Application of the five-year statute of limitations in the disciplinary regime of Public FinanceAplicación del plazo de prescripción de cinco años en el régimen disciplinario de la Hacienda Pública

IV.This Collegiate Body shares the decision reached by the trial judges. Disciplinary law in general is based on the special relationship that exists between the State and public officials or servants, which legal doctrine has termed "special subjection relationships" (relaciones de sujeción especial), that is, those established between a subject and a Public Administration, due to a special and distinct condition or title that the subject holds before that entity, by reason of which they acquire particular rights and obligations. It should be noted that among the primary obligations of every public servant is that of being disciplinarily responsible for their actions or omissions, when these are considered an infraction or breach of their duties. In the case of public officials, the Costa Rican legal system contemplates diverse regimes in disciplinary matters. Depending on the disciplinary regime, the regulation of the time limit for exercising the administrative sanctioning power (potestad sancionadora administrativa) may vary. As a general rule, the power to discipline infractions of the statutory civil service regime of public servants expires in one month, in accordance with current canon 414 of the CT (formerly 603). However, in the case of the responsibility of the public official for infraction of the systems of supreme audit of financial administration (Ley 8131) and of internal control (Ley 8292), and even in relation to corruption and illicit enrichment (Ley 8422), said power may be exercised within a period of five years, pursuant to the Public Treasury regime (cardinal 71 of the LOCGR, no. 7428). Of interest to the matter under study, the Ley General de Control Interno establishes: "Article 43.- Prescription of administrative responsibility. The administrative responsibility of the public official for the infractions provided for in this Law shall prescribe according to Article 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, No. 7428, of September 7, 1994. (…)". In relation, the cited numeral 71 enshrines: "The administrative responsibility of the public official for the infractions provided for in this Law and in the supreme control and audit legal framework shall prescribe according to the following rules: a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, the responsibility shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act. b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious—understood as an act that requires an investigation (indagación) or an audit study to report its possible irregularity—the responsibility shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date on which the report on the respective investigation or audit is made known to the head of the entity (jerarca) or the competent official to initiate the respective procedure. The prescription shall be interrupted, with continued effects, by the notification to the alleged responsible party of the act ordering the initiation of the administrative procedure. (…)". In the specific matter, it is on record that a disciplinary procedure was initiated against the official Benavides Moraga, among other acts, for attending the sessions of the Board of Directors of LAICA during his working hours at the MAG and collecting the corresponding attendance fees (dietas), violating the prohibition contained in precept 17 of the Ley Contra la Corrupción (holding public office and collecting attendance fees when there is a time overlap) and thereby the duty of probity (ordinals 3 and 4 of said Law), such that the conduct attributed to the plaintiff constitutes an infraction of the norms indicated in precept 71 of the LOCGR. Specifically, the described particularities entail a disregard for the Ley de Control Interno and the Ley Contra la Corrupción (all provisions of a special nature). Consequently, as this case is related to the improper use of public resources, the applicable time limit for the Administration to exercise its disciplinary power (potestad disciplinaria) is not the ordinary one-month period contained in mandate 414 of the CT (formerly 603), but rather the five-year period regulated in Article 71 of the LOCGR. Now then, as a general principle, that period runs from the moment in which the competent body becomes aware of the acts that could constitute a fault; however, given that in this case the reported acts required a prior investigation (indagación), in the terms of subsection b) of cardinal 71 of the LOCGR, the five years began to run from the moment in which the Minister of Agriculture and Livestock, the body competent to manage the dismissal (by virtue of being the highest head of the entity of the Institution), became aware of the irregular acts attributed to the claimant. It must be borne in mind that the notification of the statement of objections (traslado de cargos) to the servant is the act that marks the initiation of the procedure and as a result of which the time limit in question is interrupted. The purpose of this communication is to make known to the interested party the alleged acts, so that they may exercise their right of defense (ordinal 39 of the Constitución Política). By means of that act, the charges are formalized, with an express indication of the reprehensible conduct, aspects of manner, time, and place, incriminating evidence, the servant's rights, among others. As already indicated, the exercise of the disciplinary power, both in relation to the issuance of the statement of objections and its notification, must be carried out within the time limit set in the law for the initiation of the procedure (five years according to the LOCGR). In the matter at hand (subjúdice), this Chamber is clear that the MAG exercised its disciplinary power in accordance with the temporal limits imposed by the legal system, because the aforementioned Minister learned of the alleged acts constituting disciplinary fault on August 5, 2015; this was by means of the official communication sent to him by the Vice-Minister (no. oficio DVM-JJS-421-2015), and for his part, Mr. Marco was notified of the statement of objections on the following September 16. Therefore, the five-year period regulated in Article 71 of the LOCGR had not elapsed. The Tribunal having understood it so, the criticism formulated must be dismissed".

The administrative liability of the public official for the infractions set forth in this Law shall prescribe in accordance with article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República), No. 7428, of September 7, 1994. (…). In this regard, the cited numeral 71 enshrines: "The administrative liability of the public official for the infractions set forth in this Law and in the superior control and oversight regulatory framework (ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores) shall prescribe according to the following rules: a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act. b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious—understood as an act that requires an inquiry (indagación) or an audit study to report on its possible irregularity—liability shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date on which the report on the respective inquiry or audit is made known to the head of the entity (jerarca) or the competent official to initiate the respective proceeding. The prescription shall be interrupted, with continued effects, by the notification to the presumed responsible party of the act ordering the initiation of the administrative proceeding. (…)". In the specific matter, it is evident in the case file that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the official Benavides Moraga, among other acts, for attending, during his workday at the MAG, the sessions of the Board of Directors of LAICA and collecting the corresponding per diems (dietas), violating the prohibition contained in precept 17 of the Law Against Corruption (performance of public offices and collection of per diems when there is a time overlap) and, thereby, the duty of probity (ordinals 3 and 4 of that Law), such that the conduct attributed to the plaintiff constitutes an infraction of the rules indicated in precept 71 of the LOCGR. Specifically, the described particularities entail a neglect of the Internal Control Law and the Law Against Corruption (all provisions of a special nature). Consequently, as this case is related to the improper use of public resources, the applicable time limit for the Administration to exercise its disciplinary power (potestad disciplinaria) is not the ordinary one-month period contained in mandate 414 of the CT (previously 603), but rather the five-year period regulated in article 71 of the LOCGR. Now, as a general principle, that period runs from the moment the competent body becomes aware of the acts that could constitute a fault; however, given that in this instance the reported acts required a prior inquiry, under the terms of subsection b) of cardinal 71 of the LOCGR, the five years began to run from the moment the Minister of Agriculture and Livestock, the body responsible for managing the dismissal (due to his status as the highest head of the Institution), became aware of the irregular acts attributed to the plaintiff. It should be noted that the notification of the statement of charges (traslado de cargos) to the servant is the action that marks the initiation of the proceeding and upon which the relevant time limit is interrupted. The purpose of this communication is to make known to the interested party the imputed acts, so that they may exercise their right of defense (ordinal 39 of the Political Constitution). Through that act, the accusation is formalized, with an express indication of the reprehensible conduct, aspects of manner, time, and place, incriminating evidence, rights of the servant, among others. As already indicated, the exercise of disciplinary power, both regarding the issuance of the statement of charges and its communication (notification), must be carried out within the period established by law for the initiation of the proceeding (five years according to the LOCGR). In the sub judice matter, this Chamber is clear that the MAG exercised its disciplinary power in accordance with the temporal limits imposed by the legal system, as the aforementioned Minister became aware of the presumed acts constituting a disciplinary fault on August 5, 2015; this through the official letter sent to him by the Vice Minister (official letter no. DVM-JJS-421-2015); for his part, Mr. Marco was notified of the statement of charges on the following September 16. Therefore, the five-year period regulated in article 71 of the LOCGR had not elapsed. By the Court understanding it so, the objection raised must be dismissed."

"IV. Este Órgano Colegiado comparte lo resuelto por los Jueces de instancia. El derecho disciplinario en general tiene fundamento en la relación especial que existe entre el Estado y los funcionarios o servidores públicos, lo que ha denominado la doctrina “relaciones de sujeción especial”, es decir, aquellas que se establecen entre un sujeto y una Administración Pública, debido a una condición o título especial y diferenciado que ostenta ese sujeto frente a esa entidad, en razón de la cual adquiere particulares derechos y obligaciones. Cabe destacar, dentro de las principales obligaciones de todo servidor público se encuentra la de responder disciplinariamente por sus acciones u omisiones, cuando éstas sean consideradas una infracción o falta a sus deberes. Tratándose de funcionarios públicos, el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense contempla diversos regímenes en materia disciplinaria. Dependiendo del régimen disciplinario podría ser diversa la regulación del plazo para ejercer la potestad sancionadora administrativa. Por regla general la potestad para disciplinar las infracciones al régimen funcionarial estatutario de los servidores públicos caduca en un mes, de conformidad con el actual canon 414 del CT (anteriormente el 603). No obstante, tratándose de la responsabilidad del funcionario público por infracción de los sistemas de fiscalización superior de administración financiera (Ley 8131) y, de control interno (Ley 8292) e incluso en relación con la corrupción y el enriquecimiento ilícito (Ley 8422), dicha potestad puede ejercerse dentro del plazo de cinco años, conforme al régimen de la Hacienda Pública (cardinal 71 de la LOCGR, no. 7428). En lo de interés para el asunto de estudio, establece la Ley General de Control Interno: “Artículo 43.- Prescripción de la responsabilidad administrativa. La responsabilidad administrativa del funcionario público por las infracciones previstas en esta Ley, prescribirá según el artículo 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, Nº 7428, de 7 de setiembre de 1994. (…)”. En relación, consagra el numeral 71 de cita: "La responsabilidad administrativa del funcionario público por las infracciones previstas en esta Ley y en el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superiores, prescribirá de acuerdo con las siguientes reglas: a) En los casos en que el hecho irregular sea notorio, la responsabilidad prescribirá en cinco años, contados a partir del acaecimiento del hecho. b) En los casos en que el hecho irregular no sea notorio -entendido este como aquel hecho que requiere una indagación o un estudio de auditoría para informar de su posible irregularidad- la responsabilidad prescribirá en cinco años, contados a partir de la fecha en que el informe sobre la indagación o la auditoría respectiva se ponga en conocimiento del jerarca o el funcionario competente para dar inicio al procedimiento respectivo. La prescripción se interrumpirá, con efectos continuados, por la notificación al presunto responsable del acto que acuerde el inicio del procedimiento administrativo. (…)”. En el asunto concreto, consta en autos, contra el funcionario Benavides Moraga se inició un procedimiento disciplinario, entre otros hechos, por asistir durante su jornada laboral en el MAG a las sesiones de la Junta Directiva de LAICA y cobrar las dietas respectivas, trasgrediendo la prohibición contenida en el precepto 17 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción (desempeño de cargos públicos y cobro de dietas cuando existe superposición horaria) y con ello el deber de probidad (ordinales 3 y 4 de esa Ley), por lo que la conducta atribuida al actor supone la infracción a las normas señaladas en el precepto 71 de la LOCGR. En concreto, las particularidades descritas traen aparejadas una desatención a la Ley de Control Interno y la Ley Contra la Corrupción (todas disposiciones de carácter especial). En consecuencia, relacionado este caso con el uso indebido de recursos públicos, el plazo aplicable para que la Administración ejerza la potestad disciplinaria no es el ordinario de un mes contenido en el mandato 414 del CT (anteriormente el 603), sino el de cinco años regulado en el artículo 71 de la LOCGR. Ahora bien, como un principio general ese plazo corre a partir del momento en el que el órgano competente conoce de los hechos que pudieran constituir falta, no obstante, dado que en la especie los hechos denunciados requerían de una indagación previa, en los términos del inciso b) del cardinal 71 de la LOCGR, los cinco años empezaron a correr desde el momento en que Ministro de Agricultura y Ganadería, órgano al cual le competía gestionar el despido (por su condición de máximo jerarca de la Institución), conoció de los hechos irregulares atribuidos al accionante. Téngase en cuenta, la notificación del traslado de cargos al servidor es la actuación que marca el inicio del procedimiento y a raíz del cual se interrumpe el plazo en cuestión. La finalidad de esta comunicación estriba en poner en conocimiento del interesado los hechos endilgados, a fin de que ejerza su derecho de defensa (ordinal 39 de la Constitución Política). Mediante ese acto se formaliza la imputación, con expreso señalamiento de las conductas reprochables, aspectos de modo, tiempo y lugar, prueba de cargo, derechos del servidor, entre otros. Como ya se indicó, el ejercicio de la potestad disciplinaria, tanto en relación con el dictado del traslado de cargos como su puesta en conocimiento (notificación), deben realizarse dentro del plazo señalado en la ley para el inicio del procedimiento (cinco años conforme a la LOCGR). En el subjúdice, tiene claro esta Cámara que el MAG ejerció la potestad disciplinaria con arreglo a los límites temporales que le impone el ordenamiento jurídico, pues el referido Ministro conoció de los presuntos hechos constitutivos de falta disciplinaria el 5 de agosto de 2015; ello mediante el oficio que le remitió el Viceministro (no. oficio DVM-JJS-421-2015), por su parte don Marco fue notificado del traslado de cargos el 16 de setiembre siguiente. Por consiguiente, no había trascurrido el plazo de los cinco años regulado en el artículo 71 de la LOCGR. Al entenderlo así el Tribunal, la censura que se formula deberá ser desestimada".