Disciplinary sanction against notaries for failure to register a deed of saleSanción disciplinaria a notarios por falta de inscripción de escritura de compraventa

III.The instance judge imposed on each of the reported notaries a sanction of three months of suspension from the exercise of the notarial function, which will remain in effect until the final registration of the writing in question; additionally, the claim for damages was declared without merit, and this matter was resolved without a special award of costs. The aforementioned professionals express disagreement with this decision in their appeal brief, although they do not state specific grievances. In that brief, they state that their disagreement is based on the lack of a causal connection between the conduct attributed as a lack of advisory duty (falta de asesoría) and the imposed sanction of paying the transfer taxes and stamps (timbres), despite it having been demonstrated that the association did not pay those amounts. That when a penalty is established, there must be a clear relationship indicating which factual and evidentiary elements the judge considers proven and the reasoning followed to reach the conclusion of imposing a specific, targeted penalty against the reported parties. That the appealed judgment confuses the nature of the infraction attributed to them as "lack of advisory duty" with a purely financial aspect, namely, whether the complainant effectively paid them the stamps and taxes corresponding to the sale. That it is one thing for them to be responsible for the lack of advisory duty and quite another for the complainant to have the right to unjust enrichment by not paying the amount of those stamps and taxes. That the case is very different when the complainant paid the notary the registration fees and the notary appropriates these and does not file the document with the registry. That the case is also very different when the notary indicates absolutely nothing in the writing about the payment of those stamps and taxes, nor is the receipt of money indicated, nor was a receipt for the money provided. That the failure to register originates from the non-payment of the stamps and taxes by the complainant, not from a withholding or failure to pay those items by the reported parties. That they did file the document with the registry for its registration, which was returned without being registered, and the filing entry (asiento de presentación) was consequently cancelled because the respective stamps and taxes had to be paid. That this was communicated to the Association, as the latter knew they had not made any payment to them concerning the payment of taxes and stamps. That the sanction of covering the required payments lacks legal basis, because the judgment contains the argument that: "...The situation is different, because the notaries expressly indicated that the writing was exempt, and if it is not, they must now bear the consequences of their failure to register the writing that is the subject of this matter, by covering the required payments. Hence, a transgression of the duty to register is established, in view of which the disciplinary correction of... must be imposed on both notaries." That the judgment does not indicate the legal basis in the legal system that supports this reasoning. That the lack of advisory duty is one thing, and it is another to establish a financial sanction—the payment of stamps and taxes—despite it being clear in the case file that the complainant never paid any sum for those two items, thereby benefiting from her own willful misconduct (dolo) and establishing, through the appealed judgment, an unjust enrichment in favor of the complainant at their expense. That if the judgment finds the lack of advisory duty proven, it should have established a sanction consistent with that infraction, using the principles of cause-and-effect relationship, but on the contrary, it unjustifiably rewards the complainant with the non-payment of the stamps and taxes that the complainant herself, upon signing the writing, knew she did not pay. That the unpaid amount is around four and a half million colones. That the judgment's reasoning, that because of poor advice they must pay the stamps and taxes, lacks legal basis and violates the principles of justice, proportionality of the penalty, and equity, as no one is obligated to do the impossible. That they request the judgment be revoked regarding the sanction of covering the required payments, because the complainant did not pay those amounts, and instead, that obligation be established as her responsibility, and once the complainant pays the taxes and stamps, the obligation to register shall be on their account, within a period of one month.

IV.The decision of the first-instance judge is in accordance with the law and must therefore be confirmed, although not for the reasons outlined by that authority, but for the reasons set forth below by the majority of this Tribunal. For the purposes of the matter before us, it must be considered that, in the execution of a public deed (escritura pública), normally, the registration fees, in the absence of a stipulation, are to be paid in equal halves by the buyer and the seller, in accordance with Article 1067 of the Civil Code and Article 66 of the Fee Schedule for Legal Professionals (Arancel de Honorarios de Profesionales en Derecho), Decree number 20307 J of April 4, 1991. Thus, since the parties to the writing declare the transaction amount of the legal transaction, it is up to the notary to record this statement when preparing the respective public instrument and to proceed with the provisional liquidation and calculation of the taxes and stamps that these parties must pay, based on that value, since Article 65, in relation to the first paragraph of Article 67 of the cited Fee Schedule, establishes, firstly, that the interested parties must also pay the notary the sums for fees (derechos), stamps, and taxes that the act or contract must cover, which is why the notary shall not bear any responsibility for the delay in processing the respective documents, nor for the consequences of that delay, if the interested parties do not comply with the foregoing provisions upon signing the corresponding writing, and secondly, the cited Article 67 states that the payment of notarial fees must be made upon signing the public instrument, along with the fees, taxes, and other sums that must be satisfied, all of which may be calculated provisionally when the right or property subject to the act or contract is subject to appraisal or another procedure. From the foregoing, it is deduced that the notary, when authorizing the writing, must ensure that the parties pay him the registration fees that the writing demands, for which purpose he can investigate and verify in the corresponding offices the value of the transacted property, in order to make a correct determination of the aforementioned taxes, or he can make the calculation based on the value declared by the parties. In the latter case, he must warn them that the amount of the fees may be higher, because it depends on the tax base registered by the Tax Administration, for only in this way can he fulfill his functional duty of registration, as contemplated in Article 34, subsection h) of the Notarial Code, in relation to Articles 64 and following of the cited Fee Schedule. It is worth mentioning at this point that, in accordance with the provisions of the Registry Qualification Criteria on Simplification of Registry Procedures contained in Circular BI 046-98 of the Public Registry Directorate of November 27, 1998, it was reported in section number 2, subsection a), that to facilitate the service to notaries and the public, the property values held by the Direct Taxation office can be consulted in the property information published by the registry, meaning that the notary, when conducting the registry study on the property, as part of his pre-deed duty, has the possibility of knowing that value beforehand, in order to compare it with the value declared by the parties in the writing. It must also be noted that, if an adjustment is required in the sums to be paid for fees and professional fees, the notary has the duty to communicate this as soon as possible to the parties, who in turn are obligated to provide the authorizing professional with the additional funds, so that the document registration process is not delayed. It is reiterated that, since the payment of these registration fees is the responsibility of the parties to the writing, the notary has the unavoidable duty to ensure that, during that act, such sums are paid to him, as their full payment must be satisfied as a prerequisite for being able to file and request the registration of the document in the Registry, in accordance with the provisions of subsection a) of Article 50 of the Regulations of the Public Registry, Executive Decree # 26771 J of March 18, 1998, in relation to Article 3 of the Law on Registry Tariffs, so that his functional duty to complete the registration of the writing is not hindered, unless he expressly states in the instrument he authorizes, as indicated above, that those sums were not paid to him, which would release him from that duty until those amounts are covered, because then, the delay would not be attributable to him, in accordance with the provisions of subsection a) of Article 144 of the Notarial Code, in relation to Article 65 of the Fee Schedule for Legal Professionals. It is added that the omission of such a statement in the writing presumes its payment, as established in Article 167 of the cited legal body. This position, that the notary must require the parties and be vigilant, when the writing is executed, regarding the payment of the registration fees it demands, which also extends to the case of instruments executed in co-notary practice (co-notariado), like the case before us, has already been previously expressed by this Tribunal, stating that: "...nor is their defense based on the lack of payment of registration fees receivable, because regarding these fees, this Tribunal considers the following: as the instance judge rightly says, Article 65 of the Fee Decree number 20307-J establishes that the interested parties must also pay the notary the sums for fees, stamps, and taxes that the act or contract must cover, and Article 64 of that same decree establishes that it is the notary's task to proceed with the registration procedures of the document he authorizes, and Article 34 of the Notarial Code also establishes this; therefore, if registration is part of his work, remunerated by notarial fees, and if to proceed with the registration he needs to be paid the expenses for that purpose, it is clear that the notary must ensure that these expenses are paid to him at the moment the document is executed." (Notary Tribunal. Vote # 82 of 9:20 a.m., April 28, 2005) (bold added).

V.In the present matter, the reported notaries authorized, in co-notary practice, writing number 113, through which Mr. [Name1] sells the property registered in the Alajuela Registry District, title number [Placa1], to the Housing Association San Juan de Ciudad Quesada (Asociación de Vivienda San Juan de Ciudad Quesada), for the sum of forty-five million colones, and they recorded in said writing that: "...this writing is exempt from all payment for registry fees (derechos de registro) and transfer taxes (impuestos de transferencia), because the acquiring Association has been declared a Social Welfare Institution (Institución de Bienestar Social), in the Housing Area, by resolution number three hundred two-ninety-four of December seven, nineteen ninety-four, duly registered in the Public Registry of Social Welfare Institutions and Services in Volume one, page three hundred nine, entry three hundred two, under Administrative File number three hundred fifty." This means that the cited professionals accepted the request for services made by the parties in the writing and conducted the corresponding legality review under the premise that the writing was exempt from the payment of fees, stamps, and transfer tax, which was not correct, resulting in the interested parties not paying any sum for registration fees at the appropriate time. Therefore, it is not possible to attribute fault for this fact to the parties in the referenced writing, as they are laypersons in the matter, and that is precisely why the services of notaries are contracted, as they are legal professionals and legally qualified in this area. Now, it is undeniable that by acting in this way, the reported parties made an erroneous legal assessment, which caused the document that was filed for registration on September fourteenth, two thousand, to have its filing cancelled for lack of payment of the fees and stamps. But then, from that cancellation onward, the notaries were obligated to communicate to the parties the amount they had to pay for registration fees, because only with the payment of those fees could the notaries proceed with the registration, which constitutes an unavoidable duty that they cannot neglect, and for which they must ensure at all times until it is achieved. However, in the process, there is no reliable proof that this occurred, as will be seen later. The arguments of the reported parties that they are not responsible for the non-registration of the writing in question, since the complainant has not paid them the fees, stamps, and taxes demanded by the referenced document, are inadmissible to exempt them from the imposed disciplinary sanction and from the functional duty to proceed with the registration of said instrument, because they had the obligation to the parties not only to guarantee the legality of the legal transaction they authorized, but also to verify and conduct the respective study on the fees required to register the writing in question, or, failing that, to inquire at the corresponding office or public registry about the applicability or not of the exemption they claimed the document had. This was an essential circumstance to guarantee the intended purpose of the parties: that this writing be registered in the Registry without obstacles, as part of the right of the acquiring Association to receive the property free of any encumbrance and annotation, as was agreed by the contracting parties, and thus guarantee its full exercise, in accordance with Article 267 of the Civil Code. Furthermore, this prior verification and inquiry by the reported parties, regarding the liquidation of what should be paid for fees, stamps, and taxes, even if provisionally, by making the respective calculation, as provided in the last part of the first paragraph of Article 67 of the Fee Schedule for Legal Professionals cited above, or regarding the applicability of the exemption from those items, was imperative so that the reception and registration of the document would not encounter obstacles, especially considering that it was a substantial transfer paid with public funds obtained through a specific budget line secured by a deputy, to satisfy the housing needs of a large number of members of the complainant entity. It was the duty of the notaries to proceed in this manner, as consideration for the payment of fees covered by the parties. The decision of the indicated professionals to accept the request for services made, in this case, by the grantors of writing number CED1, under the understanding that the transfer was exempt from paying registration fees, was an erroneous judgment, given that as legal professionals exercising a public function such as the notarial function, they could not be unaware that a potential exemption for this case would have to be provided for in Article 2 of the Law Regulating All Existing Exemptions, Their Repeal, and Their Exceptions # 7293 of April 3, 1992, or in some special law expressly covering this transfer, but never in an administrative resolution like the one they recorded in the writing. On the other hand, it is obvious that there could be no legal norm capable of exempting a transfer such as the one described for the transferor, since he is a natural person, a subject of private law, and the acquirer is a Housing Association. The fact that the latter was declared a Social Welfare Institution also did not give grounds for considering it exempt from the payment of fees, stamps, and transfer tax, as it was not protected by any law, and, in accordance with Law # 3095 of June 18, 1963, and Executive Decree number [Placa2] of February 16, 1971, in relation to Article 26 of the Law Creating the Joint Institute of Social Assistance, the Social Welfare declarations are for entities whose statutory purposes are oriented towards the care of children, adolescents, people with disabilities, older adults, and drug-dependent persons, without any exemption for the non-payment of fees, stamps, and transfer tax on documents subject to registration in favor of any entity being contemplated, according to the cited legal text. Additionally, without prejudice to the foregoing, the Bar Association stamp (timbre de Colegio de Abogados) that said document had to pay, in accordance with Law number 3245 of December 3, 1963, and 102 of Decree 20307 J of April 4, 1991, in force when writing number CED1 was executed, and currently Article 104 of Executive Decree 32493 J of August 5, 2005, is a fee that must be covered by the notaries—not the parties—as a mandatory contribution from those professionals for the support of the Bar Association and to increase the pension and retirement fund for its members, so this charge could not be transferred to the grantors. The authorizing notaries acknowledge—as stated—having authorized writing number CED1, relying on the Social Welfare declaration of the purchasing Association, which in itself is insufficient to consider that it supported a possible tax exemption, since from a simple reading of it, no circumstance arises that would lead them to a conclusion of that nature, nor was it demonstrated in the process that any liquidation was presented to the contracting parties of the sums they had to cover, and that they refused to pay those expenses upon such a request, once the filing was cancellated in the Registry. This omission by the notaries ultimately caused evident damage to the purchasing Association, which materialized in the acquisition of a property that has not yet been registered in its name. It must be noted that it is not that bad faith is directly attributed to the notaries, but it is a fact that they acted with great imprudence and a lack of the duty of care they must observe in their actions as public attesting officers (fedatarios públicos), by authorizing said instrument in the manner described, without securing the registration fees or warning the parties in a timely manner, once the Registry cancelled the filing of writing number CED1. It is reiterated that it must be taken into account that when the referenced writing was filed with the Diary on September 13, 2000, its filing was cancelled for lack of payment of the fees and stamps, and when the amount to be paid was not yet subject to penalties, as is the case with the transfer tax, the reported parties did not formally inform the legal representative of the complaining Association of the need to cover these sums, given the error they made when they previously authorized the writing. Therefore, that omission cannot now be remedied, five years after the writing was executed, by attributing responsibility for that fact and for the non-registration of the document to the complainant entity. The assertion by notary Juan Luis Gómez that he informed Mr. [Name2] of this situation, who supposedly then informed the acquiring entity, as stated in his response and appeal briefs, is not sufficient proof to assume that said entity had timely knowledge of the situation that occurred, given that Mr. [Name2] is not a party to said writing. Nor is it proof of that fact that the testimonial copy of the writing was provided to Mrs. Lucía Pavón, secretary of that entity, on October 26, 2000, since what was necessary was a formal, written communication, requiring the legal representative of the Association of the need to cover the fees demanded by the registration of the writing, as well as that, in the event of refusal, they would be unable to register. The absence of the missing communication to the complainant is reaffirmed by the testimony of the witness offered by them, Mr. [Name3], who on page 287 verso states: "Once the testimonial copy was issued, they gave it to him to process at the Registry, and supposedly the Association was exempt from taxes, and then it turned out with the defect that they had to be paid. Knowing this situation, he informed notary Gómez Gamboa, and at the request of the cited notary, he informed Mr. [Name2], who has a relationship with the Association, that the writing had to pay the taxes and was told the amount to be paid. However, as far as he knows, the representatives of the Association did not come to the office and did not pay the amounts."

He indicates that the representative of the Association was not informed, because at that time he had a relationship with don [Nombre2]’s eldest daughter and it was through him that contact was made to execute the deed, since he knew that he worked in a law firm.— He notes that he had no contact with the Association, nor did he know the telephone numbers of its representative, and he does not know whether Mr. [Nombre2] contacted the Association…".— As is apparent from the foregoing, neither the witness, nor Mr. [Nombre2], nor his eldest daughter are formal and appropriate channels to request that payment from the complaining Association, and furthermore, the witness himself says that it was he, not the notary, who communicated it to Mr. [Nombre2], and that the Association did not even have the telephone number of its legal representative; likewise, there is no probative evidence to support that such formal communication was made to the legal representative of the complainant, in a timely manner.— On the other hand, if the notaries considered that the deed was exempt—whether mistaken or not in their assessment—, at no time did they use the mechanisms established in Article 8, subsection d) of the Registry Regulations in relation to Articles 18 and following of Law No. 3883 on the registration of documents in that Registry to challenge the defect noted, to which they simply acquiesced, and they did not formally inform the complainant of the sum of money required for registration expenses, which demonstrates the lack of diligence they had in relation to this matter.— All of the foregoing resulted in the fact that deed number CED1 that is of interest to the complaining Association remains, five years after being granted, still pending registration, and that today it has a lien (embargo) registered against it, despite having acquired the property free of liens and annotations; both notaries thereby failing in their duty to register the aforementioned deed, a duty that is provided for and sanctioned in Articles 34, subsection h) and 144, subsection a) of the Notarial Code, also breaching the provisions of Articles 65 and following of the Professional Legal Fees Tariff, cited above, which imposes on the notary the obligation to proceed without delay to the timely registration of the document, which is an imperative action in those instruments in which registrable rights in rem are recorded, in order to make their existence known to third parties.— The arguments put forward by the co-notaries to justify the delay in the registration of the document are not admissible, since their omission was what led to the deed not being able to be registered, and caused several legal claims from associates, clarifying that they are not being penalized for paying the stamps and taxes, but for failing in their duty to register.— The matter relating to the sums that must be paid to register that document and who must cover them is a matter of strict functional competence of the notaries, the resolution of which corresponds exclusively to them, as a consequence of the decision they made at the time, as public attestors, to proceed to authorize a public instrument, under those conditions, as well as the matter relating to the lien (embargo) encumbering the property, because these obstacles, and any other that arises, are a product of the situation in which they placed themselves by authorizing a document under those conditions, since they accepted the request (rogación) for services in that manner without conducting the rigorous studies, and, subsequently, they did not inform the complainant of anything, who cannot be held responsible, five years later, for not having paid the expenses when that deed was granted, for the reasons set forth above.— As concerns the fact that they delivered the certified copy (testimonio) to one of the directors of the complainant, this is also not a matter that relieves them of the duty to register, since the law provides the solution for such cases (Article 113 of the Notarial Code).— This being the case, in the matter under appeal, what is required is, for the reasons given by the majority of this Tribunal, and not for those of the first instance, to confirm the appealed judgment, by means of which both notaries are sanctioned with three months of suspension from the exercise of the notarial function, until such time as they register the deed number one hundred thirteen of interest, which has been pending registration for more than five years." "III.— The judge of the instance imposed on each of the denounced notaries the sanction of three months of suspension from the exercise of the notarial function, which will remain in effect until the final registration of the deed of interest; furthermore, he dismissed the claim for damages (pretensión resarcitoria) and resolved this matter without special condemnation as to costs.— The cited professionals show disagreement with what was thus resolved in their appeal brief, although they do not express grievances.— In said brief, they state that their disagreement is based on the lack of a causal relationship between the conduct attributed due to lack of legal advice (falta de asesoría) and the imposed sanction of paying the transfer taxes and stamps, despite it being demonstrated that the association did not pay those items.— That when a penalty is established, there must be a clear relationship indicating which factual and probative elements the judge considers proven and what reasoning was used to reach the conclusion of imposing a specific and determined penalty against the denounced parties.— That the appealed judgment confuses the nature of the fault attributed to them of "lack of legal advice" (falta de asesoría) with a purely pecuniary aspect, such as whether or not the complainant effectively paid them the stamps and taxes corresponding to the sale.— That it is one thing for them to be responsible for the lack of legal advice (falta de asesoría) and another for the complainant to have the right to unjust enrichment without paying the amount of those stamps and taxes.— That the case in which the complainant paid the notary the registration expenses and the notary appropriates these and does not present the document to the registry is very different.— That the case when the notary does not indicate absolutely anything in the deed about the payment of those stamps and taxes, nor is the receipt of money indicated or delivery of the receipt of money made, is also very different.— That the lack of registration originates from the non-payment in fact of the stamps and taxes by the complainant, not from a withholding or non-payment of those items by the denounced parties.— That they complied with presenting the document to the registry for its registration, which was returned unregistered and the presentation entry (asiento de presentación) was cancelled in turn, for the reason that the respective stamps and taxes had to be paid.— That this was communicated to the Association, since they knew that they had not made any payment to them in relation to the payment of taxes and stamps.— That the sanction of meeting the required payments lacks legal basis, since the judgment contains the argument that: "…The situation is different, because the notaries expressly indicated that the deed was exempt and if it is not, they must now bear the consequences of their failure to register the deed that is the subject of the matter, meeting the required payments.— Hence, a transgression of the duty to register is established, in view of which the disciplinary correction of… must be imposed on both notaries".— That the judgment does not indicate the legal basis in the legal system that supports this reasoning.— That it is one thing for there to be a lack of legal advice (falta de asesoría) and another for a pecuniary sanction to be established—the payment of stamps and taxes—despite it being clear in the record that the complainant never paid any sum for those two items, taking advantage of their own willful misconduct (dolo) and the appealed judgment establishing unjust enrichment in favor of the complainant at their expense.— That if the judgment considers the lack of legal advice (falta de asesoría) proven, it should have established a sanction in accordance with that fault, using the principles of cause-and-effect relationship, but on the contrary, it unjustifiably rewards the complainant with the non-payment of the stamps and taxes that the complainant herself, upon signing the deed, knew she did not pay.— That the unpaid amount is around four and a half million colones.— That the reasoning of the judgment, that since the legal advice was poor they must pay the stamps and taxes, lacks legal basis and violates the principles of justice, proportionality of the penalty, and equity, no one being obliged to the impossible.— That they request that the judgment be revoked with regard to the sanction of meeting the required payments, because the complainant did not pay those amounts, and instead that said obligation be established at her expense and once the complainant pays the taxes and stamps, the obligation to register runs on their account, within a period of one month. IV.— What was resolved by the judge of first instance is in accordance with law and for that reason must be confirmed, although not for the reasons outlined by said authority but for the reasons that the majority of this Tribunal sets forth below.— For the purposes of the matter before us here, it must be considered that, in the granting of a public deed, normally, the registration expenses, in the absence of a stipulation, are to be paid in halves by the buyer and the seller, in accordance with what is indicated in Article 1067 of the Civil Code and Article 66 of the Professional Legal Fees Tariff, Decree number 20307 J of April 4, 1991.— In this way, since it is the parties in the deed who declare the amount of the transaction of the legal business, it falls to the notary to record this statement when drafting the respective public instrument, and the notary may proceed to make the provisional settlement and calculation of the taxes and stamps that they must pay, according to that value, since Article 65 in relation to the first paragraph of Article 67 of the cited Fees Tariff establishes, firstly, that the interested parties must also pay the notary the sums that, for fees, stamps, and taxes, the act or contract must cover, for which reason the notary shall have no responsibility whatsoever for the delay in the processing of the respective documents, nor for the consequences of that delay, if the interested parties do not comply with the previous provisions upon signing the corresponding deed, and, secondly, cited numeral 67 indicates that the payment of notarial fees must be made upon signing the public instrument together with the fees, taxes, and other sums that must be paid, all of which may be calculated provisionally when the right or property that is the subject of the act or contract is subject to appraisal or another procedure.— From the foregoing, it follows that the notary, when authorizing the deed, must ensure that the parties pay them the registration expenses that the deed demands, for which purpose the notary may investigate and verify in the corresponding offices the value of the transacted property, in order to thus make a correct determination of the referred taxes, or may make the calculation taking as a basis the value declared by the parties.— In this latter case, the notary must warn them that the amount of the expenses may be higher, because it depends on the tax base that the Tax Administration has registered, since only in that way can the notary fulfill their functional duty of registration contemplated in Article 34, subsection h) of the Notarial Code in relation to Articles 64 and following of the cited Tariff.— It is worth mentioning at this point that, in accordance with the provisions of the Registry Qualification Criterion on Simplification of Registry Procedures contained in Circular of the Directorate of the Public Registry BI 046-98 of November 27, 1998, it was reported in section number 2, subsection a), that to facilitate the service to notaries and the public, the values of the properties that the Direct Taxation office had can be consulted in the information on the properties published by the registry, so that the notary, when conducting the registry study on the property, as part of their pre-deed duty, has the possibility of knowing that value beforehand, in order to compare it with the value declared by the parties in the deed.— It must also be indicated that, if an adjustment is required in the sums to be paid for expenses and fees, the notary has the duty to communicate this as soon as possible to the parties, who in turn are obliged to supplement that money to the authorizing professional, so that the document's registration process is not delayed.— It is insisted that in view of the fact that the payment of these registration expenses is to be covered by the parties in the deed, the notary has the unavoidable duty to ensure that at that act, those sums are paid to them, since their full payment must be made as a prerequisite to be able to present and request the registration of the document in the Registry, in accordance with the provisions of subsection a) of Article 50 of the Regulations of the Public Registry, Executive Decree # 26771 J of March 18, 1998 in relation to Article 3 of the Law on Registry Tariffs, and in this way their functional duty to complete the registration of the deed is not hindered, unless they expressly record in the instrument they authorize, as indicated above, that those sums of money were not paid to them, which would exempt them from that duty, until those amounts are covered to them, because then, that delay would not be for a cause attributable to them, in accordance with what is indicated in subsection a) of Article 144 of the Notarial Code in relation to numeral 65 of the Professional Legal Fees Tariff.— It is added that the omission of that recording in the deed presumes its payment, as established in Article 167 of the cited legal body.— This position regarding the fact that the notary must request the parties and be vigilant when the deed is granted for the payment of the registration expenses it demands, which also extends to the case of instruments granted in co-notaryship, as in the case before us here, has already been previously set forth by this Tribunal, when stating that: "… their defense based on the lack of payment of registration expenses being unacceptable, because in relation to these expenses, this Tribunal considers the following: as the judge of the instance rightly says, Article 65 of the Fees Decree number 20307-J establishes that the interested parties must also pay the notary the sums that, for fees, stamps, and taxes, the act or contract must cover, and Article 64 of that same decree establishes that it is the work of the notary to proceed with the registration procedures for the document they authorize, and so does Article 34 of the Notarial Code, so that if registration is part of their work, remunerated with notary fees, and if to proceed with the registration they need the expenses for that purpose to be paid, it is clear that the notary must ensure that those expenses are paid to them at the moment the document is granted." (Tribunal de Notariado.

V.In the present matter, the accused notaries jointly authorized deed number 113, by which Mr. [Nombre1] sells the property registered in the Partido de Alajuela, under title number [Placa1], to the Asociación de Vivienda San Juan de Ciudad Quesada, for the sum of forty-five million colones, and stated therein that: *"…this deed is exempt from all payment for registration fees and transfer taxes, because the acquiring Association has been declared a Social Welfare Institution (Institución de Bienestar Social), in the Area of Housing, by resolution number three hundred two-ninety-four of December seventh, nineteen ninety-four, duly registered in the Public Registry of Social Welfare Institutions and Services in Volume one, folio three hundred nine, entry three hundred two, under Administrative File number three hundred fifty."*.- This means that the aforementioned professionals accepted the request for services (rogación de servicios) made by the parties in the deed and conducted the corresponding legality review under the premise that the deed was exempt from the payment of fees, stamps, and transfer tax, which was not correct. As a result, the interested parties did not pay any sum for registration expenses at that time, so it is not possible to attribute fault for this fact to the parties in the referenced deed, since they are laypersons in the matter, and the services of the notaries were contracted for that purpose, as they are legal professionals and legally qualified in this area. However, it is unquestionable that by acting in this manner, the accused made an erroneous legal value judgment, which caused the document that was submitted for registration on September fourteenth, two thousand, to have its filing (presentación) canceled due to the lack of payment of fees and stamps. But then, from that cancellation onward, the notaries were obliged to inform the parties of the amount they had to pay for registration expenses, because only with the payment of those expenses could the notaries proceed with the registration. This constitutes an unavoidable duty that they cannot neglect, and for which they must ensure at all times until it is achieved. Nevertheless, there is no reliable evidence in the proceeding that this actually occurred, as will be seen further on. The arguments of the accused to the effect that they are not responsible for the non-registration of the deed in question, since the complainant has not paid them the fees, stamps, and taxes demanded for the referenced document, are not admissible to exempt them from the imposed disciplinary sanction and from the functional duty to proceed with the registration of said instrument. They had the obligation to the parties not only to guarantee them the legality of the legal transaction they authorized, but also to verify and conduct the respective study regarding the expenses required to register the deed in question, or, failing that, to inquire at the corresponding office or public registry about the appropriateness or not of the exoneration the document supposedly had. This was an essential circumstance to guarantee the intended goal of the parties that this deed be registered in the Registry without setbacks, as part of the right that the acquiring Association has to receive the property free of all liens and annotations (libre de todo gravamen y anotación), as agreed by the contracting parties, and thus guarantee its full exercise, in accordance with the provisions of Article 267 of the Código Civil. Furthermore, this prior verification and inquiry by the accused regarding the liquidation of what had to be paid for fees, stamps, and taxes, even on a provisional basis by making the respective calculation, as provided for in the last part of the first paragraph of Article 67 of the Arancel de Profesionales en Derecho cited above, or regarding the appropriateness of the exoneration of those items, was imperative so that the receipt and registration of the document would not suffer inconveniences. This is especially true given that it was a large transfer being paid with public funds obtained through a specific budget allocation secured by a deputy, to meet the housing needs of a large number of members of the complainant entity, and it was the notaries' duty to proceed in that manner as consideration for the payment of fees that the parties covered for them. The determination by the aforementioned professionals to accept the request for services (rogación de servicios) made in this case by the grantors of deed number CED1, on the understanding that the transfer was exempt from the payment of registration expenses, was an erroneous value judgment. As legal professionals exercising a public function such as the notarial function (notariado), they could not have been unaware that any eventual exoneration for this case should have been provided for in Article 2 of the Ley Reguladora de todas las Exoneraciones Vigentes, su Derogatoria y sus Excepciones # 7293 of April 3, 1992, or in some special law that expressly covered this transfer, but never in an administrative resolution like the one they recorded in the deed. On the other hand, it is obvious that there could be no legal rule that could exonerate a transfer like the one referenced for the transferor, since he is a natural person, a subject of private law, and the acquirer is a Housing Association (Asociación de Vivienda). The fact that the latter was declared a Social Welfare Institution (Institución de Bienestar Social) also did not provide a basis for considering that it was exempt from the payment of fees, stamps, and transfer tax, since it was not protected by any law. According to the provisions of Law # 3095 of June 18, 1963, and Decreto Ejecutivo number [Placa2] of February 16, 1971, in relation to Article 26 of the Law Creating the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, the declarations of Social Welfare (Bienestar Social) are for entities whose statutory purposes are oriented towards the care of children, adolescents, persons with disabilities, older adults, and drug-dependent persons. According to the cited legal text, no exoneration is contemplated for the non-payment of fees, stamps, and transfer tax on documents subject to registration in favor of any entity. Moreover, without prejudice to the foregoing, the Colegio de Abogados stamp that the document had to pay, according to the provisions of Law number 3245 of December 3, 1963, and 102 of Decreto 20307 J of April 4, 1991, in force when deed number CED1 was granted, and currently numeral 104 of Decreto Ejecutivo 32493 J of August 5, 2005, is a fee that must be covered by the notaries—not the parties—as a mandatory contribution from those professionals for the support of the Colegio de Abogados and to increase the pension and retirement fund for its members. Therefore, this charge could not be transferred to the grantors. The authorizing notaries acknowledge—as stated—having authorized deed number CED1, relying on the declaration of Social Welfare (Bienestar Social) of the purchasing Association, which in itself is insufficient to consider that it supported a possible tax exoneration. From a simple reading, no circumstance arises from which they could have arrived at a conclusion of that nature. Nor was it demonstrated in the proceeding that any liquidation was presented to the contracting parties of the sums that had to be covered, and that these parties refused to pay those expenses upon such a request, once the filing (presentación) was canceled by the registry. This omission by the notaries ultimately caused evident harm to the purchasing Association, which materialized in acquiring a property that has still not been able to be registered in its name. It must be noted that it is not that bad faith is directly attributed to the notaries, but it is a fact that they acted with great imprudence and a lack of the duty of care that they must observe in their actions as public attestors (fedatarios públicos), by authorizing this instrument in the manner described, without having the registration expenses covered or warning the parties about this in a timely manner, once the Registry canceled the filing (presentación) for deed number CED1. It is reiterated that it must be taken into account that when the referenced deed was submitted to the Journal (Diario) on September 13, 2000, its filing (presentación) was canceled due to lack of payment of fees and stamps. And when the amount that had to be paid was not yet subject to the payment of fines, as is the case with the transfer tax, the accused did not formally inform the legal representative of the complaining Association of the need to cover these sums, given the error they made when they previously authorized the deed. Therefore, this omission cannot now be remedied, five years after the deed was granted, by attributing responsibility for that fact and for the non-registration of the document to the complainant entity. The assertion by Notary Juan Luis Gómez that he informed Mr. [Nombre2] of this situation, who in turn supposedly informed the acquiring entity, as stated in his statements of response and appeal, is not sufficient evidence to assume that said entity had timely knowledge of the situation that occurred. This is because Mr. [Nombre2] is not a party to said deed, nor is it proof of that fact that the testimonio (testimonio) of the deed was delivered to Mrs. Lucía Pavón, Secretary of that entity, on October 26, 2000. For that purpose, a formal and written communication was necessary, requiring the legal representative of the Association to cover the expenses demanded for the registration of the deed, as well as that, in the face of their refusal, they would find it impossible to register it. The absence of the communication to the complainant that is missed is reaffirmed by the deposition made by the witness offered by them, Mr. [Nombre3], who on folio 287 verso indicates that: *"Once the testimonio (testimonio) was issued, they gave it to him to process it in the Registry, and supposedly the Association was exempt from taxes, and then it came back with the defect that it had to pay them. Knowing this situation, he informed Notary Gómez Gamboa, and at the request of the cited notary, he informed Mr. [Nombre2], who has a relationship with the Association, that the deed had to pay the taxes, and he was told the amount that had to be paid. However, as far as he knows, the representatives of the Association did not appear at the office nor pay the amounts. He indicates that the representative of the Association was not informed because, at that time, he had a relationship with Mr. [Nombre2]'s eldest daughter, and it was through him that the contact was made to carry out the deed, since he knew that he worked in a law firm. He points out that he had no contact with the Association, nor did he know the telephone numbers of its representative, and he does not know if Mr. [Nombre2] communicated with the Association…".* As is evident from the above, neither the witness, nor Mr. [Nombre2], nor his eldest daughter are formal and appropriate channels to demand that payment from the complaining Association. Rather, the witness himself says that it was he, not the notary, who communicated it to Mr. [Nombre2], and that they did not even have the telephone number of the Association's legal representative. Likewise, there is no evidentiary proof to support that this formal communication was made to the legal representative of the complainant in a timely manner. On the other hand, if the notaries considered that the deed was exempt—whether mistaken or not in their assessment—they never used the mechanisms established by Article 8, subsection d) of the Reglamento del Registro in relation to Articles 18 and following of the Law on Registration of Documents in that Registry, number 3883, to challenge the defect noted, to which they simply acquiesced. They did not formally communicate to the complainant the sum of money required for registration expenses, which demonstrates the lack of diligence they had in relation to this matter. All of the foregoing resulted in deed number CED1, which is of interest to the complaining Association, being, after five years of being granted, still pending registration, and that today it has a lien (embargo) registered against it. This is despite the fact that they acquired the property free of liens and annotations (libre de gravámenes y anotaciones), with both notaries thereby failing in their duty to register the aforementioned deed. This duty is provided for and sanctioned in Articles 34, subsection h) and 144, subsection a) of the Código Notarial, also breaching the provisions of Articles 65 and following of the Arancel de Profesionales en Derecho, cited above, which imposes on the notary the obligation to proceed without delay to the timely registration of the document. This is an imperative action in those titles where registrable real rights are recorded, in order to record their existence before third parties. The arguments made by the co-notaries to justify the delay in the registration of the document are not admissible, since their omissive conduct was what led to the deed not being able to be registered, and it caused several legal claims from members. It is clarified that they are not being sanctioned to pay the stamps and taxes, but for failing in their duty to register. Regarding the sums that must be paid to register that document and who must cover them, this is a matter of the strict functional competence of the notaries, the resolution of which corresponds exclusively to them. This is a consequence of the decision they made at the time, as public attestors (fedatarios públicos), to proceed to authorize a public instrument under those conditions, as well as regarding the lien (embargo) affecting the property. These obstacles, and any other that arises, are the product of the situation in which they placed themselves by authorizing a document under those conditions, since they accepted the request for services (rogación de los servicios) in that manner without conducting the rigorous studies, and, subsequently, did not inform the complainant of anything. The complainant cannot be held responsible, five years later, for not having paid the expenses when that deed was granted, for the reasons stated above. Concerning the fact that the testimonio (testimonio) was delivered to one of the directors of the complainant, this is also not a matter that relieves them of the duty to register, since the law provides the solution for those cases (Article 113 of the Código Notarial). Thus, in the appealed matter, what is appropriate is, for the reasons given by the majority of this Court and not those of the first instance, to uphold the challenged judgment, by which both notaries are sanctioned with three months of suspension in the exercise of the notarial function (función notarial), until they register deed number one hundred thirteen in question, which has been pending registration for more than five years.

"III.- The trial judge imposed on each of the denounced notaries the sanction of three months of suspension from the exercise of the notarial function, which shall remain in effect until the final registration of the deed in question; furthermore, the claim for damages was dismissed, and this matter was resolved without a special award of costs.- The aforementioned professionals express disagreement with what was thus resolved in their appeal brief, although they do not express specific grievances.- In said brief, they state that their disagreement is based on the lack of a causal link between the conduct attributed for lack of advice and the sanction imposed of paying the taxes and transfer stamps, even though it was demonstrated that the association did not pay those amounts.- That when a penalty is established, there must be a clear relationship indicating which factual and evidentiary elements the judge has deemed proven and what reasoning was used to arrive at the conclusion of imposing a specific and determined penalty against the denounced parties.- That the appealed judgment confuses the nature of the fault attributed to them of "lack of advice" with a purely patrimonial aspect such as whether the complainant effectively paid them the stamps and taxes corresponding to the sale or not.- That it is one thing for them to be responsible for the lack of advice and quite another for the complainant to have the right to unjust enrichment by not paying the amount of those stamps and taxes.- That the case where the complainant paid the notary the registration expenses and the notary appropriates these, failing to present the document to the registry, is very different.- That the case is also very different when the notary indicates absolutely nothing in the deed about the payment of those stamps and taxes, nor is the receipt of money indicated, nor was a receipt for the money provided.- That the lack of registration originates from the non-payment of the stamps and taxes by the complainant, not from a withholding or failure to pay those amounts by the denounced parties.- That they fulfilled their duty by presenting the document to the registry for its registration, which was returned without being registered, and the presentation entry was consequently canceled, because the respective stamps and taxes had to be paid.- That this was communicated to the Association, as they knew that the complainants had not made any payment to them in relation to the payment of taxes and stamps.- That the sanction of meeting the required payments lacks legal basis, as the judgment contains the argument that: "…The situation is different, because the notaries expressly indicated that the deed was exempt, and if it is not, they must now bear the consequences of their failure to register the deed in question, by meeting the required payments.- Hence, a transgression of the duty to register is established, in light of which the disciplinary correction of… must be imposed on both notaries."- That the judgment does not indicate the legal basis within the legal system that supports this reasoning.- That one thing is the lack of advice, and quite another is establishing a patrimonial sanction -the payment of stamps and taxes- despite it being clear in the case file that the complainant never paid any sum for those two items, thereby taking advantage of her own willful misconduct, with the appealed judgment establishing unjust enrichment in favor of the complainant at their expense.- That if the judgment deems the lack of advice to be proven, it should have established a sanction commensurate with that fault, using the principles of cause-and-effect relationship, but instead, it unjustifiably rewards the complainant with the non-payment of the stamps and taxes that the complainant herself knew she had not paid when signing the deed.- That the unpaid amount is around four and a half million colones.- That the judgment's reasoning, that because they advised poorly they must pay the stamps and taxes, lacks legal basis and violates the principles of justice, proportionality of the penalty, and equity, as no one is obliged to do the impossible.- That they request the judgment be revoked regarding the sanction of meeting the required payments, because the complainant did not pay those amounts, and that instead, that obligation be established as her responsibility, and once the complainant pays the taxes and stamps, the obligation to register be borne by them, within a period of one month. IV.- The decision reached by the trial judge is in accordance with the law and must therefore be confirmed, although not for the reasons outlined by that authority but for the reasons that the majority of this Tribunal sets forth below.- For the purposes of the matter before us, it must be considered that, in the execution of a public deed, normally, the registration expenses, absent any stipulation, are to be paid in equal shares by the buyer and the seller, according to the provisions of Article 1067 of the Civil Code and Article 66 of the Fee Schedule for Legal Professionals, Decreto number 20307 J of April 4, 1991.- In this way, since it is the parties in the deed who declare the amount of the legal transaction, it is the notary's responsibility to record this declaration when drafting the respective public instrument and he may proceed to make the provisional liquidation and calculation of the taxes and stamps that they must pay, according to that value, since Article 65 in relation to the first paragraph of Article 67 of the cited Fee Schedule establish, firstly, that the interested parties must also pay the notary the sums for rights, stamps, and taxes that the act or contract must cover, which is why the notary shall have no responsibility whatsoever for the delay in processing the respective documents, nor for the consequences of that delay, if the interested parties do not comply with the preceding provisions upon signing the corresponding deed, and secondly, the cited provision 67 states that the payment of notarial fees must be made upon signing the public instrument, together with the rights, taxes, and other sums that must be satisfied, all of which may be calculated provisionally when the right or property subject to the act or contract is subject to appraisal or other procedures.- From the foregoing, it follows that the notary, when authorizing the deed, must ensure that the parties pay him the registration expenses that the deed requires, for which he may investigate and verify in the corresponding offices the value of the transacted property, in order to correctly determine the aforementioned taxes, or he may make the calculation based on the value declared by the parties.- In this latter case, he must warn them that the amount of the expenses may be higher, because it depends on the taxable base registered by the Tax Administration, since only in that way can he fulfill his functional duty of registration as set forth in Article 34, subsection h) of the Notarial Code in relation to Article 64 and following of the cited Fee Schedule.- It is worth mentioning at this point that, in accordance with what is established in the Registry Qualification Criterion on Simplification of Registry Procedures contained in Circular of the Directorate of the Public Registry BI 046-98 of November 27, 1998, it was reported in section number 2, subsection a), that to facilitate service to notaries and the public, the values of real estate held by Direct Taxation can be consulted in the property information published by the registry, so that the notary, when conducting the registry study on the property, as part of his pre-deed duty, has the possibility of knowing that value beforehand, in order to compare it with what the parties declared in the deed.- It must also be noted that, if an adjustment to the sums to be paid for expenses and fees is required, the notary has the duty to communicate this as soon as possible to the parties, who in turn are obligated to provide the authorizing professional with the additional funds, so that the document's registration process is not delayed.- It is reiterated that, given that the payment of these registration expenses is to be covered by the parties in the deed, the notary has the unavoidable duty to ensure that at that moment those sums are paid to him, since their full payment must be satisfied as a prerequisite for being able to present and request the registration of the document in the Registry, according to the provisions of subsection a) of Article 50 of the Regulations of the Public Registry, Decreto Ejecutivo # 26771 J of March 18, 1998, in relation to Article 3 of the Registry Fee Law, so that his functional duty to complete the registration of the deed is not hindered, unless he expressly states in the instrument he authorizes, as indicated above, that those sums of money were not paid to him, which would release him from that duty until those amounts are covered, because then, the delay would not be attributable to him, in accordance with subsection a) of Article 144 of the Notarial Code in relation to provision 65 of the Fee Schedule for Legal Professionals.- It is added that the omission of such a statement in the deed presumes its payment, as established by Article 167 of the cited legal body.- This position, regarding the fact that the notary must require the parties and be vigilant when the deed is executed for the payment of the registration expenses it requires, which also extends to the case of instruments executed in co-notaryship, as in the matter before us, has already been previously stated by this Tribunal, when expressing that: "… without his defense based on the lack of payment of registration expenses being acceptable, because regarding these expenses, this Tribunal considers the following: as the trial judge correctly states, Article 65 of Decreto de Honorarios number 20307-J establishes that the interested parties must also pay the notary the sums for rights, stamps, and taxes that the act or contract must cover, and Article 64 of that same decree establishes that it is the notary's job to proceed with the registration procedures for the document he authorizes, and Article 34 of the Notarial Code also establishes this, so that if registration is part of his work, compensated by notarial fees, and if to proceed with the registration he needs the expenses for that purpose to be paid to him, it is clear that the notary must ensure that those expenses are paid to him at the moment the document is executed." (Notarial Tribunal. Voto # 82 of 9:20 a.m. on April 28, 2005) (bold emphasis supplied). V.- In the present matter, the denounced notaries authorized in co-notaryship deed number 113, by which Mr. [Nombre1] sells the property registered in the Partido de Alajuela, registration number [Placa1], to the Asociación de Vivienda San Juan de Ciudad Quesada, for the sum of forty-five million colones, and they stated therein that: "…this deed is exempt from all payment for registry fees and transfer taxes, because the acquiring Association has been declared a Social Welfare Institution, in the Housing Area, by resolution number three hundred two-ninety-four of December seven, nineteen ninety-four, duly registered in the Public Registry of Social Welfare Institutions and Services in Volume one, folio three hundred nine, entry three hundred two, under Administrative File number three hundred fifty."- This means that the cited professionals accepted the request for services made by the parties in the deed and carried out the corresponding legality control under the premise that the deed was exempt from the payment of fees, stamps, and transfer tax, without this being correct, which resulted in the interested parties not paying, at that time, any sum for registration expenses, so it is not possible to blame the parties in the referenced deed for this fact, as they are laypersons in the matter, and it is for this reason that the services of notaries, who are legal professionals and legally qualified in this area, are contracted.- Now then, it is undeniable that by acting in this manner, the denounced parties made an erroneous legal value judgment, which caused the document that was presented for registration on September fourteenth of the year two thousand to have its presentation canceled due to the non-payment of the fees and stamps.- But then, from that cancellation onward, the notaries were obligated to inform the parties of the amount they had to pay for registration expenses, because only with the payment of those expenses could the notaries proceed with the registration, which constitutes an unavoidable duty that they cannot neglect, and for which they must take care at all times until it is achieved.- However, in the process, there is no reliable proof that this occurred, as will be seen later.- The arguments of the denounced parties that they are not responsible for the non-registration of the deed in question, since the complainant has not paid them the fees, stamps, and taxes that the referenced document requires, are not admissible to exempt them from the imposed disciplinary sanction and the functional duty to proceed to register said instrument, because they had the obligation with the parties, not only to guarantee them the legality of the legal transaction they authorized, but also to verify and carry out the respective study regarding the expenses required to register the deed in question, or, failing that, to investigate with the corresponding office or public registry about whether or not the exemption they claimed the document had was applicable, which was an essential circumstance to guarantee the purpose intended by the parties that said deed be registered in the Registry without setbacks, as part of the right of the acquiring Association to receive the property free of all liens and annotations, as agreed by the contracting parties, and thus guarantee its full exercise, in accordance with the provisions of Article 267 of the Civil Code.- Moreover, this prior verification and inquiry by the denounced parties, regarding the liquidation of what had to be paid for fees, stamps, and taxes, even if provisionally, by making the respective calculation, as provided in the last part of the first paragraph of Article 67 of the Fee Schedule for Legal Professionals cited above, or regarding the applicability of the exemption of those items, was imperative so that the reception and registration of the document would not suffer any inconvenience, especially considering it was a substantial transfer paid for with public funds obtained through a specific allocation procured by a deputy, to meet the housing needs of a large number of members of the denouncing entity, and it was the duty of the notaries to proceed in that manner, as consideration for the payment of fees that the parties covered for them.- The decision of the indicated professionals to accept the request for services made in this case by the grantors of deed number CED1, under the understanding that the transfer was exempt from the payment of registration expenses, was an erroneous value judgment, since as legal professionals who exercise a public function such as the notary, they could not be unaware that any eventual exemption for this case would have to be provided for in Article 2 of the Law Regulating All Existing Exemptions, their Derogation and their Exceptions # 7293 of April 3, 1992, or in some special law that expressly covered this transfer, but never in an administrative resolution such as the one they noted in the deed.- On the other hand, it is obvious that there could be no legal norm that could exempt a transfer such as the one referenced for the transferor, since he is a natural person, a subject of private law, and the acquirer is a Housing Association.- The fact that the latter was declared a Social Welfare Institution did not give rise to the assumption that it was exempt from the payment of fees, stamps, and transfer tax either, because it was not protected by any law and, in accordance with the provisions of Law # 3095 of June 18, 1963 and the Decreto Ejecutivo number [Placa2] of February 16, 1971, in relation to Article 26 of the Law Creating the Joint Institute of Social Assistance, the declarations of Social Welfare are for entities whose statutory purposes are aimed at the care of children, adolescents, persons with disabilities, older adults, and drug-dependent persons, without any exemption for the non-payment of fees, stamps, and transfer tax on documents subject to registration in favor of any entity being contemplated, according to the cited legal text.- Furthermore, without prejudice to the foregoing, the Costa Rican Bar Association stamp that said document had to pay, in accordance with the provisions of Law number 3245 of December 3, 1963 and 102 of Decreto 20307 J of April 4, 1991, in force when deed number CED1 was executed, and currently provision 104 of Decreto Ejecutivo 32493 J of August 5, 2005, is a fee that the notaries -not the parties- must cover, as a mandatory contribution from those professionals for the maintenance of the Costa Rican Bar Association and to increase the pension and retirement fund of its members, so this charge could not be passed on to the grantors.- The authorizing notaries recognize - as stated - having authorized deed number CED1, relying on the Social Welfare declaration of the purchasing Association, which in itself is insufficient to consider that it supported a possible tax exemption, since from its simple reading no circumstance emerges that would have led them to a conclusion of that nature, nor was it demonstrated in the process that any liquidation was presented to the contracting parties of the sums they had to cover, and that they refused to pay those expenses upon such a request, once the presentation was canceled by the registry, this omission by the notaries ultimately causing evident harm to the purchasing Association, which materialized in acquiring a property that has still not been able to be registered in its name.- It must be noted that it is not that bad faith is directly attributed to the notaries, but it is a fact that they acted with considerable recklessness and breach of the duty of care they must observe in their actions as public attestors, by authorizing said instrument in the manner described, without securing the registration expenses or warning the parties about it in a timely manner, once the Registry canceled the presentation of deed number CED1.- It is reiterated that it must be taken into account that when the referenced deed was presented to the Daily Registry on September 13, 2000, its presentation was canceled for lack of payment of fees and stamps, and when the amount to be paid was not yet subject to fines, as is the case with the transfer tax, the denounced parties did not formally inform the legal representative of the complaining Association of the need to cover these sums, given the error they incurred when they previously authorized the deed, so that omission cannot be remedied now, five years after the deed was executed, by blaming the denouncing entity for that fact and for the non-registration of the document.- The assertion by the notary Juan Luis Gómez that he made this situation known to Mr. [Nombre2], who, in turn, supposedly informed the acquiring entity, as he states in his reply and appeal briefs, is not sufficient proof to assume that said entity had timely knowledge of the event that occurred, since Mr. [Nombre2] is not a party in said deed, nor is it proof of that fact that the testimonial copy of the deed was given to Mrs. Lucía Pavón, Secretary of that entity, on October 26, 2000, as a formal and written communication was necessary for this, requiring the legal representative of the Association of the necessity of covering the expenses required for the registration of the deed, as well as that, given her refusal, they were unable to register it.- The absence of the communication to the complainant, which is notably missing, is reaffirmed by the deposition made by the witness offered by them, Mr. [Nombre3], who at folio 287 verso states that: "Once the testimonial copy was issued, it was given to him to process it in the Registry and supposedly the Association was exempt from taxes, and later it turned out with the defect that they had to pay them.- Knowing this situation, he made it known to the notary Gómez Gamboa, and at the request of the cited notary, he informed Mr. [Nombre2], who is related to the Association, that the deed had to pay the taxes and the amount that had to be paid was indicated to him. However, as far as he knows, the representatives of the Association did not come to the office nor did they pay the amounts." He states that the Association’s representative was not informed because at that time he had a relationship with don [Name2]'s eldest daughter and it was through him that contact was made to execute the deed, as he knew that [Name2] worked at a law office. He notes that he had no contact with the Association, nor did he know the telephone numbers of its representative, and he does not know whether Mr. [Name2] communicated with the Association…".- As is clear from the foregoing, neither the witness, nor Mr. [Name2], nor his eldest daughter are formal and appropriate channels to request that payment from the complainant Association, and rather, the witness himself says that it was he, not the notary, who communicated it to Mr. [Name2], and that they did not even have the telephone number of the Association’s legal representative, and likewise, there is no probative evidence to support that such formal communication was made to the complainant's legal representative, in a timely manner.- On the other hand, if the notaries considered that the deed was exempt—whether mistaken or not in their assessment—at no time did they use the mechanisms established in Article 8, subsection d) of the Registry Regulations in relation to Articles 18 and following of Law No. 3883 on the registration of documents in that Registry to challenge the noted defect, to which they simply acquiesced, and they did not formally communicate to the complainant the sum of money required for registration expenses, which demonstrates the lack of diligence they had regarding this matter.- All of the foregoing resulted in the deed number CED1 of interest to the complainant Association, remaining, five years after being granted, still pending registration, and that today it has a registered attachment, despite the fact that they acquired the property free of liens and annotations, with both notaries thereby failing in their duty to register the aforementioned deed, a duty that is provided for and sanctioned in Articles 34, subsection h) and 144, subsection a) of the Notarial Code, also failing to comply with the provisions of Articles 65 and following of the Attorney Fee Schedule, cited above, which imposes on the notary the obligation to proceed without delay to the timely registration of the document, which is an imperative action in those instruments where registrable rights in rem are set forth, in order to record their existence before third parties.- The arguments put forward by the co-notaries to justify the delay in the registration of the document are not admissible, since their omission led to the deed being unable to be registered, and caused several legal claims from members, clarifying that they are not being sanctioned to pay the stamps and taxes, but rather for failing in their duty to register.- The matter regarding the sums that must be paid to register that document and who must cover them is a matter of strict functional competence of the notaries, the resolution of which falls exclusively to them, as a consequence of the decision they made at the time, as public attestors, to proceed to authorize a public instrument, under those conditions, as well as the matter regarding the attachment borne by the property, because these obstacles, and any other that may arise, are the product of the situation in which they placed themselves by authorizing a document under those conditions, since they accepted the petition for services in that manner without conducting the rigorous studies, and, subsequently, they did not inform the complainant of anything, who cannot be held responsible, five years later, for not having paid the expenses when that deed was granted, for the reasons set forth above.- With respect to the fact that the certified copy was delivered to one of the directors of the complainant, that is also not a matter that relieves them of the duty to register, since the law provides the solution for those cases (Article 113 of the Notarial Code).- That being the case, on appeal, what is required is, for the reasons given by the majority of this Tribunal, and not for those of the first instance, to confirm the appealed ruling, by which both notaries are sanctioned with three months' suspension in the exercise of the notarial function, until such time as they register the deed number one hundred thirteen of interest, which has been pending registration for more than five years."

"III.- El juzgador de instancia le impuso a cada uno de los notarios denunciados, la sanción de tres meses de suspensión en el ejercicio de la función notarial, la que se mantendrá vigente hasta la inscripción final de la escritura que interesa, además, declaró sin lugar la pretensión resarcitoria y resolvió este asunto sin especial condenatoria en costas.- Los citados profesionales muestran disconformidad con lo así resuelto en su escrito de apelación, aunque no expresan agravios.- En dicho líbelo, expresan que su disconformidad se funda en que falta relación de causalidad entre la conducta atribuida por falta de asesoría y la sanción impuesta de pagar los impuestos y timbres de traspaso, a pesar de quedar demostrado que la asociación no canceló esos rubros.- Que al establecerse una pena debe existir una clara relación que indique cuáles fueron los elementos, fácticos y probatorios que el juzgador tiene por demostrados y qué razonamiento efectuó, para arribar a la conclusión de imponer una pena específica y determinada en contra de los denunciados.- Que la sentencia recurrida confunde la naturaleza de la falta que se les atribuye de "falta de asesoría" con un aspecto meramente patrimonial como lo es si la denunciante canceló o no, a ellos, en forma efectiva los timbres e impuestos, que corresponde a la compraventa.- Que una cosa es que sean responsables por la falta de asesoría y otra es que la denunciante tenga derecho a enriquecerse sin causa no pagando el monto de esos timbres e impuestos.- Que es muy diferente el caso en que el denunciante pagó al notario los gastos de inscripción y el cartulante se apropia de estos y no presentando el documento al registro.- Que también es muy diferente el caso cuando el notario no indica en la escritura absolutamente nada sobre el pago de esos timbres e impuestos, no se indica tampoco el recibo de dinero o no se hizo entrega del recibo del dinero.- Que la falta de inscripción se origina en el no pago efectivo de los timbres e impuestos por la denunciante, no en una retención o falta de pago de esos rubros por los denunciados.- Que ellos cumplieron con presentar el documento al registro para su inscripción, el cual fue devuelto sin inscribir y se canceló a su vez el asiento de presentación, por el motivo de que se debían pagar los timbres e impuestos respectivos.- Que eso se le comunicó a la Asociación, pues éstos conocían que ellos no les habían realizado pago alguno en relación a la cancelación de impuestos y timbres.- Que la sanción de hacer frente a los pagos requeridos carece de fundamento legal, pues la sentencia contiene el argumento de que: "…La situación es distinta, porque en forma expresa los notarios indicaron que la escritura estaba exenta y si no lo está, deben ahora soportar las consecuencias de su falta de inscribir la escritura objeto del asunto, haciendo frente a los pagos requeridos.- De ahí que se establezca una transgresión al deber de inscribir, en atención a la cual debe imponerse a ambos notarios, la corrección disciplinaria de…".- Que la sentencia no indica el fundamento legal del ordenamiento jurídico que fundamenta este razonamiento.- Que una cosa es la falta de asesoría y otra que se establezca una sanción patrimonial -el pago de timbres e impuestos- a pesar de estar claro en el expediente que la denunciante nunca pagó por esos dos rubros suma alguna, sacando provecho de su propio dolo y estableciendo la sentencia apelada un enriquecimiento sin causa a favor de la denunciante a costa de sus personas.- Que si la sentencia da por demostrada la falta de asesoría, debió establecer una sanción acorde a esa falta, utilizando los principios de relación de causa-efecto, pero el contrario, premia en forma injustificada a la denunciante con el no pago de los timbres e impuestos que la propia denunciante, al firmar la escritura, sabía que no canceló.- Que el monto no pagado ronda los cuatro millones y medio de colones.- Que el razonamiento de la sentencia, de que como se asesoró mal deben pagar los timbres e impuestos, carece de fundamento legal y atenta contra los principios de justicia, proporcionalidad de la pena y equidad, no estando nadie obligado a lo imposible.- Que solicitan se revoque la sentencia en lo relativo a la sanción de hacer frente a los pagos requeridos, por no haber cancelado la denunciante esos montos y en su lugar se establezca esa obligación a su cargo y una vez que la denunciante cancele los impuestos y timbres, la obligación de inscribir corra por su cuenta, en un plazo de un mes. IV.- Lo resuelto por el señor juez de primera instancia se encuentra a derecho y por eso ha de confirmarse, aunque no por los motivos que esboza dicha autoridad sino por las razones que de seguido expone la mayoría de este Tribunal.- Para los efectos del asunto que aquí nos ocupa, debe considerarse que, en el otorgamiento de una escritura pública, normalmente, los gastos de inscripción, a falta de estipulación, corresponde pagarlos por mitades al comprador y al vendedor, de acuerdo a lo que indica el artículo 1067 del Código Civil y el artículo 66 del Arancel de Honorarios de Profesionales en Derecho, Decreto número 20307 J de 4 de abril de 1991.- De esta forma, siendo las partes en la escritura las que declaran el monto de la transacción del negocio jurídico, toca al notario consignar esta manifestación al confeccionar el respectivo instrumento público y puede proceder a efectuar la liquidación y cálculo provisional de los impuestos y timbres que corresponde pagar a éstos, conforme a ese valor, ya que el artículo 65 en relación al párrafo primero del artículo 67 del citado Arancel de Honorarios establecen, en primer término, que los interesados deben satisfacer también al notario las sumas que por derechos, timbres e impuestos deba cubrir el acto o contrato, motivo por el que el notario no tendrá responsabilidad alguna por el atraso en el trámite de los documentos respectivos, ni por las consecuencias de esa morosidad, si los interesados no cumplen con las disposiciones anteriores al suscribirse la escritura correspondiente y, en segundo término, el numeral 67 citado señala, que la retribución de honorarios notariales se deberá efectuar al suscribirse el instrumento público junto con los derechos, impuestos y demás sumas que deben satisfacerse, todos los cuales podrán calcularse de modo provisional cuando el derecho o bien objeto del acto o contrato quede sujeto a avalúo u otro trámite.- De lo anterior se colige que el notario, al autorizar la escritura, debe velar porque las partes le paguen los gastos de inscripción que la escritura demanda, para lo cual puede investigar y verificar en las oficinas correspondientes el valor del bien transado, para así efectuar una correcta fijación de los referidos tributos, o puede hacer el cálculo tomando como base el valor declarado por las partes.- En este último caso, debe advertirle a ellas que el monto de los gastos puede ser mayor, porque depende de la base imponible que tenga registrada la Administración Tributaria, pues sólo de esa manera, puede cumplir con su deber funcional de inscripción contemplado en el artículo 34 inciso h) del Código Notarial en relación a los artículos 64 y siguientes del Arancel citado.- Cabe mencionar en este punto que, de conformidad con lo establecido en el Criterio de Calificación Registral sobre Simplificación de Trámites Registrales contenido en Circular de la Dirección del Registro Público BI 046-98 del 27 de noviembre de 1998 se informó en el acápite número 2 inciso a), que para facilitar el servicio a notarios y público, los valores de los inmuebles que tenía Tributación Directa, pueden ser consultados en la información de las fincas que publica el registro, por lo que el notario, al efectuar el estudio registral sobre la finca, como parte de su deber pre-escriturario, tiene la posibilidad de conocer ese valor de antemano, a fin de confrontarlo con el que declararon las partes en la escritura.- También debe indicarse que, de requerirse un ajuste en las sumas a pagar por gastos y honorarios, el notario tiene el deber de comunicarlo a la mayor brevedad a las partes, quienes a su vez están en la obligación de completarle esos dineros al profesional autorizante, a fin de que no se retrase el proceso de inscripción del documento.- Se insiste en que en vista de que la cancelación de estos gastos de inscripción corresponde cubrirlos a las partes en la escritura, el notario tiene el deber ineludible de procurar que en ese acto le sean satisfechas esas sumas, ya que su pago completo debe satisfacerse como requisito previo para poder presentar y solicitar la inscripción del documento en el Registro, de acuerdo a lo que dispone el inciso a) del artículo 50 del Reglamento del Registro Público, Decreto Ejecutivo # 26771 J de 18 de marzo de 1998 en relación al artículo 3 de la Ley de Aranceles del Registro y así no se vea entorpecido su deber funcional de culminar con la inscripción de la escritura, a menos que consigne expresamente en el instrumento que autoriza, como líneas atrás se indicó, que no le fueron satisfechas esas sumas de dinero, lo que lo dispensaría de ese deber, hasta tanto se le cubran esos montos, porque entonces, no sería por causa atribuible a él ese atraso, de acuerdo a lo que señala el inciso a) del artículo 144 del Código Notarial en relación al numeral 65 del Arancel de Honorarios de Profesionales en Derecho.- Se agrega que la omisión de esa consignación en la escritura, hace presumir su pago, según lo establece el artículo 167 del citado cuerpo legal.- Esta posición relativa a que el notario debe requerir a las partes y estar vigilante cuando se otorga la escritura del pago de los gastos de inscripción que ésta demanda, lo que también se extiende al caso de instrumentos otorgados en co-notariado, como el caso que aquí nos ocupa, ya la ha expuesto con anterioridad este Tribunal, al expresar que: "… sin que resulte de recibo su defensa basada en la falta de pago de los gastos de inscripción, porque en lo relativo a estos gastos, este Tribunal estima lo siguiente: como bien lo dice el señor juez de instancia, el artículo 65 del Decreto de Honorarios número 20307-J establece que los interesados deben satisfacer también al notario las sumas que por derechos, timbres e impuestos deba cubrir el acto o contrato, y el artículo 64 de ese mismo decreto establece que es labor del notario proceder con los trámites de inscripción del documento que autoriza, y así lo establece también el artículo 34 del Código Notarial, de manera que si la inscripción es parte de su labor, remunerada con los honorarios de notariado, y si para proceder a la inscripción necesita que se le paguen los gastos para ese fin, es claro que el notario debe velar porque esos gastos le sean pagados en el momento en que se otorga el documento." (Tribunal de Notariado. Voto # 82 de las 9:20 horas del 28 de abril del 2005) (negrita suplida). V.- En el presente asunto, los notarios denunciados autorizaron en co-notariado la escritura número 113, mediante la cual el señor [Nombre1] vende la finca inscrita en el Partido de Alajuela, matrícula [Placa1], a la Asociación de Vivienda San Juan de Ciudad Quesada, por la suma de cuarenta y cinco millones de colones e, hicieron constar en la misma que: "…la presente escritura se encuentra exenta de todo pago por concepto de derechos de registro e impuestos de transferencia, por haber sido declarada la Asociación adquirente, Institución de Bienestar Social, en el Area de Vivienda, mediante resolución número trescientos dos-noventa y cuatro del siete de diciembre de mil novecientos noventa y cuatro, debidamente inscrita en el Registro Público de Instituciones y Servicios de Bienestar Social en el Tomo primero, folio trescientos nueve, asiento trescientos dos, bajo el Expediente Administrativo número trescientos cincuenta.".- Esto quiere decir, que los citados profesionales aceptaron la rogación de servicios que hicieron las partes en la escritura y efectuaron el control de legalidad correspondiente bajo la premisa de que la escritura estaba exenta del pago de derechos, timbres e impuesto de traspaso, sin que esto fuere correcto, lo que trajo como consecuencia, que las partes interesadas no pagaran en su oportunidad, suma alguna para gastos de inscripción, por lo que no es posible achacar culpa por este hecho a las partes en la escritura referida, pues éstas son legas en la materia y para eso se contratan los servicios de los notarios, quienes son profesionales en derecho y calificados legalmente en esa materia.- Ahora bien, es indudable que al actuar así, los denunciados efectuaron un juicio de valor legal equivocado, lo que provocó que al documento que fue presentado para su inscripción el catorce de setiembre del dos mil, le fuera cancelada su presentación por la falta de pago de los derechos y timbres.- Pero entonces, a partir de esa cancelación, los notarios estaban obligados a comunicarle a las partes, el monto que debían pagar en concepto de gastos de inscripción, porque sólo con el pago de esos gastos, los notarios podrían proceder a la inscripción, lo que constituye un deber ineludible que no pueden desatender, y por el que deben velar en todo momento hasta lograrlo.- Sin embargo en el proceso no existe prueba fehaciente de que eso haya ocurrido así, según se verá más adelante.- Los argumentos de los denunciados en el sentido de que no tienen responsabilidad por la no inscripción de la escritura que interesa, ya que la quejosa no les ha cancelado los derechos, timbres e impuestos que demanda el referido documento no son admisibles para eximirlos de la sanción disciplinaria impuesta y del deber funcional de proceder a inscribir dicho instrumento, pues ellos tenían la obligación con las partes, no sólo de garantizarles la legalidad del negocio jurídico que autorizaron, sino también de verificar y efectuar el estudio respectivo acerca de los gastos que demandaba inscribir la escritura de marras, ó, en su defecto, de indagar en la oficina o registro público correspondiente acerca de la procedencia o no de la exoneración que decían tenía el documento, lo que era una circunstancia esencial para garantizar el fin pretendido por las partes de que esa escritura se inscribiera en el Registro sin tropiezos, como parte del derecho que tiene la Asociación adquirente a recibir el bien libre de todo gravamen y anotación, como fue pactado por los contratantes, y así garantizarle su ejercicio pleno, de acuerdo a lo establecido en el artículo 267 del Código Civil.- Además, esta verificación e indagación previa por parte de los denunciados, acerca de la liquidación de lo que se debía pagar por derechos, timbres e impuestos, aunque fuera de modo provisional, efectuando el cálculo respectivo, como lo prevé la última parte del párrafo primero del artículo 67 del Arancel de Profesionales en Derecho antes citado, ó, acerca de la procedencia de la exoneración de esos rubros, era imperativa a efecto de que la recepción e inscripción del documento no sufriera inconvenientes, máxime que se trataba de un traspaso cuantioso que se pagaba con fondos públicos obtenidos a través de una partida específica conseguida por un diputado, para satisfacer las necesidades de vivienda de un gran número de asociados de la entidad denunciante, y era deber de los notarios proceder de esa manera, como contraprestación del pago de honorarios que les cubrieron las partes.- La determinación de los indicados profesionales de aceptar la rogación de servicios que hicieron en este caso los otorgantes de la escritura número CED1, en el entendido de que el traspaso estaba exento del pago de gastos de inscripción, fue un juicio de valor errado, toda vez que como profesionales en derecho que ejercen una función pública como es el notariado, no podían desconocer que una eventual exoneración para este caso debería estar prevista en el artículo 2 de la Ley Reguladora de todas las Exoneraciones Vigentes, su Derogatoria y sus Excepciones # 7293 de 3 de abril de 1992 o en alguna ley especial que expresamente cobijara este traspaso, pero nunca en una resolución administrativa como la que consignaron en la escritura.- Por otro lado, salta a la vista que no podría haber norma legal alguna que pudiera exonerar un traspaso como el referido al transmitente, ya que éste es una persona física, sujeto de derecho privado y la adquirente, una Asociación de Vivienda.- El hecho de que ésta fue declarada Institución de Bienestar Social, tampoco daba pie para estimar de que estaba exonerada del pago de derechos, timbres e impuesto sobre traspasos, pues, no se amparaba en ninguna ley y, de acuerdo con lo establecido en la Ley # 3095 de 18 de junio de 1963 y el Decreto Ejecutivo número [Placa2] de 16 de febrero de 1971 en relación al artículo 26 de la Ley de Creación del Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, las declaratorias de Bienestar Social son para las entidades cuyos fines estatutarios estén orientados a la atención de niños, adolescentes, personas con discapacidad, adultos mayores y farmacodependientes, sin que esté contemplado, de acuerdo al texto legal citado, exención alguna para el no pago de derechos, timbres e impuesto sobre traspasos en documentos sujetos a registro en favor de entidad alguna.- Además, sin perjuicio de lo anterior, el timbre de Colegio de Abogados que debía pagar dicho documento, de acuerdo a lo establecido en la Ley número 3245 de 3 de diciembre de 1963 y 102 del Decreto 20307 J de 4 de abril de 1991, vigente cuando se otorgó la escritura número CED1, y actualmente el numeral 104 del Decreto Ejecutivo 32493 J de 5 de agosto del 2005, es un honorario que deben cubrir los notarios, -no las partes- como contribución obligatoria de esos profesionales para el sostenimiento del Colegio de Abogados y para engrosar el fondo de pensiones y jubilaciones de sus miembros, por lo que no podía trasladarse ese cobro a los otorgantes.- Los notarios autorizantes reconocen -como se expresó- haber autorizado la escritura número CED1, apoyándose en la declaratoria de Bienestar Social de la Asociación compradora, la que de por sí resulta insuficiente para estimar que amparaba una posible exoneración de tributos ya que de su simple lectura no se desprende ninguna circunstancia para que hayan arribado a una conclusión de esa naturaleza, ni se demostró en el proceso que se haya presentado liquidación alguna a los contratantes de las sumas que debían cubrir, y de que éstas se hayan negado a pagar esos gastos ante tal requerimiento, una vez que se le canceló registralmente la presentación, omisión ésta de los notarios que a la postre provocó un evidente daño para la Asociación compradora, que se plasmó en adquirir un inmueble que no ha podido aún inscribirse a su nombre.- Debe indicarse que no es que se atribuye directamente a los notarios mala fe, pero sí es un hecho que obraron con mucha imprudencia y falta al deber de cuidado que deben observar en sus actuaciones como fedatarios públicos, al autorizar dicho instrumento en la forma expuesta, sin contar con los gastos de inscripción o, advertir a las partes al respecto, en forma oportuna, una vez que el Registro le canceló la presentación a la escritura número CED1.- Se insiste en que debe tomarse en cuenta, que cuando la escritura referida fue presentada al Diario el 13 de setiembre del 2000, le fue cancelada la presentación por falta de pago de los derechos y timbres, y cuando todavía la cantidad que debía pagarse no estaba sujeta al pago de multas, como es el caso de impuesto sobre traspasos, los denunciados no pusieron formalmente en conocimiento a la representante legal de la Asociación quejosa, de la necesidad de cubrir estas sumas, ante el error en que incurrieron cuando autorizaron anteriormente la escritura, por lo que no se puede suplir ahora esa omisión, cinco años después de otorgada la escritura, achacando responsabilidad por ese hecho y por la no inscripción del documento a la entidad denunciante.- La aseveración del notario Juan Luis Gómez de que puso en conocimiento de esa situación al señor [Nombre2] quien, a su vez, supuestamente lo hizo saber a la entidad adquirente, como lo expresa en sus escritos de contestación y de apelación, no es prueba suficiente para asumir que dicha entidad tuviera conocimiento oportuno de la situación acontecida, toda vez que el señor [Nombre2] no es parte en dicha escritura, y tampoco es prueba de ese hecho, que a la señora Lucía Pavón, Secretaria de esa entidad se le haya entregado el testimonio de la escritura, el 26 de octubre del 2000, ya que para eso era necesaria una comunicación formal y escrita, requiriendo al representante legal de la Asociación, de la necesidad de sufragar los gastos que demandaba la inscripción de la escritura, así como de que ante su negativa, se vieran imposibilitados de poder inscribir.- Reafirma la ausencia de la comunicación a la quejosa que se echa de menos, la deposición que hace el testigo por ellos ofrecido, señor [Nombre3] , quien a folio 287 vuelto indica que: "Una vez que se expidió el testimonio, se lo entregaron para que lo tramitara en el Registro y supuestamente la Asociación estaba exenta de tributos y luego salió con el defecto de que tenía que pagarlos.- Conociendo esta situación, puso de conocimiento al notario Gómez Gamboa y a gestión del citado notario, le informó al señor [Nombre2] , quien tiene relación con la Asociación, que la escritura debía cancelar los tributos y se le indicó el monto que debía cancelar. Sin embargo, hasta donde sabe, los representantes de la Asociación no se presentaron a la oficina ni pagaron los montos. Indica que no se le informó al representante de la Asociación, porque en ese tiempo tenía una relación con la hija mayor de don [Nombre2] y fue por medio de éste quien se hizo el contacto para realizar la escritura, pues sabía que él trabajaba en una oficina de abogados.- Señala que no tenía contacto con la Asociación, ni sabía de los números de teléfono del representante de ésta y desconoce si el señor [Nombre2] se comunicó con la Asociación…".- Como se desprende de lo anterior, ni el testigo, ni el señor [Nombre2], ni su hija mayor son canales formales y apropiados para requerir a la Asociación denunciante ese pago, y más bien, el mismo testigo dice que fue él, no el notario quien se lo comunicó al señor [Nombre2], y de que de la Asociación no tenían ni siquiera el teléfono de su representante legal, e igualmente, no existe evidencia probatoria que sustente que esa comunicación formal se haya efectuado a la representante legal de la denunciante, en fecha oportuna.- Por otro lado, si los notarios estimaron que la escritura estaba exenta, -equivocados o no en su apreciación-, en ningún momento utilizaron los mecanismos que establece el artículo 8 inciso d) del Reglamento del Registro en relación con los artículos 18 y siguientes de la Ley sobre inscripción de documentos en ese Registro número 3883 para impugnar el defecto señalado, al cual simplemente se allanaron, y no le comunicaron formalmente a la quejosa de la suma de dinero que se requería por gastos de inscripción, lo que evidencia la falta de diligencia que tuvieron con relación a este asunto.- Todo lo anterior repercutió en que la escritura número CED1 que interesa a la Asociación denunciante, se encuentre, después de cinco años de otorgada, aún pendiente de inscripción, y de que hoy en día tenga un embargo inscrito, pese a que adquirieron el inmueble libre de gravámenes y anotaciones, faltando con ello, ambos notarios, a su deber de inscripción de la escritura antes referida, deber que se encuentra previsto y sancionado en los artículos 34 inciso h) y 144 inciso a) del Código Notarial, incumpliendo también lo dispuesto en los artículos 65 y siguientes del Arancel de Profesionales en Derecho, antes citado, que le impone al notario la obligación de proceder sin dilación a la inscripción oportuna del documento, lo que resulta una gestión imperativa en aquellos títulos en que se consignan derechos reales inscribibles, a fin de hacer constar su existencia ante terceros.- Los argumentos vertidos por los co-notarios para justificar el retardo en la inscripción del documento no son admisibles, pues, su actuación omisa fue la que conllevó a que la escritura no se haya podido inscribir, y provocó varios reclamos legales de parte de asociados, aclarando que no se les sanciona a pagar los timbres e impuestos, sino por faltar a su deber de inscripción.- Lo relativo a las sumas que se deben pagar para inscribir ese documento y quién lo debe cubrir, es un asunto de estricta competencia funcional de los notarios cuya resolución les corresponde exclusivamente a ellos, como consecuencia de la decisión que tomaron en su momento, como fedatarios públicos, de proceder a autorizar un instrumento público, en esas condiciones, así como también lo relativo al embargo que soporta el inmueble, porque estos obstáculos, y cualquiera otro que surja, son producto de la situación en que se colocaron ellos mismos al autorizar un documento en esas condiciones, ya que aceptaron la rogación de los servicios en esa forma sin hacer los estudios de rigor, y, luego, no informaron de nada a la denunciante, a quien no se puede responsabilizar, cinco años después, por no haber pagado los gastos cuando se otorgó esa escritura, por los motivos antes expuestos.- En lo que concierne a que el testimonio se lo entregaron a uno de los directivos de la quejosa, tampoco es un asunto que los releve de inscribir, pues la ley prevé la solución para esos casos (Artículo 113 del Código Notarial).- Así las cosas, en lo apelado, lo que se impone es, por las razones dadas por la mayoría de este Tribunal, y no por las de primera instancia, confirmar la sentencia recurrida, por medio de la cual se sanciona a ambos notarios con tres meses de suspensión en el ejercicio de la función notarial, hasta tanto no inscriban la escritura número ciento trece que interesa, la cual tiene más de cinco años de encontrarse pendiente de inscripción."