Dismissal of Annulment Action for Two Consecutive Regular EvaluationsImprocedencia de acción anulatoria por dos evaluaciones regulares consecutivas

SIXTH. DISMISSAL OF THE ACTION: In essence, the plaintiff claims a violation of the principle of job stability that protects her in her condition as a public employee appointed to a permanent position (propiedad), and nullity of the administrative actions that resulted in her dismissal from the position due to the violation of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality. The constitutional guarantee invoked cannot be separated from the precept from which it derives and which it seeks to strengthen, which is that of proven suitability (idoneidad comprobada) of the public servant. Indeed, while Article 192 of the Magna Carta establishes this principle of stability or job immobility for the public servant, it does so after defining that only those who meet the prior requirement of entering public service through proven suitability may access such condition. The referenced rule establishes that: “With the exceptions that this Constitution and the civil service statute determine, public servants shall be appointed based on proven suitability and may only be removed for the causes of justified dismissal set forth in labor legislation, or in the case of forced reduction of services, either due to lack of funds or to achieve a better organization thereof”; a principle which is undoubtedly linked to the creation of the Civil Service System (Régimen de Servicio Civil), provided for in Article 191 of the same normative body, which states: “A civil service statute shall regulate the relations between the State and public servants, for the purpose of guaranteeing the efficiency of the administration”. This constitutional provision was materialized through the enactment of Title I of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto de Servicio Civil), Law No. 1581 of May 30, 1953, and its Regulation, Executive Decree No. 21 of December 14, 1954. Subsequently, Title II of the Statute was enacted, through Law No. 4565 of May 4, 1970 – Teaching Career Law (Ley de Carrera Docente) – which came to regulate matters concerning teaching staff covered by the Merit System (Régimen de Méritos). Article 20 of the Civil Service Statute provides, to the extent relevant: “To enter the Civil Service, it is required: a) Possess the moral and physical aptitude appropriate for the performance of the position, which shall be verified through information on life and customs and certifications issued by the Judicial Registry of Delinquents, the National Archive, the Investigation Cabinet, and the respective Department of the Ministry of Health; (...) Satisfy the special minimum requirements established by the ‘Civil Service Descriptive Manual of Jobs’ for the class of position in question; c) Demonstrate suitability by undergoing the tests, examinations, or competitions contemplated in this law and its regulations; d) Pass the probationary period;...” As can be seen, the criterion of suitability is fundamental within the regulation of public employment, and fulfills the dual purpose of allowing those interested in occupying a public position to compete under equal conditions, thereby guaranteeing the right of access to public service enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and ensuring that the most capable persons are appointed to public positions, thereby seeking to fulfill the duty of efficiency in the actions of the Public Administration. The transcribed rules also reveal that the determination and accreditation of such condition of suitability permeates the entire period the employment relationship remains in effect, although its manifestations differ according to the corresponding stage. Thus, before occupying a position, one must meet the special minimum requirements that the position requires according to the determination established by the pertinent Descriptive Manual of Positions (Manual Descriptivo de Puestos); undergo tests and examinations, and enter through a public competition. On the other hand, once appointed, one must complete a probationary period, during which one may be dismissed if, by a reasoned act, it is determined that one does not satisfy the sought-after parameters. Once that probationary period is overcome, the official acquires that right of stability, which materializes in two basic guarantees: that one may only be dismissed for committing a serious offense (falta grave) so sanctioned, and that in determining the latter and the appropriate sanction, a procedure of guarantees in favor of the official must be respected. The Civil Service Statute, in its Article 37, provides in subsection a) that public servants thus appointed may not be dismissed from their positions unless they incur a cause for dismissal, as established by the Labor Code, or due to a forced reduction of services, either for lack of funds or to achieve a better organization thereof, in accordance with the provisions of Article 47 of that same normative body, while Article 43 of the same text adds that they may only be removed from their positions if they incur the causes determined in Article 81 of the Labor Code and Article 41, subsection d), of that law, or in acts that imply a serious infraction of this Statute, its regulations, or the respective Internal Labor Regulations; that the classification of the seriousness of the faults shall be made in detail by the Regulation of the indicated law and the Internal Labor Regulations, and that any justified dismissal shall be understood as being without liability for the State and shall cause the servant to lose all rights granted in said law. Thus, stability (estabilidad) does not mean total immobility, or absolute impossibility of being dismissed, just as it also does not imply ceasing to maintain one's suitability for the position. Here the figure of Performance Evaluation (Evaluación del Desempeño), more modernly conceptualized as Performance Management (Gestión del Desempeño), comes into play, as a mechanism for the quantitative and qualitative qualification of the work carried out by the public official within a determined period, and as an element linking it to the goals and objectives it is called upon to fulfill. Based on the provisions of the cited rules of the Civil Statute and in Articles 41 to 44 bis of its Regulation, the matter of applying the Performance Evaluation or Management tools is regulated. The first of these rules provides that the annual performance evaluation of servants shall be carried out in the first two weeks of February of each year, therefore the Evaluation Cycle is established from January 1 to December 31 of each year; that it shall be an assessment of the servant's performance in each of the institutional performance dimensions that influence their work in general; that the categories to be used for the annual evaluation of the servant shall be a maximum of five, in order to generate an adequate arithmetic progression that avoids a central or extreme tendency result (Deficient, Regular, Good, Very Good, Excellent - or their equivalents); that given the need to carry out a specific evaluation aligned with the prevailing institutional conditions, regarding the execution of the established organizational performance variables, as well as the indicators of their results, which must be related to the performance obtained by a servant, in addition to adapting to the institutional processes in which they intervene, the Offices of Institutional Human Resources Management are authorized to develop particularized models and systems for the performance evaluation of collaborators adjusted to the circumstances and conditions present in their Institution's processes; that the General Directorate of Civil Service must advise, review, and approve, through a reasoned resolution, the performance evaluation systems and models created or modified by the institutions covered by the scope of the Civil Service Statute and this Regulation, it being that the criteria it issues shall be binding for said Employment System; that the Offices of Institutional Human Resources Management must prepare, distribute, and provide timely training on the institutional performance evaluation model and system that is operative, in addition to facilitating the pertinent material and controlling its application; and that the respective Office of Institutional Human Resources Management shall be responsible for controlling the fulfillment and correct application of the Performance Evaluation Model and System operating within it, independently of the Audits that the General Directorate of Civil Service may carry out when it deems it pertinent, the criteria of which shall have binding effects in the Civil Service System. Regarding this matter, subsection d) of Article 43 of the indicated normative body provides that “When the result of the servant's evaluation is Regular (or its equivalent) for two consecutive times, or if, following the pertinent warnings or sanctions, the evaluation is Deficient (or its equivalent) just once, the fact shall be considered a serious offense, in accordance with the provisions of Article 43 of the Civil Service Statute. In these cases, the respective evaluator or the Human Resources Office must inform the respective Minister, so that the consequent dismissal proceedings may be initiated.” In the case brought before this Court, the reason for the act is precisely the occurrence of the objective condition stipulated in the cited article, given that the initial act of the dismissal management signed by the Minister of Health describes as an attributable cause the concurrence of facts that could constitute a serious offense, due to the official having obtained two consecutive performance evaluations (periods January to December 2014 and 2015) with a qualitative rating of “Regular,” given that her quantitative scores were 70.5 and 72 points respectively. Here it is essential to determine that the final results of each Performance Evaluation process constitute specific administrative acts, with their own effects, the product of an entire special evaluation procedure in which the affected subject intervenes with ample possibilities for participation, and with the right to appeal the ratings obtained before they acquire the condition of a final administrative act (acto administrativo firme). This clarification is necessary because, whenever the dismissal act is based on Article 43 subsection d) of the Regulation of the Civil Statute, the existence of such ratings constitutes an objective fact that the plaintiff has not denied, and she has not requested in this venue the nullity of such acts. The foregoing gains greater relevance insofar as the plaintiff also did not resort to the appeals channels in the administrative venue against the ratings obtained in both periods, allowing both to become final. In accordance with the cited statutory and regulatory rules, the plaintiff's performance evaluation procedure was the one established in Resolution DG-157-2012 of the General Directorate of Civil Service, or in the Institutional Performance Management Model of the Ministry of Health, depending on the year in question. Both regulations are identical on the point of interest, given that in the final stage of the evaluation process, upon concluding the interview provided for therein, the official must fill in the corresponding form's box indicating whether or not they agree with the evaluation, and they provide that if the servant: “…expresses disagreement with the performance resolution, they must request in writing an interview with the Superior of their immediate supervisor within the three business days following the date on which their supervisor informed them during the final interview of the result of their performance rating, and they shall present to them in writing, in that same communication, the observations they consider necessary regarding what was resolved with respect to it. In said observations, the collaborator must specify in which aspects and dimensions of the performance they disagree with the rating assigned by their immediate supervisor, justifying them reasonably. In the event of a statement of disagreement with the assigned rating, the supervisor must transfer the performance management file of said collaborator along with the three forms to their hierarchical superior, within the three business days following the conclusion of the interview, regardless of whether the collaborator presented in writing the communication with the observations supporting the disagreement before the Supervisor's superior.” The resolution of that superior is conceived within that procedure as a final act, and against it the servant has the recourse of “APPEAL in writing before the Head of the Institution within the month following the date on which they received the original Form from the Human Progress Unit (if at the central level) or from the Logistical and Administrative Support Unit (if at the regional or local level). / In the case of Nutrition at the regional and local level, through the Resource Management Unit of the Regional Directorate and at the central level, through the Human Resources Unit of that Resource Management Directorate of the National Directorate of CEN-CINAI. (...) Once the APPEAL is received at the Ministerial Office, the Head shall have one month to resolve and notify the resolution, for which they shall have, at most, the last day of the calendar month granted to execute the distribution of the notification. (…) If the collaborator persists in their disagreement with what was resolved by the Head, they may resort to the corresponding legal instances.” The set of proven facts revealed that the plaintiff did not appeal the evaluations that served as the basis for the dismissal proceeding, and that, although she expressed disagreement with the communicated result, in none of the cases did she request an interview with the Superior, nor did she address any writing specifying the reasons for the disagreement, nor did she file an appeal against the final act issued by the latter, on any of the occasions, and not even in this jurisdictional venue has she requested the nullity of them. The final results of both evaluation procedures are, ultimately, final and definitive acts, consented to by the plaintiff, and in that condition, producers of legal effects, among them, the one provided for in subsection d) of Article 43 of the Regulation of the Civil Service Statute in relation to the same article number of the indicated Statute, given that the quantitative rating obtained in both procedures corresponds to the objective rating of “Regular” in the applicable guides. To the extent that the Court's jurisdiction is delimited by the parties' claims, what has been so explained would suffice to declare the annulment claims against the final and definitive resolutions of the sanctioning procedure without merit, since no grounds are alleged other than a defect in the motive element, which, it is repeated, is of an objective nature: the existence of two ratings with a qualitative result of “Regular,” and since these were not challenged, said objective element shall remain intact. In any case, the plaintiff has also not demonstrated that the ordered dismissal violates the constitutional principles of proportionality and reasonableness, or that it is unfounded and subjective, given that when evaluating the performance of her daily tasks, her health history was not considered. In this regard, it is observed that when responding to the dismissal proceeding, the plaintiff alleged physical incapacity as a justification for the various calls for attention that first motivated her performance ratings and that were later reiterated in the sanctioning procedure; and she provided in support of her statements a copy of the communication sent by the Subdirectorate of Health Benefits of the INS on January 21, 2011, where it indicated to the plaintiff's employer that it must adapt her functions in which she must not perform efforts or repetitive movements with her right shoulder, and an epicrisis issued by that same Institute on June 16, 2011, where it assigns Ms. [Name 002] a permanent disability with a three percent impediment due to a muscular contracture affecting her right shoulder. However, neither in the administrative venue, nor in this jurisdictional process, has the plaintiff managed to directly link each of the non-compliances attributed to her with said incapacity, it being that several of them point to problems of disposition, failure to wear a uniform or use hygiene devices, failure to comply with calls for attention, and lack of diligence in her work in general. Nor did she allege this situation when the ratings obtained in the performance evaluation procedures were communicated to her, it being that, as previously stated, she did not initiate any appeals against them, and did not even raise reasons for disagreement before her evaluator's Supervision, where she could have exposed such circumstances. Added to the above, and this was so assessed by the Civil Service Tribunal, the order for the re-adaptation of functions was of long standing, without it having been explained or demonstrated what the procedure was that was provided by the parties, that it was not part of the evaluation process, that it was not invoked in a timely manner, and therefore, was alien to the relevant discussion. Finally, the reproach of an absence of criteria of reasonableness and proportionality cannot be admitted either, given that we are dealing with a regulated matter, it being that Articles 43 of both the Statute and the Regulation of Civil Service establish as a serious offense the occurrence of two performance evaluations with a qualitative result of “Regular.” By reason of all the foregoing, the deduced annulment claims must be rejected, and as a product thereof, all the other claims regarding reinstatement, respect and payment of acquired rights, and of an indemnity nature, must also be rejected, bearing in mind that the analysis of their viability would evidently only proceed after ruling on the nullity of the dismissal act; therefore, the filed lawsuit must be declared without merit in all its extremes. In accordance with the reasons expressed in the resolution that ordered it, it is ordered that the precautionary measure issued in this process be maintained, until the date on which this judgment becomes final." **SIXTH. UNFOUNDEDNESS OF THE ACTION:** In essence, the plaintiff claims a violation of the principle of job stability that protects her in her condition as a permanently appointed public official, and nullity of the administrative actions that led to her dismissal from her position for violating the principles of reasonableness and proportionality. The invoked constitutional guarantee cannot be separated from the precept from which it derives and which it seeks to strengthen, which is that of the proven suitability (idoneidad comprobada) of the public servant. And the fact is that numeral 192 of the Constitution, while it establishes said principle of stability or lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) of the public servant, does so after defining that only those who meet the prior requirement of entering public service by proven suitability may access such a condition. The reference statute establishes that: *“With the exceptions that this Constitution and the civil service statute determine, public servants shall be appointed on the basis of proven suitability and may only be removed for the causes of justified dismissal expressed by labor legislation, or in the case of forced reduction of services, either due to lack of funds or to achieve a better organization thereof”;* a principle that is undoubtedly linked to the creation of the Civil Service Regime (Régimen de Servicio Civil), provided for in article 191 of the same regulatory body, which states: *“A civil service statute shall regulate the relations between the State and public servants, for the purpose of guaranteeing the efficiency of the administration.”* This constitutional provision was materialized through the enactment of Title I of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto de Servicio Civil), Law No. 1581 of May 30, 1953, and its Regulations, Executive Decree No. 21 of December 14, 1954. Subsequently, Title II of the Statute was enacted, through Law No. 4565 of May 4, 1970 - Teaching Career Law –, which came to regulate matters relating to teaching staff covered by the Merit Regime. Article 20 of the Civil Service Statute provides, in what is relevant: *“To enter the Civil Service, it is required: a) Possess moral and physical aptitude suitable for the performance of the position, which shall be verified through information on life and customs and certifications issued by the Judicial Registry of Delinquents, the National Archive, the Investigation Office, and the respective Department of the Ministry of Health; (...) Satisfy the special minimum requirements established by the ‘Civil Service Job Descriptive Manual’ for the class of position in question; c) Demonstrate suitability by undergoing the tests, examinations, or competitions contemplated in this law and its regulations; d) Pass the probationary period;...”* As can be seen, the suitability criterion is paramount within the regulation of public employment, and it fulfills the dual purpose of allowing those interested in occupying a public position to compete under conditions of equality, thereby guaranteeing the right of access to public service enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and of ensuring that the most qualified persons are appointed to public positions to perform them, thereby seeking to fulfill the duty of efficiency in the actions of the Public Administration. The transcribed statutes also reveal that the determination and accreditation of such a condition of suitability permeates the entire duration of the employment relationship, although its manifestations are different depending on the corresponding stage. Thus, before occupying a position, one must meet the special minimum requirements that the position requires according to the determination established by the relevant Job Descriptive Manual; undergo tests and examinations, and enter through a public competition. On the other hand, when one has already been appointed, one must comply with a probationary period, where dismissal may occur if, through a reasoned act, it is determined that the sought parameters are not met. Once that probationary period is surpassed, the official acquires that right to stability, which materializes in the two basic guarantees that she may only be dismissed for the commission of a serious fault (falta grave) thus sanctioned, and that in the determination of the latter and the appropriate sanction, a procedure of guarantees in favor of the official must be respected. The Civil Service Statute, in its article 37, provides in subsection a) that public servants thus appointed may not be dismissed from their positions unless they incur a cause for dismissal, as established by the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), or due to forced reduction of services, either due to lack of funds or to achieve a better organization thereof, in accordance with the provisions of article 47 of that same regulatory body, while article 43 ibidem adds that they may only be removed from their positions if they incur in the causes determined by article 81 of the Labor Code and 41, subsection d), of that law, or in acts that imply a serious infraction of this Statute, its regulations, or the respective Internal Labor Regulations; that the classification of the gravity of faults shall be made in detail by the Regulations of the indicated law and the Internal Labor Regulations, and that any justified dismissal shall be understood as made without liability for the State and shall cause the servant to lose all the rights granted in said law. Thus, stability does not mean total immobility, or absolute impossibility of being terminated, just as it does not imply the cessation of maintaining one's suitability for the position. Here the figure of the Performance Evaluation (Evaluación del Desempeño), more modernly conceptualized as Performance Management (Gestión del Desempeño), comes into play, as a mechanism for quantitative and qualitative qualification of the work carried out by the public official within a given period, and as an element of linkage with the purposes and objectives it is called upon to fulfill. Based on the provisions of the cited statutes of the Civil Statute, in numerals 41 to 44 bis of the Regulations thereto, the theme of applying the Performance Evaluation or Management tools is regulated. In the first of those statutes, it is provided that the annual performance evaluation of servants shall be carried out in the first fortnight of the month of February of each year, for which reason the Evaluation Cycle is established from January 1st to December 31st of each year; that it shall be an assessment of the servant's performance in each of the institutional performance dimensions (dimensiones del desempeño) that influence their work in general; that the categories to be used for the annual evaluation of the servant shall be a maximum of five, in order to generate an adequate arithmetic progression that avoids a result of central or extreme tendency (Deficient, Regular, Good, Very Good, Excellent - or their equivalents); that given the need to carry out a specific evaluation akin to the prevailing institutional conditions, on the execution of the established organizational performance variables, as well as the indicators of their results, which must be related to the performance obtained by a servant, in addition to adapting to the institutional processes in which one intervenes, the Offices of Institutional Human Resources Management are authorized to develop particularized models and systems for evaluating the performance of collaborators adjusted to the circumstances and conditions present in their Institution's processes; that the General Directorate of Civil Service (Dirección General del Servicio Civil) must advise, review, and approve through a reasoned resolution the performance evaluation systems and models created or modified by the institutions covered by the scope of the Civil Service Statute and this Regulation, it being the case that the criteria it issues shall be binding for said Employment Regime; that the Offices of Institutional Human Resources Management must prepare, distribute, and timely train on the institutional performance evaluation model and system that operates, in addition to facilitating the pertinent material controlling its application; and that it shall be the responsibility of the respective Office of Institutional Human Resources Management to control compliance with and correct application of the Performance Evaluation Model and System that operates therein, independently of the Audits that the General Directorate of Civil Service may carry out when it deems it pertinent, whose criteria shall have binding effects on the Civil Service Regime. As regards this matter, subsection d) of article 43 of the indicated regulatory body provides that *“When the result of the servant's evaluation is Regular (or its equivalent) for two consecutive times, or if, prior to the relevant warnings or sanctions, the evaluation is only once Deficient (or its equivalent), the fact shall be considered a serious fault, in accordance with the provisions of article 43 of the Civil Service Statute.* In these cases, the respective evaluator or the Human Resources Office must inform the respective Minister, so that the consequent dismissal proceedings may be promoted.” In the case brought to the knowledge of this Court, the reason for the act is precisely the occurrence of the objective condition stipulated in the cited article, given that the initial act of the dismissal proceeding initiated by the Minister of Health describes as an attributable cause the concurrence of facts that could constitute serious fault, for the official having obtained two consecutive performance evaluations, (periods January to December 2014 and 2015) with a qualitative qualification of regular, given that her quantitative qualifications were 70.5 and 72 points respectively. Here it is essential to determine that the final results of each Performance Evaluation process constitute specific administrative acts, with their own effects, the product of an entire special evaluation procedure in which the affected subject intervenes with ample possibilities of participation, and with the right to appeal the qualifications obtained before they acquire the condition of a firm administrative act. The precision thus made is necessary because, whenever the dismissal act is based on article 43, subsection d) of the Regulations of the Civil Statute, the existence of such qualifications constitutes an objective fact that the plaintiff has not denied, and she has not requested the nullity of such acts in this proceeding. The foregoing acquires greater relevance insofar as in administrative proceedings the plaintiff also did not resort to the recourse mechanisms against the qualifications obtained in both periods, allowing both to become firm. In accordance with the cited statutory and regulatory statutes, the performance evaluation procedure for the plaintiff was that established in Resolution DG-157-2012 of the General Directorate of Civil Service, or in the Institutional Performance Management Model of the Ministry of Health, depending on the year in question. Both regulations are identical on the point of interest, given that in the final stage of the evaluation process, at the end of the interview provided for therein, the official must fill in the box of the corresponding form whether or not she agrees with the evaluation, and they provide that if the servant: *“…expresses disagreement with the performance resolution, she must request in writing an interview with the Superior of her immediate supervisor within three business days following the date on which her supervisor made known to her during the final interview the result of her performance qualification, and she will present in writing in that same note the observations she considers necessary on what was resolved with respect to it. In said observations, the collaborator must specify in which aspects and dimensions of performance she disagrees with the qualification assigned by her immediate supervisor, reasonably justifying them. In the event of the indication (sic) of disagreement with the assigned qualification, the supervisor must transfer to her hierarchical superior the performance management file of said collaborator along with the three forms, within the three business days following the conclusion of the interview, regardless of whether or not the collaborator presented in writing the official letter with the observations supporting the disagreement before the superior of the Boss.”* The resolution of that superior is conceived within that procedure as the final act, and against it the servant has available the recourse of *“APPEAL in writing before the Head (Jerarca) of the Institution within the following month from the date on which they received the original Form from the Human Progress Unit (if at the central level) or the Logistics and Administrative Support Unit (if at the regional or local level). / In the case of Nutrition at the regional and local level, through the Resource Management Unit of the Regional Directorate and at the central level, through the Human Resources Unit of that Resource Management Directorate of the National Directorate of CEN-CINAI. (...) Once the APPEAL is received in the Ministerial Office, the Head shall have one month to resolve and notify the resolution, for which they shall have, at most, the last day of the calendar month granted to execute the distribution of the notification. (…) If the collaborator persists in her disagreement with what was resolved by the Head, she may resort to the corresponding legal instances.”* In the list of proven facts, it was revealed that the plaintiff did not appeal the evaluations that served as support for the dismissal proceeding, and that, although she expressed disagreement with the communicated result, in none of the cases did she request an interview with the Superior, nor did she send any writing specifying the reasons for the disagreement, nor did she file an appeal against the final act issued by that person, on either occasion, and she has not even requested their nullity in this jurisdictional venue. The final results of both evaluation procedures are, ultimately, firm and definitive acts, consented to by the plaintiff, and in such condition, producers of legal effects, among them, the one provided for in subsection d) of article 43 of the Regulations of the Civil Service Statute in relation to the same numeral but of the indicated Statute, given that the quantitative qualification obtained in both procedures corresponds to the objective qualification of “Regular” in the applicable guides. Insofar as the competence of the Court is delimited by the pretensions of the parties, what has thus been explained would suffice to declare the annulment claims against the final and definitive resolutions of the sanctioning procedure without merit, given that no grounds different from the defect in the motive element are alleged, which, it is repeated, is of an objective nature, the existence of two qualifications with a qualitative result of “Regular,” and since these were not challenged, said objective element shall remain untouched. In any event, the plaintiff has also not proven that the ordered dismissal is violative of the constitutional principles of proportionality and reasonableness, or that they are unfounded and subjective, because, at the time of evaluating the performance of her daily tasks, her health history was not considered. In this regard, it is observed that when responding to the dismissal proceeding, the plaintiff alleged physical disability as a justification for the various calls for attention that first motivated her performance qualifications and that were later reiterated in the sanctioning procedure; and she provided in support of her claims a copy of the communication sent by the Subdirectorate of Health Benefits of the INS on January 21, 2011, where it indicated to the plaintiff's employer that it must adapt her functions in which she must not exert efforts or repetitive movements with the right shoulder, and an discharge summary (epicrisis) issued by that same Institute on June 16, 2011, where it sets for Mrs. [Name 002] a permanent disability with a three percent impediment due to muscle contracture affecting her right shoulder. However, neither in the administrative venue, nor in this jurisdictional process, has the plaintiff managed to directly link each of the non-compliances that were attributed to her with said disability, several of them accusing problems of disposition, of not using the uniform or hygiene devices, of non-compliance with calls for attention, and of lack of diligence in her work in general. She also did not allege said situation when the qualifications obtained in the performance evaluation procedures were communicated to her, given that, as previously stated, she did not initiate recourse actions against them, and did not even sustain reasons for disagreement before the Supervision of her evaluator, where she could have exposed such circumstances. Added to the above, and this was thus appreciated by the Civil Service Tribunal (Tribunal de Servicio Civil), the order for function readjustment was of old date, without it having been explained or demonstrated what was the iter that was provided by the parties, which did not form part of the evaluation process, which was not invoked in a timely manner, and therefore, was alien to the discussion of interest. Lastly, the reproach of absence of criteria of reasonableness and proportionality cannot be admitted either, given that we are dealing with a regulated matter, it being the case that numerals 43 of both the Statute and the Regulations of Civil Service establish as a serious fault the occurrence of two performance evaluations with a qualitative result of regular. By reason of all the foregoing, the deduced annulment claims must be rejected, and as a result thereof, all other claims regarding reinstatement, respect for and payment of acquired rights, and of an indemnity nature, considering that evidently the analysis of their viability would only proceed after ruling the nullity of the dismissal act; therefore, the filed lawsuit must be declared without merit in all its aspects. In light of the reasons expressed in the resolution that ordered it, it is resolved to maintain the precautionary measure issued in this process, until the date this judgment becomes firm." In these cases, the respective evaluator or the Human Resources Office must inform the respective Minister, so that the consequent dismissal proceedings are initiated.” In the case brought to the attention of this Tribunal, the reason for the act is precisely the occurrence of the objective condition stipulated in the cited article, given that the initial act of the dismissal proceeding signed by the Minister of Health describes as attributable cause the concurrence of facts that could constitute serious misconduct, because the official obtained two consecutive performance evaluations (periods January to December 2014 and 2015) with a qualitative rating of regular, given that her quantitative ratings were 70.5 and 72 points respectively. Here it is essential to determine that the final results of each Performance Evaluation process constitute specific administrative acts, with their own effects, the product of an entire special evaluation procedure in which the affected subject intervenes with broad possibilities of participation, and with the right to appeal the ratings obtained before they acquire the status of a final administrative act. The precision thus made is necessary because, since the dismissal act is based on article 43 subsection d) of the Reglamento del Estatuto Civil, the existence of such ratings constitutes an objective fact that the plaintiff has not denied, and she has not requested in this venue the annulment of such acts. The foregoing becomes more relevant insofar as, in the administrative venue, the plaintiff also did not resort to the appellate channels against the ratings obtained in both periods, allowing both to become final. In accordance with the statutory and regulatory norms cited, the performance evaluation procedure for the plaintiff was the one established in Resolution DG-157-2012 of the Dirección General del Servicio Civil, or in the Institutional Performance Management Model of the Ministry of Health, depending on the year in question. Both regulations are identical on the point of interest, given that in the final stage of the evaluation process, upon concluding the interview provided for therein, the official must fill in the corresponding form field whether or not they agree with the evaluation, and they provide that if the servant: “…expresses disagreement with the performance resolution, they must request in writing an interview with the Superior of their immediate supervisor within three working days following the date on which their supervisor informed them during the final interview of the result of their performance rating, and they will present to them in writing in that same communication the observations they consider necessary regarding what was resolved with respect to the same. In said observations, the collaborator must specify in which aspects and dimensions of performance they disagree with the rating assigned by their immediate supervisor, justifying them reasonably. In the face of the indication of disagreement with the assigned rating, the supervisor must transfer to their hierarchical superior the performance management file of said collaborator together with the three forms, within three working days following the conclusion of the interview, regardless of whether the collaborator presented or not in writing the communication with the observations supporting the disagreement before the supervisor's superior.” The resolution of that superior is conceived within that procedure as the final act, and against it the servant has the recourse of “WRITTEN APPEAL before the Head of the Institution within the following month from the date on which they received the original Form from the Human Progress Unit (if at the central level) or from the Logistical and Administrative Support Unit (if at the regional or local level). / In the case of Nutrition at the regional and local level, through the Resource Management Unit of the Regional Directorate and at the central level, from the Human Resources Unit of that Resource Management Directorate of the National Directorate of CEN-CINAI. (...) Once the APPEAL is received in the Ministerial Office, the Head will have one month to resolve and notify what is resolved, for which they will have, at most, the last day of the calendar month granted to execute the distribution of the notification. (…) If the collaborator persists in their disagreement with what was resolved by the Head, they may resort to the corresponding legal instances.” In the list of proven facts it was revealed that the plaintiff did not appeal the evaluations that served as support for the dismissal proceeding, and that, although she expressed disagreement with the communicated result, in neither case did she request an interview with the Superior, nor did she address any writing specifying the reasons for the disagreement, nor did she file an appeal against the final act issued by said superior, on any of the occasions, and not even in this jurisdictional venue has she requested their annulment. The final results of both evaluation procedures are, in short, final and definitive acts, consented to by the plaintiff, and in such condition, producing legal effects, among them, the one provided for in subsection d) of article 43 of the Reglamento del Estatuto del Servicio Civil in relation to the same numeral but of the indicated Estatuto, given that the quantitative rating obtained in both procedures corresponds to the objective rating of “Regular” in the applicable guides. Insofar as the competence of the Tribunal is delimited by the claims of the parties, what is thus explained would be sufficient to declare unfounded the annulment claims against the final and definitive resolutions of the sanctioning procedure, since no grounds are alleged other than the defect in the motive element, which, it is repeated, is of an objective nature, the existence of two ratings with a qualitative result of “Regular,” and since these are not challenged, said objective element will remain untouched. In any case, the plaintiff has also not proven that the ordered dismissal is in violation of the constitutional principles of proportionality and reasonableness, or that they are unfounded and subjective, because at the time of rating the performance of her daily tasks, her health history was not considered. In this regard, it is observed that upon responding to the dismissal proceeding, the plaintiff alleged physical incapacity as justification for the various calls for attention that first motivated her performance ratings and that were later reiterated in the sanctioning procedure; and she provided in support of her claims a copy of the communication addressed by the Subdirectorate of Health Benefits of the INS on January 21, 2011, where it indicated to the plaintiff's employer that her functions should be adapted in which she must not perform efforts or repetitive movements with the right shoulder, and a discharge summary issued by that same Institute on June 16, 2011, where it assigns Mrs. [Nombre 002] permanent disability with a three percent impediment for muscular contracture affecting her right shoulder. However, neither in the administrative venue, nor in this jurisdictional process, has the plaintiff managed to directly link each of the non-compliances attributed to her with said disability, given that several of them accuse problems of attitude, of not using the uniform or hygiene devices, of non-compliance with the calls for attention, and of lack of diligence in her work in general. She also did not allege said situation when the ratings obtained in the performance evaluation procedures were communicated to her, given that, as previously stated, she did not initiate any appellate activity against them, and did not even state reasons for disagreement before the supervisor of her evaluator, where she could have set forth such circumstances. In addition to the foregoing, and this was thus assessed by the Tribunal de Servicio Civil, the order for readjustment of functions was dated, without it having been explained or demonstrated what process was provided for it by the parties, it was not part of the evaluation process, it was not invoked in a timely manner, and therefore, it was extraneous to the discussion of interest. Finally, the reproach of absence of criteria of reasonableness and proportionality cannot be admitted either, given that we are in the presence of regulated matter, since numerals 43 of both the Estatuto and the Reglamento de Servicio Civil establish as serious misconduct the concurrence of two performance evaluations with a qualitative result of regular. By reason of all the foregoing, the annulment claims brought must be rejected, and as a result thereof, all the other claims regarding reinstatement, respect for and payment of acquired rights, and of an indemnity nature, given that evidently the analysis of their viability would only proceed after declaring the nullity of the dismissal act; therefore, the lawsuit filed must be declared unfounded in all its aspects. Attending to the reasons expressed in the resolution that ordered it, it is ordered to maintain the precautionary measure issued in this process until the date on which this judgment becomes final."

"SEXTO. IMPROCEDENCIA DE LA ACCIÓN: En esencia, reclama la actora violación del principio de estabilidad laboral que le asiste en su condición de funcionaria pública nombrada en propiedad, y nulidad de las actuaciones administrativas que derivaron en su despido del cargo por conculcarse los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad. La garantía constitucional invocada no puede escindirse del precepto del cual deriva y que pretende fortalecer, que es el de idoneidad comprobada del servidor público. Y es que el numeral 192 de la Carta Magna si bien estatuye dicho principio de estabilidad o inmovilidad laboral del servidor público, lo hace luego de definir que sólo podrán acceder a tal condición quienes cumplan con el requerimiento previo de ingreso a la función pública por idoneidad comprobada. Establece la norma de referencia que: “Con las excepciones que esta Constitución y el estatuto de servicio civil determine, los servidores públicos serán nombrados a base de idoneidad comprobada y só lo podrá n ser removidos por las causales de despido justificado que exprese la legislación de trabajo, o en el caso de reducción forzosa de servicios, ya sea por falta de fondos o para conseguir una mejor organización de los mismos ”; principio que est á indudablemente vinculado a la creación del Régimen de Servicio Civil, prevista en el artículo 191 del mismo cuerpo normativo, el cual señala: “Un estatuto de servicio civil regulará las relaciones entre el Estado y los servidores públicos, con el propósito de garantizar la eficiencia de la administración”. Esta disposición constitucional se materializó a través de la promulgación del Título I del Estatuto de Servicio Civil, Ley Nº 1581 del 30 de mayo de 1953, y su Reglamento, Decreto Ejecutivo Nº 21 del 14 de diciembre de 1954. Posteriormente se promulgó el Título II del Estatuto, mediante Ley Nº 4565 del 4 de mayo de 1970 - Ley de Carrera Docente –, que vino a regular lo relativo al personal docente cubierto por el Régimen de Méritos. El artículo 20 del Estatuto de Servicio Civil dispone, en lo que interesa: “Para ingresar al Servicio Civil, se requiere: a) Poseer aptitud moral y física propias para el desempeño del cargo, lo que se comprobará mediante información de vida y costumbres y certificaciones emanadas del Registro Judicial de Delincuentes, del Archivo Nacional, del Gabinete de Investigació n y del Departamento respectivo del Ministerio de Salud; (...) Satisfacer los requisitos mínimos especiales que establezca el “Manual Descriptivo de Empleos del Servicio Civil” para la clase de puesto de que se trate; c) Demostrar idoneidad sometiéndose a las pruebas, exámenes o concursos que contemplan esta ley y sus reglamentos; d) Pasar el perí odo de prueba;...” Como puede verse, el criterio de idoneidad es capital dentro de la regulación del empleo público, y cumple con el doble propósito de permitir a los interesados en ocupar un puesto público competir en condiciones de igualdad, con lo cual se garantiza el derecho de acceso a la funci ón pública consagrado en la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos; y de que se nombre en los puestos públicos a las personas más aptas para desempeñarlos, con lo cual se busca cumplir con el deber de eficiencia en la actuación de la Administración Pública. También revelan las normas transcritas que la determinación y acreditación de tal condición de idoneidad permea todo el plazo que se mantenga vigente la relación laboral, aunque sean diferentes sus manifestaciones según la etapa correspondiente. Así, antes de ocupar un cargo, deberá cumplir los requisitos mínimos especiales que el puesto requiera según la determinación que establezca el Manual Descriptivo de Puestos atinente; someterse a pruebas y exámenes, e ingresar por medio de concurso público. Por otra parte, cuando ya ha sido nombrado, deberá cumplir con un período de prueba, donde podrá ser despedido si por acto razonado se determina que no satisface los parámetros buscados. Superado ese período de prueba, el funcionario adquiere ese derecho de estabilidad, que se concreta en las dos garantías básicas de que sólo podrá ser despedido por comisión de una falta grave así sancionada, y que en la determinación de esta última y de la sanción procedente, deberá respetarse un procedimiento de garantías en favor del funcionario. El Estatuto de Servicio Civil, en su artículo 37 dispone en su inciso a) que los servidores públicos así nombrados no podrán ser despedidos de sus cargos a menos que incurran en causal de despido, según lo establece el Código de Trabajo, o por reducción forzosa de servicios, ya sea por falta de fondos o para conseguir una mejor organización de los mismos, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo 47 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, mientras que el artículo 43 ibídem agrega que sólo podrán ser removidos de sus puestos si incurrieren en las causales que determina el artículo 81 del Código de Trabajo y 41, inciso d), de esa ley, o en actos que impliquen infracci ón grave del presente Estatuto, de sus reglamentos, o de los Reglamentos Interiores de Trabajo respectivos; que la calificación de la gravedad de las faltas la hará en detalle del Reglamento de la indicada ley y los Reglamentos Interiores de Trabajo y que todo despido justificado se entenderá hecho sin responsabilidad para el Estado y hará perder al servidor todos los derechos concedidos en dicha ley. Así, la estabilidad no significa inamovilidad total, o imposibilidad absoluta de ser cesado, de la misma manera que tampoco implica el cese de mantener su idoneidad para el cargo. Aquí entra en juego la figura de la Evaluación del Desempeño, más modernamente conceptualizada como Gestión del Desempeño, como mecanismo de calificación cuantitativa y cualitativa de la labor desplegada por el funcionario público dentro de determinado período, y como elemento de vinculación con los fines y objetivos que está llamado a cumplir. Con base en lo dispuesto en las normas citadas del Estatuto Civil, en los numerales 41 a 44 bis del Reglamento al mismo, se regula el tema de la aplicación de las herramientas de Evaluación o Gestión del Desempeño. En la primera de esas normas se dispone que la evaluación anual del desempeño de los servidores se efectuará en la primera quincena del mes de febrero de cada año, por lo que el Ciclo de Evaluación se establece del 01 de enero al 31 de diciembre de cada año; que será una valoración del rendimiento del servidor en cada una de las dimensiones del desempeño institucionales que influyen en su trabajo en general ; que las categor ías que se utilizar án para la evaluaci ón anual del servidor serán m áximo cinco, a efecto de generar una adecuada progresión aritmética que evite el resultado de tendencia central o extrema (Deficiente, Regular, Bueno, Muy Bueno, Excelente - o sus equivalentes); que dada la necesidad de realizar una evaluación específica y afín a las condiciones institucionales prevalecientes, sobre la ejecutoria de las variables de desempeño organizacionales establecidas, así como las indicadores de sus resultados, que han de relacionarse con el rendimiento obtenido por una o un servidor, además de adecuarse a los procesos institucionales en que se interviene, se autoriza a las Oficinas de Gestión Institucional de Recursos Humanos a desarrollar modelos y sistemas particularizados de evaluación del desempeño de colaboradores ajustados a las circunstancias y condiciones presentes en los procesos de su Institución; que la Dirección General de Servicio Civil, deberá asesorar, revisar y aprobar mediante resolución razonada los sistemas y modelos de evaluación del desempeño creados o modificados por las instituciones cubiertas por el ámbito del Estatuto de Servicio Civil y este Reglamento, siendo que los criterios que emita serán vinculantes para dicho Régimen de Empleo; que las Oficinas de Gestió n Institucional de Recursos Humanos deberán preparar, distribuir y capacitar oportunamente sobre el modelo y sistema de evaluación del desempeño institucional que opere, además de facilitar el material pertinente controlando su aplicación; y que le corresponderá a la Oficina de Gestión Institucional de Recursos Humanos respectiva, controlar el cumplimiento y correcta aplicación del Modelo y Sistema de Evaluación del Desempeño que en ella opere, independientemente de las Auditorías que pueda realizar la Dirección General de Servicio Civil cuando así lo considere pertinente, cuyos criterios tendrán efectos vinculantes en el Régimen de Servicio Civil. En lo que atañe a este asunto, el inciso d) del artículo 43 del indicado cuerpo normativo dispone que “ Cuando el resultado de la evaluación del servidor fuere Regular (o su equivalente) por dos veces consecutivas, o si previas las advertencias o sanciones del caso, la evaluació n fuere por solo una vez de Deficiente (o su equivalente), se considerará el hecho como falta grave, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 43, del Estatuto de Servicio Civil. En estos casos el evaluador respectivo o la Oficina de Recursos Humanos, deberán informar al respectivo Ministro, con el fin de que se promuevan las consiguientes diligencias de despido.” En el caso traído a conocimiento de este Tribunal, el motivo del acto es precisamente el acaecimiento de la condición objetiva estipulada en el artículo citado, dado que el acto inicial de la gestión de despido suscrita por el Ministro de Salud describe como causa imputable la concurrencia de hechos que podrían configurar falta grave, por haber obtenido la funcionaria dos evaluaciones del desempeño consecutivas, (períodos enero a diciembre de 2014 y de 2015) con una calificación cualitativa de regular, dado que sus calificaciones cuantitativas fueron de 70.5 y 72 puntos respectivamente. Aquí se hace indispensable determinar que los resultados finales de cada proceso de Evaluación del Desempeño, constituyen actos administrativos concretos, con efectos propios, producto de todo un procedimiento especial de evaluación en el que interviene el sujeto afectado con amplias posibilidades de participación, y con derecho de recurrir las calificaciones obtenidas antes de que estas adquieran la condición de acto administrativo firme. La precisión así hecha es necesaria por cuanto, toda vez que el acto de despido está fundado en el artículo 43 inciso d) del Reglamento del Estatuto Civil, la existencia de tales calificaciones constituye un hecho objetivo que no ha negado la actora, y esta no ha pedido en esta vía la nulidad de tales actos. Lo anterior adquiere mayor relevancia en el tanto en sede administrativa la actora tampoco acudió a las vías recursivas contra las calificaciones obtenidas en ambos períodos, dejando que ambos adquieran firmeza. A tenor con las normas estatutarias y reglamentarias citadas, el procedimiento de evaluación del desempeño de la actora era el establecido en la Resolución DG-157-2012 de la Direcci ón General del Servicio Civil, o en el Modelo Institucional de Gestión del Desempeño del Ministerio de Salud, según el año que se trate. Ambas regulaciones son idénticas en el punto que interesa, dado que en la etapa final del proceso de evaluación, al terminar la entrevista allí prevista, el funcionario debe llenar en la casilla del formulario correspondiente si está conforme o no con la evaluación, y disponen que si el servidor: “…manifiesta disconformidad con la resolución del desempeño, debe solicitar por escrito una entrevista con el Superior de su jefatura inmediata dentro de los tres dí as há biles siguientes a la fecha en que su jefatura le dé a conocer durante la entrevista final el resultado de su calificación del desempeño, y le presentará por escrito en esa misma nota las observaciones que considera necesarias sobre lo resuelto con respecto a la misma. En dichas observaciones, el colaborador(a) debe especificar en qué aspectos y dimensiones del desempeño está en desacuerdo en la calificación asignada por su jefatura inmediata justificándolas razonablemente. Ante la señalación (sic) de disconformidad por la calificación asignada, la jefatura debe trasladar a su superior jerárquico el expediente de gestión del desempe ño de dicho colaborador junto con los tres formularios, dentro de los tres días hábiles siguientes a la finalización de la entrevista independientemente si el colaborador presentó o no por escrito el oficio con las observaciones que sustentan la disconformidad ante el superior del Jefe.” La resoluci ón de ese superior es concebida dentro de ese procedimiento como acto final, y contra ella el servidor o la servidora disponen del recurso de “ APELACIÓ N por escrito ante el Jerarca de la Institución dentro del mes siguiente a partir de la fecha en que recibió el Formulario original por parte de la Unidad de Progreso Humano (si es de nivel central) o de la Unidad de Apoyo Logístico y Administrativo (si es de nivel regional o local). / En el caso de Nutrición a nivel regional y local, por medio de la Unidad de Gestió n de Recursos de la Dirección Regional y en el nivel central, de la Unidad de Recursos Humanos de esa Dirección de Gestión de Recursos de la Dirección Nacional de CEN-CINAI. (...) Una vez recibida la APELACIÓN en el Despacho Ministerial, el Jerarca dispondrá de un mes para resolver y notificar lo resuelto, para lo cual contará como máximo, el último día del mes calendario otorgado para ejecutar la distribució n de la notificación. (…) Si el colaborador persistiere en su disconformidad con lo resuelto por el Jerarca, puede acudir ante las instancias legales correspondientes.” En el elenco de hechos probados se reveló que la actora no recurrió las evaluaciones que sirvieron de sustento a la gestión de despido, y que, aunque manifestó disconformidad con el resultado comunicado, en ninguno de los casos solicitó entrevista con el Superior, ni le dirigió escrito alguno especificando los motivos de la inconformidad, ni tampoco presentó recurso de apelación en contra del acto final dictado por aquel, en ninguna de las ocasiones, y ni siquiera en esta sede jurisdiccional ha pedido la nulidad de ellas. Los resultados finales de ambos procedimientos de evaluación son, en definitiva, actos firmes y definitivos, consentidos por la actora, y en tal condición, productores de efectos jurídicos, entre ellos, el previsto en el inciso d) del artículo 43 del Reglamento del Estatuto del Servicio Civil en relación con el mismo numeral pero del Estatuto indicado, dado que, la calificación cuantitativa obtenida en ambos procedimientos, corresponden a la calificación objetiva de “Regular” en las guías aplicables. En el tanto que la competencia del Tribunal está delimitada por las pretensiones de las partes, lo as í explicado bastar ía para declarar sin lugar las pretensiones anulatorias contra las resoluciones final y definitiva del procedimiento sancionatorio, toda vez que no se alegan causales diferentes al vicio en el elemento motivo, el cual se repite, es de carácter objetivo, la existencia de dos calificaciones con resultado cualitativo “Regular”, y que al no impugnarse éstas, dicho elemento objetivo se mantendrá incólume. De todas maneras, tampoco ha acreditado la actora que el despido ordenado sea violatorio de los principios constitucionales de proporcionalidad y razonabilidad, o que sean infundados y subjetivos, por cuanto a la hora de calificar el desempeño de sus labores diarias, no se consideraron sus antecedentes de salud. Al respecto se aprecia que al contestar la gestión de despido la actora adujo incapacidad física como justificante de las diversas llamadas de atención que motivaron primero sus calificaciones de desempeño y que luego fueron reiteradas en el procedimiento sancionatorio; y aportó en respaldo de sus afirmaciones una copia de la comunicación dirigida por la Subdirección de Prestaciones Sanitarias del INS el 21 de enero de 2011, donde le indicaba al patrono de la actora que debía adecuar sus funciones en las cuales no debe realizar esfuerzos ni movimientos repetitivos con el hombro derecho, y epicrisis emitida por ese mismo Instituto el 16 de junio de 2011 donde le fija a la señora [Nombre 002] incapacidad permanente con impedimento del tres por ciento por contractura muscular que afecta su hombro derecho. Sin embargo, ni en sede administrativa, ni en este proceso jurisdiccional, la actora ha logrado vincular directamente cada uno de los incumplimientos que se le imputaron con dicha incapacidad, siendo que varios de ellos acusan problemas de disposición, de no uso de uniforme o de dispositivos de higiene, de no acatamiento a las llamadas de atención, y de falta de diligencia en su trabajo en general. Tampoco adujo dicha situación al comunicársele las calificaciones obtenidas en los procedimientos de evaluación del desempeño, siendo que, como se dijo previo, no entabló actividad recursiva contra ellas, y ni siquiera sostuvo razones de inconformidad ante la Jefatura de su evaluadora, donde pudo haber expuesto tales circunstancias. Aunado a lo anterior, y esto fue así apreciado por el Tribunal de Servicio Civil, la orden de readecuación de funciones era de vieja data, sin que se hubiese explicado ni demostrado cuál fue el íter que se le brindó por las partes, que no formó parte del proceso de evaluación, que no fue invocada oportunamente, y por ende, resultaba ajena a la discusión que interesaba. Por último, tampoco puede admitirse el reproche de ausencia de criterios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, dado que estamos ante materia reglada, siendo que los numerales 43 tanto del Estatuto como del Reglamento de Servicio Civil fijan como falta grave la concurrencia de dos evaluaciones del desempe ño con resultado cualitativo de regular. En razón de todo lo anterior, deben rechazarse las pretensiones anulatorias deducidas, y producto de ello, todas las dem ás pretensiones respecto de reinstalación, de respeto y pago de derechos adquiridos, y de carácter indemnizatorio, habida cuenta que evidentemente el análisis de su viabilidad solo procedería luego de dictaminar la nulidad del acto de despido; por lo que debe declararse sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda interpuesta. Atendiendo las razones expresadas en la resolución que la ordenó, se dispone mantener la medida cautelar dictada en este proceso, hasta la fecha en que esta sentencia adquiera firmeza".