plaintiff company within the Abbreviated Tender (Licitación Abreviada) number 2009LA-000027-PROV with the object of acquiring drilling materials for the P.G.Borinquen, acquisition of goods and services UEN and PySA (proven facts eighth, eleventh, sixteenth, twenty-second and twenty-sixth). However, the reason on which such precautionary withholding of the payments made was based, according to the application of the penalty clause stipulated in point 15 of the bidding terms (proven fact third) was not justified, nor accredited, nor sufficiently founded at the administrative level, nor judicial level, such that the exercise of such power was abusive and disproportionate, with clear non-compliance with the provisions of ordinals 132 and 133 of the General Public Administration Act (Ley General de la Administración Pública). This is observed from proven facts thirty and thirty-one, in which serious discrepancies are observed between various Departments of the ICE regarding the application of the expressed withholdings. Such conflicts arising internally within the institution reveal that there is no clarity regarding whether or not the application of the expressed penalty clause actually proceeded. In that sense, the email of June 13, 2011, sent by Mr. Verny Brown Torres, in his capacity as General Manager of the Corporate Supply Directorate, Area of Guarantees, Registries and Sanctions, addressed to officials Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya and Freddy Solano Siles, is forceful, clear, evident and revealing, in which he expresses a series of inconsistencies, weaknesses, shortcomings and doubts that according to his criteria prevent the application of the proposed withholdings. Such observations express that for the case of invoice 1624, a receipt date by the Warehouses for the materials cannot be determined, but a note is attached in which it is recorded that on May nine, 2011, such pipe was received, the same happens with invoice 1603, and that for 1594 it does have a receipt stamp from C.S. Recursos Geotérmicos Suministros dated January 10, 2011 but that according to said Supply Department, it must be signed by the Contract Administrator, the Administrative Contracting Coordinator and with the approval of the UEN Director, since ensuring the correct execution of the contract falls on such persons and not on the Supply and Materials Administration Area under the terms of ordinals 8 subsection 1), 11 and 9 subsection 5) and 7) of the Internal Regulation for Administrative Contracting, in addition to the fact that no indication is provided in which it can be elucidated why the late-delivered line affected the other, and that in note 4050-755-2011 the fine of $89,698.00 is greater than 25%, the same happens with note 4050-797-2011 with the fine of $43,330.00 and the fine for $67,689.28 (folios 1167 to 1170 of the administrative file). Furthermore, that in proven fact 24, it is established that through the email of April 15, 2011, Mr. Robert Murillo Soto of the ICE, states to Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya that regarding the document corresponding to official notice 4050-538-2011, official notice 4050-371-2011 that motivated the legal opinion is not included, a document attesting to the date on which the materials entered the ICE is not included, and the invoice does not have a receipt stamp in its place for the materials receipt (folio 1187 of the administrative file, as well as the statement of Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya). Such objections reveal, internally within the ICE, competence conflicts between administrative bodies, requirements not met according to the institutional administrative work and incomplete or omitted documentation that prevented the application of the expressed withholdings. Likewise, as observed in proven fact thirty-one, through official notice number 4050-288-2012 of February 13, 2012, Licentiate Mauricio Hernández Araya in his capacity as Coordinator of the Area for Acquisition of Goods and Services UEN and PySA of the ICE, expresses to Mr. Freddy Solano Siles of the Supply and Materials Administration Unit that the amounts withheld on invoices 1538 for $9,125.90 and invoice 1535 for $116,065.60 should not be returned since the supplier was notified by Goods and Services, but regarding invoice 1594 in which $42,333.20 was withheld, invoice 1603 in which $67,689.28 was withheld, invoice 1624 in which $89,698.00 was withheld and invoice 1615 in which $255,342.32 was withheld, not notified by the Supply Department, the return of $498,677.70 must proceed, for a total of $498,677.70 (folios 1536 to 1537 of the administrative file). With this, it is clear that the head of the Area for Acquisition of Goods and Services is recognizing that such withholdings must be returned and expresses as justification for this that "given that no response was received in a timely manner, the Supply Department did not notify the Supplier, since the requested aspects were not clarified and by email dated 07/12/11 the Supply Department indicates that it is appropriate to archive the case." In this regard, the Internal Regulation for Administrative Contracting of the ICE, number 5881 of August 25, 2009, in its article 8 subsection 11), expresses that it is the responsibility of the Administrative Contracting Coordinator to process before the Supply Department the execution of the penalty clauses and payment withholdings, with which non-compliance is indeed observed in this regard. In turn, numeral 107 of said norm expresses that penalty clauses will be executed automatically in strict adherence to what is indicated in ordinal 41 of the Regulation to Law number 8660 or in the bidding terms or specifications once the non-compliance is detected, it being the responsibility of the Contract Administrator and the Administrative Contracting Coordinator to request their charge from the Supply Department through a duly reasoned act. While withholdings can be made on payments made by virtue of numeral 108 of Regulation 5881, which states that the Contract Administrator in coordination with the Administrative Contracting Coordinator, at the time of requesting from the Supply Department the charge procedure for the fine or penalty clause, must, as a precautionary measure, make the provisional withholding of the fine amount in the invoices pending payment, and that this payment deduction will be made after communication to the Area of Administration of Guarantees, Registries and Sanctions of the Supply Department so that it is thus made known to the contractor, however, as the institutional Supply Department has expressed that the stipulated requirements for the application of the sanctioning regime that involves the imposition of the penalty clauses and their charge were not met, the return of what was withheld proceeds. In merit of this, such precautionary power can be exercised by the Contract Administrator in coordination with the Administrative Contracting Coordinator, but if subsequently the endorsement of the Supply Department, in charge of communicating, managing and deciding on the appropriateness to the contractor, is not received, the return of the withheld amounts must proceed. Thus, the entire procedure involved in charging the penalty clauses implies the participation of various officials in the institutional work of the ICE, as expressed in the aforementioned numerals, such that without the consent, agreement or accord of any of them, the maintenance of the withholding, nor the application of the penalty clause, proceeds. Therefore, both the precautionary application of the withholdings, and the imposition of the fines require duly reasoned, justified, proven and considered acts, by reason of which the Administration should have proceeded with the immediate return of the withheld amounts, once the institutional Supply Department and Licentiate Mauricio Hernández Araya himself in his capacity as Coordinator of the Area for Acquisition of Goods and Services UEN and PySA, expressed in his official notice number 4050-288-2012 of February 13, 2012, that it was not appropriate to keep retained the amounts referring to invoice 1594 in which $42,333.20 was withheld, invoice 1603 in which $67,689.28 was withheld, invoice 1624 in which $89,698.00 was withheld and invoice 1615 in which $255,342.32 was withheld, not notified by the Supply Department, so the return of $498,677.70 must proceed, for a total of $498,677.70. However, despite what was stated by Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya, no merit is observed to maintain the withholdings made through invoices 1538 for $9,125.90 and invoice 1535 for $116,065.60, since the due procedure for their charge stipulated by the ICE regulations has not been followed, they have not been brought to the attention of the Supply Department for their charge, and furthermore they cannot be kept retained precautionarily on a permanent basis, especially in cases like this where the supply department itself in charge of executing the fines and imposing the penalty clause has determined serious anomalies and shortcomings in the process that led to the precautionary application of the withholdings imposed on the plaintiff, and the statement that they were notified by Goods and Services is not sufficient to maintain the withholdings, since the concurrence of the other departments to give them validity and effectiveness is lacking, and without the defendant having proven that they have been obtained to date, for which reason they must be returned to the petitioner, especially since the Administration itself has so stated through its different departments responsible for participating in this process. Regarding the objections raised by the petitioner in relation to the claim that the penalty clause set forth in the bidding terms of the Abbreviated Tender number 2009LA-000027-PROV of April 16, 2009, point 15, is null, it is denied; it is not observed that it is abusive, disproportionate, or irrational, lacks technique, or is unfair, that it did not take into account, according to the terms expressed by the aforementioned vote of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice number 1176-F-S1-2011 at 9:15 on September 22, 2011, the variables of the contract amount, the agreed deadline and the repercussions of an eventual delay in non-compliance. Rather, from its study, it is observed that it is not abusive to set for delay in the delivery of the supply the sum of 0.5% of the value of the unfulfilled part, according to article 47 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Act, for each working day of delay, with a maximum of 25% of the contract, or by fine the sum of 0.5% of the value of the unfulfilled part, it being rather adequate that it has set that the charge for these concepts will be considered on the value of each one and not on the totality of the contract, provided that the non-compliance of one line does not affect the rest of the obligations. In this way, it is proper and adequate if there is sufficient reason for it, and clear evidentiary elements, issuing a reasoned resolution, that price withholdings be made on the pending payment invoices. Without the fact being relevant that as was accredited in proven fact 32, the ICE subsequently modified the structure and the content of the penalty clause. Regarding the claim that the principle of due process was violated by not having imposed the fine to date, administrative neglect (incuria administrativa) is effectively observed, since the withholdings made cautionary cannot be kept indefinitely, as they become confiscatory without due process.

Therefore, as indicated above, the Procurement Office (Proveeduría) has not given its approval for the application of the penalty clause (cláusula penal), so the sanctioning procedure has not concluded before the serious objections raised by said body in charge of collection, thereby generating the failure to promptly and timely fulfill the procedure stipulated in the aforementioned special regulations. Thus, in order to maintain the deductions (retenciones) imposed, the non-compliance of the plaintiff must have been reliably proven through a duly reasoned and substantiated act, but without it being necessary to prove the damage, all this pursuant to numeral 109 of the aforementioned regulation, and ordinal 48 of the Regulation to the Law on Administrative Procurement (Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa). Regarding the discussion of whether the calculation of the deductions made should be based on independent lines and not on the totality of the contract, no technical proof was provided in this regard by the plaintiff, nor was the technical expert opinion appearing at folios 1516 to 1523 of the case file discredited, in which it is clearly demonstrated that the deductions should be made on the total amount of the contract, and not on independent lines, nor was the statement of the ICE official Mr. Mario Solano Ortega objected to, which was emphatic that the materials were complementary and dependent. By virtue of the foregoing, the present claim must be partially granted, understanding as denied that which is not expressly granted, so that the nullity of the following administrative actions is declared: official letters 4050-1298-2010 of July 15, 2010, 4050-1341-2910 of July 23, 2010, 4050-1607-2010 of September 2, 2010, 4050-494-2011 of March 31, 2011, and 4050-703-2011 of May 19, 2011, and consequently it is ordered to return to the plaintiff, by way of sums deducted in the payments made on the material delivery invoices, the following sums: $9,520.00 from invoice 1538, $72,450.70 from invoice 1535, $110,022.48 from invoices 1594 and 1603, $255,342.32 from invoice 1615, and $89,698.00 from invoice 1624, for a total of $537,033.50 dollars. In addition, the plaintiff must be reimbursed the amount of $43,615.40, an amount deducted in excess by the ICE, exceeding 25% of the contract value which was the maximum amount deducted, as well as the amount of $43,614.90 unpaid by the ICE for the concept of excess of Ademes. All sums shall be indexed pursuant to ordinal 123 of the Code of Administrative Contentious Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo) from the finality of this resolution and until their effective payment, and in addition, commercial legal interest shall be recognized running from the finality of this resolution and until their effective payment.

II. 3 )- EXCEPTIONS: By reason of the foregoing, the objection of lack of right (falta de derecho) raised by the defendant is partially denied, because in accordance with the cited regulations, the evidence provided, and the presented factual grounds, the plaintiff is entitled to the right invoked in support of its claims, since it was determined that the plaintiff had the right to receive the refund of the requested sums given the nullified administrative actions." The breaches giving rise to the collection of the fine must be detailed in the tender specifications (cartel). Once the tender specifications are final, the amount of the fine shall be understood to be definitive, and no subsequent claims will be admitted. Regarding the collection of fines, it shall not be necessary to demonstrate damage and/or harm, but this does not exclude the requirement that ICE must issue a duly reasoned act in its collection decision." In turn, numeral 43 ibid., regarding penal clauses (cláusulas penales), states that "it proceeds for late or premature execution of contractual obligations, the scenarios and amounts must be included in the respective tender specifications and the provisions indicated in the preceding articles shall apply to it. In the collection of a penal clause, it shall not be necessary to demonstrate damage and/or harm, but this does not exclude the requirement that ICE must issue a duly reasoned act in its collection decision." Provisions which, as can be observed, contain special stipulations typical of the administrative procurement carried out by ICE, which, pursuant to the aforementioned ordinal 20, shall govern the acquisition of goods and services carried out by said entity, which is subject to the special provisions contained in Ley 8660 and its Regulation, such that the Ley de Contratación Administrativa, No. 7494, of May 1, 1996, its amendments, and its Regulation shall apply supplementarily.

**II. 2) SPECIFIC CASE:** Applying the foregoing to the resolution of this matter, we find that the petitioner is partially correct in his claims, since the nullity of the withholdings carried out through official letters (oficios) 4050-1298-2010 of July 15, 2010, 4050-1341-2910 of July 23, 2010, 4050-1607-2010 of September 2, 2010, 4050-494-2011 of March 31, 2011, and 4050-703-2011 of May 19, 2011, is observed. These imposed the application of the penal clause (clausula penal), which has entailed the withholdings from invoices for the delivery of contracted materials, and as a consequence, the amount of $43,614.90 left unpaid by ICE for the concept of excess Props (Ademes), which was charged as an allocation of payment for the imposed withholdings, must be returned to it, as well as the payment of $43,615.40, being the amount withheld in excess by ICE, exceeding 25% of the contract value, which was the maximum withheld amount, as admitted in court. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is not observed that the penal clause imposed is itself null and void, as will be analyzed subsequently. As was proven in the proven facts, the testimonial statements offered by the parties, and the legal basis expressed in substantive recital (considerando) II.1, it is clear that the essential prerequisites exist in this case to declare the absolute nullity of the cited official letters, by which the amount of $9,125.90 was withheld; 4050-1341-2910 of July 23, 2010, which entailed confirmation of the $9,125.90 withheld; 4050-1607-2010 of September 2, 2010, regarding confirmation of the imposed withholding; 4050-494-2011 of March 31, 2011, regarding the withholding of invoice 1615 for the amount of $255,342.32; and 4050-703-2011 of May 19, 2011, in which the amount of $89,698.00 was withheld for delay in the delivery of the supply and for which the note would later be sent to the Procurement Department (Proveeduría) to proceed with formal notification (folio 7 ibid). In this sense, it is appropriate to indicate that, as stated in the proven facts, a series of withholdings were made on payments effected by ICE to the plaintiff company within the Abbreviated Tender (Licitación Abreviada) number 2009LA-000027-PROV, for the purpose of acquiring drilling materials for the P.G. Borinquen, acquisition of goods and services UEN y PySA (proven facts eight, eleven, sixteen, twenty-two, and twenty-six). However, the reason on which such precautionary retention of the payments made was based, according to the application of the penal clause stipulated in point 15 of the tender specifications (proven fact three), was not justified, accredited, or sufficiently substantiated in the administrative or judicial venues, such that the exercise of such power was abusive and disproportionate, in clear breach of the provisions of ordinals 132 and 133 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). This is observed from proven facts thirty and thirty-one, in which serious discrepancies between various ICE Departments regarding the application of the expressed withholdings are noted. Such conflicts that arose internally within the institution reveal that there is no clarity as to whether the application of the expressed penal clause actually proceeded or not. In this sense, the electronic mail of June 13, 2011, sent by Mr. Verny Brown Torres, in his capacity as General Manager of the Corporate Procurement Directorate (Dirección de Proveeduría Corporativa), Guarantees, Registries, and Sanctions Area, addressed to officials Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya and Freddy Solano Siles, is conclusive, clear, evident, and revealing. In it, he expresses a series of inconsistencies, weaknesses, shortcomings, and doubts that, in his view, prevent the application of the proposed withholdings. Said observations express that, for the case of invoice 1624, a date of receipt by the Warehouses of the materials could not be determined, but a note is attached stating that such piping was received on May 9, 2011; the same occurs with invoice 1603; and that invoice 1594 does have a received stamp from C.S. Recursos Geotérmicos Suministros dated January 10, 2011, but that for said Procurement Department, it must be signed by the Contract Administrator, the Administrative Procurement Coordinator, and with the approval of the UEN Director, since the responsibility for ensuring the correct execution of the contract falls on such persons and not on the Supply and Materials Administration Area, in the terms of ordinals 8 subsection 1), 11, and 9 subsections 5) and 7) of the Internal Regulation for Administrative Procurement (Reglamento Interno de Contratación Administrativa). Additionally, it is noted that no indication is provided through which it can be elucidated why the tardily delivered line affected the other, and that in note 4050-755-2011, the fine of $89,698.00 is greater than 25%; the same occurs with note 4050-797-2011 with the fine of $43,330.00 and the fine for $67,689.28 (folios 1167 to 1170 of the administrative file). Furthermore, in proven fact 24, it is established that through the electronic mail of April 15, 2011, Mr. Robert Murillo Soto of ICE informed Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya that, regarding the document corresponding to official letter 4050-538-2011, official letter 4050-371-2011, which motivated the legal opinion, is not included; a document attesting to the date on which the materials entered ICE is not included; and the invoice does not have a received stamp in place of the materials receipt (folio 1187 of the administrative file, as well as the statement of Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya). Such objections reveal internally within ICE jurisdictional conflicts between administrative bodies, unmet requirements according to the institutional administrative practice, and incomplete or omitted documentation that prevented the application of the expressed withholdings. Similarly, as observed in proven fact thirty-one, through official letter number 4050-288-2012 of February 13, 2012, Licentiate Mauricio Hernández Araya, in his capacity as Coordinator of the Area for Acquisition of Goods and Services UEN y PySA of ICE, informed Mr. Freddy Solano Siles of the Supply and Materials Administration Unit (Unidad de Suministros y Administración de Materiales) that the amounts withheld on invoices 1538 for $9,125.90 and invoice 1535 for $116,065.60 should not be returned, as the supplier was notified by Goods and Services, but concerning invoice 1594, from which $42,333.20 was withheld; invoice 1603, from which $67,689.28 was withheld; invoice 1624, from which $89,698.00 was withheld; and invoice 1615, from which $255,342.32 was withheld—amounts not notified by the Procurement Department—the return of $498,677.70 should proceed, for a total of $498,677.70 (folios 1536 to 1537 of the administrative file). With this, it is clear that the person in charge of the Area for Acquisition of Goods and Services is acknowledging that such withholdings must be returned and expresses as justification that "given that a response was not received in a timely manner, the Procurement Department did not notify the Supplier, since the requested aspects were not clarified, and by mail dated 07/12/11, the Procurement Department indicates that archiving the case is appropriate." In this regard, the Internal Regulation for Administrative Procurement of ICE, number 5881 of August 25, 2009, in its article 8, subsection 11), states that the Administrative Procurement Coordinator is responsible for processing the execution of penal clauses (cláusulas penales) and payment withholdings before the Procurement Department, thus a breach in this regard is indeed observed. In turn, numeral 107 of said regulation states that penal clauses shall be executed automatically in strict adherence to what is indicated in ordinal 41 of the Regulation to Law number 8660 or in the tender specifications or conditions sheet once the breach is detected, and it is the responsibility of the Contract Administrator and the Administrative Procurement Coordinator to request their collection from the Procurement Department through a duly reasoned act. Although withholdings can be made on payments made pursuant to numeral 108 of Regulation 5881, which states that the Contract Administrator, in coordination with the Administrative Procurement Coordinator, at the time of requesting from the Procurement Department the collection procedure for the fine or penal clause, shall, as a precautionary measure, make the provisional withholding of the fine amount from pending payment invoices, and that this payment deduction shall be made upon prior communication to the Guarantees, Registries, and Sanctions Administration Area of the Procurement Department so that the contractor is made aware—however, since the institutional Procurement Department has stated that the stipulated requirements for the application of the sanctioning regime, which entails the imposition of the penal clauses and their collection, were not met, the return of what was withheld is appropriate. By virtue of this, such precautionary power may be exercised by the Contract Administrator in coordination with the Administrative Procurement Coordinator, but if the approval of the Procurement Department, which is responsible for communicating, managing, and deciding on the appropriateness thereof to the contractor, is not subsequently received, the withheld amounts must be returned. Thus, the entire procedure entailed in the collection of penal clauses involves the participation of various officials in the institutional work of ICE, as expressed in the aforementioned numerals, such that without the consent, agreement, or accord of any of them, the maintenance of the withholding, or the application of the penal clause, does not proceed. Therefore, both the precautionary application of the withholdings and the imposition of the fines require duly reasoned, justified, proven, and substantiated acts, for which reason the Administration should have proceeded with the immediate return of the withheld amounts once the institutional Procurement Department and Licentiate Mauricio Hernández Araya himself, in his capacity as Coordinator of the Area for Acquisition of Goods and Services UEN y PySA, expressed in his official letter number 4050-288-2012 of February 13, 2012, that it was not appropriate to keep withheld the amounts referring to invoice 1594, from which $42,333.20 was withheld; invoice 1603, from which $67,689.28 was withheld; invoice 1624, from which $89,698.00 was withheld; and invoice 1615, from which $255,342.32 was withheld—amounts not notified by the Procurement Department—for which reason the return of $498,677.70 must proceed, for a total of $498,677.70. However, despite what Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya stated, no merit is observed to maintain the withholdings made through invoices 1538 for $9,125.90 and invoice 1535 for $116,065.60, since the due procedure for their collection stipulated by ICE regulations was not followed, they were not brought to the attention of the Procurement Department for collection, and furthermore, they cannot be kept precautionarily withheld permanently, especially in cases like this one in which the procurement department responsible for executing the fines and imposing the penal clause has determined serious anomalies and shortcomings in the process that led to the precautionary application of the withholdings imposed on the plaintiff, and the affirmation that they were notified by Goods and Services is not sufficient to maintain the withholdings, since the concurrence of the other departments to give them validity and effectiveness is lacking, and it has not been accredited by the defendant that this has been obtained to date. Therefore, they must be returned to the petitioner, especially since the Administration itself has so stated through its various departments involved in this process. **Regarding the objections raised by the petitioner concerning the claim that the penal clause (cláusula penal) set forth in the tender specifications (cartel) of the Abbreviated Tender (Licitación Abreviada) number 2009LA-000027-PROV of April 16, 2009, point 15, is null and void, this is denied.** It is not observed that it is abusive, disproportionate, irrational, lacking in technical basis, or one-sided, or that it failed to take into account, in accordance with what was expressed by the aforementioned ruling of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) number 1176-F-S1-2011 of 9:15 a.m. on September 22, 2011, the variables of the contract amount, the agreed term, and the repercussions of a potential delay in the breach. Rather, from its study, it is observed that it is not abusive to set, for delay in the delivery of the supply, the sum of 0.5% of the value of the unfulfilled part, according to article 47 of the Regulation to the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), for each business day of delay, with a maximum of 25% of the contract, or by fine, the sum of 0.5% of the value of the unfulfilled part. It is rather appropriate that it established that the collection for these concepts will be considered on the value of each one and not on the entirety of the contract, provided that the breach of one line does not affect the rest of the obligations. In this way, it is proper and adequate, if there is sufficient reason for it and clear evidentiary elements, issuing a reasoned resolution, to make withholdings from the price on pending payment invoices. It being irrelevant that, as accredited in proven fact 32, ICE subsequently modified the structure and content of the penal clause. **Regarding the claim that the principle of due process was violated because the fine has not been imposed to date,** an administrative negligence is indeed observed, since the precautionarily made withholdings cannot be maintained indefinitely, as they become confiscatory without due process. For this reason, as indicated supra, the Procurement Department has not given its approval for the application of the penal clause, so the sanctioning procedure has not concluded given the serious objections raised by said body responsible for the collection, thereby generating the failure to promptly and timely complete the procedure stipulated in the aforementioned special regulations. Thus, in order to maintain the imposed withholdings, the breach by the petitioner should have been conclusively proven through a duly reasoned and substantiated act, although it is not necessary to prove damage, in accordance with numeral 109 of the aforementioned regulation and ordinal 48 of the Regulation to the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa). **Regarding the discussion of whether the calculation of the withholdings made should have been performed based on independent lines and not on the entirety of the contract,** no technical proof was provided in this regard by the plaintiff, nor was the technical report found at folios 1516 to 1523 of the record discredited, in which it is clearly demonstrated that the withholdings should have been made on the total amount of the contract, and not on independent lines, nor was the statement of ICE official Mr. Mario Solano Ortega objected to, which was conclusive that the materials were complementary and dependent. **By virtue of the foregoing, the present complaint must be partially granted,** being understood as denied in what is not expressly granted. Thus, the nullity of the following administrative actions is declared: official letters (oficios) 4050-1298-2010 of July 15, 2010; 4050-1341-2910 of July 23, 2010; 4050-1607-2010 of September 2, 2010; 4050-494-2011 of March 31, 2011; and 4050-703-2011 of May 19, 2011. Consequently, the respondent is ordered to return to the petitioner, for the concept of sums withheld from payments made on material delivery invoices, the following amounts: $9,520.00 from invoice 1538; $72,450.70 from invoice 1535; $110,022.48 from invoices 1594 and 1603; $255,342.32 from invoice 1615; and $89,698.00 from invoice 1624, for a total of $537,033.50 dollars. In addition, the petitioner must be reimbursed the amount of $43,615.40, an amount withheld in excess by ICE, exceeding 25% of the contract value, which was the maximum withheld amount, as well as the amount of $43,614.90 left unpaid by ICE for the concept of excess Props (Ademes). All sums shall be indexed in accordance with ordinal 123 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo) from the date this resolution becomes final until their effective payment, and commercial legal interest shall also be recognized, running from the date this resolution becomes final until their effective payment.

**II. 3) - DEFENSES:** **By reason of the foregoing, the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho)** raised by the defendant is partially denied, because in accordance with the cited regulations, the evidence provided, and the factual grounds set forth, the right invoked by the plaintiff in support of its claims is supported, given that the right corresponding to the petitioner to receive the reimbursement of the requested sums was determined in light of the annulled administrative actions.

**II) ON THE MERITS: II.1) ON THE PENALTY CLAUSE (CLAUSULA PENAL) IN ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACTING MATTERS AND ITS LEGAL EFFECTS:** Regarding the penalty clause (cláusula penal), it is defined as a "contractual stipulation by which the contracting Administration liquidates in advance the damages and losses derived from premature or late execution by the contractor. The purpose of this clause is for the contracting administration to have an agile mechanism to obtain reparation for the damages and losses caused by premature advancement or delay, considering that in certain cases the execution period is of vital importance. (...) Given its specific purpose, it must be executed upon non-compliance with the execution period of the agreed obligations, and through it any mismatch—whether prematurity or delay—in the contractual execution period is punished (...)." (Jinesta Lobo Ernesto. Contratación Administrativa. Tomo IV, primera edición, Ediciones Guayacán, San José Costa Rica, página 396). Thus, the setting of the penalty clause (cláusula penal) in the bidding terms (cartel) constitutes a sum that will cover the possible damages and losses attributable to the contractor due to delay or mismatch in the execution period of the obligations, which pre-establishes, administratively, the reparation of the damages that would be caused by an eventual delay in the established period. In this regard, the Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia ruled in judgment 1019 of 16:25 hours on December 21, 2005, that it is an "alternative administrative sanction system, which seeks to establish in advance what the economic effects of non-compliance will be (...) which may not exceed one quarter (25%) of the principal obligation, so that if it exceeds that portion it will be abusive, disproportionate, and illegal for being contrary to" and would generate unjust enrichment to the detriment of the contractor. For its part, vote 750-F-2006 of 10:45 hours on October 05, 2006, from the same Cassation Chamber, is categorical in holding that this type of pecuniary sanctions "constitute mechanisms that seek to ensure faithful observance of what was agreed, or failing that, to achieve compensation for the harm suffered. Hence, they have two basic functions, the coercive and the compensatory. They appear in the administrative contract as eventual sanctions, which seek to better guarantee to the Administration that the contractor will fulfill the provision within the period and with the agreed conditions, pre-establishing the reparation of the damages that would be caused by an eventual delay in the indicated period or non-compliance." On the subject of the penalty clause (cláusula penal) and its effects in administrative contracting matters, the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, number 33411 of September 27, 2006, in its Third Section, stipulates in its numeral 50, that the "penalty clause (cláusula penal) is applicable for late or premature execution of contractual obligations, the assumptions and amounts must be included in the respective bidding terms (cartel) and the provisions indicated in the previous articles shall apply to it." So that, applying the previous provisions to the penalty clause (cláusula penal), it is feasible to indicate that for its establishment in the bidding terms (cartel), criteria of proportionality and reasonableness must apply, and in the event that the object is composed of different lines, the maximum amount for charging fines will be considered on the highest value of each one and not on the totality of the contract, provided that non-compliance with one line does not affect the rest of the obligations (numeral 47 ibid). Likewise, for charging the penalty clause (cláusula penal), it will not be necessary to demonstrate the existence of damage or harm, and the charge may be made against the price withholdings that have been made and the outstanding payment balances (article 48). However, its application is not automatic, or simply based on mere assessments, conjectures, or suppositions not reliably accredited as having incurred in premature or late execution of the obligation; that would be abusive, unconscionable, and would imply the exercise of sanctioning powers based on mere presumptions and indications, not on clear and conclusive evidence. **So that, for the application or execution of the penalty clause (cláusula penal),** there must be a clear and evident reason that must be based on verifying that a delay in the delivery period has occurred, that is, the occurrence of the assumptions for which it was created. In this regard, it has been expressed that abusive and unreasonable execution or application, based on mere discretion, would imply the violation of the principles of right of defense and due process. Therefore, it has been said that an administrative procedure must be initiated, since although "Certainly, the quantum of the fine is established in the bidding terms (cartel) and the contract, and the offeror who is awarded the contract accepted it, however, the non-compliance as such—existence of damage or harm—must be accredited as it constitutes the factual premise for execution. What the contracting Administration is relieved of is accrediting that the defective, late, or premature non-compliance causes it patrimonial harm, given that, precisely, by stipulating the fine or the penalty clause (cláusula penal), harm to the public interest is presumed (...) Otherwise, the contracting administration could arbitrarily execute a penalty clause (cláusula penal) or a fine, without the contractor having effectively incurred in non-compliance" (Jinesta Lobo Ernesto. Contratación Administrativa. Tomo IV, primera edición, Ediciones Guayacán, San José Costa Rica, páginas 398 y 399). In that sense, the Sala Constitucional expressed in vote 17517-2005 of 19:02 hours on December 20, 2005, that "In relation to the procedure followed for the application of fines for contractual non-compliance, the Chamber considers that the informants are correct, as these are aspects typified in the contract signed between the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad and Condicel Limitada. The pertinence or reasonableness of said fines—as was stated—escapes the object of this appeal, but the truth is that, having contractual clauses that establish the parameters and evaluation mechanisms, as well as the consequences for non-compliance, the Administration is perfectly authorized to contractually sanction its counterpart through a simple procedure (of mere verification). Respect for the fundamental right to due process occurs in such cases through the issuance of duly reasoned resolutions, in addition to allowing the affected party to exercise the corresponding appeals against the decision that sanctions it. In these cases, the Administration cannot be required in every instance to conduct an ordinary procedure before imposing each contractual fine for the omission or inadequate fulfillment of what was agreed. Precisely, we find ourselves before a situation that fits within this assumption, so that the procedure followed to date is understood to be respectful of the right of defense, which in any case has been prolifically exercised by the petitioner. It is for the foregoing that as to this extreme, the appeal must be dismissed." **Regarding the requirements it must contain for its constitution or setting in the bidding terms (cartel de licitación),** it is essential to indicate that the amounts cannot be arbitrary or disproportionate, must not generate unjust enrichment in favor of the contracting Administration, must be adapted, as expressed, to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and not be left to mere administrative discretion. In this regard, the Sala Primera of the Corte Suprema de Justicia expressed in vote 1176-F-S1-2011, of 9:15 hours on September 22, 2011, that "the establishment of the penalty clause (cláusula penal) is not based on the discretionary criterion of the Administration, since to set it, it must have elements that not only rule out unjust enrichment, (...) and particularly, that the public purpose unsatisfied by the delay in fulfillment is compensated according to the parameter set by canon 41 of the Constitución Política, that is, in an integral manner. To this end, it must be accredited then that the clause was the result of an analysis that took into account three variables; the amount of the contract, the agreed period, and the repercussions of an eventual delay in fulfillment. Should these elements be found missing, the clause cannot be acted upon." In turn, numeral 34 of the Ley de Contratación Administrativa, number 7494 of May 2, 1995, provides that when a penalty clause (cláusula penal) for delay in execution exists, the guarantee may not be executed based on this reason, except for the contractor's refusal to pay the corresponding amounts for that concept, since the execution of the performance guarantee does not exempt the contractor from indemnifying the Administration for damages and losses not covered by that guarantee. This regulation is consistent with what is set forth in article 41 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, which states that the performance guarantee "may be executed for delay in the execution of the contractual object, in the event that a penalty clause (cláusula penal) has not been agreed for that reason; otherwise, the execution of the latter shall proceed." **In what pertains to the subject, and regarding contracts entered into by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad,** the Internal Regulation for Administrative Contracting (Reglamento Interno de Contratación Administrativa) of this entity, number 5881 of August 25, 2009, in its article 8, subsection 11), in accordance with ordinal 20 of Ley 8660 of August 08, 2008, on the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities of the Telecommunications Sector (Fortalecimiento y Modernización de las Entidades Públicas del Sector Telecomunicaciones), provides that the Coordinator of Administrative Contracting (Contratación Administrativa) is responsible for processing before the Procurement Department (Proveeduría) the execution of penalty clauses (cláusulas penales) and payment withholdings. In turn, numeral 107 of said regulation states that penalty clauses (cláusulas penales) shall be executed automatically in strict adherence to what is indicated in ordinal 41 of the Regulation to Law (Reglamento a la Ley) number 8660 or in the bidding terms (cartel) or specifications once the non-compliance is detected, and it is the responsibility of said official to request their collection from the Procurement Department (Proveeduría) by means of a duly reasoned act. In this regard, the collection of penalty clauses (cláusulas penales) shall be made against the price withholdings that have been made and the outstanding payment balances, authorizing the Administrative Contracting Coordinator, at the time of requesting the penalty clause (cláusula penal) collection procedure before the Procurement Department (Proveeduría), to take, as a precautionary measure, the provisional withholding of the fine amount from the pending payment invoices, a payment deduction that shall be made upon prior communication to the Area of Guarantees, Registries, and Sanctions Administration of the Procurement Department (Proveeduría) so that the contractor is notified (ordinal 108 of the regulation ibid). In turn, the Procurement Department (Proveeduría) shall be in charge of communicating and managing the collection with the contractor. It will not be necessary to demonstrate the damage and/or harm, but that does not exclude that ICE must issue a duly reasoned act in its collection decision.

Said resolution will be duly communicated to the contractor, and in the case of fines, penalty clauses (cláusulas penales), or charges contemplated in the bidding documents (carteles) and originating from contracts made through the Eligible Registers, the Unit (Dependencia) promoting the contract will be responsible for communicating and making the payment deduction, using the procedure established in the respective bidding documents (ordinal 109 of the regulation ibid). For its part, the Regulation to Title II of the aforementioned Law 8660, number 35148 of February 24, 2009, in its Article 41, referring to fines, states that "ICE may establish in the bidding documents the payment of fines for defects in contract execution, considering aspects such as amount, term, risk, repercussions of a potential non-compliance for the service provided or for the public interest, and the possibility of partial non-compliance or non-compliance by line (líneas), provided it is considered the suitable means for the fulfillment and satisfaction of the contractual obligations. All the foregoing in accordance with criteria of proportionality and reasonableness. In the event that the object is composed of distinct lines, the maximum amount for charging fines will be considered on the highest value of each one and not on the totality of the contract, provided that the non-compliance of one line does not affect the rest of the obligations. The non-compliances that give rise to the charging of the fine must be detailed in the bidding documents. Once the bidding documents are final, the amount of the fine shall be understood as definitive, and no subsequent claims will be admitted. Regarding the charging of fines, it will not be necessary to demonstrate damage and/or harm, but this does not exclude that ICE must issue a duly motivated act in its decision to charge.". In turn, numeral 43 ibid, regarding penalty clauses, states that "it proceeds for late or premature execution of contractual obligations; the cases and amounts must be included in the respective bidding documents, and the provisions indicated in the preceding articles will be applicable to them. For the charging of a penalty clause, it will not be necessary to demonstrate damage and/or harm, but this does not exclude that ICE must issue a duly motivated act in its decision to charge". These are rules that, as can be observed, contain special stipulations specific to the administrative procurement carried out by ICE, which, pursuant to the aforementioned ordinal 20, will govern the acquisition of goods and services made by such entity, which is subject to the special provisions contained in Law 8660 and its Regulation, such that the Law of Administrative Procurement (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), No. 7494, of May 1, 1996, its amendments, and its Regulation will be applied in a supplementary manner.

II. 2) SPECIFIC CASE: Applying the foregoing to the resolution of the present matter, we find that the petitioner is partially correct in his claims, given that the nullity of the withholdings made through official letters 4050-1298-2010 of July 15, 2010, 4050-1341-2910 of July 23, 2010, 4050-1607-2010 of September 2, 2010, 4050-494-2011 of March 31, 2011, and 4050-703-2011 of May 19, 2011, which imposed the application of the penalty clause that resulted in the withholdings from the invoices for the delivery of contracted materials, is observed. As a consequence, the amount of $43,614.90 left unpaid by ICE for the excess of Ademes (props), which was imputed as payment allocation of the imposed withholdings, must be returned to him, as well as the payment of $43,615.40, being the amount withheld in excess by ICE, exceeding 25% of the contract value, which was the maximum withheld amount, as admitted in trial. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the penalty clause imposed is not observed to be null in itself, as will be analyzed later. As accredited in the proven facts, the testimonial declarations offered by the parties, and the legal basis expressed in substantive recital (considerando) II.1, it is clear that the essential preconditions for declaring the absolute nullity of the cited official letters occur in the present case, through which the amount of $9,125.90 was withheld; 4050-1341-2910 of July 23, 2010, which involved the confirmation of the withheld $9,125.90; 4050-1607-2010 of September 2, 2010, on the confirmation of the imposed withholding; 4050-494-2011 of March 31, 2011, on the withholding of invoice 1615 for the amount of $255,342.32; and 4050-703-2011 of May 19, 2011, in which the amount of $89,698.00 was withheld for delay in the delivery of the supply and through which the note would subsequently be sent to the Procurement Department (Proveeduría) to proceed with formal notification (folio 7 ibid). In this sense, it is appropriate to indicate that, as recorded in the proven facts, a series of withholdings were made on payments made by ICE to the plaintiff company within the Abbreviated Tender (Licitación Abreviada) number 2009LA-000027-PROV, for the purpose of acquiring drilling materials for the P.G.Borinquen, acquisition of goods and services UEN and PySA (proven facts eighth, eleventh, sixteenth, twenty-second, and twenty-sixth). However, the reason on which such precautionary withholding of the payments made was based, according to the application of the penalty clause stipulated in point 15 of the bidding documents (proven fact third), was not justified, nor accredited, nor sufficiently substantiated in the administrative or judicial venue, so that the exercise of such power was abusive and disproportionate, with clear non-compliance with the provisions of ordinals 132 and 133 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). This is observed from proven facts thirty and thirty-one, in which serious discrepancies are observed among various Departments of ICE regarding the application of the expressed withholdings. Such conflicts arising internally within the institution reveal that there is no clarity as to whether or not the application of the expressed penalty clause actually proceeded. In this sense, the email of June 13, 2011, sent by Mr. Verny Brown Torres, in his capacity as General Manager of the Corporate Procurement Directorate (Dirección de Proveeduría Corporativa), Guarantees, Registries, and Sanctions Area, addressed to officials Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya and Freddy Solano Siles, is conclusive, clear, evident, and revealing. In it, he expresses a series of inconsistencies, weaknesses, shortcomings, and doubts that, in his judgment, prevent the application of the proposed withholdings. Such observations express that for invoice 1624, a date of receipt by Warehouses of the materials cannot be determined, but a note is attached stating that on May 9, 2011, such piping was received; the same occurs with invoice 1603; and that invoice 1594 does have a receipt stamp from C.S. Geothermal Resources Supplies dated January 10, 2011, but that for said Procurement Department it must be signed by the Contract Administrator, the Administrative Procurement Coordinator, and with the approval of the UEN Director, since ensuring the correct execution of the contract falls on such persons and not on the Supply and Materials Administration Area, under the terms of ordinals 8 subsection 1), 11, and 9 subsections 5) and 7) of the Internal Regulation of Administrative Procurement (Reglamento Interno de Contratación Administrativa). Furthermore, no indication is provided by which it can be elucidated why the late-delivered line affected the other, and that in note 4050-755-2011, the fine of $89,698.00 is greater than 25%; the same occurs with note 4050-797-2011 with the fine of $43,330.00 and the fine of $67,689.28 (folios 1167 to 1170 of the administrative file). Additionally, in proven fact 24, it is established that through the email of April 15, 2011, Mr. Robert Murillo Soto of ICE states to Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya that regarding the document corresponding to official letter 4050-538-2011, official letter 4050-371-2011 that motivated the legal opinion is not included, a document attesting to the date on which the materials entered ICE is not included, and the invoice does not have a receipt stamp in place of the material receipt (folio 1187 of the administrative file, as well as the declaration of Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya). Such objections reveal, internally within ICE, jurisdictional conflicts between administrative bodies, unmet requirements according to institutional administrative practice, and incomplete or omitted documentation that prevented the application of the expressed withholdings. Likewise, as observed in proven fact thirty-one, through official letter number 4050-288-2012 of February 13, 2012, Licentiate Mauricio Hernández Araya, in his capacity as Coordinator of the Acquisition of Goods and Services Area UEN and PySA of ICE, expressed to Mr. Freddy Solano Siles of the Supplies and Materials Administration Unit (Unidad de Suministros y Administración de Materiales) that the amounts withheld on invoice 1538 for $9,125.90 and invoice 1535 for $116,065.60 should not be returned, as the supplier was notified by Goods and Services, but regarding invoice 1594 where $42,333.20 was withheld, invoice 1603 where $67,689.28 was withheld, invoice 1624 where $89,698.00 was withheld, and invoice 1615 where $255,342.32 was withheld—not notified by the Procurement Department—the return of $498,677.70 must proceed, for a total of $498,677.70 (folios 1536 to 1537 of the administrative file). With this, it is clear that the head of the Goods and Services Acquisition Area himself is acknowledging that such withholdings must be returned and expresses as justification that "given that no response was received in a timely manner, the Procurement Department did not notify the Supplier, as the requested aspects were not clarified, and by email dated 07/12/11, the Procurement Department indicates that it is appropriate to archive the case". In this regard, the Internal Regulation of Administrative Procurement of ICE, number 5881 of August 25, 2009, in its article 8 subsection 11), states that it corresponds to the Administrative Procurement Coordinator to process before the Procurement Department the execution of penalty clauses and payment withholdings, with which a non-compliance is indeed observed in this respect. In turn, numeral 107 of said regulation states that penalty clauses shall be executed automatically in strict adherence to what is indicated in ordinal 41 of the Regulation to Law number 8660 or in the bidding documents or specifications (pliego de condiciones) once the non-compliance is detected, with the Contract Administrator and the Administrative Procurement Coordinator being responsible for requesting their collection from the Procurement Department through a duly motivated act. While withholdings may be made on payments made pursuant to numeral 108 of Regulation 5881, which states that the Contract Administrator, in coordination with the Administrative Procurement Coordinator, at the time of requesting the collection procedure for the fine or penalty clause before the Procurement Department, must, as a precautionary measure, make the provisional withholding of the fine amount from invoices pending payment, and that this payment deduction shall be made after prior communication to the Guarantees, Registries, and Sanctions Administration Area of the Procurement Department so that the contractor is informed accordingly. However, since the institutional Procurement Department expressed that the requirements stipulated for the application of the sanctioning regime involving the imposition of penalty clauses and their collection were not met, the return of what was withheld proceeds. On its merits, such precautionary power may be exercised by the Contract Administrator in coordination with the Administrative Procurement Coordinator, but if the endorsement of the Procurement Department, responsible for communicating, managing, and deciding on the propriety to the contractor, is not subsequently received, the return of the withheld amounts must proceed. Thus, the entire procedure entailed in the collection of penalty clauses implies the participation of various officials in the institutional activity of ICE, as expressed in the aforementioned numerals, so that without the consent, agreement, or accord of any of them, neither the maintenance of the withholding nor the application of the penalty clause proceeds. Therefore, both the precautionary application of withholdings and the imposition of fines require duly motivated, justified, proven, and reasoned acts. For this reason, the Administration should have proceeded to the immediate return of the withheld amounts once the institutional Procurement Department and Licentiate Mauricio Hernández Araya himself, in his capacity as Coordinator of the Acquisition of Goods and Services Area UEN and PySA, expressed in his official letter number 4050-288-2012 of February 13, 2012, that it was not appropriate to keep withheld the amounts referring to invoice 1594 where $42,333.20 was withheld, invoice 1603 where $67,689.28 was withheld, invoice 1624 where $89,698.00 was withheld, and invoice 1615 where $255,342.32 was withheld—not notified by the Procurement Department—so the return of $498,677.70 must proceed, for a total of $498,677.70. However, despite what was stated by Mr. Mauricio Hernández Araya, no merit is observed to maintain the withholdings made through invoices 1538 for $9,125.90 and invoice 1535 for $116,065.60, given that the due procedure stipulated by ICE's regulations for their collection has not been followed, the Procurement Department has not been informed for their collection, and furthermore, they cannot be kept precautionarily withheld permanently, especially in cases such as this where the procurement department itself, responsible for executing fines and imposing the penalty clause, has determined serious anomalies and shortcomings in the process that led to the precautionary application of the withholdings imposed on the plaintiff. The affirmation that they were notified by Goods and Services is not sufficient to maintain the withholdings, as the concurrence of the other departments to give them validity and effectiveness is lacking, and it has not been accredited by the defendant that they have been obtained to date. Therefore, they must be returned to the petitioner, especially since the Administration itself has so stated through its different departments responsible for participating in this process. Regarding the objections raised by the petitioner concerning that the penalty clause set forth in the bidding documents of the Abbreviated Tender number 2009LA-000027-PROV of April 16, 2009, point 15, is null, this is denied. It is not observed to be abusive, disproportionate, irrational, technically deficient, or leonine, nor that it failed to take into account, pursuant to what was expressed by the aforementioned vote of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) number 1176-F-S1-2011 of 9:15 a.m. on September 22, 2011, the variables of the contract amount, the agreed term, and the repercussions of a potential delay in non-compliance. Rather, from its study, it is observed that it is not abusive to set, for delay in the delivery of the supply, the sum of 0.5% of the value of the unfulfilled part, according to Article 47 of the Regulation to the Law of Administrative Procurement, for each business day of delay, with a maximum of 25% of the contract, or as a fine, the sum of 0.5% of the value of the unfulfilled part. It appears rather appropriate that it established that the charge for these concepts will be considered on the value of each one and not on the totality of the contract, provided that the non-compliance of one line does not affect the rest of the obligations. In this way, it is proper and adequate, if there is sufficient reason for it, and clear evidentiary elements, issuing a reasoned resolution, that withholdings be made from the price on invoices pending payment. It is not relevant that, as accredited in proven fact 32, ICE subsequently modified the structure and content of the penalty clause. Regarding the matter that the principle of due process was violated because the fine had not yet been imposed, an administrative negligence (incuria administrativa) is indeed observed, since precautionary withholdings cannot be maintained indefinitely, as they become confiscatory without due process. Therefore, as indicated above, the Procurement Department has not given its endorsement for the application of the penalty clause, so the sanctioning procedure has not concluded given the serious objections raised by said body in charge of collection, thereby causing a lack of prompt and timely fulfillment of the procedure stipulated in the special regulations cited above. Thus, in order to maintain the imposed withholdings, the plaintiff's non-compliance should have been reliably accredited through a duly reasoned and substantiated act, without it being necessary to prove the damage, all pursuant to numeral 109 of the aforementioned regulation and ordinal 48 of the Regulation to the Law of Administrative Procurement. Regarding the discussion of whether the calculation of the withholdings made should have been based on independent lines and not on the totality of the contract, no technical evidence was provided in this regard by the plaintiff, and the technical opinion appearing on folios 1516 to 1523 of the records was not discredited. The opinion clearly demonstrates that the withholdings had to be made on the total amount of the contract, and not on independent lines, nor was the declaration of ICE official Mr. Mario Solano Ortega, who was categorical that the materials were complementary and dependent, objected to. On the merits of the foregoing, the present lawsuit must be partially granted, understanding it is denied in what is not expressly granted, so that the nullity of the following administrative actions is declared: official letters 4050-1298-2010 of July 15, 2010; 4050-1341-2910 of July 23, 2010; 4050-1607-2010 of September 2, 2010; 4050-494-2011 of March 31, 2011; and 4050-703-2011 of May 19, 2011. Consequently, it is ordered to return to the petitioner, for sums withheld from payments made on material delivery invoices, the following sums: $9,520.00 from invoice 1538; $72,450.70 from invoice 1535; $110,022.48 from invoices 1594 and 1603; $255,342.32 from invoice 1615; and $89,698.00 from invoice 1624, for a total of $537,033.50 dollars. In addition, the petitioner must be reimbursed the amount of $43,615.40, the amount withheld in excess by ICE, exceeding 25% of the contract value which was the maximum withheld amount, as well as the amount of $43,614.90 left unpaid by ICE for the excess of Ademes. All sums shall be indexed pursuant to ordinal 123 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo) from the finality of this resolution until its effective payment, and additionally, commercial legal interest shall be recognized, running from the finality of this resolution until its effective payment.

II. 3) – DEFENSES (EXCEPCIONES): By reason of the foregoing, the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) filed by the defendant is partially denied, because in accordance with the cited regulations, the evidence provided, and the factual grounds set forth, the right invoked by the plaintiff in support of her claims assists her, since the right corresponding to the petitioner to receive the reimbursement of the requested sums was determined in light of the annulled administrative actions."

“II) SOBRE EL FONDO: II.1) SOBRE LA CLAUSULA PENAL EN MATERIA DE CONTRATACION ADMINISTRATIVA Y SUS EFECTOS JURIDICOS: Sobre la cláusula penal es definida como una "estipulación contractual por la que la Administración contratante liquida anticipadamente los daños y perjuicios derivados de una ejecución prematura o tardía por el contratista. El fin de esta cláusula es que la administración contratante cuente con mecanismo ágil para obtener la reparación de los daños y perjuicios causados por el adelanto prematuro o atraso, al considerar que en determinados casos el plazo de ejecución resulta de vital importancia. (...) Dada su finalidad específica, debe ejecutarse ante el incumplimiento del plazo de ejecución de las obligaciones pactadas, siendo que por su medio se castiga cualquier desajuste-por prematuridad o atraso- en el plazo de ejecución contractual (...)." (Jinesta Lobo Ernesto. Contratación Administrativa. Tomo IV, primera edición, Ediciones Guayacán, San José Costa Rica, página 396). Así las cosas, la fijación de la cláusula penal en el cartel constituye una suma, que cubrirá los posibles daños y perjuicios que le sean imputables al contratista ante el atraso o desajuste en el plazo de ejecución de las obligaciones, la cual es prefijada de antemano en sede administrativa la reparación de los perjuicios que se causarían con un eventual atraso en el plazo establecido. Al respecto la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia dispuso en la sentencia 1019 de las 16:25 horas del 21 de diciembre del 2005, que es un "sistema de sanción administrativa alternativo, que pretende establecer de previo, cuáles van a ser los efectos económicos del incumplimiento (...) que no puede exceder de una cuarta parte (25%) de la obligación principal, de modo que si excede esa porción será abusiva, desproporcionada e ilegal por ser contraria " y generaría un enriquecimiento sin causa en perjuicio del contratista. Por su parte el voto 750-F-2006 de las 10:45 horas del 05 de octubre del 2006, de la misma Sala de Casación es contundente en sostener que este tipo de sanciones pecuniarias se "constituyen en mecanismos que buscan asegurar la fiel observancia de lo pactado, o en su defecto, lograr una indemnización por el perjuicio sufrido. De ahí, que tengan dos funciones básicas, la compulsiva y la resarcitoria. Figuran en el contrato administrativo, como eventuales sanciones, que persiguen garantizar de mejor manera a la Administración, que el contratante cumplirá con la prestación dentro del plazo y con las condiciones pactadas, prefijando de antemano la reparación de los perjuicios que se causarían ante un eventual atraso en el plazo señalado o un incumplimiento.". Sobre el tema de la cláusula penal y de sus efectos en materia de contratación administrativa, el Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, número 33411 del 27 de setiembre del 2006, en su Sección Tercera, dispone en su numeral 50, que la "cláusula penal procede por ejecución tardía o prematura de las obligaciones contractuales, los supuestos y montos deberán incluirse en el respectivo cartel y le serán aplicables las disposiciones indicadas en los artículos anteriores.". De modo que aplicada a la clausula penal las disposiciones anteriores, es dable indicar que para su establecimiento en el cartel debe aplicar criterios de proporcionalidad y razonabilidad y en el caso de que el objeto esté compuesto por líneas distintas, el monto máximo para el cobro de multas se considerará sobre el mayor valor de cada una y no sobre la totalidad del contrato, siempre que el incumplimiento de una línea no afecte el resto de las obligaciones (numeral 47 ibid). De igual forma para el cobro de la cláusula penal no será necesario demostrar la existencia del daño o perjuicio y el cobro podrá hacerse con cargo a las retenciones del precio que se hubieren practicado y los saldos pendientes de pago (artículo 48). Sin embargo, su aplicación no es automática, o simplemente basada en meras apreciaciones, conjeturas o suposiciones no acreditadas fehacientemente de haberse incurrido en una ejecución prematura o tardía en la ejecución de la obligación, ello sería abusivo, leonino e implicaría el ejercicio de potestades sancionatorias basadas en meras presunciones, indicios y no en prueba clara y contundente. De modo que, para la aplicación o ejecución de la cláusula penal debe haber un motivo claro y evidente que debe basarse en la constatación de haberse verificado un atraso en el plazo de entrega, es decir el acaecimiento de los presupuestos para los cuales fue creada. Al respecto, se ha expresado que la ejecución o aplicación abusiva y sin razón comprobada, basada en la mera discrecionalidad, implicaría la violación de los principios de derecho de defensa y el debido proceso. Por ello se ha dicho, que debe incoarse un procedimiento administrativo, toda vez que si bien "Ciertamente, el quantum de la multa se encuentra establecido en el cartel y el contrato y el oferente que resulta adjudicatario lo aceptó, sin embargo el incumplimiento como tal -existencia del daño o perjuicio -debe acreditarse por constituir el presupuesto fáctico para la ejecución. De lo que sí está relevada la administración contratante es de acreditar que el incumplimiento defectuoso, tardío o prematuro le causa una lesión patrimonial, dado que, precisamente, al estipularse la multa o la cláusula penal se presume la lesión al interés público (...) De lo contrario, arbitrariamente la administración contratante podría ejecutar una cláusula penal o una multa, sin que el contratista haya incurrido, de manera efectiva, en el incumplimiento" (Jinesta Lobo Ernesto. Contratación Administrativa. Tomo IV, primera edición, Ediciones Guayacán, San José Costa Rica, páginas 398 y 399). En ese sentido, expresó la Sala Constitucional en el voto 17517-2005 de las 19:02 horas del 20 de diciembre del año 2005, que "En relación con el procedimiento seguido para la aplicación de las multas por incumplimiento contractual, considera la Sala que llevan razón los informantes, pues se trata de aspectos tipificados en el contrato suscrito entre el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad y Condicel Limitada. La pertinencia o razonabilidad de dichas multas -como se dijo- escapan del objeto de este recurso, pero lo cierto es que, habiendo cláusulas contractuales que establecen los parámetros y mecanismos de evaluación, así como las consecuencias por el incumplimiento, la Administración se encuentra perfectamente habilitada para sancionar contractualmente a su contraparte mediante un procedimiento simple (de mera constatación). El respeto del derecho fundamental al debido proceso se da en tales casos mediante la emisión de resoluciones debidamente motivadas, además de permitirle al afectado ejercer los recursos que corresponda contra la decisión que lo sancione. En estos casos, no se puede exigir a la Administración que en cada caso, lleve a cabo un procedimiento ordinario antes de la imposición de cada multa contractual por la omisión o inadecuado cumplimiento de lo pactado. Precisamente nos encontramos ante una situación que encuadra dentro de este supuesto, de modo que el procedimiento seguido hasta la fecha se entiende respetuosos del derecho de defensa, que en todo caso ha sido ejercido por la amparada en forma prolija. Es por lo anterior que en cuanto a este extremo, el recurso deberá ser desestimado.". Respecto a los requisitos que debe contener para su constitución o fijación en el cartel de licitación, es fundamental indicar que los montos no pueden ser antojadizos, ni desproporcionados, no debe generar enriquecimientos sin causa en favor de la Administración contratante, debe adecuarse como se expresó a los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, y no estar librada a la mera discrecionalidad administrativa. Al respecto expresó la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en el voto 1176-F-S1-2011, de las 9:15 horas del 22 de setiembre del año 2011, que "el establecimiento de la cláusula penal no tiene como base el criterio discrecional de la Administración, pues para fijarla debe contar con elementos que no sólo descarten el enriquecimiento sin causa, (...) y particularmente, que el fin público insatisfecho por la demora en el cumplimiento sea resarcido conforme al parámetro fijado por el canon 41 de la Constitución Política, esto es, de manera integral. Para ello debe acreditarse entonces que la cláusula fue el resultado de un análisis que tomó en cuenta tres variables; el monto del contrato, el plazo convenido y las repercusiones de un eventual retardo en el cumplimiento. De echarse de menos estos elementos, no puede actuarse la cláusula". Dispone a su vez el numeral 34 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, número 7494 del 2 de mayo de 1995, que cuando exista cláusula penal por demora en la ejecución, la garantía no podrá ejecutarse con base en este motivo, salvo la negativa del contratista para cancelar los montos correspondientes por ese concepto, toda vez que la ejecución de la garantía de cumplimiento no exime al contratista de indemnizar a la Administración por los daños y perjuicios que no cubre esa garantía. Esta regulación es conteste con lo expuesto en el artículo 41 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, el cual dispone que la garantía de cumplimiento "podrá ejecutarse por demora en la ejecución del objeto contractual, en el evento de que no se haya pactado una cláusula penal por ese motivo; en caso contrario se procederá a la ejecución de ésta última.". En lo atinente al tema, y en lo referente a las contrataciones efectuadas por el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, dispone el Reglamento Interno de Contratación Administrativa de tal entidad, número 5881 del 25 de agosto del 2009, en su artículo 8 inciso 11), en consonancia con el ordinal 20 de la Ley 8660 del 08 de agosto del 2008, de Fortalecimiento de las Entidades Públicas del Sector Telecomunicaciones, que corresponde al coordinador de la Contratación Administrativa, tramitar ante la Proveeduría la ejecución de las cláusulas penales y retenciones de pago. A su vez el numeral 107 de dicha norma, expresa que las cláusulas penales se ejecutarán automáticamente en estricto apego a lo señalado en el ordinal 41 del Reglamento a la Ley número 8660 o en el cartel o pliego de condiciones una vez detectado el incumplimiento, siendo responsabilidad de dicho servidor solicitar a la Proveeduría mediante acto debidamente motivado su cobro. Al respecto, el cobro de las cláusulas penales se hará con cargo a las retenciones del precio, que se hubieren practicado y los saldos pendientes de pago, facultándose al coordinador de la contratación administrativa al momento de solicitar ante la Proveeduría el trámite de cobro de la cláusula penal, debiendo como medida cautelar hacer la retención provisional del monto de la multa en las facturas pendientes de pago, deducción de pago que se realizará previa comunicación al Área de Administración de Garantías, Registros y Sanciones de la Proveeduría para que así se haga saber al contratista (ordinal 108 del reglamento ibid). A su vez la Proveeduría será la encargada de comunicar y gestionar el cobro ante el contratista. No será necesario demostrar el daño y/o perjuicio pero ello no excluye que el ICE deba dictar un acto debidamente motivado en su decisión de cobro. Dicha resolución será oportunamente comunicada al contratista y para el caso de multas, cláusulas penales o cobros contemplados en los carteles y originados en contrataciones realizadas mediante los Registros de Elegibles, será la Dependencia que promueve la contratación la encargada de comunicar y realizar el rebajo del pago, para lo cual se utilizará el procedimiento establecido en el cartel respectivo (ordinal 109 del reglamento ibid). Por su parte, establece el Reglamento al título II de la ley 8660 supracitada, número 35148 del 24 de febrero del 2009, en su artículo 41, referido a las multas, expone que "el ICE podrá establecer en el cartel el pago de multas por defectos en la ejecución del contrato, considerando para ello aspectos tales como monto, plazo, riesgo, repercusiones de un eventual incumplimiento para el servicio que se brinde o para el interés público y la posibilidad de incumplimientos parciales o por líneas, siempre que se considere el medio idóneo para el cumplimiento y satisfacción de las obligaciones contractuales. Todo lo anterior con arreglo a criterios de proporcionalidad y razonabilidad. En caso de que el objeto esté compuesto por líneas distintas, el monto máximo para el cobro de multas, se considerará sobre el mayor valor de cada una y no sobre la totalidad del contrato, siempre que el incumplimiento de una línea no afecte el resto de las obligaciones. Los incumplimientos que originan el cobro de la multa deberán estar detallados en el cartel. Una vez en firme el cartel, se entenderá que el monto de la multa es definitivo por lo que no se admitirán reclamos posteriores.En relación con el cobro de multas no será necesario demostrar el daño y/o perjuicio, pero ello no excluye que el ICE deba alcanzar un acto debidamente motivado en su decisión de cobro.". A su vez, el numeral 43 ibid, obligaciones contractuales, los supuestos y montos deberán incluirse en el respectivo cartel y le serán aplicables las disposiciones indicadas en los artículos anteriores. En el cobro de cláusula penal no será necesario demostrar el daño y/o perjuicio, pero ello no excluye que el ICE deba alcanzar un acto debidamente motivado en su decisión de cobro.". Normas, que como se observa contienen estipulaciones especiales y propias de la contratación administrativa efectuada por el ICE, las cuales a tenor del ordinal 20 supracitado, regularán la adquisición de bienes y servicios que realice tal entidad, la cual está sometida a las disposiciones especiales contenidas en la ley 8660 y en su Reglamento, de modo que la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, N° 7494, de 1° de mayo de 1996, sus reformas, y su Reglamento se aplicarán de manera supletoria.

II. 2 ) CASO CONCRETO: Aplicado, lo anteriormente expuesto a la resolución del presente asunto, tenemos que lleva razón parcialmente el gestionante en sus pretensiones , toda vez que se observa nulidad de las retenciones efectuadas mediante los oficios 4050-1298-2010 del 15 de julio del 2010, el 4050-1341-2910 del 23 de julio del 2010, el 4050-1607-2010 del dos de setiembre del 2010, el 4050-494-2011 del 31 de marzo del 2011 y el 4050-703-2011 del 19 de mayo del 2011, que le impusieron la aplicación de la clausula penal que ha implicado la retenciones de las facturas de entrega de materiales contratados, y que como consecuencia de ello deba devolvérsele la cantidad $43.614.90 dejados de pagar por el ICE por concepto de excedente de Ademes, el cual fuera imputado como imputación de pago de las retenciones impuestas, así como el pago de $43.615.40 por ser el monto retenido en exceso por el ICE, superior al 25% del valor del contrato que era el monto máximo retenido, tal y como lo admitiera en juicio. No obstante lo anterior, no se observa que la clausula penal impuesta en sí misma sea nula, tal y como se hará análisis con posterioridad. Tal y como se acreditara en los hechos probados, la s declaraciones testimoniales ofrecidas por las partes y del fundamento jurídico expresado en el considerando de fondo II.1, es claro que acaecen en el presente caso los presupuestos esenciales para declarar la nulidad absoluta de los oficios citados, por los cuales se le retuvo el monto de $9.125,90, el 4050-1341-2910 del 23 de julio del 2010 que implicó la confirmación de los $9.125,90 retenidos, el 4050-1607-2010 del dos de setiembre del 2010 sobre la confirmación de la retención impuesta, el 4050-494-2011 del 31 de marzo del 2011 sobre la retención de la factura 1615 por el monto de $255.342,32 y el 4050-703-2011 del 19 de mayo del 2011 en que se retuvo el monto de $89.698,00 por atraso en la entrega del suministro y que posteriormente se enviará a la Proveeduría la nota para que proceda con la notificación formal (folio 7 ibid). En ese sentido es dable indicar que tal y como consta en los hechos probados, a la empresa actora se le realizaron una serie de retenciones en los pagos efectuados por el ICE dentro de la Licitación Abreviada número 2009LA-000027-PROV con el objeto de adquirir materiales de perforación para el P.G.Borinquen, adquisición de bienes y servicios UEN y PySA (hechos probados octavo, once, dieciséis, veintidós y veintiséis). No obstante, el motivo en el cual se fundamentó tal retención cautelar de los pagos efectuados, según la aplicación de la cláusula penal estipulado en el punto 15 del cartel (hecho probado tercero) no se justificó, ni acreditó, ni fundamentó suficientemente en sede administrativa, ni judicial, de modo tal que el ejercicio de tal potestad resultó abusivo y desproporcionado, con claro incumplimiento de lo dispuesto en los ordinales 132 y 133 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Ello se observa así, de los hechos probados treinta y treinta y uno en los cuales se observan serias discrepancias entre diversos Departamentos del ICE en torno a la aplicación de las retenciones expresadas. Tales conflictos surgidos a lo interno de la institución revelan que no hay claridad en torno a si en efecto procedía o no la aplicación de la cláusula penal correo electrónico del 13 de junio del año 2011, enviado por el señor Verny Brown Torres, en su condición de Gerente General de la Dirección de Proveeduría Corporativa, Area de Garantías, Registros y Sanciones, dirigido a los funcionarios Don Mauricio Hernández Araya y Freddy Solano Siles, en lo cuales le expresa una serie de inconsistencias, debilidades, falencias y dudas que según su criterio impiden la aplicación de las retenciones propuestas. Tales observaciones expresan que para el caso de la factura 1624 no se logra determinar una fecha de recibido por parte de Almacenes de los materiales pero que se adjunta una nota en la cual se hace constar que el nueve de mayo del 2011 se recibió tal tubería, lo mismo sucede con la factura 1603, y que para la 1594 si tiene un sello de recibido de C.S. Recursos Geotérmicos Suministros del 10 de enero del 2011 pero que para dicha Proveeduría debe venir suscrita por el Administrador de contrato, el Coordinador de Contratación Administrativa y con el visto bueno del Director de UEN, toda vez que el velar por la correcta ejecución del contrato recae en tales persona y no en el Area de Suministro y Administración de Materiales en los términos de los ordinales 8 inciso 1), 11 y 9 inciso 5) y 7) del Reglamento Interno de Contratación Administrativa, además de que no se aporta señalamiento alguno en el cual se pueda dilucidar porque la línea entregada tardíamente afectó a la otra y que en la nota 4050-755-2011 la multa de $89.698,00 es mayor al 25%, igual sucede con la nota 4050-797-2011 con la multa de $43.330,00 y la multa por $67.689,28 (folios 1167 al 1170 del expediente administrativo). Además, de que en el hecho probado 24, se establece que mediante el correo electrónico del 15 de abril del 2011, el señor Robert Murillo Soto del ICE, le manifiesta al señor Mauricio Hernández Araya, que respecto al documento correspondiente al oficio 4050-538-2011, no se incluye el oficio 4050-371-2011 que motivó el dictamen legal, no se incluye un documento que de fe de la fecha en que ingresan los materiales en el ICE, y la factura no tiene sello de recibido en su lugar del recibo de materiales (folio 1187 del expediente administrativo, así como declaración de Don Mauricio Hernández Araya). Tales objeciones revelan a lo interno del ICE conflictos competenciales entre órganos administrativos, requisitos no cumplidos según el quehacer administrativo institucional y documentación incompleta u omisa que impedía la aplicación de las retenciones expresadas. De igual forma, como se observa en el hecho probado treinta y uno, mediante oficio número 4050-288-2012 del 13 de febrero del año 2012, el Licenciado Mauricio Hernández Araya en su condición de Coordinador del Area de Adquisición de Bienes y Servicios UEN y PySA del ICE, le expresa al Señor Freddy Solano Siles de la Unidad de Suministros y Administración de Materiales que los montos retenidos sobre las facturas 1538 por $9.125.90 y la factura 1535 por $116.065,60 no deben ser devueltos ya que el proveedor fue notificado por Bienes y Servicios, pero en lo referente a la factura 1594 en que se retuvo $42.333,20, la factura 1603 en que se retuvo $67.689,28, factura 1624 en que se retuvo $89.698,00 y la factura 1615 en que se retuvo $255.342,32 no notificados por la Proveeduría se debe proceder a la devolución de $498.677,70, para un total de $498.677,70 (folios 1536 al 1537 del expediente administrativo). Con ello, es claro que el propio encargado del Area de Adquisición de Bienes y Servicios, está reconociendo que tales retenciones deben ser devueltas y expresa como justificación de ello que "dado que no se recibió respuesta oportunamente, la Proveeduría no notificó al Proveedor, ya que no se aclararon los aspectos solicitados y por correo de fecha 12/07/11 la Proveeduría indica que procede archivar el caso". Al respecto, el Reglamento Interno de Contratación Administrativa del ICE, número 5881 del 25 de agosto del 2009, en su artículo 8 inciso 11), expresa que corresponde al coordinador de la Contratación Administrativa tramitar ante la Proveeduría la ejecución de las cláusulas penales y retenciones de pago, con lo cual en efecto se observa un incumplimiento al respecto. A su vez, el numeral 107 de dicha norma, expresa que las cláusulas penales se ejecutarán automáticamente en estricto apego a lo señalado en el ordinal 41 del Reglamento a la Ley número 8660 o en el cartel o pliego de condiciones una vez detectado el incumplimiento, siendo responsabilidad del Administrador del Contrato y del Coordinador de la Contratación Administrativa solicitar a la Proveeduría mediante acto debidamente motivado su cobro. Si bien, se pueden realizar las retenciones en los pagos efectuados a tenor del numeral 108 del Reglamento 5881, el cual Contratación Administrativa, al momento de solicitar ante la Proveeduría el trámite de cobro de la multa o cláusula penal deberá como medida cautelar hacer la retención provisional del monto de la multa en las facturas pendientes de pago y que esta deducción de pago se realizará previa comunicación al Área de Administración de Garantías, Registros y Sanciones de la Proveeduría para que así se haga saber al contratista, no obstante al haber expresado la Proveeduría institucional que no se cumplieron con los requisitos estipulados para la aplicación del régimen sancionatorio que implica la imposición de la cláusulas penales y su cobro, procede la devolución de lo retenido. En mérito de ello, tal potestad cautelar puede ser ejercida por el Administrador del contrato en coordinación con el Coordinador de Contratación Administrativa, pero si posteriormente no se recibiere el aval de la Proveeduría, encargada de comunicar, gestionar y decidir sobre la procedencia del al contratista, se debe proceder a la devolución de las montos retenidos. Así las cosas, todo el trámite que conlleva el cobro de las cláusulas penales implica la participación de diversos funcionarios en el quehacer institucional del ICE, como se expresa en los numerales supracitados, de modo tal que sin la anuencia, consentimiento o acuerdo de alguno de ellos no procede el mantenimiento de la retención, ni la aplicación de la cláusula penal. Por ello, tanto la aplicación cautelar de las retenciones, así como imposición de las multas requiere de actos debidamente motivados, justificados, probados y razonados, en razón de lo cual debió de haber procedido la Administración a la devolución inmediata de los montos retenidos, una vez que la Proveeduría institucional y el propio Licenciado Mauricio Hernández Araya en su condición de Coordinador del Area de Adquisición de Bienes y Servicios UEN y PySA, expresara en su oficio número 4050-288-2012 del 13 de febrero del año 2012, que no correspondía mantener retenidos los montos referentes a la factura 1594 en que se retuvo $42.333,20, la factura 1603 en que se retuvo $67.689,28, factura 1624 en que se retuvo $89.698,00 y la factura 1615 en que se retuvo $255.342,32 no notificados por la Proveeduría, por lo que se debe proceder proceder a la devolución de $498.677,70, para un total de $498.677,70. No obstante, pese a lo manifestado por el señor Mauricio Hernández Araya, tampoco se observa mérito para mantener las retenciones efectuadas mediante las facturas 1538 por $9.125.90 y la factura 1535 por $116.065,60, toda vez que no se ha seguido con el procedimiento debido para su cobro que estipulan los reglamentos del ICE, no se ha puesto en conocimiento de la Proveeduría para su cobro y además no se pueden mantener retenidos cautelarmente en forma permanente y máxime en casos como este en que la propia proveeduría encargada de ejecutar las multas e imponer la cláusula penal ha determinado serías anomalías y falencias en el proceso que conllevó a la aplicación cautelar de las retenciones impuestas a la actora y sin que sea suficiente para mantener las retenciones la afirmación de que fueran notificadas por Bienes y Servicios, toda vez que falta el concurso de los demás departamentos para darle validez y eficacia y sin que haya acreditado por la demandada que se hayan obtenido hasta el momento, por lo que deben ser devueltas a la promovente, máxime que la propia Administración así lo ha manifestado por intermedio de sus diferentes departamentos encargados de participar en este proceso. En lo referente a las objeciones planteadas por la promovente en lo relativo a que la cláusula penal dispuesta en el cartel de la Licitación Abreviada número 2009LA-000027-PROV del 16 de abril del año 2009, punto 15, es nula, se deniega, no se observa que la misma sea abusiva, desproporcionada, o irracional, falta de técnica, o leonina, que no haya tomado en cuenta a tenor de lo expresado por el voto supracitado de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia número 1176-F-S1-2011 de las 9:15 horas del 22 de setiembre del año 2011, las variables del monto del contrato, el plazo convenido y las repercusiones de un eventual retardo en el incumplimiento. Más bien de su estudio, se observa que no es abusivo el fijar por atraso en la entrega del suministro la suma del 0.5% del valor de la parte incumplida, según el artículo 47 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, por cada día hábil de atraso, teniendo como máximo el 25% del contrato, o por multa multa la suma de 0.5% del valor de la parte incumplida, resultando más bien adecuado que haya fijado el que el cobro para estos conceptos se considerará sobre el valor de cada una y no sobre la totalidad del contrato, siempre que el incumplimiento de una línea no afecte el resto de las obligaciones. De este modo, resulta propio y adecuado si hay suficiente motivo para ello, y claros elementos probatorios, dictándose resolución razonada, el que se practiquen retenciones del precio sobre las facturas pendientes de pago. Sin que sea relevante el hecho de que como se acreditara en el hecho probado 32, posteriormente el ICE modificara la estructura y el contenido de la cláusula penal. En lo atinente a que se violentó el principio del debido proceso al no haberse impuesto la multa hasta el momento, efectivamente se observa una incuria administrativa, toda vez que las retenciones realizadas cautelarmente no pueden ser mantenidas en forma indefinida, por convertirse en confiscatorias sin debido proceso. Por ello, como se indicara supra la Proveeduría no ha dado el aval para la aplicación de la cláusula penal, por lo que el trámite sancionatorio no ha culminado ante las serias objeciones planteadas por dicho órgano encargado del cobro, generando con ello el no cumplimiento pronto y oportuno del procedimiento estipulados en los reglamentos especiales supracitados. De modo que, para poderse mantener las retenciones impuestas debió de haberse acreditado fehacientemente el incumplimiento de la promovente mediante acto debidamente razonado y fundamentado, pero sin que sea necesario el probar el daño, ello así a tenor del numeral 109 del reglamento supracitado, y el ordinal 48 del Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa. En lo atinente a la discusión de si el cálculo de las retenciones efectuadas se debían de realizar con base en líneas independientes y no sobre la totalidad del contrato, no se aportó prueba técnica al respecto por la actora, sin que se haya desacreditado el dictamen técnico que rola a folios 1516 a 1523 de los autos, en el que se demuestra con claridad que las retenciones se debían de efectuar sobre el monto total del contrato, y no sobre líneas independientes, ni se haya objetado la declaración del funcionario del ICE Don Mario Solano Ortega el cual fue contundente en que los materiales eran complementarios y dependientes. En mérito de lo expuesto, se debe declarar parcialmente con lugar la presente demanda, entendiéndose denegada en lo no expresamente concedido, de modo que se declara la nulidad de las siguientes actuaciones administrativas: los oficios 4050-1298-2010 del 15 de julio del 2010, el 4050-1341-2910 del 23 de julio del 2010, el 4050-1607-2010 del dos de setiembre del 2010, el 4050-494-2011 del 31 de marzo del 2011 y el 4050-703-2011 del 19 de mayo del 2011, y por consiguiente se ordena devolver a la promovente por concepto de sumas retenidas en los pagos efectuados en las facturas de entrega de materiales las siguientes sumas: $9.520,00 de la factura 1538, $72.450,70 de la factura 1535, $110.022,48 de las facturas 1594 y 1603, $255.342,32 de la factura 1615 y $89.698,00 de la factura 1624, para un total de $537.033.50 dólares. Además de que se le debe reintegrar al promovente la cantidad de $43.615.40, monto retenido en exceso por el ICE, superior al 25% del valor del contrato que era el monto máximo retenido, así como la cantidad de $43.614.90 dejados de pagar por el ICE por concepto de excedente de Ademes. Todas las sumas deberán ser indexadas a tenor del ordinal 123 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo desde la firmeza de la presente resolución y hasta su efectivo pago y además se le deberá reconocer intereses legales comerciales que corren desde la firmeza de la presente resolución y hasta su efectivo pago.

II. 3 )- EXCEPCIONES: En razón de lo expuesto, se deniega parcialmente la excepción de falta de derecho interpuesta por la accionada, porque de conformidad con la normativa citada, prueba aportada y los fundamentos de hecho expuestos, le asiste el derecho invocado a la actora en sustento de sus pretensiones, toda vez que se determinó el derecho que le correspondía a la promovente de recibir el reintegro de las sumas peticionadas ante las actuaciones administrativas anuladas.”