Admissibility of suing public officials without suing the AdministrationAdmisibilidad de demandar a funcionarios públicos sin demandar a la Administración

IV.This Deciding Body does not share the reasoning or the decision adopted by the Case Management Judge, as it interprets access to justice restrictively. Consider that, in accordance with subparagraph b) of Article 2 of the CPCA, the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court (Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa y Civil de Hacienda) has jurisdiction over: "(…) b) Matters of patrimonial liability of the Public Administration and its officials (…)." It is worth noting that it is inappropriate to make distinctions where the Law does not. The transcribed rule does not condition suing a public servant for liability in the exercise of their functions on having to simultaneously bring action against the Administration, nor that there be a prior ruling attributing such liability to the official, as the Judge incorrectly considered. See, the provision under comment grants the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court jurisdiction to hear matters of liability of the Administration "and" its officials, that is, it refers to two scenarios or a sum of jurisdictions, since it hears indistinctly in both senses. Interpreting that article differently would imply emptying it of content. In the specific case, upon reviewing the claims of the lawsuit, it is the criterion of this Chamber that this matter must indeed be heard in this jurisdiction, since the central dispute, at least initially as it was framed, corresponds to a claim for patrimonial liability against officials of the Ministry of Health, regarding statements made in a presentation before the Municipal Council of Cartago (Consejo Municipal de Cartago), which in the opinion of the plaintiff company caused it objective moral harm (daño moral objetivo). Thus, indeed, it is verified that the claims fall within the jurisdictional scope of the Administrative Court, a hypothesis contained in subparagraph b) of Article 2 of the CPCA, without any of the exclusion scenarios regulated in Article 3 of the same regulatory body occurring. In addition to the above, subparagraph 4) of Article 12 ibidem establishes that the following is considered a defendant: "(…) 4) Any other person who has been called into the proceedings as liable, in their functional or personal capacity. (…)." Regarding the liability of the servant vis-à-vis third parties, Article 199 of the LGAP states: "1. The public servant who has acted with intent (dolo) or gross negligence (culpa grave) in the performance of their duties or on the occasion thereof, even if they only used the means and opportunities offered by the position, shall be personally liable to third parties. 2. The official who issued manifestly illegal acts, and the one who obeyed them in accordance with this law, shall be included in such cases. (…)." Contrary to the argument of the Case Management Judge, it is not true that the lawsuit must be filed against the official and the Administration jointly; such an appreciation entails a requirement that the legal system does not demand, which in turn entails a restrictive interpretation of an action that must be interpreted broadly by virtue of the principle of effective judicial protection. It is undeniable that deciding to sue the intervening public agent in the production of the legal injury and not the Public Administration, has the purpose of ensuring that taxpayers do not assume the consequences of the conducts or omissions of public servants, but rather that the latter directly assume liability when they have acted with intent or gross negligence in the exercise of their functional duties. This constitutes an important avenue so that other taxpayers do not pay, through joint and several liability, but rather that the public official who caused the damage responds directly. For it is well known that the opposite usually happens, with the lawsuit being filed only against the State, leaving it with the obligation to initiate the recourse action (acción de regreso) (in the event that the action is upheld). Therefore, resorting to the Administrative Court to sue only the public agents who caused the damage would imply relieving the Administration of the burden of managing that recourse action. Thus, as it is absolutely possible to resort to the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court to sue public servants for damages caused in the exercise of their functions, the appropriate course of action is to uphold the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) filed and declare the lawsuit admissible, with the legal consequences that will be stated below. It is worth warning that, in the case under examination, the representation and defense of the co-defendant officials shall not correspond to the Procuraduría General de la República, but rather to the lawyer that each of them appoints for such purpose, since, in accordance with its Organic Law (Article 1), the Procuraduría is the legal representative of the State in matters within its competence.

V.By virtue of the foregoing, it is appropriate to uphold the appeal filed. Consequently, the challenged judgment is cassated (se casará) insofar as it declared the lawsuit inadmissible for considering that the matter falls outside the material competence of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court. Instead, ruling on the merits, the lawsuit is declared admissible and the file is remanded to the Court of origin, so that the proceedings may continue as legally appropriate.

(...).” Regarding the liability of the public servant vis-à-vis third parties, section 199 of the LGAP states: “1. The public servant who has acted with intent (dolo) or gross negligence (culpa grave) in the performance of their duties or on the occasion thereof, even if they have only used the means and opportunities afforded by the office, shall be personally liable to third parties. 2. The official who issues manifestly illegal acts, and the one who obeys them in accordance with this law, shall be included in such cases. (…).” Contrary to the argument of the Procedural Judge, it is not true that the lawsuit must be filed against the official and the Administration jointly; such an assessment entails a requirement that the legal system does not demand, which in turn leads to a restrictive interpretation of an action that must be interpreted broadly by virtue of the principle of effective judicial protection. It is undeniable that the decision to sue the intervening public agent in the production of the legal injury and not the Public Administration, has the purpose of ensuring that taxpayers are not the ones who bear the consequences of the conduct or omissions of public servants, but that the latter directly assume responsibility when they have acted with intent (dolo) or gross negligence (culpa grave) in the exercise of their functional duties. This is an important avenue so that the rest of the taxpayers do not pay, due to joint and several liability, but rather that the public official who caused the damage responds directly. For it is well known that the opposite usually happens, when the lawsuit is filed only against the State, leaving it with the obligation to initiate the recourse action (acción de regreso) (if the action is granted). Therefore, resorting to the Administrative and Civil Tax Jurisdiction to sue solely the public agents causing the damage would imply removing the burden from the Administration of managing that recourse action (acción de regreso). This being the case, since it is absolutely possible to resort to the Administrative and Civil Tax Jurisdiction to sue public servants for damages caused in the exercise of their functions, the appropriate course of action will be to grant the cassation appeal filed and declare the lawsuit admissible, with the legal consequences that will be stated.

It should be noted that, in the case under review, the representation and defense of the co-defendant public officials shall not be the responsibility of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), but rather of the lawyer each of them designates for this purpose, since, in accordance with its Organic Law (canon 1°), the Attorney General's Office is the legal representative of the State in matters within its own competence.

**V.** On the merits of the foregoing, the appeal filed will be upheld. Consequently, the contested judgment shall be reversed insofar as it declared the claim inadmissible on the grounds that the matter falls outside the material competence of the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda). In its place, deciding on the merits, the claim shall be declared admissible and the case file shall be returned to the court of origin, so that proceedings may continue as legally appropriate." Thus, it is indeed verified that the claims fall within the jurisdictional scope of the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa), specifically the hypothesis contained in subsection b) of precept 2 of the CPCA, without any of the exclusion scenarios regulated in cardinal 3 of the same regulatory body being present. In addition to the above, subsection 4) of canon 12 ibidem establishes that the following is considered a defendant party: “(…) 4) Any other person who has been called into the process as liable, in their functional or personal capacity. (…).” Regarding the liability of the public servant (servidor público) towards third parties, numeral 199 of the LGAP indicates: “1. The public servant who has acted with intent (dolo) or gross negligence (culpa grave) in the performance of their duties or on the occasion thereof shall be personally liable to third parties, even if they only used the means and opportunities offered by the position. 2. The official who issued manifestly illegal acts shall be included in such cases, and the one who obeyed them in accordance with this law. (…).” Contrary to the argument of the Procedural Judge (Juez de Trámite), it is not true that the lawsuit must be filed against the official and the Administration (Administración) jointly; such an assessment entails a requirement that the legal system does not demand, which in turn implies a restrictive interpretation of an action that must be interpreted broadly by virtue of the principle of effective judicial protection (tutela judicial efectiva). It is undeniable that the decision to sue the intervening public agent (agente público) in the causation of the legal injury (lesión jurídica) and not the Public Administration (Administración Pública) has the purpose of ensuring that taxpayers are not the ones to assume the consequences of the conduct or omissions of public servants (servidores públicos), but rather that the latter directly assume liability when they have acted with intent (dolo) or gross negligence (culpa grave) in the exercise of their functional duties. This is an important avenue so that the rest of the taxpayers do not pay, due to joint and several liability (responsabilidad solidaria), but rather that the public official (funcionario público) who caused the damage answers directly. For it is known that the opposite usually happens, when the lawsuit is filed only against the State, leaving it with the obligation to initiate a recourse action (acción de regreso) (in the event that the action is upheld). Therefore, resorting to the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa) to sue only the public agents (agentes públicos) who caused the damage would imply relieving the Administration (Administración) of the burden of managing that recourse action (acción de regreso).

That being the case, as it is absolutely possible to resort to the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Jurisdiction to sue public servants for damages caused in the exercise of their functions, the appropriate course is to grant the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) filed and declare the complaint admissible, with the legal consequences that will be stated. It should be noted that, in the case under review, the representation and defense of the co-defendant officials will not be the responsibility of the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), but rather the lawyer each of them designates for that purpose, given that, according to its organic law (canon 1°), the Office of the Attorney General is the legal representative of the State in matters within its competence.

V.On the merits of the foregoing, the appropriate course is to grant the appeal filed. Consequently, the contested judgment shall be overturned insofar as it declared the complaint inadmissible on the grounds that the matter falls outside the material competence of the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda). In its place, ruling on the merits, the complaint shall be declared admissible and the case file shall be returned to the court of origin, so that its processing may continue as legally required."

"IV. No comparte este Órgano Decisor el razonamiento ni la decisión adoptada por el Juez Tramitador, toda vez que interpreta restrictivamente el acceso a la justicia. Tómese en cuenta, de conformidad con el inciso b) del artículo 2 del CPCA, la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa y Civil de Hacienda conoce: (…) b) Las cuestiones de responsabilidad patrimonial de la Administración Pública y sus funcionarios (…).” Valga destacar, deviene improcedente hacer diferencias donde la Ley no las hace. La norma trascrita no condiciona para demandar a un servidor público por responsabilidad en el ejercicio de sus funciones, tener que accionar simultáneamente contra la Administración, tampoco que exista un pronunciamiento previo que atribuya tal responsabilidad al funcionario, como mal consideró el Juzgador. Véase, el precepto de comentario le otorga a la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda la competencia para conocer cuestiones de responsabilidad de la Administración “y” de sus funcionarios, es decir; refiere a dos supuestos o una sumatoria de competencias, pues conoce indistintamente en ambos sentidos. Interpretar ese ordinal de manera distinta, implicaría vaciarlo de contenido. En el caso concreto, revisadas las pretensiones de la demanda, es criterio de esta Cámara que el presente asunto sí debe ser conocido en esta jurisdicción, pues en efecto la discusión central, al menos inicialmente tal como fue planteada, corresponde a un reclamo por responsabilidad patrimonial en contra de funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud, respecto de manifestaciones externadas en una presentación realizada ante el Consejo Municipal de Cartago, las que en parecer de la empresa actora le ocasionaron un daño moral objetivo. De forma que, en efecto, se verifica que las pretensiones se encuentran dentro del ámbito competencial de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa, hipótesis contenida en el inciso b) del precepto 2 del CPCA, sin que se dé ninguno de los supuestos de exclusión regulados en el cardinal 3 del mismo cuerpo normativo. Aunado a lo anterior, establece el inciso 4) del canon 12 ibidem, se considera parte demandada: “(…) 4) Cualquier otra persona que haya sido llamada al proceso como responsable, en su carácter funcional o personal. (…).” Sobre la responsabilidad del servidor frente a terceros, indica el numeral 199 de la LGAP: “1. Será responsable personalmente ante terceros el servidor público que haya actuado con dolo o culpa grave en el desempeño de sus deberes o con ocasión del mismo, aunque sólo haya utilizado los medios y oportunidades que le ofrece el cargo. 2. Estará comprendido en tales casos el funcionario que emitiere actos manifiestamente ilegales, y el que los obedeciere de conformidad con esta ley. (…).” Contrario al argumento del Juez de Tramite, no es cierto que la demanda deba plantearse contra el funcionario y la Administración de forma conjunta, tal apreciación trae aparejado un requisito que el ordenamiento jurídico no exige, lo que a su vez conlleva una interpretación restrictiva de una acción que debe ser interpretada de manera amplia en virtud del principio de tutela judicial efectiva. Resulta innegable, tomar la decisión de demandar al agente público interviniente en la producción de la lesión jurídica y no a la Administración Pública, tiene como propósito que los contribuyentes no sean quienes asuman las consecuencias de las conductas u omisiones de los servidores públicos, sino que estos últimos asuman directamente la responsabilidad cuando hayan actuado con dolo o culpa grave en el ejercicio de sus cometidos funcionales. Se está ante una vía importante para que no pague el resto de los contribuyentes, por responsabilidad solidaria, sino que quien responda sea directamente el funcionario público generador del daño. Pues es sabido que suele suceder lo contrario, al interponerse la demanda solo contra el Estado, dejándole la obligación de incoar la acción de regreso (en caso de que se declare con lugar la acción). Por lo tanto, acudir a la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa a demandar únicamente a los agentes públicos causantes del daño, implicaría quitarle la carga a la Administración de gestionar esa acción de regreso. Así las cosas, al resultar absolutamente posible acudir a la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa y Civil de Hacienda para demandar a servidores públicos por daños ocasionados en el ejercicio de sus funciones, lo procedente será acoger el recurso de casación planteado y declarar admisible la demanda, con las consecuencias jurídicas que se dirán. Valga advertir, en el caso de examen la representación y defensa de los funcionarios co-demandados no corresponderá a la Procuraduría General de la República, sino al abogado que cada uno de ellos designe al efecto, toda vez que, conforme a su Ley Orgánica (canon 1°), la Procuraduría es el representante legal del Estado en las materias propias de su competencia.

V.En mérito de lo expuesto, procederá acoger el recurso planteado. En consecuencia, se casará el fallo impugnado en cuanto declaró inadmisible la demanda por estimar que el asunto se encuentra fuera de la competencia material del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. En su lugar, fallado por el fondo, se declarará admisible la demanda y se devolverá el expediente al Despacho de origen, a fin de que continúe su tramitación como en derecho corresponde".