Recovery of Excess Salary Payments to Public EmployeesRecuperación de salarios pagados en exceso a empleados públicos

**VIII.- ON THE OBLIGATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION TO RECOVER MONIES PAID IN EXCESS:** 1.- Contrary to what the appellant claims, the power of the Public Administration to recover sums paid in excess is duly supported by the legal system, such that its conduct conforms to the principle of legality that it considers violated. 2.- Thus, in public employment relationships, in cases such as the one at hand where the worker received an excess salary payment, its recovery is possible by applying Article 173 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), in accordance with the provisions of Article 9 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), which provides as an integrating principle the possibility of resorting to the provisions of private law and its principles in cases where no applicable administrative rule exists, and more precisely, applying Article 51 of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto de Servicio Civil) which empowers the supplementary application of the Labor Code to fill the normative gaps of that law. Article 173 of the Labor Code, in its second paragraph, states the following: “Debts that the worker incurs with the employer for advances or for payments made in excess shall be amortized during the term of the contract over a minimum of four payment periods and shall not accrue interest. It is understood that upon termination of the contract, the Employer may make the definitive settlement that is appropriate.” From this norm emerges the employer's power to take the necessary actions to recover amounts paid in excess, which, in the case of a statutory public employment relationship, constitutes an obligation for the Administration as it involves public funds, over which it is obligated to maintain controls that allow it to “Protect and conserve public assets against any loss, waste, improper use, irregularity, or illegal act” (Article 8, subsection a) of the Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno), Law number 8292), a norm that agrees with the general obligation to safeguard the integrity of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), a joint responsibility of both the Employing Administration and the official herself, the protection of public funds and their management in accordance with the block of legality composed of Articles 9, 11, 24, 183 and 193 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política), 110 of the Law of Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets (Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos), 8, 9 and 10 of the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno), 11, 203, 206 and 210 of the General Law of Public Administration, 2 and 3 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office (Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública); 1, 8, 9, 11 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). It is necessary to highlight that payments made in excess or improperly constitute an illegitimate additional remuneration, which generates unjust enrichment for the recipient to the detriment of the public treasury, so within the framework of a public employment relationship, in application of the principle of good faith regulated in Article 19 of the Labor Code, which entails a series of reciprocal duties emanating from the spirit of collaboration, trust, loyalty, and fidelity, which in this case entails the worker's obligation to proceed with the return of the sums received in excess as salary, so as not to harm their employer. Finally, it is considered that the deposits made in excess to the officials constitute a mere arithmetic error with adverse patrimonial effects for the Public Administration, which is why the administration is obligated to correct it in accordance with the provisions of Article 157 of the General Law of Public Administration. Along this same line, as set forth by this Chamber, the Court of Cassation for Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Matters (Tribunal de Casación de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda), by means of vote number 108-F-TC-2020 of nine hours and forty minutes on July ninth, two thousand twenty, determined:[...]

**IX.- ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE:** [...]2.- First of all, it is necessary to clarify what is being discussed in this process, given that the plaintiff's arguments show confusion in this regard, as she considers herself to be within a disciplinary or sanctioning process, in which the salary deduction for justified and unjustified absences that generated the excessive payments is imposed on her as a sanction for conduct, when in reality the application of the disciplinary regime is not being ventilated, but simply the recovery of salaries paid in excess as a result of the improper payment made by the administration for services that were not rendered by the worker on the days she was absent from work; in other words, these are remunerations to which the worker was not entitled, given that she did not render her services. It is important to highlight that the right to receive a salary remuneration arises from the bilateral and synallagmatic nature of the employment contract, which presupposes the existence of reciprocal obligations between the parties, which in summary consist of the worker's obligation to render her services to the employer and the latter's obligation to provide economic remuneration for the services received. In this context, Article 18 of the Labor Code states that “An employment contract, whatever its denomination may be, is any contract in which one person agrees to render another their services or to execute a work for them, under the permanent dependence and immediate or delegated direction of the latter, and for remuneration of any kind or form.” This norm highlights the bilateral exchange relationship regarding the obligations contained in the employment contract, such that a worker provides their labor force, obligating the employer who receives it to deliver a salary; thus, the right to receive payment of a salary is conditioned on the rendering of service. Along this same line, Article 162 of the Labor Code says: “Salary or wage is the remuneration that the employer must pay by virtue of the employment contract.” The worker's right to remuneration for the work rendered in favor of their employer is again linked. 3.- Having identified the scenario in which we find ourselves, it is necessary to indicate that there is vast constitutional jurisprudence which, in the first place, imposes the need to guarantee the right of defense to the person whose salaries are intended to be affected in order to recover amounts paid in excess, but which also determines that it is not necessary to apply the ordinary process provided for by the General Law of Public Administration. Along that line, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) determined that: “III.- On the subject of due process in salary deductions for sums disbursed in excess to Public Administration officials. In this regard, it is worth noting that this Chamber, by means of judgment No. 2012-011507 at 16:31 hours on August 22, 2012, among others, provided the following: ‘(…)In the matter under study, the Chamber observes that there are two issues that must be analyzed: 1) the possibility for the Administration to make deductions for sums paid in excess; and 2) the necessary communication that must exist to the worker, regarding the amounts owed and the manner in which the deduction will proceed. (…) III.- On the other hand, regarding the second point raised in the amparo, that is, the necessary communication that must exist to the worker regarding the amounts owed and the manner in which the deduction will proceed, it must be remembered that although the Chamber has accepted that the Administration can recover, by means of salary deduction, amounts paid in excess for which it is not required to follow the ordinary procedure established by the General Law of Public Administration (…) the truth is that it has also clarified that such deductions are acceptable provided that the worker is previously informed of –at least– the sums owed, the number of installments in which the reimbursement will proceed, the monthly amount of the deduction, and the sum to be deducted monthly that allows them to receive an amount of salary sufficient to satisfy their basic needs. (…)”’ (Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote number 2020-019395 at nine hours and twenty minutes on October ninth, two thousand twenty). Along that same line, the Constitutional Court ‘...discards a violation of due process, given that the amparo petitioner was duly informed of the sum owed, the number of installments in which the reimbursement will proceed, the monthly amount of the deduction, and the sum to be deducted monthly, that is, she was informed of the essential elements that this constitutional jurisdiction has required for the deductions applied to the amount received as salary to recover sums paid in excess to be admissible. Thus, it is proven that the amparo petitioner had full knowledge regarding the sum owed, the number of installments in which the reimbursement will proceed, and the sum to be deducted biweekly from the debt in question before the application of the deductions.’ (Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote number 2021-022460 at nine hours and fifteen minutes on October eighth, two thousand twenty-one). These precedents allow us to appreciate, as this appellate body indicated above, that it is indeed necessary to carry out an administrative procedure, which allows the worker to know in detail the amounts whose collection is intended, the nature of the sums paid in excess, the installments in which the collection will be executed, without it being necessary to apply the ordinary process, so the summary procedure provided for by Article 320 of the General Law of Public Administration would be applicable. In this scenario, the exercise of reimbursement actions first requires the necessary and substantiated accreditation of the existence of amounts paid in excess, such that the Administration must carry out the internal analyses that allow it to establish precisely and objectively the existence of the error. In other words, before initiating recovery actions against the official, it is necessary for the Administration to accredit the existence of the debt for improper or excess payments, and to inform the employee of the detail of the sum to which the debt amounts, its origin, the specific periods and amounts for each lapse – when the debt is the product of several payments –, as well as the installments in which the collection will be executed and the applicable quotas for the effective payment of the debt.[...]" …)” (Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote number 2020-019395, at nine hours and twenty minutes on October 9, two thousand twenty), along this same line the Constitutional Court “...dismisses a violation of due process, given that the protected party was timely informed of the sum owed, the number of installments in which the reimbursement would proceed, the monthly deduction amount, and the sum to be deducted monthly; that is, she was informed of the essential elements that this constitutional jurisdiction has required for deductions applied to the amount received as salary to recover sums paid in excess to be permissible. Thus, it is established that the protected party had full knowledge regarding the sum owed, the number of installments in which the reimbursement would proceed, and the sum to be deducted biweekly for the debt in question before the deductions were applied.” (Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote number 2021-022460, at nine hours and fifteen minutes on October 8, two thousand twenty-one). These precedents allow us to observe, as this appellate body indicated earlier, that an administrative procedure must indeed be carried out, which allows the worker to know in detail the amounts whose collection is being sought, the nature of the sums paid in excess, the installments in which the collection will be executed, without the ordinary process being necessary; therefore, the summary procedure, provided for in Article 320 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, would be applicable. In that scenario, exercising actions for reimbursement presupposes, beforehand, the necessary and justified accreditation of the existence of amounts paid in excess, such that the Administration must carry out the internal analyses that allow it to establish the existence of the error in a precise and objective manner; in other words, before initiating recovery actions against the public employee, it is necessary for the Administration to accredit the existence of the debt due to improper or excess payments, and to inform the employee of the details of the sum to which the debt amounts, its origin, the specific periods and amounts for each interval—when the debt is the product of several payments—as well as the installments in which the collection will be executed and the applicable quotas for the effective payment of the debt.[...]." In this regard, it is pertinent to note that this Chamber, through judgment No. 2012-011507 of 16:31 hours on August 22, 2012, among others, ordered the following: "(...) In the matter under study, the Chamber observes that there are two issues that must be analyzed: 1) the Administration's possibility of making deductions for overpaid sums; and 2) the necessary communication that must be provided to the employee regarding the amounts owed and the manner in which their deduction will proceed. (...) III.- Furthermore, with respect to the second aspect raised in the amparo, that is, the necessary communication that must be provided to the employee regarding the amounts owed and the manner in which their deduction will proceed, it must be recalled that, although the Chamber has accepted that the Administration may recover, through salary deductions, amounts paid in excess, for which it is not necessary to follow the ordinary procedure established by the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) (...), the truth is that it has also clarified that such deductions are acceptable provided that the employee is previously informed—at least—of the sums owed, the number of installments in which the repayment is to proceed, the monthly deduction amount, and the sum to be deducted monthly that allows the employee to receive a salary amount sufficient to meet their basic needs. (...)" (Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote number 2020-019395 of nine hours twenty minutes on October ninth, two thousand twenty), along the same lines the Constitutional Court " (...) rules out an injury to due process, given that the protected party was timely informed of the sum owed, the number of installments in which the repayment is to proceed, the monthly deduction amount, and the sum to be deducted monthly, that is, they were informed of the essential elements that this constitutional jurisdiction has required for the deductions applied to the amount received as salary to be admissible in order to recover overpaid sums. Thus, it is accredited that the protected party had full knowledge regarding the sum owed, the number of installments in which the repayment is to proceed, and the sum to be deducted biweekly from the debt in question before the application of the deductions." (Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote number 2021-022460 of nine hours fifteen minutes on October eighth, two thousand twenty-one). These precedents allow us to appreciate, as this appellate body indicated previously, that it is indeed necessary to carry out an administrative procedure that allows the employee to know in detail the amounts whose collection is intended to be executed, the nature of the sums paid in excess, the installments in which the collection will be executed, without it being necessary to apply the ordinary process, such that the summary procedure provided for in article 320 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) would be applicable. In that scenario, the exercise of recovery actions presupposes, beforehand, the necessary and justified accreditation of the existence of overpaid amounts, so that the Administration must carry out the internal analyses that allow it to precisely and objectively establish the existence of the error; in other words, prior to initiating recovery actions against the employee, it is necessary for the Administration to accredit the existence of the debt for undue or excess payments, and to inform the employee of the detail of the sum to which the debt amounts, its origin, the specific periods and amounts for each period—when the debt is the product of several payments—, as well as the installments in which the collection will be executed and the applicable quotas for the effective payment of the debt.[...]."

"VIII.- SOBRE LA OBLIGACIÓN DE LA ADMINISTRACIÓN DE RECUPERAR LOS DINEROS PAGADOS EN EXCESO:1.- Contrario a lo que afirma la recurrente, la potestad para que la Administración Pública recupere sumas pagadas en exceso se encuentra debidamente sustentada en el ordenamiento jurídico, de manera que su conducta se ajusta al principio de legalidad que considera vulnerado. 2.- Es así como en las relaciones de empleo público, en los casos, como el que nos ocupa en el cual la persona trabajadora recibió en exceso el pago del salario, resulta posible su recuperación aplicando el artículo 173 del Código de Trabajo, esto de conformidad con lo dispuesto por el artículo 9 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que prevé como principio integrador la posibilidad de acudir a las disposiciones del derecho privado y sus principios en aquellos casos en que no haya norma administrativa aplicable, y de manera más precisa aplicando el artículo 51 del Estatuto de Servicio Civil faculta la aplicación supletoria del Código de Trabajo para llenar los vacíos normativos de esa ley. El artículo 173 del Código de Trabajo, dispone en su párrafo segundo, lo siguiente: “Las deudas que el trabajador contraiga con el patrono por concepto de anticipos o por pagos hechos en exceso, se amortizarán durante la vigencia del contrato en un mínimo de cuatro períodos de pago y no devengarán intereses. Es entendido que al terminar el contrato el Patrono podrá hacer la liquidación definitiva que proceda.” De esa norma se desprende la potestad del empleador de ejercer las acciones necesarias para recuperar los montos pagados en exceso, que en el caso de una relación estatutaria de empleo público, constituye una obligación para la Administración al tratarse de fondos públicos, sobre los cuales está en la obligación de llevar los controles que le permitan “Proteger y conservar el patrimonio público contra cualquier pérdida, despilfarro, uso indebido, irregularidad o acto ilegal” (artículo 8 inciso a) de la Ley de Control Interno, Ley número 8292), norma que concuerda con la obligación general de resguardar la integridad de la Hacienda Pública, responsabilidad conjunta tanto de la Administración Empleadora como de la propia funcionaria, la tutela de los fondos públicos y su gestión conforme al bloque de juridicidad compuesto por los artículos 9, 11, 24, 183 y 193 de la Constitución Política, 110 de la Ley de Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos, 8, 9 y 10 de la Ley General de Control Interno, 11, 203, 206 y 210 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, 2 y 3 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública; 1, 8, 9, 11 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República. Resulta preciso resaltar que los pagos realizados en exceso o de manera indebida constituyen una retribución adicional ilegítima, que generan un enriquecimiento sin causa para quien lo recibo en perjuicio del erario público, por lo que dentro del marco de una relación de empleo público, en aplicación del principio de buena fe regulado en el artículo 19 del Código de Trabajo, que supone una serie de deberes recíprocos emanados del espíritu de colaboración, confianza, lealtad y fidelidad, que en este caso supone la obligación de la persona trabajadora de proceder a la devolución de las sumas percibidas en exceso por concepto de salario, para no perjudicar a su empleador. Finalmente, se considera que los depósitos realizados en exceso a las personas funcionarias constituyen un mero error aritmético con efectos patrimoniales adversos para al Administración Pública, razón por la cual la administración está en la obligación de corregirlo conforme lo dispuesto por el artículo 157 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En esta misma línea, expuesta por este Colegiado, el Tribunal de Casación de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, mediante voto número 108-F-TC-2020 de las nueve horas cuarenta minutos del nueve de julio de dos mil veinte, determinó:[...]

IX.- SOBRE EL PROCEDIMIENTO ADMINISTRATIVO: [...]2.- En primer lugar resulta necesario aclarar qué es lo que se discute en este proceso, dado que en los argumentos de la accionante se evidencia confusión al respecto, dado que considerara que se encuentra dentro de un proceso disciplinario o sancionatorio, en el cual se le impone el rebajo de los salarios por las ausencias justificadas e injustificadas que generaron los pagos excesivos, como una sanción por la conducta, cuando en realidad no se está ventilando la aplicación del régimen disciplinario, sino simplemente el recuperar los salarios pagados en exceso producto del pago indebido que ejecutó la administración por los servicios que no fueron prestados por la persona trabajadora en los días que estuvo ausente de su trabajo, en otras palabras se trata de remuneraciones a las que no tenía derecho la persona trabajadora, dado que no prestó sus servicios. Es preciso destacar que el derecho a recibir una retribución salarial surge del carácter bilateral y sinalagmático del contrato de trabajo, que supone la existencia de obligaciones recíprocas entre las partes, que en síntesis consisten en la obligación de la personas trabajadora de prestar sus servicios a favor del empleador y la obligación de éste último de satisfacer una retribución económica por los servicios recibidos, en ese contexto el artículo 18 del Código de Trabajo dispone que “Contrato de trabajo, sea cual fuere su denominación, es todo aquel en que una persona se obliga a prestar a otra sus servicios o a ejecutarle una obra, bajo la dependencia permanente y dirección inmediata o delegada de ésta, y por una remuneración de cualquier clase o forma.” Esta norma destaca la relación bilateral de intercambio en cuento a las obligaciones contenidas en el contrato de trabajo, de manera que una persona trabajadora presta su fuerza de trabajo, obligando al empleador que la recibe a entregar un salario, de esta forma el derecho a recibir el pago de un salario está condicionado a la prestación del servicio, en esa misma línea el artículo 162 del Código de Trabajo, dice: “Salario o sueldo es la retribución que el patrono debe pagar en virtud del contrato de trabajo.” Se vincula nuevamente el derecho a la retribución de la persona trabajadora por el trabajo que presta en favor de su empleador. 3.- Identificado el escenario en el que nos encontramos, es preciso indicar que existe vasta jurisprudencia constitucional que en primer lugar impone la necesidad de garantizar el derecho de defensa a la persona cuyos salarios se pretende afectar para recuperar montos pagados en exceso, pero que además determina que no resulta necesario aplicar el proceso ordinario previsto por la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en esa línea la Sala Constitucional determinó que: “III.- Sobre el tema del debido proceso en los rebajos de salario por sumas giradas de más a funcionarios de la Administración Pública. Al respecto, conviene señalar que esta Sala, mediante sentencia N° 2012-011507 de las 16:31 horas del 22 de agosto de 2012, entre otras, dispuso lo siguiente: “(…)En el asunto bajo estudio, la Sala observa que existen dos temas que deben ser analizados: 1) la posibilidad para la Administración de hacer rebajos por sumas pagadas de más; y 2) la necesaria comunicación que debe existir al trabajador, sobre los montos adeudados y la forma en que se procederá a su rebajo. (…) III.- Por otra parte, en lo que se refiere al segundo extremo planteado en el amparo, sea la necesaria comunicación que debe existir al trabajador, sobre los montos adeudados y la forma en que se procederá a su rebajo, debe recordarse que si bien, la Sala ha aceptado que la Administración puede recuperar por medio del rebajo salarial, los montos pagados en exceso para lo que no se requiere seguir el procedimiento ordinario que fija la Ley General de la Administración Pública (…) lo cierto es que también ha aclarado que, tales rebajos, son aceptables siempre y cuando se comunique previamente al trabajador –al menos- las sumas adeudadas, el número de tractos en los que procede el reintegro, el monto mensual de la deducción y la suma a deducir mensualmente que le permita recibir un monto de salario suficiente para satisfacer sus necesidades básicas. (…)” (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, voto número 2020-019395 de las nueve horas veinte minutos del nueve de octubre de dos mil veinte), en esa misma línea el Tribunal Constitucional “...descarta una lesión al debido proceso, dado que se le comunicó a la amparada oportunamente la suma adeudada, el número de tractos en los que procede el reintegro, el monto mensual de la deducción y la suma a deducir mensualmente, es decir se le comunicaron los elementos esenciales que ha exigido esta jurisdicción constitucional para que resulten procedentes los rebajos aplicados al monto recibido por concepto de salario para recobrar sumas pagadas de más. Así, se acredita que el amparado tenía pleno conocimiento respecto a la suma adeudada, el número de tractos en los que procede el reintegro y la suma a deducir quincenalmente de la deuda en cuestión antes de la aplicación de los rebajos.” (Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, voto número 2021-022460 de las nueve horas quince minutos del ocho de octubre de dos mil veintiuno). Esos antecedentes permiten apreciar, como lo indicó este órgano de alzada líneas atrás, que efectivamente se requiere llevar a cabo un procedimiento administrativo, que permite a la persona trabajadora conocer con detalle los montos cuyo cobro se pretende ejecutar, la naturaleza de las sumas pagadas en exceso, los tractos en que se va ejecutar el cobro, sin que sea necesario aplicar el proceso ordinario, por lo que resultaría aplicable el procedimiento sumario, previsto por el artículo 320 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. En ese escenario, el ejercicio de las acciones de reintegro supone de previo, la necesaria y motivada acreditación de que la existencia de montos pagados en exceso, de manera que la Administración debe realizar los análisis internos que le permitan establecer de manera precisa y objetiva la existencia del error, en otras palabras de previo a entablar las acciones de recuperación contra la persona funcionaria, es necesario que la Administración acredite la existencia de la deuda por pagos indebidos o en exceso, y que ponga en conocimiento del servidor el detalle de la suma a la que asciende la deuda, su origen, los períodos y montos concretos por cada lapso -cuando la deuda sea producto de varios pagos-, así como los tractos en que se ejecutará el cobro y las cuotas aplicables para el efectivo pago de la deuda.[...]."