Validity of award and right to rent for state's contractual breachValidez de adjudicación y derecho a rentas por incumplimiento contractual del Estado

“III.- ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE CONTRACT AND THE PRINCIPLES THAT GOVERN IT.

The administrative contract, as the result of a contracting procedure (procedimiento de contratación), is subject to a series of principles, defined by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in Voto 998 of 11:30 a.m. on February 16, 1998, which, as relevant, stated:

“...vi. the principles of administrative contracting. By virtue of the foregoing, it must be understood that Article 182 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) gives rise to all the constitutional principles and parameters that govern the contractual activity of the State. Some of these principles that guide and regulate the tender (licitación) are:… 2.- of equality of treatment among all potential bidders (oferentes), …has a dual purpose: to serve as a guarantee for citizens (administrados) in the protection of their interests and rights as contractors, bidders, and private individuals, which translates into a prohibition for the State to impose restrictive conditions for access to the competition, whether through the enactment of legal or regulatory provisions for that purpose, or in its specific actions; and to constitute a guarantee for the Administration, insofar as it increases the possibility of a better selection of the contractor; all of the foregoing, within the constitutional framework established by Article 33 of the Fundamental Charter (Carta Fundamental); 3.- of publicity (publicidad), which constitutes the prerequisite and guarantee of the aforementioned principles, as it seeks to ensure that citizens have the broadest certainty of free concurrence under conditions of absolute equality in administrative contracting procedures, and which consists of the invitation to the tender competition being made in a general, open, and as broad as possible manner to all potential bidders, with the bid documents (cartel) receiving the widest dissemination, as well as the broadest access to the file, reports, resolutions, and in general to the entire process in question; 4.- of legality or transparency of procedures, insofar as the procedures for selecting the contractor must be defined a priori in a precise, certain, and specific manner, so that the Administration cannot circumvent the rules predefined in the legal norm that determines the scope of action, as a development of the provisions established for this purpose in the Political Constitution; 5.- of legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), which is derived from the previous principle, since subjecting the administrative contracting procedures to the rules contained in the regulatory provisions provides security and guarantee to bidders in their participation; …8.- principle of good faith (buena fe), insofar as in the processing of tenders and, in general, in everything concerning administrative contracting, it is considered a basic moral principle that the Administration and bidders act in good faith, where the actions of both parties are characterized by clear ethical standards, where the public interest prevails over any other.” These principles are reflected in the Law of Administrative Contracting (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), creating rights and obligations between the contracting parties; thus, Article 15 of the Law of Administrative Contracting expressly indicates as an obligation of the Administration that: "The Administration is obliged to fulfill all commitments, validly acquired, in the administrative contracting and to provide collaboration so that the contractor suitably executes the agreed object." For its part, Article 20 of the same law establishes the obligation of compliance for contractors: "Contractors are obliged to comply with what was offered in their proposal and in any formal documented manifestation that they have additionally provided during the course of the procedure or in the formalization of the contract." These obligations arise from a principle of good faith, in the duty of mutual compliance and collaboration.

IV.- ON THE PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH AND THE LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY As already indicated, the regulatory framework for the obligations of both the contracting entities and the contracting companies is contemplated in the Law of Administrative Contracting; Articles 15 and 20 of said Law. It is precisely the principle of good faith that must govern the contractual relationship from its beginning to its completion. In the specific case of the lease agreement between the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia and the company Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal S.A., it is governed by the provisions of Article 76 of the Law of Administrative Contracting and Article 159 of its Regulation (Reglamento), as they provide the following: "Article 76.—Applicable Procedure. To take real property on lease, with or without constructions, the Administration must resort to the procedure of public tender (licitación pública), abbreviated tender (licitación abreviada), or direct contracting (contratación directa), as applicable, according to the amount." "Article 159.—Lease of Real Property. The Administration may take real property on lease, with or without a purchase option, through the procedure of public tender, abbreviated tender, or direct contracting, as applicable, according to the estimated amount; without prejudice to the provisions established in relation to the lease or purchase of unique goods in this Regulation. The owner of the property shall not provide any kind of performance guarantee in favor of the Administration. For the adjustment of the rent price, the provisions of Article 67 of the General Law of Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) shall apply." In this same sense, Article 6 of the Law of Urban and Suburban Leases indicates the application of that regulatory body to the contractual relations between the Public Administration and lessors, in the following manner: "ARTICLE 6.- State, decentralized entities, and municipalities. The State, the decentralized public entities, and the municipalities, in their capacity as lessors or lessees, are subject to this law, unless there is an express provision to the contrary in their own legal system. The tender procedure is governed by the legal and regulatory provisions on administrative contracting." By reason of the foregoing, any legal analysis regarding this contractual figure cannot disregard either the general regulations specific to the administrative matter or the specific provisions on the tenancy matter established in said law, given its specialty and specific normative scope. Thus, in the present case, the Coordinator of the San José Este Local Office of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, Ms. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requested the Executive Presidency, based on the deteriorated conditions of the current property, to consider authorizing the relocation of the Office to another property that meets the adequate conditions to provide institutional services to the community, and the latter authorized initiating the contracting process for a new property to relocate the "San José Este Local Office"; for her part, the Coordinator of the San José Este Local Office of PANI, Lic. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requested the Administration Management to certify funds to proceed with the rental process for the new property, and through Official Letter GA-0798-2012 of September 13, 2012, the Administration Manager certified the budgetary allocation for that purpose, a monthly amount of ¢1,837,300.50. Subsequently, the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through the Department of Supply of Goods and Services (Departamento de Suministro de bienes y servicios), published in a nationally circulated newspaper the bid documents (cartel) inviting participation in the contracting for the purchase or lease of a property to house the San José Este local office of PANI. Several offers were received, among them that of Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., presented through its representative Mario José Fachler Grunspan, who made an offer on behalf of his represented company to lease to the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia the property located in San Pedro, Barrio Dent, with a construction area of 795 square meters, at a monthly rental price of $3,650.00. Once it was determined that said offer met the requirements specified in the bid documents, it was classified as suitable by the contracting Administration, and as part of the contracting procedure, administrative appraisals (avalúos administrativos) were conducted by the Directorate General of Taxation (Dirección General de Tributación), which valued the property for monthly rent at two million three hundred twenty-eight thousand two hundred colones, an amount greater than the offer from the plaintiff company. Additionally, an occupational health report was submitted by the institution's Department of Human Resources (Departamento de Recursos Humanos), which considered that the property met the adequate conditions to relocate the San José Este Local Office of PANI. Finally, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through administrative resolution No. 365-2012, related to Direct Contracting No. 2012CD-000444-01, at two o'clock in the afternoon on October 17, 2011, decided to award the aforementioned Direct Contracting for "Lease of Property to Relocate the San José Este Local Office" to Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., for a monthly amount of $3,650.00, in colones ¢1,836,826.00 at the exchange rate of ¢503.24 from the Central Bank (Banco Central) on October 17, 2012. This award became final on October 24, 2012, as recorded in the Integrated System of Contractual Activity (Sistema Integrado de Actividad contractual, SIAC) of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), a copy of which is found on folio 166 of the administrative file. Once the aforementioned direct contracting had been definitively awarded to the plaintiff, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia sent the original file to the institution's Legal Advisory Office (Asesoría Jurídica) for the purpose of preparing the corresponding contract and granting the respective internal approval. Thus, the contract was drafted by the Legal Advisory Office and signed by the plaintiff's representative on October 31, 2012, the document's issuance date. The first payment was to be made, as stated in the thirteenth clause of that legal instrument, from the start order given by the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. It is recorded that the transfer date of said PANI office to the leased premises would be November 7, 2012, as indicated in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012 of October 24, 2012, signed by the Coordinator of the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. Therefore, effective occupancy of the property would take place from that date. However, on November 7, 2012, Mr. Mario Fachler Grunspan was notified, via official letter GA-0967-2012 from the Administration Manager of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, of the suspension of the procedures to lease the property, according to a decision by the Executive Presidency, citing austerity reasons due to the budgetary situation the institution was experiencing, whereby the maximum rental payment amounts for properties should be adjusted, and given that the rental amount for the "San José Este Local Office" exceeded the sum contemplated in that austerity framework, the procedures to lease that property should therefore be suspended. Consequently, the contract was returned without the authorization or approval of the Executive Presidency.

V.- ON THE VALIDITY OF THE AWARD ACT IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.

It is clear to this Chamber in the case under analysis that the manner in which the Executive Presidency of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia nullified the award granted in favor of the plaintiff, refusing to sign the contract already prepared and signed by the lessee's legal representative, is contrary to law and to the principle of contractual good faith, previously mentioned, by refusing to fulfill the commitments validly acquired in the administrative contracting, hindering the execution of the contract, when it was in fact obliged to collaborate to correctly execute the object of the contract. Note that the award of the contracting process became final on October 24, 2012; from that moment on, it became a favorable administrative act declaring subjective rights for the plaintiff company here. Consequently, the Executive Presidency of the defendant institution could not simply dispense with continuing the processing; since this constitutes a clear violation of the principle of legal certainty, which is manifested in the guarantee of the intangibility of one's own acts. Indeed, when speaking of "legal certainty," it refers to the trust that citizens can have in the observance and respect of situations derived from the application of current norms. Although it is not explicitly contemplated in the Political Constitution, it manifests itself fundamentally through the guarantees of non-retroactivity of the law and intangibility of one's own acts. The latter derives from the interpretation of Articles 11 and 34 of the Magna Carta (Carta Magna) and constitutes a limit on the conduct of public power that inhibits it from disregarding its own acts of positive content and effects for the recipient. The impossibility of going against one's own favorable conduct functions as a limit on the actions of Public Administrations, which is a consequence of the principle of legality itself (Article 11 of the Political Constitution and Articles 11, 12, 13, 59, 66, and 132 of the General Law of Public Administration [Ley General de la Administración Pública]) and whose treatment in national doctrine has been extensive (see, among many others, judgments No. 1635-90 of 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 1990; 2186-94 of 5:03 p.m. on May 4, 1994; 13447-2006 of 10:06 a.m. on September 8, 2006, and 16314-2010 of 3:16 p.m. on September 29, 2010, all from the Constitutional Chamber). There are procedures established by the law itself to proceed with the annulment of favorable acts or conducts. Thus, in the General Law of Public Administration, numerals 173, 155, as well as the lesivity process (proceso de lesividad), are mechanisms that the law itself grants to reverse the effects of acts declaratory of rights. These are minimum guarantees that emerge in favor of those who possess administrative acts declared in their favor, which require the Administration to resort to specific procedures established by law to nullify that conduct, without which it may not, under any circumstances, disapply, disregard, or suppress the factual and legal consequences of that act constitutive of rights.

VI.- ON THE RENTS NOT RECEIVED.

Although in the present matter, the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia upheld the reconsideration appeal (recurso de reconsideración) and ordered the administrative contracting process to continue, whereby a new contract was signed on February 1, 2013, and the relocation became effective on March 1, 2013; the truth is that a delay occurred in the occupation of the property, solely attributable to the defendant Administration, since it was the refusal of the institution's executive president to sign the contract and give the corresponding authorization that prevented the effective relocation and the consequent occupation of the property, the moment from which payment was to commence, as established in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012, in relation to the thirteenth clause of the original contract signed only by the plaintiff's representative. It must be taken into consideration that the award act, once final, confers subjective rights, in the case of the lessor, the right to receive the rent from the agreed date; that date was from November 7, 2012, the moment when the plaintiff company should have received the corresponding amount for rent. This occurred until March 1, 2013, for reasons attributable to the contracting Administration. Therefore, it is entitled to receive what it was owed from the moment the property was to be occupied by the San José Este Local Office of PANI (November 7, 2012) to (March 1, 2013), taking into account that from March 1, 2013, the relocation became effective, it would be entitled to receive the corresponding rent from November 7, 2012, to March 1, 2013, in the sum of ¢6,918,711.27.” In this same vein, article 6 of the Urban and Suburban Leases Law (Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) indicates the application of said regulatory body to contractual relationships between the Public Administration and lessors, in the following manner: "<i>ARTICLE 6.- <b>State, decentralized entities, and municipalities.</b> The State, decentralized public entities, and municipalities, in their capacity as lessors or lessees, are subject to this law, unless expressly provided otherwise in their own legal system. The bidding procedure is governed by the legal and regulatory provisions of administrative contracting.</i>" By reason of the foregoing, any legal analysis regarding this contractual figure cannot disregard either the general regulations inherent to administrative matters or the specific provisions on tenancy matters established in said law, given its specialty and specific normative scope. It is thus in the present case that the Coordinator of the San José East Local Office of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, Mrs. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requests the Executive Presidency, based on the deterioration conditions of the current property, to consider authorizing the relocation of the Office to another property that meets the adequate conditions to provide institutional services to the community, and it authorizes initiating the contracting process for a new property to relocate the "San José East Local Office"; for her part, the Coordinator of the San José East Local Office of PANI, Lic. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requested from the Administration Management the certification of funds to proceed with the rental process of the new property, and via Official Letter GA-0798-2012 of September 13, 2012, the Administration Manager certified the budgetary content for that purpose, a monthly amount of ¢1,837,300.50. Subsequently, the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through the Department of Supply of Goods and Services, publishes in a nationally circulated newspaper the public notice inviting participation in the contracting for the purchase or lease of a property, to locate the San José East local office of PANI. Several offers were received, among them that of Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., submitted through its representative Mario José Fachler Grunspan, who offered, on behalf of his represented company, to lease to the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia the property located in San Pedro, Barrio Dent, with a construction area of 795 square meters, at a rental price of $3,650.00 per month. Once it was determined that said offer meets the requirements requested in the public notice, it is qualified as suitable by the contracting Administration, and as part of the contracting procedure, administrative appraisals were carried out by the Dirección General de Tributación, which valued the property for monthly rent at two million three hundred twenty-eight thousand two hundred colones, an amount greater than that of the plaintiff company's offer. In addition, an Occupational Health Report was submitted by the institution's Human Resources Department, which estimated that the property met the adequate conditions to relocate the San José East Local Office of PANI. Finally, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, through Administrative Resolution No. 365-2012, related to Direct Contracting No. 2012CD-000444-01, at fourteen hundred hours on October 17, 2011, decided to award the aforementioned Direct Contracting for "<i>Lease of property to relocate the San José East Local Office</i>" to Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., for a monthly amount of $3,650.00, in colones ¢1,836,826.00 at the exchange rate of ¢503.24 of the Central Bank as of October 17, 2012. This award became final on October 24, 2012, as recorded in the Integrated System of Contractual Activity (Sistema Integrado de Actividad Contractual, SIAC) of the Contraloría General de la República, a copy of which is found on folio 166 of the administrative file. Once the aforementioned direct contracting was definitively awarded to the plaintiff, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia referred the original file to the institution's Legal Advisory Office for the purpose of drafting the corresponding contract and granting the respective internal approval. It is thus that the contract is drafted by the Legal Advisory Office and signed by the plaintiff's representative on October 31, 2012, the date of issuance of the document. The first payment was to be made, as stated in the thirteenth clause of that legal instrument, from the commencement order given by the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. It is recorded that the transfer date of said PANI office to the leased premises would be November 7, 2012, as indicated in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012 of October 24, 2012, signed by the Coordinator of the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. So that, from that date, the effective occupancy of the property would take place. However, on November 7, 2012, Mr. Mario Fachler Grunspan was notified, via Official Letter GA-0967-2012 from the Administration Manager of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, of the suspension of the procedures to lease the property, according to a decision by the Executive Presidency, citing reasons of austerity due to the budgetary situation the institution was undergoing, and therefore maximum payment amounts for property leases should be adjusted, and given that the rental amount for the "San José East Local Office" exceeded the sum contemplated within that austerity framework, the procedures to lease that property should then be suspended. Thus the contract was returned without the authorization or approval of the Executive Presidency.

**V.- ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT OF AWARD IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.** It is clear to this Chamber in the case under analysis that the manner in which the Executive Presidency of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia rendered the award made in favor of the plaintiff without effect, by refusing to sign the already drafted contract that had been signed by the representative of the lessee, is contrary to law and to the principle of contractual good faith, mentioned above, by refusing to fulfill the commitments, validly acquired, in the administrative contracting, hindering the execution of the contract, when in reality it was under the obligation to collaborate to correctly execute the object of the contract. Note that the award of the contracting process became final on October 24, 2012; from that moment it became a favorable administrative act declaratory of subjective rights for the plaintiff company here. Consequently, the Executive Presidency of the defendant institution could not simply dispense with continuing the procedure; because this constitutes a clear violation of the principle of legal certainty, which manifests itself in the guarantee of the intangibility of one's own acts. In effect, when speaking of "legal certainty," it refers to the confidence that citizens can have in the observance and respect of the situations derived from the application of current norms. Although it is not explicitly contemplated in the Political Constitution, it is manifested fundamentally through the guarantees of non-retroactivity of the law and intangibility of one's own acts. The latter derives from the interpretation of articles 11 and 34 of the Magna Carta and constitutes a limit on the conduct of public power that inhibits it from disavowing its own acts of positive content and effects for the recipient. The impossibility of going against one's own favorable conduct functions as a limit on the actions of Public Administrations, which is a consequence of the very principle of legality (numeral 11 of the Political Constitution and 11, 12, 13, 59, 66, and 132 of the General Law of Public Administration) and whose treatment in national doctrine has been extensive (see, among many others, judgments No. 1635-90 of 5:00 p.m. on November 14, 1990; 2186-94 of 5:03 p.m. on May 4, 1994; 13447-2006 of 10:06 a.m. on September 8, 2006; and 16314-2010 of 3:16 p.m. on September 29, 2010, all from the Constitutional Chamber). There are procedures established by the law itself to proceed in suppressing favorable acts or conduct. Thus, in the General Law of Public Administration, numerals 173, 155, as well as the lesivity process, are mechanisms that the law itself grants to be able to reverse the effects of acts declaratory of rights. These are minimum guarantees that emerge in favor of those who possess administrative acts declared in their favor, which require the Administration to resort to certain procedures established in the law to suppress that conduct, without which it cannot, in any case, disapply, disavow, or suppress the factual and legal consequences of that act constitutive of rights.

**VI.- ON THE UNEARNED RENTS.** Although in the present matter, the Board of Directors of the Patronato Nacional de la Infancia accepted the motion for reconsideration and ordered the continuation of the administrative contracting process, whereby a new contract was signed on February 1, 2013, and the relocation became effective as of March 1, 2013; the truth is that a delay occurred in the occupancy of the property, attributable solely to the defendant administration, since it was the refusal of the institution's executive president to sign the contract and grant the corresponding authorization that prevented the effective relocation and the consequent occupancy of the property, the moment from which the payment was to start, according to what was established in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012, in relation to the thirteenth clause of the contract originally signed only by the plaintiff's legal representative. It must be taken into consideration that the act of award, once final, confers subjective rights; in the case of the lessor, the right to receive the rent from the agreed date. That date was as of November 7, 2012, the moment at which the plaintiff company should have received the corresponding amount for rent. This happened until March 1, 2013, for reasons attributable to the contracting Administration. Therefore, it has the right to receive what corresponded to it from the moment the property was to be occupied by the San José East Local Office of PANI (November 7, 2012) to (March 1, 2013), taking into account that as of March 1, 2013 the relocation became effective, it would be entitled to receive the corresponding rent from November 7, 2012 to March 1, 2013, in the sum of ¢6,918,711.27." The Administration may take real property on lease, with or without a purchase option, through the procedure of public bidding (licitación pública), abbreviated bidding (licitación abreviada), or direct contracting (contratación directa), as applicable, according to the estimated amount; without prejudice to the provisions established in relation to the lease or purchase of unique goods under these Regulations. The owner of the property shall not provide any type of performance guarantee in favor of the Administration. For the adjustment of the rent price, the provisions of article 67 of the General Law of Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) shall apply." In this same sense, article 6 of the Law of Urban and Suburban Leases (Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos) indicates the application of said regulatory body to contractual relations between the Public Administration and lessors, as follows: "ARTICLE 6.- State, decentralized entities and municipalities. The State, decentralized public entities, and municipalities, in their capacity as lessors or lessees, are subject to this law, except for express provisions of their own legal system. The bidding procedure is governed by the legal and regulatory provisions of administrative contracting." By reason of the foregoing, any legal analysis in relation to this contractual figure cannot disregard either the general regulations specific to administrative matters, or the specific provisions established on the matter of tenancy in said law, given its specialty and specific regulatory scope. Thus, in the present case, the Coordinator of the San José Este Local Office of the National Children's Trust (Patronato Nacional de la Infancia), Ms. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requests the Executive Presidency, based on the deteriorating conditions of the current property, to consider authorizing the relocation of the Office to another property that meets the appropriate conditions to provide institutional services to the community; and the latter authorizes the initiation of the contracting process for a new property to relocate the "San José Este Local Office." In turn, the Coordinator of the San José Este Local Office of PANI, attorney Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, requested from the Administration Management the certification of funds to proceed with the rental process for the new property, and through Official Letter GA-0798-2012 of September 13, 2012, the Administration Manager certified the budget appropriation for that purpose, a monthly amount of ¢1,837,300.50. Subsequently, the National Children's Trust, through the Department of Supply of Goods and Services, publishes in a nationally circulated newspaper the tender invitation to participate in the contracting for the purchase or rental of a property to locate the San José Este local office of PANI. Several offers were received, among them that of Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., presented through its representative Mario José Fachler Grunspan, who offered on behalf of his represented entity to rent to the National Children's Trust the property located in San Pedro, Barrio Dent, with a construction area of 795 meters, for a monthly rental price of $3,650.00. Once it was determined that said offer meets the requirements requested in the tender, it is qualified as suitable by the contracting Administration, and as part of the contracting procedure, administrative appraisals were conducted by the Directorate General of Taxation (Dirección General de Tributación), which valued the property for monthly rent at two million three hundred twenty-eight thousand two hundred colones, an amount greater than the offer of the plaintiff company. Additionally, an Occupational Health Report was submitted by the Human Resources Department of the institution, which considered that the property met the appropriate conditions to relocate the San José Este Local Office of PANI. Finally, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the National Children's Trust, through administrative resolution No. 365-2012, related to Direct Contracting No. 2012CD-000444-01, at fourteen hours on October 17, 2011; decided to award the aforementioned Direct Contracting for "Rental of property to relocate the San José Este Local Office" to Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., for a monthly amount of $3,650.00, in colones ¢1,836,826.00 at the exchange rate of ¢503.24 of the Central Bank (Banco Central) as of October 17, 2012." The award became final on October 24, 2012, as recorded in the Integrated System of Contractual Activity (Sistema Integrado de Actividad Contractual, SIAC) of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República), a copy of which is located at folio 166 of the administrative file. Once the aforementioned direct contracting was firmly awarded to the plaintiff, the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the National Children's Trust sent the original file to the Legal Advisory Office of the institution in order for the corresponding contract to be drafted and the respective internal approval granted. Thus, the contract is drafted by the Legal Advisory Office and signed by the representative of the plaintiff on October 31, 2012, the issuance date of the document. The first payment was to be made, as recorded in the thirteenth clause of that legal instrument, from the start order given by the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the National Children's Trust. It is recorded that the date of transfer of said PANI office to the leased premises would be November 7, 2012, as indicated in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012 of October 24, 2012, signed by the Coordinator of the Department of Supply, Goods and Services of the National Children's Trust. Accordingly, effective occupancy of the property would occur as of that date. However, on November 7, 2012, Mr. Mario Fachler Grunspan was notified, through official letter GA-0967-2012, from the Administration Manager of the National Children's Trust, of the suspension of the procedures to rent the property, pursuant to a decision of the Executive Presidency, citing austerity reasons due to the budgetary situation the institution was facing, for which the maximum amounts for property rental payments should be adjusted, and given that the rental amount for the "San José Este Local Office" exceeded the sum contemplated within that austerity framework, the procedures to rent that property had to be suspended. Consequently, the contract was returned without the authorization or approval of the Executive Presidency.

**V.- ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ACT OF AWARD IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF.** It is clear to this Chamber in the case under analysis that the manner in which the Executive Presidency of the National Children's Trust nullified the award made in favor of the plaintiff, refusing to sign the already drafted contract signed by the legal representative of the lessee, is contrary to law and to the principle of contractual good faith, mentioned above, by refusing to fulfill the commitments validly acquired in the administrative contracting, obstructing the execution of the contract, when in reality it was obligated to collaborate to correctly execute the object of the contract. It should be noted that the award of the contracting process became final on October 24, 2012; from that moment, it became a favorable administrative act declaring subjective rights for the plaintiff company here. Consequently, the Executive Presidency of the defendant institution could not simply dispense with continuing the procedure; because this constitutes a clear violation of the principle of legal certainty, which manifests itself in the guarantee of the intangibility of one's own acts. Indeed, when speaking of "legal certainty," it refers to the trust that citizens may have in the observance and respect of situations derived from the application of current norms. Although it is not explicitly contemplated in the Political Constitution, it manifests itself fundamentally through the guarantees of non-retroactivity of the law and the intangibility of one's own acts. The latter derives from the interpretation of articles 11 and 34 of the Magna Carta and constitutes a limit on the conduct of public power that inhibits it from disregarding its own acts with positive content and effects for the recipient. The impossibility of going against its own favorable conduct functions as a limit on the actions of Public Administrations, which is a consequence of the principle of legality itself (numeral 11 of the Political Constitution and 11, 12, 13, 59, 66, and 132 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)) and whose treatment in national doctrine has been extensive (see, among many others, rulings No. 1635-90 of 17:00 hours on November 14, 1990; 2186-94 of 17:03 hours on May 4, 1994; 13447-2006 of 10:06 hours on September 8, 2006; and 16314-2010 of 15:16 on September 29, 2010, all from the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional)). There are procedures established by the law itself to proceed to suppress favorable acts or conduct. Thus, in the General Law of Public Administration, numerals 173, 155, as well as the lesivity process, are mechanisms that the law itself grants to reverse the effects of acts declaring rights. These are minimum guarantees that emerge in favor of those who possess administrative acts declared in their favor, which require the Administration to resort to certain procedures established in the law to suppress that conduct, without which it cannot, in any case, disapply, disregard, or suppress the factual and legal consequences of that act constituting rights.

**VI.- ON THE RENTS NOT RECEIVED.** Although in the present matter, the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the National Children's Trust upheld the motion for reconsideration and ordered the continuation of the administrative contracting process, with which a new contract was signed on February 1, 2013, and the transfer became effective on March 1, 2013; the reality is that a delay occurred in the occupancy of the property, attributable solely to the defendant administration, since it was the refusal of the executive president of the institution to sign the contract and give the corresponding authorization that prevented the effective transfer and the consequent occupancy of the property, the moment from which payment was to begin, as established in Official Letter DSBS-2232-2012, in relation to the thirteenth clause of the contract originally signed only by the legal representative of the plaintiff. It must be taken into consideration that the act of award, once final, confers subjective rights, in the case of the lessor, the right to receive the rent as of the agreed date; that date was as of November 7, 2012, the moment when the plaintiff company should have received the corresponding amount for rent. This did not happen until March 1, 2013, for reasons attributable to the contracting Administration. Therefore, it is entitled to receive what it was owed from the moment the property was to be occupied by the San José Este Local Office of PANI, (November 7, 2012) to (March 1, 2013), taking into account that as of March 1, 2013, the transfer became effective, it would be entitled to receive the corresponding rent from November 7, 2012, to March 1, 2013, in the sum of ¢6,918,711.27.”

“III.- SOBRE EL CONTRATO ADMINISTRATIVO Y LOS PRINCIPIOS QUE LO RIGEN.

El contrato administrativo como resultado de un procedimiento de contratación, se encuentra sujeto a una serie de principios, definidos por la Sala Constitucional en el voto 998 de las 11 horas con 30 minutos del 16 de febrero de 1998, que en lo que es de interés expresó:

“...vi. los principios de la contratación administrativa. En virtud de lo anterior, debe entenderse que del artículo 182 de la Constitución Política se derivan todos los principios y parámetros constitucionales que rigen la actividad contractual del Estado. Algunos de estos principios que orientan y regulan la licitación son:… 2.- de igualdad de trato entre todos los posibles oferentes, …tiene una doble finalidad, la de ser garantía para los administrados en la protección de sus intereses y derechos como contratistas, oferentes y como particulares, que se traduce en la prohibición para el Estado de imponer condiciones restrictivas para el acceso del concurso, sea mediante la promulgación de disposiciones legales o reglamentarias con ese objeto, como en su actuación concreta; y la de constituir garantía para la administración, en tanto acrece la posibilidad de una mejor selección del contratista; todo lo anterior, dentro del marco constitucional dado por el artículo 33 de la Carta Fundamental; 3.- de publicidad, que constituye el presupuesto y garantía de los principios comentados, ya que busca asegurar a los administrados la más amplia certeza de la libre concurrencia en condiciones de absoluta igualdad en los procedimientos de la contratación administrativa, y que consiste en que la invitación al concurso licitatorio se haga en forma general, abierta y lo más amplia posible a todos los oferentes posibles, dándosele al cartel la más amplia divulgación, así como el más amplio acceso al expediente, informes, resoluciones y en general a todo el proceso de que se trate; 4.-de legalidad o transparencia de los procedimientos, en tanto los procedimientos de selección del contratista deben estar definidos a priori en forma precisa, cierta y concreta, de modo que la administración no pueda obviar las reglas predefinidas en la norma jurídica que determina el marco de acción, como desarrollo de lo dispuesto al efecto en la Constitución Política; 5.- de seguridad jurídica, que es derivado del anterior, puesto que al sujetarse los procedimientos de la contratación administrativa a las reglas contenidas en las disposiciones normativas, se da seguridad y garantía a los oferentes de su participación; …8.- principio de buena fe , en cuanto en los trámites de las licitaciones y en general, en todo lo concerniente a la contratación administrativa, se considera como un principio moral básico que la administración y oferentes actúen de buena fe, en donde las actuaciones de ambas partes estén caracterizadas por normas éticas claras, donde prevalezca el interés público sobre cualquier otro” .

Estos principios se encuentran reflejados en la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, creando derechos y obligaciones entre las partes contratantes, así el artículo quince de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, expresamente señala como obligación de la Administración que: "La Administración está obligada a cumplir con todos los compromisos, adquiridos válidamente, en la contratación administrativa y a prestar colaboración para que el contratista ejecute en forma idónea el objeto pactado". Por su parte, el artículo 20 de la misma ley, establece la obligación de cumplimiento para los contratistas: "Los contratistas están obligados a cumplir, con lo ofrecido en su propuesta y en cualquier manifestación formal documentada, que hayan aportado adicionalmente, en el curso del procedimiento o en la formalización del contrato". Estas obligaciones nacen de un principio de buena fe, en el deber de cumplimiento y colaboración mutuos.

IV.- SOBRE EL PRINCIPIO DE BUENA FE Y EL ARRENDAMIENTO DE BIENES INMUEBLES Como ya se indicó, el marco regulador de las obligaciones tanto de los entes contratantes como de las empresas contratistas se encuentra contemplado en la Ley de Contratación Administrativa; artículo s 15 y 20 de dicha Ley. Es precisamente el principio de buena fe, el que debe regir en la relación contractual desde su inicio hasta su finalización. En el caso concreto del contrato de arrendamiento entre el Patronato Nacional de la Infancia y la sociedad Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal S.A., se rige por lo dispuesto en el artículo 76 de la Ley de la Contratación Administrativa y 159 de su Reglamento, en tanto disponen lo siguiente: "Artículo 76.—Procedimiento aplicable. Para tomar en arrendamiento bienes inmuebles, con construcciones o sin ellas, la administración deberá acudir al procedimiento de licitación pública, licitación abreviada o contratación directa, según corresponda, de acuerdo con el monto". "Artículo 159.— Arrendamiento de inmuebles. La Administración podrá tomar en arrendamiento bienes inmuebles, con o sin opción de compra, mediante el procedimiento de licitación pública, licitación abreviada o contratación directa, según corresponda, de acuerdo con el monto estimado; sin perjuicio de lo establecido en relación con el arrendamiento o compra de bienes únicos de este Reglamento. El propietario del inmueble no rendirá ninguna clase de garantía de cumplimiento a favor de la Administración. Para el reajuste de la renta precio se aplicará lo dispuesto en el artículo 67 de la Ley General de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos". En este mismo sentido, el artículo 6 de la Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos y Suburbanos, indica la aplicación de dicho cuerpo normativo a las relaciones contractuales entre la Administración Pública y los arrendantes, de la siguiente manera: "ARTICULO 6.- Estado, entes descentralizados y municipalidades. El Estado, los entes públicos descentralizados y las municipalidades, en calidad de arrendadores o arrendatarios, están sujetos a esta ley, salvo disposición expresa de su propio ordenamiento jurídico. El procedimiento de licitación se rige por las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias de la contratación administrativa". En razón de lo anterior, todo análisis jurídico con relación a este figura contractual no puede desatender ni las regulaciones generales propias de la materia administrativa, ni las disposiciones específicas que sobre la materia inquilinaria se establecen en la ley dicha, dada su especialidad y alcances normativos específicos. Es así como en el presente caso, la Coordinadora de la Oficina Local San José Este del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, la Sra,. Tatiana Martínez Bolívar, solicita a la Presidencia Ejecutiva, con fundamento en las condiciones de deterioro del inmueble actual, se valore autorizar el traslado de la Oficina a otro inmueble que reúna las condiciones adecuadas para brindar los servicios institucionales a la comunidad y ésta autoriza iniciar el proceso de contratación de un nuevo inmueble para reubicar la "Oficina Local de San José este", por su parte, la señora Coordinadora de la Oficina Local San José Este del PANI, licenciada Tatiana Martínez Bolívar solicitó a la Gerencia de Administración la certificación de fondos para proceder con el proceso de alquiler del nuevo inmueble y mediante Oficio GA-0798-2012 de 13 de setiembre de 2012 la Gerente de Administración certificó el contenido presupuestario para ese fin, un monto mensual de ¢1.837.300.50. Posteriormente, el Patronato Nacional de la infancia, a través del Departamento de Suministro de bienes y servicios, realiza la publicación en un diario de circulación nacional del cartel que invita a participar en la contratación de la compra o alquiler de un inmueble, para ubicar la oficina local de San José Este del PANI.Se recibieron varias ofertas, entre ellas la de Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., presentada a través de su representante Mario José Fachler Grunspan, quien ofertó a nombre de su representada para alquilar al Patronato Nacional de la Infancia el inmueble, ubicado en San Pedro, Barrio Dent, con un área de construcción de 795 metros, con un precio de alquiler de $3.650.00 mensuales. Una vez determinado que dicha oferta cumple con los requerimientos solicitados en el cartel, es calificada como idónea por parte de la Administración contratante y como parte del procedimiento de contratación, fueron realizados avalúos administrativos por parte de la Dirección General de Tributación, los que valoraron la propiedad para alquiler mensual en dos millones trescientos veintiocho mil doscientos colones, monto mayor al de la oferta de la sociedad demandante. Además fue presentado un Informe de salud ocupacional a cargo del Departamento de Recursos Humanos de la institución, que estimó que el inmueble reunía las condiciones adecuadas para reubicar la oficina Local de San José, Este del PANI. Finalmente, el Departamento de Suministros, Bienes y Servicios del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia mediante resolución administrativa N°365-2012, relacionada con la Contratación Directa N°2012CD-000444-01, de las catorce horas del 17 de octubre de 2011; decidió adjudicar la Contratación Directa antes mencionada de "Alquiler de inmueble para reubicar la Oficina Local de San José Este" a Inversiones Inmobiliarias Mazal Centroamericana S.A., por un monto mensual de $3.650.00. en colones ¢1.836.826.00 al tipo de cambio ¢503.24 del Banco Central al día 17 de octubre del 2012". Adjudicación que adquirió firmeza el 24 de octubre de 2012, según consta en el Sistema Integrado de Actividad contractual (SIAC), de la Contraloría General de la República, cuya copia se encuentra a folio 166 del mencionada contratación directa, el Departamento de Suministros, bienes y servicios del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia remitió a la Asesoría Jurídica de la institución, el expediente original con la finalidad de que se confeccionara el contrato correspondiente y se le otorgara la aprobación interna respectiva. Es así como el contrato es elaborado por la Asesoría Jurídica y firmado por el representante de la accionante, el 31 de octubre de 2012, fecha de emisión del documento. Debiendo realizarse el primer pago, según consta en la cláusula décima tercera de ese instrumento jurídico, a partir de la orden de inicio dada por el Departamento de Suministros, Bienes y Servicios del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. Consta que la fecha de traslado de dicha oficina del PANI al local arrendado sería el 7 de noviembre de 2012, así se indicó en el Oficio DSBS-2232-2012 de 24 de octubre de 2012, suscrito por la Coordinadora del Departamento de Suministros, Bienes y Servicios del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia. De manera que, a partir de esa fecha se daría la ocupación efectiva del inmueble. Sin embargo, el 7 de noviembre de 2012, le es comunicado al señor Mario Fachler Grunspan, mediante oficio GA-0967-2012, de la Gerente de Administración del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia, la suspensión de los trámites para alquilar el inmueble, según decisión de la Presidencia Ejecutiva, aduciendo razones de austeridad debido a la situación presupuestaria por la que atravesaba la institución por lo que deberían ajustarse los montos máximos de pago de alquiler de inmuebles y que dado que el monto del alquiler para la "Oficina Local San José Este", superaba la suma contemplada en ese marco de austeridad, debían entonces suspenderse los trámites para alquilar ese inmueble. Por lo que el contrato fue devuelto sin la autorización o visto bueno de la Presidencia Ejecutiva.

V.- SOBRE LA VALIDEZ DEL ACTO DE ADJUDICACIÓN A FAVOR DE LA DEMANDANTE.

Es claro para esta Cámara en el caso bajo análisis, que la forma en que la Presidencia Ejecutiva del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia dejó sin efecto la adjudicación realizada a favor de la actora, negándose a firmar el contrato ya confeccionado y firmado por el personero de la arrendataria, resulta contraria a derecho y al principio de la buena fe contractual, antes mencionado, al negarse a cumplir con los compromisos, adquiridos válidamente, en la contratación administrativa, obstaculizando la puesta en ejecución del contrato, cuando en realidad se encontraba en la obligación de colaborar para ejecutar en forma correcta el objeto del contrato. Obsérvese que la adjudicación del proceso de contratación adquirió firmeza el 24 de octubre de 2012, a partir de ese momento se convirtió en un acto administrativo favorable y declaratorio de derechos subjetivos para la empresa aquí demandante. En consecuencia, no podía la Presidencia Ejecutiva de la institución demandada, simplemente prescindir de continuar con la tramitación; pues con ello se da una clara violación al principio de seguridad jurídica, que se manifiesta en la garantía de la intangibilidad de los actos propios. En efecto, cuando se habla de “seguridad jurídica”, se alude a la confianza que los ciudadanos pueden tener en la observancia y respeto de las situaciones derivadas de la aplicación de las normas vigentes. Si bien no está fundamentalmente por medio de las garantías de irretroactividad de la ley e intangibilidad de los actos propios. Esta última deriva de la interpretación de los artículos 11 y 34 de la Carta Magna y configura un límite en el proceder del poder público que le inhibe desconocer sus propios actos de contenido y efectos positivos al destinatario. La imposibilidad de ir contra sus propias conductas de contenido favorable funciona como un límite en el accionar de las Administraciones Públicas, que es consecuencia del propio principio de legalidad (numeral 11 de la Constitución Política y 11, 12, 13, 59, 66 y 132 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública) y cuyo tratamiento en la doctrina patria ha sido prolijo (ver, entre muchas otras, las sentencias N° 1635-90 de las 17:00 horas del 14 de noviembre de 1990; 2186-94 de las 17:03 horas del 4 de mayo de 1994; 13447-2006 de las 10:06 horas del 8 de setiembre de 2006 y 16314-2010 de las 15:16 del 29 de setiembre de 2010, todas de la Sala Constitucional). Existen procedimientos establecidos por la misma ley, para proceder a suprimir actos o conductas favorables. Así en la Ley General de la Administración Pública, los numerales 173, 155 así como el proceso de lesividad, son mecanismos que la misma ley concede para poder revertir los efectos de actos declarativos de derechos. Se trata de garantías mínimas que emergen a favor de quien posee actos administrativos declarados a su favor, que exigen a la Administración acudir a determinados procedimientos establecidos en la ley, para suprimir esa conducta, sin lo cual, no podrá, en ningún caso, desaplicar, desconocer o suprimir las consecuencias fácticas y jurídicas de ese acto constitutivo de derechos.

VI.- SOBRE LAS RENTAS DEJADAS DE PERCIBIR.

Si bien en el presente asunto, la Junta Directiva del Patronato Nacional de la Infancia acogió el recurso de reconsideración y ordenó continuar con el proceso de contratación administrativa, con lo cual se firmó un nuevo contrato el 01 de febrero de 2013, y el traslado se hizo efectivo al 01 de marzo de 2013; lo cierto es que se produjo un atraso en la ocupación del inmueble, imputable únicamente a la administración demandada, pues fue la negativa de la presidenta ejecutiva de la institución a firmar el contrato y dar la autorización correspondiente, lo que impidió el traslado efectivo y la consecuente ocupación del inmueble, momento a partir del cual comenzaba a regir el pago, según lo establecido en el Oficio DSBS-2232-2012, en relación con la cláusula décimo tercera del contrato originalmente firmado sólo por el apoderado de la demandante. Debe tenerse en consideración que el acto de adjudicación una vez firme, confiere derechos subjetivos, en el caso del arrendante, el derecho a percibir el alquiler a partir de la fecha pactada, esa fecha era a partir del 7 de noviembre de 2012, momento en que la sociedad actora debió recibir el importe correspondiente por concepto de alquiler. Esto sucede hasta el 01 de marzo de 2013, por causas imputables a la Administración contratante. Por lo que tiene derecho a percibir lo que le correspondía desde el momento en que el inmueble iba a ser ocupado por la Oficina Local San José Este del PANI, (07 de noviembre de 2012) al (01 de marzo de 2013), teniendo en cuenta que a partir del 01 de marzo de 2013 se hizo efectivo el traslado, le correspondería percibir la renta correspondiente del 7 de noviembre de 2012 al 01 de marzo de 2013, en la suma de ¢6.918.711.27.”