Congruence in disciplinary proceedings: duty of advice of contracting chief regarding misuse of unforeseeability procedureCongruencia en procedimiento disciplinario: deber de asesoría de jefe de contrataciones ante uso indebido de procedimiento por imprevisibilidad

"VII.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE SUBMITTED FOR THE TRIBUNAL'S ASSESSMENT [...]

• ii)Incongruence between the charges notified and the final decision: regarding this, the plaintiff alleged that in the statement of charges (traslado de cargos), he was charged with potential administrative liability for allegedly having allowed the Board of the Cañuela de Naranjo School to process and carry out a procurement under the exception of Article 131, subsection k) of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, as well as an addendum to that procurement, because it was presumed that said purchase did not result from a situation of unforeseeability (imprevisibilidad). However, he stated, despite his non-participation in the procurement carried out by the Board being proven, he was sanctioned, which seriously affects the consistency (congruencia) that must exist between the charges imputed and notified (intimado), the evidence presented, and the final decision.

> Tribunal's Opinion: to elucidate this point, it is necessary to examine what the deciding body notified (intimó) the employee in the initial order and what it ultimately decided in the final act, in order to clarify whether the alleged incongruence actually existed. Therefore, as reviewed by this Tribunal in proven fact number 11) of this judgment, in the initial resolution of the statement of charges (traslado de cargos), issued at 1:00 p.m. on August 11, 2014, Mr. Mathews Soto was charged with the following: “(…) you are notified (intima) of a possible administrative liability for allegedly having allowed the Board of the La Cañuela de Naranjo School to process and carry out a procurement (…) for the construction of two classrooms, reconstruction of one classroom, and repair of the covered walkway roof (…); and an addendum for the construction of a dining hall, restroom facilities, and a ramp for the disabled with the roof structure (…), under the exception of Article 131, subsection k) of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, as it is presumed that said purchase did not result from a situation of unforeseeability (imprevisibilidad) (…). Therefore, with his alleged act of allowing the supposed misuse of the exception in subsection k) of numeral 131 of the mentioned Reglamento, he may have prevented the application of the controls and requirements that should have been implemented to meet the needs arising at the Escuela de la Cañuela. Thus, according to Article 110, subsection a) of the Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, n.° 8131, it is a cause for administrative liability for anyone who promotes the acquisition of goods, works, and services, disregarding any of the procurement procedures established by the legal system (…), therefore, with the apparent breach of his (sic) duty of oversight (deber de vigilancia), understood as ensuring that (sic) all actions of said department and its officials comply with the applicable regulations in each case, he may have violated the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), established in Article 11 of the LGAP and Article 11 of the Constitución Política. Similarly, Article 3 of the Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, n.° 8422, establishes the duty of probity (deber de probidad), by which the public official is obliged to orient his management towards the satisfaction of the public interest, and must administer public resources in accordance with the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), so that in a similar sense, a violation of the duty of probity (deber de probidad) could also exist. Therefore, if it were determined that Mr. Irving Mathews Soto is responsible for facts 1 through 23 above, he could be subject to one of the sanctions provided in Article 113 of the Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, n.° 8131, which range from a written reprimand to dismissal from the position without employer liability, in addition to the sanction provided in Article 4 of the Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, n.° 8422, which consists of separation from public office without employer liability, as well as the sanctions contemplated in Article 39 of that same legal body, which range from a written reprimand published in the official gazette La Gaceta to separation from public office without employer liability (…)”. [highlighting in bold is ours]. For its part, as transcribed in proven fact number 22) of this ruling, in final resolution number 16078-2015 (DJ-2055) at 8:00 a.m. on November 4, 2015, the deciding body ruled as follows: “(…) it was proven that Mr. Irving Mathews Soto, in his capacity as Head of the Procurement Department (Departamento de Contrataciones) of the DIEE, on August 21, 2009, was instructed to carry out the legal review of the file sent to him by the Execution and Control Department (Departamento de Ejecución y Control), related to the Cañuela School project (…), in said communication it was indicated that this was the transfer of the file for the Procurement Project according to unforeseeability (imprevisibilidad), which contained the following information (…) and legal and technical advisory from the DIEE in the development of the project; the contractor's offer; technical review of the offer; procurement order to be signed between the contractor and the Board. Likewise, within the administrative file of this proceeding is minute (acta) n.° 178 of the Board of the Escuela de la Cañuela, in which they expressly indicated: '(...) we request that the Dirección de Infraestructura y Equipamiento Educativo provide us with legal and technical advisory in all its phases, to execute the educational infrastructure project consisting of the reconstruction of two classrooms and repair of one classroom. Specifically, in the administrative procurement process for an unforeseeable (imprevisible) situation (...)', (highlighting corresponds to the original), (visible on pages 0055 and 0056 of the administrative file), a document received by the department in charge of Mr. Mathews Soto. Furthermore, it was proven that on September 10, 2009, Lic. Irving Mathews Soto sent Ing. William Enrique Sáenz Campos, Head of the Execution and Control Department, the works contract signed between Mr. Dixon López Vargas and the Junta de Educación Escuela Cañuela, indicating that the established legal requirements for the purpose had been met; (…). / Given that, at the time Mr. Mathews Soto was requested to carry out a legal review of the administrative file that had been created for the Escuela la Cañuela project, and he knew the content of said file and the goal sought by the project, in fulfilling that advisory function granted to the Department under his charge towards the Boards (…), he should have warned or suggested some type of solution or action to both the Junta de Educación of that educational center and the Execution and Control Department, upon observing that the procedure being used - unforeseeability (imprevisibilidad) according to the exception in Article 131, subsection k) of the Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa - to meet the need for the construction of two classrooms, remodeling of an existing classroom, and repair of the covered walkway, was not appropriate (…). / Thus, in the case at hand, for the infrastructure construction required by the Escuela de la Cañuela de Naranjo, the applicable regulation was that established in Article 137 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, which authorizes Juntas de Educación, as well as Juntas Administrativas, to conduct direct competitive procurement procedures for the construction and maintenance of educational infrastructure (…) therefore, from the legal review requested of Mr. Irving Mathews Soto of the procurement file for unforeseeability (imprevisibilidad) of the Escuela la Cañuela, he, far from alerting and suggesting to the Junta de Educación as well as to the Execution and Control Department of the DIEE some type of corrective action to amend the incorrect selection of the type of procedure intended to be carried out, in fulfilling the legal and technical advisory function held by the Department under his charge, omitted making said warnings, therefore with his actions he made it impossible to better satisfy the public interest sought to be met with the initiated procedure and also allowed the procurement procedure used by the Junta de Educación not to meet the legal requirements and not to conform in the best way to the fulfillment of the public interest (…). / So, as proven, as well as, the functions entrusted to the Procurement Department of the DIEE according to Article 83 of Decreto Ejecutivo n.° 34075 and the legal assumptions for an addendum to proceed, with the procurement area being the unit in charge of providing legal advisory in administrative procurement matters, at the moment Mr. Mathews Soto was made aware, by the Execution and Control Department, of the Junta de Educación de la Escuela Cañuela's intention to carry out an addendum to the unforeseeability procurement (contratación de imprevisibilidad) n.° 01-2009, which had been signed with contractor Dixon López, with the express indication that the addendum should be processed but its execution was subject to the criteria of the Procurement Department, given that the addendum exceeded the original contract amount by 50%, according to Mr. Mathews Soto's powers as head of the Procurement Department, in fulfilling that legal and technical advisory function that the Department under his charge must provide to the Boards, he should have warned or suggested some type of solution or action to both the Junta de Educación of that educational center and the Execution and Control Department, that the addendum to the unforeseeability procurement n.° 01-2009 (…) was not appropriate, because to carry out a contract expansion or modification it is necessary to fulfill a series of assumptions indicated in Article 200 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa (…). / Therefore, according to the cited article, in this specific case, firstly, it was not viable to execute an addendum to a contract resulting from a procedure that was not the appropriate one, given that furthermore, the nature and causes giving rise to that new addendum did not correspond to the purpose that originated the unforeseeability procurement n.° 01-2009 at Escuela la Cañuela, and secondly, because the addendum exceeded the original contract amount by more than 50%, a modification to the unforeseeability procurement n.° 01-2009 could not be admissible, unless authorization had been requested from the Contraloría General de la República (…). / The offenses committed by Mr. Mathews Soto are aggravated by the hierarchical condition of the investigated party, as according to Article 213 of the Ley General de Administración Pública, the greater the hierarchy of the official and the more technical his functions, the greater is his duty to know and appreciate them properly, and to observe at all times the principle of legality (principio de legalidad) in the functions performed, in this case as Head of the Procurement Department, that is, the advisory (legal and technical) should have been correctly given to the Board and the Execution and Control Department, warning that the procedures or actions - procurement under the exception of Article 131, subsection k) and addendum to that procurement - that they wished to carry out were not appropriate under the legal system, because in the exercise of his functions that corresponded to him, he had to ensure that the procedures requested of him complied with the legal system, so that the decisions finally adopted by the Junta de Educación de la Escuela la Cañuela fulfilled the purpose of sound and correct administration of public resources in accordance with the principles of legality (legalidad), efficiency (eficacia), economy (economía), and effectiveness (eficiencia), for the good management of public funds and the satisfaction of the public interest in the most correct manner. Based on the foregoing, Mr. Irving Mathews Soto, through his actions, incurred the offense stipulated in Article 3 of the Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública (…) because as a public official he is obliged to orient his management towards the satisfaction of the public interest, and thus it was his duty to provide advisory in accordance with the applicable legal system in this specific case for the satisfaction of the public interest - understood as good advisory that allows the Juntas de Educación to make correct decisions and actions in the use of public funds. Therefore, this Deciding Body recommends, in accordance with the principle of reasonableness and proportionality (principio de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad), and the sanctions established in numeral 39 of the Ley de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, to impose on the investigated party the sanction of a written reprimand published in the official gazette La Gaceta, as stipulated in subsection a) of numeral 39 of said legal body, for breaching the duty of probity (deber de probidad) in the exercise of his basic legal duties, primarily advisory, in his condition as Head of the Procurement Department of the DIEE, as indicated by this Deciding Body herein, whose application is recommended with binding effect [...]".

In that same vein, <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold;">section 3 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office (Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública), No. 8422</span>, establishes the duty of probity (deber de probidad), whereby the public official is obliged to orient their management toward the satisfaction of the public interest, and must administer public resources in accordance with the principle of legality, such that a violation of the duty of probity could also be occurring. Therefore, if it were to be determined that Mr. Irving Mathews Soto is responsible for facts 1 through 23 above, <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold;">he could be subject to any of the sanctions set forth in Article 113 of the Law on Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos), No. 8131, which range from a written reprimand to dismissal without employer liability, in addition to the sanction provided in Article 4 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office, No. 8422, consisting of separation from public office without employer liability, as well as the sanctions contemplated in section 39 of that same regulatory body, which range from a written reprimand published in the official gazette La Gaceta, to separation from public office without employer liability</span> (...).” [the bold emphasis is our own]. For its part, as transcribed in proven fact number 22) of this ruling, in final resolution number 16078-2015 (DJ-2055) of 08:00 hours on November 4, 2015, the decision-making body ruled as follows: “(...) <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold;">it was accredited that Mr. Irving Mathews Soto, in his capacity as Head of the DIEE Contracting Department, was informed on August 21, 2009, to carry out the legal review of the file sent to him by the Execution and Control Department, related to the Cañuela School project (...). In said communication, he was informed that it concerned the transfer of the project contracting file based on unforeseeability (imprevisibilidad),</span> which contained the following information (...) on legal and technical advisory services from DIEE in the development of the project; the builder's offer; technical review of the offer; a contracting order to be signed between the builder and the School Board. Likewise, within the administrative file of the present proceeding, there is minute No. 178 of the Cañuela School Board, in which they expressly stated: <span style="font-style: italic;">"(...) we request the Directorate of Educational Infrastructure and Equipment to provide us with legal and technical advisory services in all its phases, to execute the educational infrastructure project consisting of <span style="text-decoration: underline;">reconstruction of two classrooms and repair of one classroom</span>. Specifically, in the administrative contracting process due to <span style="text-decoration: underline;">an unforeseeable situation (situación imprevisible)</span> (...)."</span> (the highlighting corresponds to the original), (visible on pages 0055 and 0056 of the administrative file), a document received by the department under Mr. Mathews Soto's charge. <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold;">Furthermore, it was established that on September 10, 2009, Lic. Irving Mathews Soto sent to Eng. William Enrique Sáenz Campos, Head of the Execution and Control Department, the works contract signed between Mr. Dixon López Vargas and the Cañuela School Board, <span style="text-decoration: underline;">indicating that the legal requirements established for that purpose had been fulfilled</span></span>; (...). / Given that, when Mr. Mathews Soto was requested to carry out a legal review of the administrative file that had been compiled for the Cañuela School project, upon learning the content of said file and the objective sought by the project, in the fulfillment of that advisory function granted to the Department under his charge toward the Boards (...), <span style="font-size: 12pt; font-weight: bold;">he should have warned, or suggested, some type of solution or action to both the School Board of that educational center and to the Execution and Control Department, upon observing that the procedure being used—unforeseeability according to the exception under subparagraph k) of Article 131 of the Regulations to the Administrative Contracting Law (Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa)—by which it was intended to meet the need for the construction of two classrooms, remodeling of an existing classroom, and repair of a covered walkway, was not appropriate</span> (...).

Thus, in the case at hand, for the infrastructure constructions required by the Escuela de la Cañuela de Naranjo, the applicable provision was that established in Article 137 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, which authorizes Juntas de Educación, as well as Juntas Administrativas, to carry out competitive direct contracting procedures (contratación directa concursada) for the construction and maintenance of educational infrastructure (…) therefore, from the legal review requested from Mr. Irving Mathews Soto of the procurement file for the unforeseeability-based procurement (contratación por imprevisibilidad) of the Escuela la Cañuela, he, far from alerting and suggesting to the Junta de Educación as well as to the Department of Execution and Control (DIEE) some type of corrective action to amend the incorrect selection of the type of procedure intended to be carried out, in fulfillment of the legal and technical advisory function that the Department under his charge holds, omitted to make such warnings, such that his actions made it impossible to better satisfy the public interest that was sought to be supplied with the initiated procedure and also allowed the procurement procedure used by the Junta de Educación to fail to meet legal requirements and to best adjust to the fulfillment of the public interest (…).

Thus, according to what has been accredited, as well as the functions entrusted to the DIEE's Department of Procurement according to Article 83 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34075 and the legal assumptions for an addendum to proceed, the procurement area, as the unit responsible for providing legal advisory services in matters of administrative procurement, at the moment when Mr. Mathews Soto was made aware, by the Department of Execution and Control, of the Junta de Educación of the Escuela Cañuela's intention to carry out an addendum to the unforeseeability-based procurement No. 01-2009, which had been signed with the contractor Dixon López, with the express indication that the addendum would be processed (sic) but that its execution remained subject to the criteria of the Department of Procurement, given that the addendum exceeded the original contract amount by 50%, according to the powers of Mr. Mathews Soto as head of the Department of Procurement, in fulfilling that legal and technical advisory function that the Department under his charge must provide to the Juntas, he should have warned or suggested some type of solution or action to both the Junta de Educación of said educational center and the Department of Execution and Control, that the addendum to the unforeseeability-based procurement No. 01-2009 (…) was not appropriate, since to carry out an extension or modification of the contract it is necessary to comply with a series of assumptions indicated in Article 200 of the Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa (…).

Therefore, in accordance with the cited article, in the specific case, firstly it was not viable to execute an addendum to a contract resulting from a procedure that was not the appropriate one, and furthermore, the nature and causes that gave rise to that new addendum did not correspond to the purpose that originated the unforeseeability-based procurement No. 01-2009 at the Escuela la Cañuela; and secondly, as the addendum exceeded the original contract amount by more than 50%, a modification to the unforeseeability-based procurement No. 01-2009 could not be appropriate, unless authorization had been requested from the Contraloría General de la República (…).

The faults committed by Mr. Mathews Soto are aggravated by the hierarchical condition of the investigated party, since pursuant to Article 213 of the Ley General de Administración Pública, the higher the rank of the official and the more technical his functions, the greater his duty to know and duly appreciate them, and to observe at all times the principle of legality in the functions carried out, in this case as Head of the Department of Procurement, that is, the advisory services (legal and technical) should have been correctly provided to the Junta and to the Department of Execution and Control, warning that the procedures or steps—procurement under the exception of Article 131 subsection k) and addendum to said procurement—that they wished to carry out were not appropriate under the legal system, since in the exercise of his corresponding functions he had to ensure that the procedures requested of him complied with the legal system, so that the decisions finally adopted by the Junta de Educación of the Escuela la Cañuela would fulfill the purpose of a sound and correct administration of public resources, in adherence to the principles of legality, efficacy, economy, and efficiency, for the proper handling of public funds and the most correct satisfaction of the public interest.

Pursuant to the foregoing, Mr. Irving Mathews Soto incurred, through his actions, the offense stipulated in article 3 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública) (…), since as a public official he is obligated to direct his management toward the satisfaction of the public interest, for which reason it fell upon him to provide advice in accordance with the legal system applicable to the specific case for the satisfaction of the public interest—understood as sound advice enabling the Education Boards (Juntas de Educación) to make correct decisions and take correct actions in the use of public funds. Therefore, this Deciding Body (Órgano Decisor) recommends, in accordance with the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, and the sanctions set forth in numeral 39 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública), the imposition upon the investigated party of the sanction of a written reprimand (amonestación escrita) published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta (Diario Oficial la Gaceta), as stipulated in subsection a) of numeral 39 of said normative body, for failing to fulfill the duty of probity in the exercise of his legal duties, essentially regarding advice in his capacity as Head of the DIEE Procurement Department, as indicated by this Deciding Body (Órgano Decisor) herein, whose application is recommended as binding [...]".

In that same vein, section 3 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function, No. 8422, establishes the duty of probity, whereby the public official is obligated to orient their management toward the satisfaction of the public interest, and must administer public resources in strict adherence to the principle of legality, such that a violation of the duty of probity could likewise be occurring. Therefore, if it were to be determined that Mr. Irving Mathews Soto is responsible for facts 1 through 23 above, he could be subject to any of the sanctions provided for in Article 113 of the Law on Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets, No. 8131, which range from a written reprimand to dismissal from the position without employer liability, in addition to the sanction set forth in Article 4 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function, No. 8422, which consists of separation from the public position without employer liability, as well as the sanctions contemplated in section 39 of that same regulatory body, which range from a written reprimand published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, to separation from the public position without employer liability (…)". [the bold highlights are our own]. For its part, as transcribed in proven fact number 22) of this ruling, in final resolution number 16078-2015 (DJ-2055) of 08:00 hours on November 4, 2015, the deciding body pronounced as follows: "(…) it was proven that Mr. Irving Mathews Soto, in his capacity as Head of the DIEE Contracting Department, was notified on August 21, 2009, to carry out the legal review of the file sent to him by the Execution and Control Department, related to the Cañuela School project (…); in that communication, he was informed that it concerned the transfer of the project file for a procurement under unforeseeability, which contained the following information (…) and legal and technical advisory from the DIEE in the development of the project; the contractor's offer; technical review of the offer; the procurement order to be signed between the contractor and the Board. Likewise, within the administrative file of this proceeding, there is minute No. 178 of the Board of the Cañuela School, in which they expressly stated: "(...) we request the Directorate of Educational Infrastructure and Equipment to provide us legal and technical advisory in all its phases, to execute the educational infrastructure project consisting of the reconstruction of two classrooms and repair of one classroom. Specifically, in the administrative procurement process under an unforeseeable situation (...)", (the highlighting corresponds to the original), (visible on folios 0055 and 0056 of the administrative file), a document that was received by the department under Mr. Mathews Soto's charge. Furthermore, it was proven that on September 10, 2009, Lic. Irving Mathews Soto sent to Eng. William Enrique Sáenz Campos, Head of the Execution and Control Department, the works contract signed between Mr. Dixon López Vargas and the Cañuela School Education Board, indicating that the legal requirements established for that purpose had been met; (…). / Given that, at the time Mr. Mathews Soto was requested to carry out the legal review of the administrative file that had been compiled for the Cañuela School project, upon learning the content of said file and the purpose sought by the project, in fulfilling that advisory function granted to the Department under his charge toward the Boards (…), he should have warned or suggested some type of solution or action to both the Education Board of said educational center and the Execution and Control Department, upon observing that the procedure—unforeseeability according to the exception of Article 131, subsection k) of the Regulation of the Administrative Procurement Law—through which it was intended to meet the need for the construction of two classrooms, remodeling of an existing classroom, and repair of a covered walkway, was not appropriate (…).

/ Thus, in the case at hand, for the infrastructure construction required by the Escuela de la Cañuela de Naranjo, the applicable provision was that established in Article 137 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), which enables Boards of Education, such as the Administrative Boards, to conduct competitive direct contracting procedures for the construction and maintenance of educational infrastructure (…) therefore, **from the legal review requested of Mr. Irving Mathews Soto regarding the procurement file for the unforeseeability-based contracting (contratación por imprevisibilidad) of Escuela la Cañuela**, far from alerting and suggesting to the Board of Education (Junta de Educación) as well as to the Department of Execution and Control (Departamento de Ejecución y Control) (DIEE) any type of corrective action to amend the incorrect selection of the type of procedure intended to be carried out, in the fulfillment of the legal and technical advisory function held by the Department under his charge, **he omitted to make such warnings, such that his actions made it impossible to better satisfy the public interest that was sought to be fulfilled with the procedure initiated and also allowed the procurement procedure used by the Board of Education to fail to meet legal requirements and be better aligned with the fulfillment of the public interest** (…).

/ Thus, according to what has been demonstrated, as well as the functions entrusted to the DIEE's Contracting Department (Departamento de Contrataciones) under Article 83 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 34075 and the legal conditions for an addendum (adenda) to proceed, when the area of contracting—the unit responsible for providing legal advice on administrative contracting matters—**was informed by the Department of Execution and Control of the Board of Education of Escuela la Cañuela’s intention to execute an addendum to the unforeseeability-based contract (contratación por imprevisibilidad) No. 01-2009**, which had been signed with the contractor Dixon López, with the express indication that the addendum would be processed but that its execution was subject to the criteria of the Contracting Department, **given that the addendum exceeded the original contract amount by 50%, in accordance with the powers of Mr. Mathews Soto as head of the Contracting Department, in fulfilling that legal and technical advisory function that the Department under his charge must provide to the Boards, he should have warned or suggested some type of solution or action both to the Board of Education of said educational center, and to the Department of Execution and Control, that the addendum to the unforeseeability-based contract No. 01-2009** (…) **was not appropriate**, since to make an extension or modification of the contract it is necessary to meet a series of conditions indicated in Article 200 of the Regulation to the Administrative Contracting Law (…).

/ Therefore, in accordance with the cited article, in the specific case, firstly **it was not feasible to execute an addendum to a contract resulting from a procedure that was not the appropriate one, given also that the nature and causes that gave rise to that new addendum did not correspond to the purpose that originated the unforeseeability-based contract No. 01-2009 at Escuela la Cañuela, and secondly, since the addendum exceeded the original contract amount by more than 50%, a modification to the unforeseeability-based contract No. 01-2009 could not be appropriate, unless authorization had been requested from the Contraloría General de la República** (…).

/ The faults committed by Mr. Mathews Soto are aggravated by the hierarchical condition of the investigated person, since in accordance with Article 213 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de Administración Pública), the higher the hierarchy of the official and the more technical his functions, the greater his duty to know and duly appreciate them, and to observe at all times the principle of legality in the functions performed, in this case as Head of the Contracting Department, that is, **the advisory (legal and technical) service should have been correctly provided to the Board and to the Department of Execution and Control, warning that the procedures or actions—contracting under the exception of Article 131(k) and the addendum to said contract—that were desired to be carried out were not appropriate under the legal system**, since in the exercise of his corresponding functions he had to ensure that the procedures requested of him complied with the legal system, so that the decisions ultimately adopted by the Board of Education of Escuela la Cañuela would fulfill the purpose of a sound and correct administration of public resources, adhering to the principles of legality, effectiveness, economy, and efficiency, for the good management of public funds and the most correct satisfaction of the public interest.

In accordance with the foregoing, Mr. Irving Mathews Soto, through his actions, incurred the infraction stipulated in Article 3 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública) (...) since, as a public official, he is obligated to orient his management toward the satisfaction of the public interest, for which he was responsible for providing advice in accordance with the applicable legal system in the specific case for the satisfaction of the public interest—understood as the sound advice that allows the Education Boards (Juntas de Educación) to make correct decisions and take correct actions in the use of public funds—. Therefore, this Deciding Body (Órgano Decisor) recommends, in accordance with the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, and the sanctions established by section 39 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office, imposing upon the investigated party the sanction of a written reprimand published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta as stipulated by subsection a) of section 39 of said regulatory body, for failing in the duty of probity in the exercise of his legal duties, basically of providing advice in his capacity as Head of the Contracting Department of the DIEE, as has been indicated by this Deciding Body herein, the application of which is recommended with binding character [...]".

"VII.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO SOMETIDO A VALORACIÓN DEL TRIBUNAL [...]

• ii)Incongruencia entre lo intimado y lo resuelto: al respecto alegó el accionante, que en el traslado de cargos se le imputó una eventual responsabilidad administrativa, por presuntamente haber permitido que se tramitara y realizara una contratación por parte de la Junta de la Escuela Cañuela de Naranjo, bajo la excepción del artículo 131 inciso k) del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, así como una adenda a dicha contratación pues se presumía que dicha compra no obedeció a una situación de imprevisibilidad. Sin embargo, dijo, pese a quedar acreditada su no participación en la contratación realizada por la Junta se le sancionó, lo que afecta gravemente la congruencia que debe existir entre lo imputado e intimado, la prueba incorporada y lo resuelto.

> Criterio del Tribunal: para dilucidar este punto, resulta menester examinar lo que el órgano decisor le intimó al servidor en el auto inicial y lo que a la postre resolvió en el acto final, a efecto de esclarecer si en efecto existió la incongruencia achacada. Así las cosas, conforme a lo que reseñara este Tribunal en el hecho probado número 11) de esta sentencia, en la resolución inicial de traslado de cargos, dictada a las 13:00 horas del 11 de agosto del 2014, se le imputó al señor Mathews Soto lo siguiente: “(…) se le intima una posible responsabilidad administrativa por presuntamente haber permitido que se tramitara y realizara una contratación por parte de la Junta de la Escuela la Cañuela de Naranjo (…), para la construcción de dos aulas, reconstrucción de un aula y la reparación de la cubierta de paso (…); y una adenda para construcción de comedor, batería sanitaria y una rampa para discapacitados con la estructura de techo (…), bajo la excepción del artículo 131 inciso k) del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, pues se presume que dicha compra no obedeció a una situación de imprevisibilidad (…). Por lo que con su presunto actuar de permitir el supuesto mal uso de la excepción del inciso k) del numeral 131 del mencionado Reglamento, pudo haber producido que no se aplicaran los controles y requerimientos que se debían de realizar para la satisfacción de las necesidades surgidas en la Escuela de la Cañuela. Es así como de acuerdo con el artículo 110 inciso a) de la Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, n.° 8131, es causal de responsabilidad administrativa, para quien promueva la adquisición de bienes, obras y servicios con prescindencia de alguno de los procedimientos de contratación establecidos por el ordenamiento jurídico (…) por lo que con el aparentemente incumplimiento de su de (sic) deber de vigilancia, entendido como el velar por que (sic) todas las acciones de dicho departamento y sus funcionarios, sean acordes con la normativa aplicable en cada caso, pudo haber vulnerado el principio de legalidad, establecido en el artículo 11 de la LGAP y 11 de la Constitución Política. En ese mismo sentido el ordinal 3 de la Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, n.° 8422, establece el deber de probidad, en donde el funcionario público se encuentra obligado a orientar su gestión a la satisfacción del interés público, debiendo administrar los recursos públicos con apego al principio de legalidad, por lo que en igual sentido podría estarse ante una violación al deber de probidad. Por lo tanto, si se llegara a determinar que el señor Irving Mathews Soto, es responsable por los hechos del 1 al 23 anteriores, podría hacerse acreedor con alguna de las sanciones previstas en el artículo 113 de la Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, n.° 8131, las cuales van desde la amonestación escrita, hasta la destitución del cargo sin responsabilidad, además de la sanción dispuesta en el artículo 4 de la Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, n.° 8422, que consiste en la separación del cargo público sin responsabilidad patronal, así como las sanciones contempladas en el ordinal 39 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo las cuales abarcan desde una amonestación escrita publicada en el Diario oficial la Gaceta, hasta la separación del cargo público sin responsabilidad patronal (…)”. [lo resaltado en negrita es propio]. Por su parte, conforme se transcribiera en el hecho probado número 22) de este fallo, en la resolución final número 16078-2015 (DJ-2055) de las 08:00 horas del 04 de noviembre del 2015, el órgano decisor se pronunció en el siguiente sentido: “(…) se logró acreditar que al señor Irving Mathews Soto, en su calidad de Jefe del Departamento de Contrataciones de la DIEE, el día 21 de agosto del 2009, se le comunicó que realizara la revisión legal del expediente que le fue remitido por el Departamento de Ejecución y Control, relacionado con el proyecto de la Escuela Cañuela (…), en dicha comunicación se le indicó que se trataba del traslado del expediente del Proyecto de contratación según imprevisibilidad, el cual contenía la siguiente información (…) y de asesoría legal y técnica de la DIEE en el desarrollo del proyecto; oferta del constructor; revisión técnica de la oferta; orden de contratación a ser firmada entre el constructor y la Junta. Asimismo, dentro del expediente administrativo del presente procedimiento consta el acta n.° 178 de la Junta de la Escuela de la Cañuela, en la cual expresamente indicaron: "(...) le solicitamos a la Dirección de Infraestructura y Equipamiento Educativo brindarnos la asesoría legal y técnica en todas sus fases, para ejecutar el proyecto de infraestructura educativa que consiste en reconstrucción de dos aulas y reparación de una aula. Específicamente, en el proceso de contratación administrativa ante situación imprevisible (...)", (el resaltado corresponde al original), (visible a folios 0055 y 0056 del expediente administrativo), documento que recibió el departamento a cargo del señor Mathews Soto. Además, se acreditó que el 10 de setiembre de 2009, el Lic. Irving Mathews Soto, remitió al Ing. William Enrique Sáenz Campos, Jefe del Departamento de Ejecución y Control, el contrato de la obra suscrito entre el Sr. Dixon López Vargas y la Junta de Educación Escuela Cañuela, indicando que se cumplieron con los requisitos legales establecidos al efecto; (…). / Siendo que, al momento que al señor Mathews Soto se le solicitó realizar revisión legal del expediente administrativo que se había levantado para el proyecto de la Escuela la Cañuela, éste al conocer el contenido de dicho expediente y el fin que buscaba el proyecto, en el cumplimiento de esa función de asesoría que se le otorga al Departamento a su cargo hacia las Juntas (…), debió haber advertido o sugerir algún tipo de solución u (sic) acción tanto a la Junta de Educación de dicho centro educativo, como al Departamento de Ejecución y Control, al observar que se estaba utilizando el procedimiento -imprevisibilidad según excepción del artículo 131 inciso k) del Reglamento de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa- por el cual se pretendía suplir la necesidad de la construcción de dos aulas, remodelación de un aula existe y reparación de paso cubierta, no era procedente (…). / Así las cosas, en el caso que nos ocupa, para las construcciones de infraestructura que requería la Escuela de la Cañuela de Naranjo, lo aplicable era lo establecido en el artículo 137 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, en el cual se habilita a las Juntas de Educación como las Administrativas, a realizar procedimientos de contratación directa concursada para la construcción y mantenimiento de infraestructura educativa (…) por lo que de la revisión legal que se solicitó al señor Irving Mathews Soto del expediente de la contratación por imprevisibilidad de la Escuela la Cañuela, éste lejos de alertar y sugerir a la Junta de Educación así como al Departamento de Ejecución y Control de la (DIEE) algún tipo de acción correctiva para enmendar la incorrecta selección del tipo de procedimiento que se pretendía llevar a cabo, en el cumplimiento de la función de asesoría legal y técnica que ostenta el Departamento a su cargo, omitió realizar dichas advertencias por lo que con su actuar imposibilitó satisfacer de una mejor forma el interés público que se buscaba suplir con el procedimiento entablado y también permitió que el procedimiento de contratación utilizado por la Junta de Educación no cumpliera con los requerimientos legales y se ajustara de la mejor forma al cumplimiento del interés público (…). / Así las cosas conforme lo acreditado, así como, las funciones que le son encomendadas al Departamento de Contrataciones de la DIEE según el artículo 83 del Decreto Ejecutivo n.° 34075 y los supuestos legales para que proceda una adenda, al el (sic) área de contrataciones la unidad encargada de brindar la asesoría legal en materia de contratación administrativa, en el momento en que se le puso en conocimiento al señor Mathews Soto, de la intención de la Junta de Educación de la Escuela Cañuela por parte del Departamento de Ejecución y Control, de llevar a cabo una adenda a la contratación de imprevisibilidad n.° 01-2009, que se había suscrito con el contratista Dixon López, con la indicación expresa de que se tramitará (sic) la adenda pero que su realización quedaba supeditada al criterio del Departamento de Contrataciones, en razón de que la adenda excedía en un 50% el monto del contrato original, de acuerdo a las atribuciones del señor Mathews Soto como encargado del Departamento de Contrataciones, en el cumplimiento de esa función de asesoría legal y técnica que debe brindar el Departamento a su cargo hacia las Juntas, debió haber advertido o sugerido algún tipo de solución u acción tanto a la Junta de Educación de dicho centro educativo, como al Departamento de Ejecución y Control, de que la adenda a la contratación por imprevisibilidad n.° 01-2009 (…) no era procedente, pues para realizar una ampliación o modificación del contrato es necesario cumplir con una serie de supuestos indicados en el artículo 200 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa (…). / Por lo que de acuerdo con el artículo de cita, en el caso en concreto primero no era viable realizar una adenda a un contrato producto de un procedimiento que no era el procedente, siendo que además la naturaleza y las causas que dieron origen a ese nuevo adendum, no correspondían al fin que originó la contratación por imprevisibilidad n.° 01-2009 en la Escuela la Cañuela y segundo al exceder la adenda en más de un 50% el monto del contrato original, no podía ser procedente una modificación a la contratación por imprevisibilidad n.° 01-2009, a menos que se hubiese solicitado autorización a la Contraloría General de la República (…). / Las faltas cometidas por el señor Mathews Soto se ven agravadas por la condición de jerarquía del investigado, pues conforme al artículo 213 de la Ley General de Administración Pública, entre mayor sea la jerarquía del funcionario y más técnicas sus funciones, mayor es su deber de conocerlas y apreciarlas debidamente, y observar en todo momento el principio de legalidad en las funciones desarrolladas en este caso como Jefe del Departamento de Contrataciones, es decir, la asesoría (legal y técnica) debió darse correctamente a la Junta y al Departamento de Ejecución y Control, alertando que los trámites o gestiones -contratación bajo la excepción del 131 inciso k) y adenda a dicha contratación- que se deseaban llevar a cabo no eran procedentes conforme al ordenamiento jurídico, pues en el ejercicio de sus funciones que le corresponden tenía que asegurarse de que los trámites que se le solicitaron cumplieran con el ordenamiento jurídico, con el fin de que las decisiones que finalmente adoptara la Junta de Educación de la Escuela la Cañuela cumplieran con el fin de una sana y correcta administración de los recursos públicos con apego a los principios de legalidad, eficacia, economía y eficiencia, para el buen manejo de los fondos públicos y la satisfacción de la forma más correcta del interés público. Conforme lo expuesto el señor Irving Mathews Soto, incurrió con su actuar en la falta estipulada en el artículo 3 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública (…) pues como funcionario público se encuentra obligado a orientar su gestión a la satisfacción del interés público, por lo que le correspondía brindar una asesoría conforme con el ordenamiento jurídico aplicable en el caso en concreto para la satisfacción del interés público, -entendido como la buena asesoría que le permita a las Juntas de Educación tomar decisiones y acciones correctas en la utilización de fondos públicos-. Por lo que este Órgano Decisor recomienda de acuerdo con el principio de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, y las sanciones que establece el numeral 39 de la Ley de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, imponer al investigado la sanción de amonestación escrita y publicada en el Diario Oficial la Gaceta conforme lo estipula el inciso a) del numeral 39 de dicho cuerpo normativo, por incumplir el deber de probidad en el ejercicio de sus deberes legales básicamente de asesoría en su condición de Jefe del Departamento Contrataciones de la DIEE, conforme se ha señalado por este Órgano Decisor en la presente, cuya aplicación se recomienda con carácter vinculante [...]".