Requirements for fumus boni iuris in anticipatory interim measures of labor reinstatementRequisitos de apariencia de buen derecho en medidas cautelares anticipadas de reinstalación laboral

**V.- On the merits of the matter.** The grievances of the plaintiff revolve around two main issues; first, she argues that the appearance of good law (apariencia de buen derecho) does not imply a weighing of substantive aspects, which must be resolved when the plenary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento) is heard, and then she points out that the dismissal entails sufficient harm to be considered difficult or impossible to repair. Having evaluated these arguments, although the Court partially agrees with some of the allegations in the appeal, we find that the resolution must be confirmed for the reasons set forth below. The first matter we will refer to is the transformation of the precautionary regime in labor matters, brought about by the approval of Ley 9343 “Ley de Reforma Procesal Laboral,” effective since July 25, 2017. This regulatory modification recognized a legal phenomenon that has been materializing in Costa Rican labor law since the end of the last century, and which relates to the incorporation of specific and non-specific fundamental rights as the object of protection in the labor process. This can be exemplified, in some way, by the approval of a series of legal reforms that affect this issue, such as: Ley de Promoción de la Igualdad Social de la Mujer, number 7142 dated 8/3/1990, which introduces amendments to the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) for the protection of working mothers and their families; Ley número 7360 dated 4/11/1993 for the protection of union freedom (libertad sindical); Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia, 7739 6/01/1998, for the protection of minor workers; Ley número 8107 dated 18/07/2001, which reinforces the prohibition of discrimination in the employment field. This evolution in the protection of fundamental labor rights impacts a reinforcement of the right to job stability for certain categories of persons, particularly those with conditions of vulnerability, thus highlighting the need to establish an adequate precautionary protection system (sistema de tutela cautelar) to safeguard those rights. Hence, in the current Labor Code (Article 489), the possibility is regulated of allowing the imposition of interim measures (medidas cautelares) “before the process is initiated and during its processing, including in the enforcement phase,” with the purpose not only of “protecting and guaranteeing” “the effectiveness of the judgment,” an aspect for which it is essential to examine the danger in delay (peligro en la demora), but also of safeguarding “provisionally, the object of the process,” or what is the same, momentarily anticipating the results of the process. Hence, it is permitted as a typical interim measure (Article 493) to grant not only the “suspension of the effects of the dismissal act,” but even “the provisional reinstatement of the worker”; this being nothing more than an advancement of the effects of the judgment, with the purpose of protecting the fundamental right to work, in its connection with other fundamental rights of equal rank, such as the right to stability of public sector workers, the right to non-discrimination in employment; the safeguarding of union freedom; the special protection of working mothers and minors; etc. Given this particular effect of provisional safeguarding of the object of the process, which is not necessarily shared with other precautionary protection systems, it is required that “the jurisdictional body, when ruling on the request, shall weigh not only the seriousness of the petition and the interests whose provisional protection is requested”; that is, given the impact of adopting this type of measure, which transcends the sole purpose of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the judgment (for which preventive seizure (embargo preventivo) could be sufficient in most cases), a sufficient examination of the appearance of good law is required; in addition to verifying, as appropriate, that “the execution or permanence of the administrative conduct subject to process may be a source of damages, current or potential, of difficult or impossible reparation.” Regarding this particular requirement, as this Court has been pointing out in its precedents, “it is not true that, in addition to proving the loss of salary, other aggravating circumstances affecting the state of the worker's assets must be demonstrated. In accordance with criteria of human experience, one who lives on a salary will depend on it to cover expenses related to their basic needs and those of their family, this being the general rule, so that whoever intends to make an exception to it will have the burden of proving that the circumstance is different, either because it is demonstrated that the person who has lost the salary has other additional sources of income, or has been placed in another job that allows them to subsist, etc., but it is not the responsibility of the worker to come and demonstrate the state of economic impairment in which they are left after their dismissal” (voto 2023000101 of 13:59 hrs. of February 2, 2023. In a similar sense see voto nº 27-2021 of 8:40 hrs. of January 12, 2021). Therefore, in the case of a person's dismissal, unless there is evidence to the contrary, upon losing their source of income, which, due to the social and legal dimension of salary, is also a source of income for their family, the employment termination necessarily entails a “harm of difficult or impossible reparation” in the terms required by the regulations; so in a case like the present, it is unnecessary to require additional proof of that circumstance, particularly when there is no evidence that the party has other income allowing them to subsist without their salary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is not sufficient to reverse the court's decision, since, as we explained before, this being an interim measure that seeks to provisionally advance the effects of the judgment, seeking the reinstatement of the worker in their job, it is necessary to examine, based on the arguments introduced in the request for the interim measure, related to the evidence in the case file, the appearance of good law, which constitutes a preliminary assessment of the merits, that is, an ex ante examination, based on the factual, legal, and evidentiary elements available at that time in the process, as to whether there would be a sufficient probability that the party's lawsuit would succeed, and that would imply, as a consequence in a case like the present, their eventual reinstatement in their job. To be able to carry out that examination, it is required that the party bring to the process those elements, not only evidentiary, but particularly those of a factual and legal nature that support their petition, and that allow the judicial body to carry out that preliminary examination. In the case at hand, the applicant does nothing more than introduce generic and vague information about the circumstances surrounding the disciplinary proceeding that motivated her dismissal, but she does not clearly invoke the reasons that would justify her lawsuit succeeding, other than to maintain that she has a certain seniority; the absence of prior disciplinary proceedings; and that the decision adopted by the employer is subjective. But none of those assertions allows one to establish, not even as a probability, that her lawsuit might eventually succeed, or what is the same, the seriousness of her claim, so what was resolved on this particular matter by the Trial Court must be endorsed. As there are no elements in her petition that support the appearance of good law, the Court could not substitute the party's duty to substantiate her requests, as this would cause defenselessness (indefensión) to the counterparty, making it impossible for it to know, in advance of the final resolution of the matter, the reasons invoked to request the interim protection. Therefore, since the appellant's reproaches are not admissible, the appealed order (auto) shall be confirmed.

This regulatory amendment came to recognize a legal phenomenon that has been taking shape in Costa Rican labor law since the end of the last century, and which has to do with the incorporation of specific and non-specific fundamental rights as an object of protection in the labor process, a phenomenon that can be exemplified in some way by the approval of a series of legal reforms that impact this subject, such as: Law for the Promotion of Women’s Social Equality, number 7142 dated 8/3/1990, which introduces amendments to the Labor Code for the protection of working mothers and their families; Law number 7360 dated 4/11/1993 for the protection of trade union freedom; the Childhood and Adolescence Code, 7739 6/01/1998, for the protection of underage workers; Law number 8107 dated 18/07/2001, which reinforces the prohibition of discrimination in the employment sphere. This evolution in the protection of fundamental labor rights impacts a strengthening of the right to employment stability (estabilidad laboral) for certain categories of persons, particularly those with conditions of vulnerability, thereby highlighting the need to establish an adequate precautionary protection (tutela cautelar) system to safeguard those rights. Hence, in the current Labor Code (Article 489), the possibility is regulated of allowing the imposition of precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) “before the proceeding is initiated, during its processing, and even in the enforcement phase,” with the purpose not only of “protecting and guaranteeing” “the effectiveness of the judgment,” an aspect for which it is essential to examine the danger in the delay, but also of safeguarding “provisionally, the object of the proceeding,” or what amounts to the same thing, anticipating, momentarily, what the outcomes of the proceeding would be. Hence, as a typical precautionary measure (Article 493), it is permitted to grant not only the “suspension of the effects of the dismissal act,” but even “the provisional reinstatement (reinstalación provisional) of the worker”; this being nothing more than an advance of the effects of the judgment, with the purpose of protecting the fundamental right to work, in its linkage with other fundamental rights of equal rank, such as the right to stability of public sector workers, the right to non-discrimination in employment; the safeguarding of trade union freedom; the special protection of working mothers and minors; etc. Given this particular effect of provisional safeguarding of the object of the proceeding, which is not necessarily shared with other precautionary protection systems, it is required that “the jurisdictional body, when ruling on the request, shall weigh not only the seriousness of the petition and the interests whose provisional protection is sought”; that is, given the impact of adopting this type of measure, which transcends the sole purpose of guaranteeing the effectiveness of the judgment (for which preventive attachment might be sufficient in the majority of cases), a sufficient examination of the appearance of good right (apariencia de buen derecho) is required; in addition to verifying, as applicable, that “the execution or continuation of the administrative conduct under process may be a source of damages (daños y perjuicios), current or potential, of difficult or impossible reparation (reparación).” With regard to this particular requirement, as this Court has been indicating in its precedents, “it is not true that, in addition to proof of the loss of salary, other aggravating circumstances affecting the state of the worker’s assets must be demonstrated. In accordance with criteria of human experience, a person who lives on a salary will depend on it to cover the expenses related to their basic needs, and those of their family, this being the general rule, such that whoever intends to make an exception to it will have the burden of proving that the circumstance is different, either because it is shown that the person who has lost the salary has other additional sources of income, or that they have been placed in another job that allows them to subsist, etc., but it is not the worker’s responsibility to come forward and demonstrate the state of economic detriment in which they are left after their dismissal” (vote 2023000101 of 13:59 hrs. of February 2, 2023. In a similar sense, see vote no. 27-2021 of 8:40 hrs. of January 12, 2021). Thus, in the case of the dismissal of a person, unless there is proof to the contrary, upon losing their source of income—which moreover, due to the social and legal dimension of salary, is also a source of income for their family—the termination of employment necessarily entails “damage of difficult or impossible reparation” in the terms required by the regulations; therefore, in a case such as the present one, it is unnecessary to require additional proof of that circumstance, particularly when there is no evidence that the party has other income allowing them to subsist without their salary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is not sufficient to reverse the lower court’s decision, since as we explained before, this being a precautionary measure that seeks to provisionally advance the effects of the judgment, seeking the reinstatement of the worker to their job, it is necessary to examine, based on the arguments introduced in the request for the precautionary measure, related to the evidence on record in the case file, the appearance of good right, which constitutes a preliminary assessment of the merits, that is, an ex ante examination, based on the factual, legal, and evidentiary elements available at that moment in the proceeding, as to whether there would be sufficient probability that the party’s claim would succeed, and which would entail as a consequence, in a case such as the present one, their eventual reinstatement (reintegro) to their job. To be able to carry out that examination, the party is required to bring to the proceeding those elements, not only of an evidentiary nature, but particularly those of a factual and legal nature that support their petition, and that allow the judicial body to conduct that preliminary examination. In the case under review, the applicant does nothing more than introduce generic and vague information about the circumstances surrounding the disciplinary procedure that motivated her dismissal, but she does not clearly invoke the reasons that would justify the success of her claim, beyond asserting that she has a certain seniority; the absence of prior disciplinary proceedings; and that the decision adopted by the employer is subjective. However, none of those assertions allows it to be established, even as a matter of probability, that her claim might eventually succeed, or what amounts to the same thing, the seriousness of her claim, and therefore the ruling on this point by the lower court must be upheld. In the absence of elements in her petition that support the appearance of good right, the Court cannot substitute the party’s duty to provide grounds for her requests, since that would cause defenselessness (indefensión) for the opposing party, which would be rendered unable to know, in advance of the final resolution of the matter, the reasons invoked to request the precautionary protection. Therefore, as the appellant’s objections are not merited, the appealed order shall be confirmed.

"V.- Sobre el fondo del asunto. Los agravios de la parte actora giran en torno a dos temas principales, en primer lugar, aduce que la apariencia de buen derecho no implica una ponderación de aspectos de fondo, que deben resolverse al conocer del proceso de conocimiento, y luego señala que el despido conlleva un daño suficiente para ser considerado de difícil o imposible reparación. Una vez valorados estos argumentos, a pesar de que el Tribunal coincide parcialmente con algunas de los alegatos del recurso, estimamos que lo resuelto debe confirmarse por las razones que de seguido se expresan. Lo primero a que haremos referencia es la transformación del régimen cautelar, en materia laboral, producido a partir de la aprobación de la ley 9343 “Ley de Reforma Procesal Laboral”, vigente desde el 25 de julio de 2017. Esta modificación normativa vino a reconocer un fenómeno jurídico que se ha venido materializando en el derecho del trabajo costarricense desde finales del siglo pasado, y que tiene que ver con la incorporación de los derechos fundamentales específicos e inespecíficos como objeto de tutela en el proceso laboral, y que se puede ejemplificar de alguna manera con la aprobación de una serie de reformas legales que inciden en ese tema, tales como: Ley de Promoción de la Igualdad Social de la Mujer, número 7142 de fecha 8/3/1990, que introduce modificaciones en el Código de Trabajo, para la protección de las madres trabajadoras y sus familias; Ley número 7360 de fecha 4/11/1993 para la protección de la libertad sindical; Código de la Niñez y la Adolescencia, 7739 6/01/1998, para la protección de la persona trabajadora menor de edad; Ley número 8107 de fecha 18/07/2001, que refuerza la prohibición de discriminar en el ámbito de empleo. Esta evolución en la protección de los derechos fundamentales laborales, inciden en un reforzamiento en el derecho a la estabilidad laboral para determinadas categorías de personas, particularmente con condiciones de vulnerabilidad, por lo que se pone de manifiesto la necesidad de establecer un sistema de tutela cautelar adecuado para el resguardo de esos derechos. De ahí que, en el actual Código de Trabajo (artículo 489), se regula la posibilidad de permitir la imposición de medidas cautelares “antes de iniciarse el proceso y durante su tramitación, inclusive en la fase de ejecución”, con la finalidad no solo de “proteger y garantizar” “la efectividad de la sentencia”, aspecto para el que resulta primordial examinar el peligro en la demora, sino además de resguardar “provisionalmente, el objeto del proceso”, o lo que es lo mismo, anticipar, momentáneamente lo que serían las resultas del proceso. De ahí que se permita como medida cautelar típica (artículo 493) acoger, no solo la “suspensión de los efectos del acto de despido”, sino incluso “la reinstalación provisional de la persona trabajadora”; no siendo esto otra cosa más que un adelanto de los efectos de la sentencia, con la finalidad de tutelar el derecho fundamental al trabajo, en su vinculación con otros derechos fundamentales de igual rango, como el derecho a la estabilidad de las personas trabajadoras del sector público, el derecho a la no discriminación en el empleo; el resguardo de la libertad sindical; la especial protección de las madres trabajadoras y las personas menores de edad; etc. Teniendo este efecto particular de resguardo provisorio del objeto del proceso, que no necesariamente se comparte con otros sistemas de tutela cautelar, es por lo que se exige que “el órgano jurisdiccional, al pronunciarse sobre la solicitud, ponderará no solo la seriedad de la petición y los intereses cuya tutela provisional se pide”; es decir, dado el impacto que tiene la adopción de este tipo de medidas, que trasciende la sola finalidad de garantizar la efectividad de la sentencia (para lo que podría ser suficiente en la mayoría de los casos el embargo preventivo), se requiere un examen suficiente de la apariencia de buen derecho; además de verificar, según corresponda, que “la ejecución o permanencia de la conducta administrativa sometida a proceso pueda ser fuente de daños y perjuicios, actuales o potenciales, de difícil o imposible reparación”. En lo que refiere a este requisito en particular, tal y como lo ha venido señalando este Tribunal en sus antecedentes, “no es cierto que, adicional a la acreditación de la pérdida del salario, deban demostrarse otras circunstancias agravantes que afecten el estado del patrimonio de la persona trabajadora. De conformidad con criterios de experiencia humana, quien vive de un salario dependerá de este para sufragar los gastos relacionados con sus necesidades básicas, y las de su familia, siendo esta la regla general, de modo que quien pretenda excepcionarla tendrá la carga de acreditar que la circunstancia es diversa, bien sea porque se demuestre que la persona que ha perdido el salario tiene otras fuentes de ingresos adicionales, o que se ha colocado en otro puesto de trabajo que le permite subsistir, etc., pero no es responsabilidad de la persona trabajadora venir a demostrar el estado de menoscabo económico en el que queda tras su despido” (voto 2023000101 de las 13:59 hrs. del 2 de febrero del 2023. En sentido similar ver voto nº 27-2021 de las 8:40 hrs. del 12 de enero de 2021). De modo que, tratándose del despido de una persona, salvo que exista prueba en contrario, al perder su fuente de ingreso, que además por la dimensión social y jurídica del salario, también es fuente de ingreso de su familia, la desvinculación laboral acarrea necesariamente un “daño de difícil o imposible reparación” en los términos en los que lo exige la normativa; por lo que en un caso como el presente, resulta innecesario requerir prueba adicional de esa circunstancia, particularmente cuando no existen evidencias de que la parte tenga otros ingresos que le permitan subsistir sin su sueldo. No obstante lo anterior, ello no es suficiente para revertir la decisión del juzgado, ya que como explicamos antes, tratándose esta de una medida cautelar que pretende adelantar provisionalmente los efectos de la sentencia, procurando la reinstalación de la persona trabajadora en su puesto de trabajo, es menester examinar, a partir de los argumentos que se introducen en la solicitud de medida cautelar, relacionados con la prueba que conste en el expediente, la apariencia de buen derecho, lo que constituye una valoración preliminar del fondo, es decir un examen ex ante, a partir de los elementos de hecho, de derecho y probatorios, con los que se cuente en ese momento en el proceso, sobre si existiría probabilidad suficiente de que la demanda de la parte prosperara, y que implicara como consecuencia, en un caso como el presente, su eventual reintegro en su puesto de trabajo. Para poder hacer ese examen se requiere que la parte traiga al proceso esos elementos, no solo de orden probatorio, sino particularmente los de naturaleza fáctica y jurídica que respalden su petición, y que permitan al órgano judicial hacer ese examen preliminar. En el caso que se conoce, la gestionante no hace más que introducir información genérica y vaga sobre las circunstancias que rodearon el procedimiento sancionatorio que motivó su despido, pero no invoca de manera clara las razones que justificarían que su demanda llegara a prosperar, más que sostener que tiene determinada antigüedad; la ausencia de procesos sancionatorios previos; y que la decisión adoptada por el empleador es subjetiva. Pero ninguna de esas afirmaciones permite establecer, ni siquiera en grado de probabilidad, que su demanda eventualmente pueda tener éxito, o lo que es lo mismo, la seriedad de su pretensión, por lo que debe avalarse lo resuelto sobre este particular por el Juzgado. Al no existir elementos en su petición que sustenten la apariencia de buen derecho, no podría el Tribunal sustituir el deber de la parte de motivar sus requerimientos, ya que ello provocaría una indefensión a la contraparte, al verse imposibilitada de conocer, de antemano a la resolución definitiva del asunto, las razones que se invocan para requerir la tutela cautelar. Así las cosas, al no resultar atendibles los reproches del apelante, procederá confirmar el auto apelado."