Statute of limitations for disciplinary liability of public servants under the LOCGRPlazo de prescripción disciplinaria para funcionarios públicos bajo la LOCGR

"III.- Before analyzing the alleged grievance, it is pertinent to make some considerations regarding the disciplinary liability (responsabilidad disciplinaria) regimes for public servants established in the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República and the Código de Trabajo, especially regarding the statute of limitations (plazo de prescripción) applicable to the sanctioning power (potestad sancionatoria). This Tribunal, in other precedents, has stated: “Before the enactment of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, the general rule applicable in public employment disciplinary matters, and particularly regarding statutes of limitations (prescripción), was Article 603 of the Código de Trabajo, by express remission of Article 51 of the Estatuto del Servicio Civil (in the case of officials covered by that regime), which provides: “The rights and actions of employers to justifiably dismiss workers or to discipline their faults prescribe in one month, which shall begin to run from when cause for separation arose or, as applicable, from when the facts giving rise to the disciplinary correction were known.” With the entry into force of the LOCGR (Ley no. 7428 of September 7, 1994), the legislator, due to the need to ensure greater and better control of the Public Treasury (Hacienda), as well as to hold accountable those who incurred in its mismanagement, established a differentiated disciplinary regime for servants of the Public Treasury (servidores de la Hacienda Pública), particularly concerning the statute of limitations (prescripción). Article 71 of that law provided: “The disciplinary liability (responsabilidad disciplinaria) of the servant of the Public Treasury (servidor de la Hacienda Pública) shall prescribe in a term of two years, counted from the proven knowledge of the fault by the competent body, to initiate the respective sanctioning procedure. For these purposes, Article 603 of the Código de Trabajo and any other opposing legal provisions are reformed, with respect to public officials or servants. The verification of knowledge of the fault may be carried out by any means of proof, with the value it has, in accordance with the Ley General de la Administración Pública and, supplementarily, in accordance with common law. When the author of the fault is the head of the entity (jerarca), the term shall begin to run from the date on which he/she terminates his/her service relationship with the respective entity, company, or body. It shall be deemed a serious fault of the competent official, to initiate the sanctioning procedure, not to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the liability (responsabilidad) of the offender to prescribe, without justified cause.” In this way, the liability (responsabilidad) regime provided in the rule and its respective prescriptive term was defined around the concept of “servant of the Public Treasury (servidor de la Hacienda Pública),” understood in general terms as one whose functional sphere includes competence in the management and disposition of public funds, whether from an accounting or legal point of view. The cited precept was reformed by Article 45, subsection a) of the Ley General de Control Interno, Ley no. 8292 of July 31, 2002. Currently, Article 71 of the LOCGR provides: “Statute of limitations for disciplinary liability (Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria). The administrative liability (responsabilidad administrativa) of the public official for the infractions provided for in this Law and in the higher control and oversight legal framework shall prescribe according to the following rules: a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, the liability (responsabilidad) shall prescribe in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act. b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious - understood as that act which requires an investigation or an audit study to report its possible irregularity - the liability (responsabilidad) shall prescribe in five years, counted from the date on which the report on the respective investigation or audit is brought to the knowledge of the head of the entity (jerarca) or the official competent to initiate the respective procedure. // The statute of limitations (prescripción) shall be interrupted, with continuing effects, by the notification to the presumed responsible party of the act ordering the initiation of the administrative procedure. // When the author of the fault is the head of the entity (jerarca), the term shall begin to run from the date on which he/she terminates his/her service relationship with the respective entity, company, or body. // It shall be deemed a serious fault of the official competent to initiate the sanctioning procedure, not to initiate it in a timely manner or to allow the liability (responsabilidad) of the offender to prescribe, without justified cause.” By virtue of that reform, not only was the statute of limitations period increased from 2 to 5 years, but the concept of “servant of the Public Treasury (servidor de la Hacienda Pública)” was also eliminated. That is, it shifted from a subjective regime, in which the special conditions of the servant (whether or not an official of the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública)) were assessed, to an objective one, where the prescriptive term applicable to the public official (in the sense of Article 111 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública) is defined not only by its status as such, but by the very nature of the conduct deemed to constitute a fault. That is, if the alleged fault exceeds simple disciplinary liability (responsabilidad disciplinaria) and falls within the infractions provided for in the LOCGR, or else in the higher control and oversight legal framework. This is therefore a particular regime, which establishes special statute of limitations rules, which supersede the general regime applicable in public employment matters (theory of precepts 44 of the Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito, Ley 8422; 43 of the Ley General de Control Interno, Ley 8292; and 71 of the LOCGR, Ley 7428) (Judgment number 117-F-TC-2018 of 12:04 p.m. on September 12, 2018, in the same sense resolution 177-F-TC-2019 of 10:15 a.m. on October 31, 2019). In order to establish which statute of limitations rule is applicable to the case at hand, it is worth recalling that the conduct attributed to the plaintiff in the statement of charges (traslado de cargos) was having justified the work absence on October 15, 2015, by means of a forged attendance certificate from the evening service of the Clínica Dr. Solón Núñez Frutos in Hatillo. The foregoing, as extracted from the statement of charges, constitutes a fault of “some gravity” in accordance with Articles 43, 57 subsections a, b and l, 58 subsection g and 60 of the Estatuto del Servicio Civil, 9 subsection b, 11 subsections b and f, 12 subsection a, 13 subsections 1, 2 and 3 and 15 subsections b and c of the Reglamento a la Ley de Carrera Docente, 71 subsection d) and 81 subsections a, j and l of the Código de Trabajo, and finally 3 and 4 Ley 8422".

This Court, in other precedents, has indicated: "Before the enactment of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República), the general rule applicable in disciplinary matters of public employment, and particularly regarding statutes of limitations (prescripción), was Article 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo), by express referral from Article 51 of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto del Servicio Civil) (in the case of officials covered by that regime), which provides: 'The rights and actions of employers to justifiably dismiss workers or to discipline their faults shall be statute-barred (prescriben) in one month, which shall begin to run from the date the cause for separation arose or, as applicable, from the date the facts giving rise to the disciplinary correction were known.' With the entry into force of the LOCGR (Law No. 7428 of September 7, 1994), the legislator, based on the need to ensure greater and better control of the Public Treasury (Hacienda), as well as to hold accountable those who incurred in its mismanagement, established a differentiated disciplinary regime for servants of the Public Treasury (servidores de la Hacienda Pública), particularly regarding the statute of limitations. Article 71 of that law provided: 'The disciplinary liability of the servant of the Public Treasury shall be statute-barred within a period of two years, counted from the verified knowledge of the fault by the competent body to initiate the respective sanctioning procedure. For these purposes, Article 603 of the Labor Code and any other legal provisions that oppose it are amended with respect to public officials or servants. The verification of knowledge of the fault may be carried out by any means of proof, with the value it holds, in accordance with the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) and, supplementarily, in accordance with common law. When the author of the fault is the head of the entity (jerarca), the period shall begin to run from the date on which he terminates his service relationship with the respective entity, company, or body. It shall be deemed a serious fault of the competent official to initiate the sanctioning procedure, if he fails to initiate it in a timely manner or allows the liability of the offender to become statute-barred (prescribir), without justified cause.' In this way, the liability regime provided in the norm and its respective statute of limitations period was defined around the concept of 'servant of the Public Treasury,' understood in general terms as one whose functional sphere includes competence in the management and disposition of public funds, whether from an accounting or legal point of view. The cited precept was amended by Article 45, subsection a) of the General Law of Internal Control (Ley General de Control Interno), Law No. 8292 of July 31, 2002. Currently, Article 71 of the LOCGR provides: 'Statute of limitations for disciplinary liability. The administrative liability of the public official for the infractions provided in this Law and in the superior control and oversight system shall be statute-barred according to the following rules: a) In cases where the irregular act is notorious, the liability shall be statute-barred in five years, counted from the occurrence of the act. b) In cases where the irregular act is not notorious—understood as that act which requires an investigation or an audit study to report its possible irregularity—the liability shall be statute-barred 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 or the competent official to initiate the respective procedure. // The statute of limitations shall be interrupted, with continued effects, by the notification to the alleged responsible person of the act that orders the initiation of the administrative procedure. // When the author of the fault is the head of the entity, the period shall begin to run from the date on which he terminates his service relationship with the respective entity, company, or body. // It shall be deemed a serious fault of the competent official to initiate the sanctioning procedure, if he fails to initiate it in a timely manner or allows the liability of the offender to become statute-barred, without justified cause.' By virtue of that amendment, not only was the statute of limitations period increased from 2 to 5 years, but the concept of 'servant of the Public Treasury' was also eliminated. That is, it moved from a subjective regime, in which the special conditions of the servant (whether or not an official of the Public Treasury) were assessed, to an objective one, where the statute of limitations period applicable to the public official (in the sense of Article 111 of the General Law of Public Administration) is defined not only by his character as such, but by the very nature of the conduct deemed to constitute a fault. That is, if the alleged fault goes beyond simple disciplinary liability and falls within the infractions provided in the LOCGR, or in the superior control and oversight system. It is therefore a particular regime, which establishes special rules for the statute of limitations, which override the general regime applicable in matters of public employment (theory of precepts 44 of the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment, Law 8422; 43 of the General Law of Internal Control, Law 8292; and 71 of the LOCGR, Law 7428) (Ruling number 117-F-TC-2018 of 12 hours 04 minutes of September 12, 2018, in the same sense, resolution 177-F-TC-2019 of 10 hours 15 minutes of October 31, 2019). In order to establish which is the applicable statute of limitations norm in the present case, it is worth recalling that the conduct attributed to the plaintiff in the statement of charges (traslado de cargos) was having justified his work absence on October 15, 2015, by means of an adulterated attendance certificate from the evening service of the Clínica Dr. Solón Núñez Frutos in Hatillo. The foregoing, as extracted from the statement of charges, constitutes a fault of 'some gravity' in accordance with Articles 43, 57 subsections a, b and l, 58 subsection g and 60 of the Civil Service Statute, 9 subsection b, 11 subsections b and f, 12 subsection a, 13 subsections 1, 2 and 3 and 15 subsections b and c of the Regulation to the Law on the Teaching Career (Reglamento a la Ley de Carrera Docente), 71 subsection d) and 81 subsections a, j and l of the Labor Code, and finally 3 and 4 of Law 8422."

"III.- De previo al análisis del reproche aducido, conviene formular algunas consideraciones en relación con los regímenes de responsabilidad disciplinaria de los servidores públicos establecidos en la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y el Código de Trabajo, especialmente en cuanto al plazo de prescripción aplicable a la potestad sancionatoria. Este Tribunal, en otros antecedentes, ha señalado: “Antes de la promulgación de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, la norma general aplicable en materia disciplinaria de empleo público, y en particular en temas de prescripción, fue el artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo, por remisión expresa del cardinal 51 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil (en el caso de los funcionarios amparados por ese régimen), el cual dispone: “Los derechos y acciones de los patronos para despedir justificadamente a los trabajadores o para disciplinar sus faltas prescriben en un mes, que comenzará a correr desde que se dio causa para la separación o, en su caso, desde que fueron conocidos los hechos que dieron lugar a la corrección disciplinaria”. Con la entrada en vigencia de la LOCGR (Ley no. 7428 del 7 de setiembre de 1994), el legislador, en función de la necesidad de asegurar un mayor y mejor control de la Hacienda, así como de responsabilizar a quienes incurrieran en un mal manejo de ella, estableció un régimen disciplinario diferenciado para los servidores de la Hacienda Pública, particularmente en lo atinente a la prescripción. El ordinal 71 de esa ley disponía: “La responsabilidad disciplinaria del servidor de la Hacienda Pública prescribirá en el plazo de dos años, contados a partir del conocimiento comprobado de la falta por parte del órgano competente, para iniciar el respectivo procedimiento sancionatorio. Para estos efectos, quedan reformados, respecto de los funcionarios o de los servidores públicos, el artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo y cualesquiera otras disposiciones jurídicas que se le opongan. La comprobación del conocimiento de la falta podrá efectuarse por cualquier medio de prueba, con el valor que esta tenga, de acuerdo con la Ley General de la Administración Pública y, supletoriamente, de acuerdo con el derecho común. Cuando el autor de la falta sea el jerarca, el plazo empezará a correr a partir de la fecha en que él termine su relación de servicio con el ente, la empresa o el órgano respectivo. Se reputará como falta grave del funcionario competente, para iniciar el procedimiento sancionatorio, el no darle inicio a este oportunamente o el dejar prescribir la responsabilidad del infractor, sin causa justificada”. De esa forma, el régimen de responsabilidad previsto en la norma y su respectivo plazo prescriptivo se definió en torno al concepto de “servidor de la Hacienda Pública”, entendido éste en términos generales como aquél en cuya órbita funcional se incluye la competencia en el manejo y disposición de fondos públicos, sea desde el punto de vista contable o jurídico. El precepto de cita fue reformado por el artículo 45 inciso a) de la Ley General de Control Interno, Ley no. 8292 de 31 de julio de 2002. En la actualidad, el cardinal 71 de la LOCGR dispone: “Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria. 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. // Cuando el autor de la falta sea el jerarca, el plazo empezará a correr a partir de la fecha en que él termine su relación de servicio con el ente, la empresa o el órgano respectivo. // Se reputará como falta grave del funcionario competente para iniciar el procedimiento sancionatorio, el no darle inicio a este oportunamente o el dejar que la responsabilidad del infractor prescriba, sin causa justificada”. En virtud de esa reforma, no sólo se aumentó el plazo de prescripción de 2 a 5 años, sino también se eliminó el concepto de “servidor de la Hacienda Pública”. Es decir, se pasó de un régimen subjetivo, en el cual se valoraban las especiales condiciones del servidor (funcionario o no de la Hacienda Pública), a uno objetivo, donde el plazo prescriptivo aplicable al funcionario público (en el sentido del numeral 111 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública) se define no sólo por su carácter de tal, sino por la naturaleza misma de la conducta que se estima constitutiva de falta. Esto es, si la falta intimada rebasa la responsabilidad disciplinaria simple y se encasilla dentro de las infracciones previstas en la LOCGR, o bien en el ordenamiento de control y fiscalización superior. Se trata entonces de un régimen particular, que establece reglas especiales de prescripción, las cuales se sobreponen al régimen general aplicable en materia de empleo público (teoría de los preceptos 44 de la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito, Ley 8422; 43 de la Ley General de Control Interno, Ley 8292; y 71 de la LOCGR, Ley 7428) (Sentencia número 117-F-TC-2018 de las 12 horas 04 minutos del 12 de setiembre de 2018, en igual sentido la res. 177-F-TC-2019 de las 10 horas 15 minutos del 31 de octubre de 2019). A efecto de establecer cual es la norma del plazo de prescripción aplicable a la especie, conviene recordar que conducta atribuida a al actor en el traslado de cargos, el haber justificado la ausencia laboral día 15 de octubre de 2015, mediante una constancia de asistencia del servicio vespertino de la Clínica Dr. Solón Núñez Frutos en Hatillo, adulterada. Lo anterior, tal y como se extrae del traslado de cargo, constituye una falta de “alguna gravedad” de conformidad con los artículos 43, 57 incisos a, b y l, 58 inciso g y 60 del Estatuto del Servicio Civil, 9 inciso b, 11 incisos b y f, 12 inciso a, 13 incisos 1, 2 y 3 y 15 incisos b y c del Reglamento a la Ley de Carrera Docente, 71 inciso d) y 81 incisos a, j y l del Código de Trabajo, y finalmente 3 y 4 Ley 8422".