Denial of prohibition pay to municipal accountant for lack of administrative approvalRechazo de pago de prohibición a contadora municipal por falta de aprobación administrativa

**VI. THE FIRST INSTANCE JUDGMENT N° 2023000098 OF 1:44 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 27, 2023, IS CONFIRMED:** The plaintiff disagrees with the ruling in the appealed judgment, since the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) she is requesting was denied, and therefore she filed an appeal on September 25, 2023. [...] In the case at hand, the plaintiff alleges improper substantiation and assessment of the evidence in the appealed judgment, since the criteria for the assessment and analysis of the various evidentiary items presented are not reasonably supported. She argues that the case file contains a series of certified documents stating that the functions performed by the plaintiff are typical of the tax administration (administración tributaria) and that she has repeatedly asked the defendant to acknowledge that she always performs these functions; however, the Human Resources Department refuses to issue such certification because they do not want to pay her the prohibition (prohibición) item. She states that the Municipality of Osa has not presented any evidence to refute her claim, nor did they ask questions during the cross-examination, so she does not understand how the lower court (a quo) substantiates the appealed judgment with subjective assessments. She adds that she does not understand how the appealed judgment uses official communication PRH-214-2019 as a reference, when it is the foundational document of this proceeding. She argues that her statement was not assessed because the lower court (a quo) does not explain why her testimony lacks credibility, and there is no evidence to refute it. Having considered the position of both parties and the ruling in the appealed judgment, this Chamber finds that the ruling must be confirmed. From the case record, it is observed that the appellant's disagreement focuses on the denial of the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) she claims in this matter by virtue of her position and functions as accountant of the Municipality of Osa. Firstly, the allegation regarding the lack of substantiation of the appealed judgment is not acceptable because, from the text of the ruling, it is evident that the lower court made a detailed account of the rules relevant to the case, as well as the evidence gathered regarding the factual conditions under which the plaintiff works, to support the dismissal decision. Whether the assessment of those functions fits within the scenario for which the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) under discussion is intended is a question corresponding to the substantive analysis, which must be proven by the party alleging it, and not a procedural matter. The substantive issue raised in the sub judice (subjúdice) is whether the plaintiff, in her capacity as Accountant of the Municipality of Osa, is covered by the prohibition (prohibición) established by Article 1 of Law No. 5867, amended by No. 7896 of August 25, 1999, Law on Professional Prohibition (Ley Sobre Prohibición Profesional). Without needing to analyze any testimony, with the evidence contained in the case file, the Court reaches the conclusion that in the case at hand, the appealed judgment must be confirmed; therefore, the appellant is clearly not covered by the institution of the prohibition (prohibición). Firstly, it must be mentioned that the claim for payment of this salary supplement was supported, in the complaint, by the nature of the functions performed, according to the current Job Manual in the respondent municipality, clearly stating in the complaint the functions carried out by Ms. Tatiana. However, the appellant fails to prove within the case file what regulation establishes that she is entitled to the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) duly approved by the Municipality of Osa. In this Court's view, the conclusion reached by the lower court (a quo) is not consistent with what the plaintiff stated in her complaint, since from the factual framework presented by the appellant, it is not inferred that officials of the Municipality of Osa working in the Tax Administration Department were paid the prohibition (prohibición) item. In this sense, it is unnecessary to analyze whether among the functions performed by Ms. Tatiana, there were any performed by officials of the Tax Administration Department; nor is there any documentary evidence in the case file, as this is a matter of strict legality, proving that officials in the Tax Administration Department are paid the prohibition (prohibición). In the appealed judgment, the lower court (a quo) indicates that in accordance with Article 118 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures, in relation to Article 1 of Law 5867, as has been explained, the prohibition (prohibición) item will apply if the professional holds the degree specified by the regulations and if their functions are related to the tax administration of the canton, an aspect that falls to the Municipality to determine through an administrative procedure by virtue of the autonomy that entity enjoys; that is, each Municipality, through that procedure, will establish which positions will be entitled to the payment of prohibition (prohibición). Note that the lower court (a quo) indicates that the appellant would be entitled to the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) if she performed the same functions as the officials of the Tax Administration office of the Municipality of Osa. However, the case file lacks any documentary evidence proving that the officials of the Tax Administration office of the Municipality of Osa are granted this item. In any case, the complaint is not directed at recognizing that the plaintiff performs the same functions as the personnel of the Tax Administration office and that by virtue of this, her claim is made; on the contrary, what the plaintiff seeks is that, judicially, the prohibition (prohibición) item be created for her as a municipal accountant, since administratively the municipality has not recognized it. This is improper, since a judicial body does not have the authority to create any type of incentive, salary supplement, recognition, etc., as this would violate the principle of budget legality. Consequently, the plaintiff had the procedural burden of proving that the Municipality of Osa authorized her, as a municipal accountant, the payment of the prohibition (prohibición), without assessing whether she performs the same functions as the personnel of the Tax Administration office, since according to the factual framework, it is clear that the appellant does not request the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) by virtue of her carrying out the same functions as them. We find that, before the steps taken by the appellant so that the prohibition (prohibición) item be paid to her, official communication CR-PSJ-45-2020 from the Legal Services Department concludes that according to what is established in the Job Manual of the Municipality of Osa, the payment of the economic compensation contained in Law No. 5867 of December 15, 1975, to the Municipal Accountant of the Municipality of Osa would not be applicable. Said document mentions that according to the technical opinion PRH-214-2019, carried out by the Human Resources Department, it was concluded that the municipal accountant does not meet the assumptions for economic compensation, that is, she does not meet the legal requirements indicated in Article 1 of the Law on Compensation for Prohibition Payment (Ley de compensación por pago de Prohibición) Law No. 5867, Article 118 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures, and subparagraphs d) and e) of Article 4 of the Municipal Code. For the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) to the plaintiff to proceed, it must have been approved by the Municipality of Osa, since its payment could not be judicialized in this venue, because, as indicated, the Municipalities have the political, administrative, and financial autonomy granted by the Political Constitution; therefore, as a Judicial Authority, we could not compel it to grant the plaintiff the prohibition (prohibición) item without a regulation that establishes it. It must be clear that the salary bonus for prohibition (prohibición), in the plaintiff's case as an official of the Municipality of Osa, was and is intended for the officers expressly mentioned by law, that is, those for whom its payment has been approved through an administrative procedure, since positions and items that are not duly approved cannot be created. [...] According to the technical opinion of official communication PRH-214-2019 from the Human Resources Department of the Municipality of Osa, in accordance with the transcribed opinions, the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) in the plaintiff's case is not something that can be easily granted, as has been indicated. According to the technical opinion PRH-214-2019 from the Human Resources Department, as a general rule, public officials are free to practice their profession once their workday is over, unless this freedom to practice their profession is prohibited by law. This opinion stated that, as there is no express regulation establishing the payment of prohibition (prohibición) to the municipal accountant, and since the tasks assigned to this municipal official by the job manuals of the Municipality of Osa do not clearly show that they perform functions closely related to proper tax matters, the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) contained in the first article of Law No. 5867 of December 15, 1975, to the Municipal Accountant would not be applicable. However, in the plaintiff's case, as has been indicated, it is irrelevant whether she performs the same functions as the officials of the Tax Administration, and whether they are paid this item, since she has not stated in the factual framework of the complaint that she requests the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) because she performs their same functions and they are paid for it. It is clear to the Court that the plaintiff initiates the action for the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) based on her position as municipal accountant; however, by virtue of the principle of budget legality that protects her, it has not been proven that in her case, such payment has been authorized to her as a municipal accountant, as evidenced by the technical opinion of the Human Resources Department in official communication PRH-214-2019, the opinion of the Legal Services Department CR-PSJ-45-2020, and official communication DAM-721-2020, issued by the Municipal Mayor, Mr. Jorge Alberto Cole De León, which conclude that she is not entitled to the payment of prohibition (prohibición). Note that the principle of legality is a limit on the Administration's conduct in the selection processes of public officials, as it must respect the current regulations on the matter, in order to materialize equal access to that employment regime. In accordance with what the principle of legality establishes, which binds administrative activity, the Administration cannot grant salary rights or benefits if they are not previously authorized or provided for by the legal system. However, this principle must also be understood as a limitation for the Administration itself not to act outside the permitted limits, which is legally contemplated under the figure of abuse of power (Article 146 of the General Law of Public Administration). In this case, according to the principle of budget legality, it was not possible to pay the appellant the prohibition (prohibición) as this item was not contemplated within the Municipality of Osa's budget. As the appellant did not prove the regulation that makes her deserving of the payment of prohibition (prohibición), its denial is confirmed; for which reason, the appealed judgment is confirmed, but on the terms set forth by this authority. [...]" In the Tribunal's opinion, the conclusion reached by the lower court (a quo) is not consistent with what the plaintiff indicated in her statement of claim, since from the factual framework set forth by the appellant, it cannot be inferred that the officials of the Municipality of Osa who work in the Tax Administration Department were paid the prohibition (prohibición) item. In that regard, it is irrelevant to analyze whether, among the functions performed by Mrs. Tatiana, there were any that were also performed by the officials of the Tax Administration Department, nor is there any documentary evidence in the case file—being a matter of pure legality—that proves that the prohibition (prohibición) is paid to officials in the Tax Administration Department. In the appealed judgment, the lower court indicates that in accordance with Article 118 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios in relation to Article 1 of Ley 5867, as has been explained, the prohibition (prohibición) item would be applicable if the professional holds the degree specified by the regulations and if their functions are related to the tax administration of the canton, an aspect that the Municipality must determine through an administrative procedure by virtue of the autonomy that said entity enjoys; that is, each Municipality, through that procedure, will establish which positions will be entitled to the payment of prohibition (prohibición). Note that the lower court indicates that the appellant would have the right to the payment of prohibition (prohibición) if she performed the same functions as the officials of the Tax Administration office of the Municipality of Osa; however, the case file lacks any documentary evidence that proves that the officials of the Tax Administration office of the Municipality of Osa are granted said item. In any case, the claim is not aimed at recognizing that the plaintiff performs the same functions as the personnel of the Tax Administration office and that her claim is based on this; on the contrary, what the plaintiff seeks is for the judicial authority to proceed to create the prohibition (prohibición) item for her as a municipal accountant, because the municipality has not administratively recognized it for her, which is improper, since a judicial body does not have the power to create any type of incentive, supplemental salary, recognition, etc., as this would violate the principle of budgetary legality. In accordance with the foregoing, the plaintiff bore the procedural burden of proving that the Municipality of Osa authorized the payment of prohibition (prohibición) to her as a municipal accountant, without it being necessary to assess whether she performs the same functions as the personnel of the Tax Administration office, since according to the factual framework, it is clear that the appellant is not requesting the payment of prohibition (prohibición) because she performs the same functions as them. We have that, in response to the efforts made by the appellant to be paid the prohibition (prohibición) item, through official letter CR-PSJ-45-2020 from the Legal Services Department, it was concluded that, in accordance with the provisions of the Municipality of Osa's Position Manual, the payment of the economic compensation contained in Ley N° 5867 of December 15, 1975, to the Municipal Accountant of the Municipality of Osa would not be applicable. In said document, it is mentioned that according to technical opinion PRH-214-2019, prepared by the Human Resources Department, it was concluded that the municipal accountant does not meet the conditions for an economic compensation to apply, that is, the legal requirements indicated in Article 1 of the Ley de compensación por pago de Prohibición Ley N° 5867, Article 118 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, and Subparagraphs d) and e) of Article 4 of the Código Municipal are not met. For the payment of prohibition (prohibición) to the plaintiff to be applicable, it must have been approved by the Municipality of Osa, since its payment cannot be judicially mandated in this venue, because, as indicated, the Municipalities possess the political, administrative, and financial autonomy conferred by the Constitución Política; therefore, as a Judicial Authority, we could not compel it to recognize the prohibition (prohibición) item for the plaintiff without a rule that so establishes. It must be clear that the salary supplement for prohibition (prohibición) in the plaintiff's case as an official of the Municipality of Osa was and is intended for the officials expressly mentioned by law, that is, those whose payment has been approved through an administrative procedure, since positions and items that are not duly approved cannot be created.[...] According to the technical opinion of official letter PRH-214-2019 from the Human Resources Department of the Municipality of Osa, in accordance with the transcribed criteria, the payment of prohibition (prohibición) in the plaintiff's case is not something that can be easily granted, as has been indicated. According to technical opinion PRH-214-2019 from the Human Resources Department, as a general rule, public officials are free to practice the profession they hold once their workday has ended, unless this freedom to practice their profession is prohibited by law. In said opinion, it was recorded that, since there is no express rule establishing the payment of prohibition (prohibición) to the municipal accountant, and given that, according to the tasks assigned to this municipal official by the Municipality of Osa's position manuals, it is not clearly evident that the latter performs functions closely related to tax matters proper, the payment of prohibition (prohibición) contained in article one of Ley N° 5867 of December 15, 1975, to the Municipal Accountant would not be applicable.

However, in the case of the plaintiff, as has been indicated, it is irrelevant if she performs the same functions as the officials of the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), and if they are paid said item, since she has not stated within the factual framework of the complaint that she requests payment of the prohibition (prohibición) because she performs their same functions and they are paid it. It is clear to the Tribunal that the plaintiff is seeking payment of the prohibition (prohibición) based on her position as municipal accountant; however, by virtue of the principle of budgetary legality that covers her, it has not been proven that in her case such payment was authorized for her as municipal accountant, as evidenced by the technical opinion of the Human Resources Department in official letter PRH-214-2019, the opinion of the Legal Services Department CR-PSJ-45-2020, and official letter DAM-721-2020, issued by the Municipal Mayor, Lic. Jorge Alberto Cole De León, which conclude that she does not have the right to payment of the prohibition (prohibición). Note that the principle of legality is a limit on the Administration's conduct in the selection processes for public officials, as it must respect the current rules on the subject, in order to materialize equal access to that employment regime. In accordance with what the principle of legality that binds administrative activity establishes, the Administration cannot grant rights or salary benefits if they are not previously authorized or provided for by the legal system. However, this principle must also be understood as a limitation for the Administration itself not to act outside the permitted limits, which is legally contemplated under the figure of abuse of power (article 146 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública), and in this case, in accordance with the principle of budgetary legality, it was not possible to pay the appellant the prohibition (prohibición) as said item was not contemplated within the budget of the Municipality of Osa (Municipalidad de Osa). As the appellant has not proven the regulation that makes her deserving of the payment of prohibition (prohibición), its rejection is confirmed; reason for which the contested ruling is confirmed, but on the terms set forth by this authority.[...]." The underlying issue raised in the sub lite is whether the plaintiff, in her capacity as Comptroller (Contadora) of the Municipality of Osa, is covered by the prohibition (prohibición) established by Article 1 of Law No. 5867, as amended by Law No. 7896 of August 25, 1999, the Law on Professional Prohibition (Ley Sobre Prohibición Profesional). Without needing to examine any attestation, based on the evidence in the case file, the Court reaches the conclusion that in the case at bar, the appealed judgment must be upheld; therefore, the appellant is clearly not covered by the institution of prohibition (prohibición). Firstly, it must be noted that the claim for payment of that salary supplement was grounded, in the complaint, on the nature of the functions performed, according to the Position Manual (Manual de Puestos) in force at the defendant municipality, indicating with crystal clarity in the complaint the functions that Ms. Tatiana performs; however, the appellant fails to demonstrate within the case file which rule establishes that she is entitled to payment of the prohibition (prohibición) duly approved by the Municipality of Osa.

In the Court's opinion, the conclusion reached by the lower court is not consistent with what the plaintiff stated in her complaint, since from the factual framework set out by the appellant, it cannot be inferred that officials of the Municipality of Osa working in the Tax Administration Department (Departamento de Administración Tributaria) were paid the allowance for prohibition (prohibición). In this regard, it is irrelevant to analyze whether among the functions performed by Ms. Tatiana, there was any that the officials of the Tax Administration Department (Departamento de Administración Tributaria) performed, and neither does the case file contain any documentary evidence—as this is a matter of pure legality—proving that the Tax Administration Department (Departamento de Administración Tributaria) pays its officials the prohibition (prohibición). In the appealed judgment, the lower court indicates that, in accordance with Article 118 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) in relation to Article 1 of Law 5867, as has been explained, the allowance for prohibition (prohibición) will be applicable if the professional holds the degree indicated by the rules and if their functions are related to the tax administration of the canton, an aspect that it is up to the Municipality to determine, through an administrative procedure by virtue of the autonomy that said entity enjoys; that is, each Municipality, through that procedure, will establish which positions will have the right to payment of the prohibition (prohibición).

Note that the lower court indicates that the appellant would have the right to payment of the prohibition (prohibición) if she performed the same functions as the officials of the Tax Administration Office (oficina de Administración Tributaria) of the Municipality of Osa; however, within the case file, there is a conspicuous absence of any documentary evidence proving that the officials of the Tax Administration Office (oficina de Administración Tributaria) of the Municipality of Osa are granted said allowance. In any case, the complaint is not directed at establishing that the plaintiff performs the same functions as the personnel of the Tax Administration Office (oficina de Administración Tributaria) and that her claim is by virtue thereof; on the contrary, what the plaintiff seeks is for the judicial system to proceed to create the allowance for prohibition (prohibición) for her as municipal comptroller, since, administratively, the municipality has not recognized it for her. This is improper, because a judicial body does not have the authority to create any type of incentive, salary supplement, recognition, etc., as this would violate the principle of budgetary legality. In accordance with the foregoing, the plaintiff had the procedural burden of proving that the Municipality of Osa authorized the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) to her as municipal comptroller, without assessing whether she performs the same functions as the personnel of the Tax Administration Office (oficina de Administración Tributaria), since, according to the factual framework, it is clear that the appellant does not request payment of the prohibition (prohibición) by virtue of carrying out the same functions as them.

We find that before the steps taken by the appellant to have the allowance for prohibition (prohibición) paid to her, official letter CR-PSJ-45-2020 from the Department of Legal Services (Departamento de Servicios Jurídicos) concludes that, according to the provisions of the Position Manual (Manual de Puestos) of the Municipality of Osa, the payment of the economic compensation contained in Law No. 5867 of December 15, 1975, to the Municipal Comptroller (Contador Municipal) of the Municipality of Osa would not be applicable. In that document, mention is made that according to technical opinion PRH-214-2019, issued by the Department of Human Resources (Departamento de Recursos Humanos), it was concluded that the municipal comptroller does not meet the requirements for an economic compensation to be given; that is, she does not meet the legal requirements indicated in Article 1 of the Compensation for Prohibition Payment Law (Ley de Compensación por pago de Prohibición) No. 5867, Article 118 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), and Paragraphs d) and e) of Article 4 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal). For the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) to the plaintiff to proceed, it must have been approved by the Municipality of Osa, since its payment could not be pursued in court in this venue, because, as indicated, Municipalities have political, administrative, and financial autonomy conferred upon them by the Political Constitution. Therefore, as a Judicial Authority, we could not compel it to recognize the allowance for prohibition (prohibición) for the plaintiff without an existing rule establishing it. It must be clear that the salary bonus for prohibition (prohibición), in the case of the plaintiff as an official of the Municipality of Osa, had and has as its recipients the officials expressly mentioned by law, that is, those for whom its payment has been approved through an administrative procedure, since positions and allowances that are not duly approved cannot be created.

[...] According to the technical opinion of official letter PRH-214-2019 from the Department of Human Resources (Departamento de Recursos Humanos) of the Municipality of Osa, in accordance with the transcribed opinions, the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) is not something that can be easily granted in the plaintiff's case, as has been indicated.

According to technical opinion PRH-214-2019 of the Department of Human Resources, as a general rule, public officials have the freedom to practice the profession they hold once their workday has concluded, unless this freedom to practice their profession is prohibited by law. In said opinion it was recorded that, since there is no express regulation establishing the payment of prohibition to the municipal accountant, and given that, according to the tasks assigned to this municipal official by the job manuals of the Municipality of Osa, it is not clearly evident that they perform functions closely related to tax matters as such, the payment of the prohibition contained in Article one of Law No. 5867 of December 15, 1975, to the Municipal Accountant would not be applicable. However, in the case of the plaintiff, as has been indicated, it is irrelevant if she performs the same functions as the officials of the Tax Administration and if they are paid said item, since she has not stated within the factual framework of the claim that she requests the payment of the prohibition because she performs their same functions and they are paid it. It is clear to the Tribunal that the plaintiff makes the request for the payment of the prohibition based on her position as municipal accountant; however, by virtue of the principle of budgetary legality that protects her, it has not been proven that in her case said payment was authorized to her as municipal accountant, as is evidenced by the technical opinion of the Department of Human Resources in official letter PRH-214-2019, the opinion of the Department of Legal Services CR-PSJ-45-2020, and official letter DAM-721-2020, issued by the Municipal Mayor, Mr. Jorge Alberto Cole De León, which conclude that she does not have the right to the payment of prohibition. Note that the principle of legality is a limit on the Administration's conduct in the selection processes of public officials, since it must respect the regulations in force on the matter, in order to achieve equal access to that employment regime. In accordance with the principle of legality that binds administrative activity, the Administration cannot grant salary rights or benefits if they are not previously authorized or provided for by the legal system. However, this principle must also be understood as a limitation for the Administration itself not to act outside the permitted limits, which is legally contemplated under the figure of abuse of power (Article 146 of the "Ley General de la Administración Pública"), and in this case, in accordance with the principle of budgetary legality, it was not possible to pay the prohibition to the appellant since said item was not included within the budget of the Municipality of Osa. Since the appellant has not proven the regulation that makes her deserving of the payment of prohibition, its rejection is confirmed; for which reason, the appealed ruling is confirmed, but under the terms set forth by this authority.[...]."

"VI. SE CONFIRMA LA SENTENCIA DE PRIMERA INSTANCIA N° 2023000098 DE LAS 13:44 HORAS DEL 27 DE SETIEMBRE DEL 2023: La parte actora se muestra inconforme con lo resuelto en el fallo recurrido, toda vez, se le rechaza el pago de la prohibición que viene solicitando, por lo que interpuso recurso de apelación en fecha 25 de setiembre del 2023.[...] En el caso de marras la parte actora alega una indebida fundamentación y valoración de la prueba en el fallo recurrido, ya que no se sustentan de forma razonada los criterios de valoración y análisis de los distintos medios de pruebas evacuados. Arguye que dentro del expediente constan una serie de documentos certificados en los que se indican que las funciones realizadas por la actora son propias de la administración tributaria y que en varias ocasiones le ha solicitado a la demandada reconocer que esas funciones las realiza siempre, no obstante el Departamento de Recursos Humanos, se opone a realizar dicha certificación puesto que no quieren pagarle el rubro de la prohibición. Afirma que la Municipalidad de Osa no ha presentado ninguna prueba para desvirtuar su dicho, ni realizaron preguntas en el contradictorio, por lo que no entiende cómo la a quo fundamenta la sentencia recurrida con valoraciones subjetivas. Agrega que no comprende cómo en el fallo impugnado se toma como referencia el oficio PRH-214-2019, siendo el documento base de este proceso. Aduce que no se valoró su declaración porque la a quo no fundamenta por qué no le merece credibilidad su dicho y no hay prueba que lo desvirtúe. Conociendo la posición de ambas partes y lo resuelto en el fallo recurrido, a criterio de esta Cámara se debe confirmar lo resuelto. De los autos se observa que la inconformidad de la recurrente se centra en el rechazo del pago de la prohibición que reclama en el presente asunto en virtud de su cargo y funciones como contadora de la Municipalidad de Osa. Primeramente lo alegado con respecto a la falta de fundamentación de la sentencia impugnada, no es de recibo por cuanto, del texto del fallo es evidente que el juzgado a quo realizó una detallada relación de las normas atinentes al caso, así como de las pruebas recabadas en torno a las condiciones fácticas en las cuales se desempeña la actora, para fundamentar la decisión desestimatoria. Si la valoración de esas funciones encaja o no, dentro del supuesto para el cual está previsto el pago de la prohibición en discusión, esa es una cuestión que corresponde al análisis de fondo que deberá acreditarlo quien lo viene alegando, mas no a un tema de carácter procesal. El tema de fondo que se plantea en el subjúdice es si la actora, en su condición de Contadora de la Municipalidad de Osa, le cubre la prohibición dispuesta por el artículo 1° de la Ley n.° 5867, reformada por la N° 7896 de 25 de agosto de 1999, Ley Sobre Prohibición Profesional. Sin necesidad de entrar a analizar ningún atestado, con la prueba constante en el expediente el Tribunal arriba a la conclusión de que en el caso de marras se debe confirmar el fallo recurrido, por ende claramente la recurrente no está cobijada por el instituto de la prohibición. En primer lugar, debe mencionarse que la pretensión de pago de ese sobresueldo fue sustentada, en la demanda, en la naturaleza de las funciones desempeñadas, según el Manual de Puestos vigente en el municipio accionado, indicándose en la demanda con meridiana claridad las funciones que realiza doña Tatiana, no obstante no logra acreditar la recurrente dentro del expediente cuál es la norma que establece que a ella le corresponde el pago de la prohibición debidamente aprobada por la Municipalidad de Osa. A criterio del Tribunal la conclusión a la que llega la a quo no es acorde con lo indicado por la actora en su escrito de demanda, ya que del cuadro fáctico expuesto por la recurrente no se extrae que a los funcionarios de la Municipalidad de Osa que laboraran en el Departamento de Administración Tributaria, se les cancelara el rubro de prohibición, en ese sentido carece de interés analizar si dentro de las funciones que realizaba doña Tatiana, había alguna que realizaran los funcionarios del Departamento de Administración Tributaria, y tampoco se cuenta en el expediente con alguna prueba documental, por encontrarse ante un asunto de mera legalidad que acredite que en el Departamento de Administración Tributaria se le cancele a sus funcionarios la prohibición. En el fallo recurrido la a quo indica que de conformidad con el artículo 118 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios en relación con el artículo 1 de la Ley 5867, tal y como se ha explicado, el rubro de prohibición procederá si el profesional ostenta el grado señalado por las normas y si sus funciones están relacionadas con la administración tributaria del cantón, aspecto que corresponde determinar a la Municipalidad, mediante un procedimiento administrativo en virtud de la autonomía que goza dicha entidad, es decir, cada Municipalidad mediante ese procedimiento va establecer cuáles son los puestos que tendrán derecho al pago de prohibición. Véase que la a quo indica que la recurrente tendría el derecho al pago de la prohibición, si ella realizara las mismas funciones que lleva a cabo los funcionarios de la oficina de Administración Tributaria de la Municipalidad de Osa, sin embargo dentro del expediente se echa de menos algún elemento de prueba documental que acredite que a los funcionarios de la oficina de Administración Tributaria de la Municipalidad de Osa, se les reconozca dicho rubro, en todo caso, la demanda no va dirigida a que se reconozca que la parte actora realiza las mismas funciones que el personal de la oficina de Administración Tributaria y que en virtud de ello es su reclamo, por el contrario, la actora lo que pretende es, que judicialmente se proceda a crear el rubro de prohibición a ella como contadora municipal, por cuanto, administrativamente la municipalidad no se lo ha reconocido, lo que resulta improcedente, por cuanto, un órgano judicial no tiene la potestad para crear ningún tipo de incentivo, sobresueldo, reconocimiento, etc., toda vez que, se violentaría el principio de legalidad presupuestaria. Conforme lo anterior, competía a la parte actora la carga procesal de acreditar que la Municipalidad de Osa le autorizaba a ella como contadora municipal, el pago de la prohibición, sin entrar a valorar si ella realiza las mismas funciones del personal de la oficina de Administración Tributaria, ya que de acuerdo al cuadro fáctico es claro que la recurrente no solicita el pago de la prohibición en virtud de que ella lleva a cabo las mismas funciones que ellos. Tenemos que ante las gestiones realizadas por la recurrente para que se le cancele el rubro de prohibición, mediante el oficio CR-PSJ-45-2020 del Departamento de Servicios Jurídicos, se concluye que de acuerdo con lo establecido en el Manual de Puestos de la Municipalidad de Osa, no sería procedente el pago de la compensación económica contenida en la Ley N° 5867 del 15 de diciembre de 1975, al Contador Municipal de la Municipalidad de Osa. En dicho documento se hace mención que de acuerdo al criterio técnico PRH-214-2019, realizado por el Departamento de Recursos Humanos, se concluyó que la contadora municipal no cumple con los supuestos para que se dé una compensación económica, es decir, no se cumple con los requisitos legales Indicados en el artículo 1 de la Ley de compensación por pago de Prohibición Ley N°5867, el artículo 118 de Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios y los Inciso d) y e) del artículo 4 del Código Municipal. Para que proceda el pago de la prohibición a la actora, el mismo debió haber sido aprobado por la Municipalidad de Osa, ya que en esta vía no se podría judicializar su pago, por cuanto tal y como se indicó las Municipalidades cuentan con Autonomía política, administrativa y financiera que le confiere la Constitución Política, por ende como Autoridad Judicial no podríamos obligarla para que le reconozca a la actora el rubro de prohibición, sin que exista una norma que así lo establezca. Debe quedar claro que el plus salarial por prohibición en el caso de la actora como funcionaria de la Municipalidad de Osa tuvo y tiene como destinatarios a las personas funcionarias expresamente mencionadas por la ley, es decir aquellos a los que mediante un procedimiento administrativo se les haya aprobado su pago, ya que no se pueden crear puestos y rubros que no estén debidamente aprobados.[...] De acuerdo al criterio técnico del oficio PRH-214-2019 del Departamento de Recursos Humanos de la Municipalidad de Osa, de conformidad con los criterios transcritos, el pago de la prohibición en el caso de la actora no es algo que se puede otorgar fácilmente, tal y como se ha indicado. De acuerdo al criterio técnico PRH-214-2019 del Departamento de Recursos Humanos, como regla de principio, los funcionarios públicos tienen la libertad para ejercer la profesión que ostenta una vez que ha concluido su jornada de trabajo, salvo que esta libertad del ejercicio de su profesión se encuentre prohibida por ley. En dicho criterio se consignó que al no existir norma expresa que establezca el pago de prohibición al contador municipal, y siendo que de acuerdo con las labores encomendadas a este funcionario municipal por parte de los manuales de puestos de la Municipalidad de Osa, no se desprende claramente que éste realice funciones estrechamente relacionadas con la materia tributaria propiamente dicha, el pago de la prohibición contenida en el artículo primero de la Ley N° 5867 del 15 de diciembre de 1975, al Contador Municipal no sería procedente su pago. Sin embargo en el caso de la actora, tal y como se ha indicado carece de interés si ella ejerce las mismas funciones de los funcionarios de la Administración Tributaria, y si a ellos se les cancela dicho rubro, ya que ella no ha referido dentro del cuadro fáctico de la demanda que solicita el pago de la prohibición porque realiza sus mismas funciones y a ellos se les cancela, es claro para el Tribunal que la actora hace la gestión para el pago de la prohibición en función de su cargo como contadora municipal, sin embargo en virtud del principio de legalidad presupuestaria que la cobija, no se ha acreditado que en su caso se le haya autorizado dicho pago como contadora municipal, tal y como se acredita con el criterio técnico del Departamento de Recursos Humanos en oficio PRH-214-2019, criterio del Departamento de Servicios Jurídicos CR-PSJ-45-2020, y el oficio DAM-721-2020, emitido por el Alcalde Municipal el Lic. Jorge Alberto Cole De León, que concluyen que ella no tiene el derecho al pago de prohibición. Véase que el principio de legalidad es un límite de la conducta de la Administración en los procesos de selección de los funcionarios público, ya que ésta deberá respetar las normas vigentes sobre el tema, con el fin de materializar el acceso igualitario a ese régimen de empleo. De conformidad con lo que establece el principio de legalidad que vincula la actividad administrativa, la Administración no puede otorgar derechos o beneficios salariales, si no están previamente autorizados o previstos por el ordenamiento jurídico. No obstante, ese principio, debe también entenderse, como una limitación para la propia Administración de no actuar fuera de los límites permitidos, lo que legalmente se contempla bajo la figura del abuso de poder (artículo 146 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública), y en este caso de conformidad con el principio de legalidad presupuestaria no era posible pagarle a la recurrente la prohibición al no estar contemplado dicho rubro dentro del presupuesto de la Municipalidad de Osa. Al no haber acreditado la recurrente la normativa que la hace merecedora del pago de prohibición, se confirma su rechazo; razón por la cual, se confirma el fallo impugnado, pero en los términos expuestos por esta autoridad.[...]."