One-month statute of limitations for disciplining public servantsPlazo de prescripción de un mes para sancionar servidores públicos

V.- The Civil Service Statute (Estatuto de Servicio Civil), the regulation governing the public employment relationship in the case under review, does not contain an express provision regarding the deadline within which the Administration must discipline its employees. Nor does the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP) establish a specific term in this regard. This normative absence has led, for a long time, to the supplementary application of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) to fill this gap, in accordance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Civil Service Statute (Estatuto de Servicio Civil). Before the entry into force of the Labor Procedural Reform (Reforma Procesal Laboral), Article 603 of the Labor Code (Código de Trabajo) was relied upon, which established that the employer's rights and actions to justifiably dismiss or discipline a worker prescribed within a period of one month. Despite being a rule aimed at private employment relations, its use in the public sphere was justified given the existing legal vacuum. However, it was always clear that its application was restricted, because by the principle of normative self-integration of administrative law (Article 9 of the LGAP), the appropriate course of action is to resort primarily to administrative rules to fill absences or shortcomings that occur within the same administrative order.

Now, in 2005, the bill identified as "Ley de Reforma Procesal Laboral" entered the legislative process, processed under legislative file No. 15.990. This bill sought a transformation in the labor procedural regime, with express inclusion of public employment. Thus, for example, in the statement of motives (exposición de motivos), reference was made to the introduction of regulations for negotiated settlement and arbitration in economic and social conflicts in the public sector, so that workers in that sector would have a peaceful means of resolving those conflicts and in respect for the principle of legality. Likewise, on the subject of the statute of limitations (prescripción) of rights, it was indicated that the regulation of the expiration period (plazo de caducidad) available to Administrations to execute disciplinary sanctions they have imposed was introduced, which filled a gap that had been a subject of discussion. It was also noted that an important innovation of the bill was to grant competence to labor judges to hear labor proceedings related to the public sector. Regarding this last point, it was expressly stated: "This competence is expressly established, with the purpose of eliminating the discussions that have occurred in the past at the jurisprudential level about whether only some proceedings of public servants can be heard by labor judges, because others (not very clearly defined) are within the jurisdiction of the contentious-administrative (contencioso-administrativa) jurisdiction. This harmonizes with the Draft Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, which excludes from the scope of competence of judges in that matter all legal conflicts related to public service." Another highlighted innovation was that, in proceedings against the State, its institutions or bodies, reinstatement (reinstalación) or suspension of the effects of the act was provided for as a precautionary measure (medida cautelar), which the Judge must assess according to the suitability of the measure, considering criteria such as public interest or the harmony of the enterprise.

Thus, from the reading of these motives, it is clear that this reform was not focused solely on private employment relations, but explicitly included the public sector. In fact, during the discussion of the final drafting report of the bill, there was a debate among the deputies regarding the interpretation of Article 415 of the bill, which deals with the deadline to execute the disciplinary sanction, in which Deputy Saborío Mora stated: "In Article 415, perhaps so that the spirit of the legislator is clear [...] Let's see if I understood it. When the administrative procedure that establishes the sanctions concludes, which rather recommends sanctions. The sanctions must be established by the hierarch (jerarca)... let's see, there are two acts there. / One is the proposal made by the sanctions body and the other is the sanction." In this regard, Deputy Villalta Florez-Estrada indicated: "This article says: 'when it is necessary to follow a procedure and record the disciplinary sanctions in a written act, the execution of those imposed therein expires (caduca) for all purposes within one year from the finality (firmeza) of the act.' / That article, which is part of Title IX on prescription (prescripción) and expiration (caducidad), refers to the expiration of the execution of the sanction. The one-year expiration period refers to the execution of that sanction [...]." (Ordinary Session Record No. 15 of September 10, 2012, included in legislative file No. 15.990). From the foregoing, this Chamber concludes that, during the legislative processing of the bill, it became evident that the legislator's intention was not limited to private employment. The inclusion of terms such as "Administration" (Administración), "hierarch" (jerarca), and "administrative procedure" (procedimiento administrativo), predominantly applicable in the public sector, demonstrates the dual purpose of the bill: applicable to both the private and public regimes.

In the text of the law proposed at that time, the following normative provision was originally included, which, initially was located in Article 415, then in 414: "Without prejudice to what special provisions establish regarding the statute of limitations (plazo de prescripción), the rights and actions of employers to justifiably dismiss workers or to discipline their faults, shall prescribe (prescribirán) within a term of three months, which shall begin to run from when the cause for separation or sanction arose, or as the case may be, from when the causal facts were known. / In the event that the employer must comply with a sanctioning procedure, the intention to sanction must be notified to the employee within that period and from that moment the three months shall begin to run again at the moment when the employer or the competent body, as the case may be, is in a position to decide, unless the procedure is paralyzed or stopped due to fault attributable exclusively to the employer, a situation in which the statute of limitations is applicable, if the paralysis or suspension covers that period." This rule was subject to a motion in the first debate, in which it was proposed to reduce the period from three months to one month. It was approved without much discussion, its final wording remaining in the same terms set forth, but with the one-month period.

Now, the bill in question was approved in first and second debate; however, it did not become a Law of the Republic at that time, because it was partially vetoed by the Executive Branch. After the change of government and legislators, in 2015, a new bill identified as "Ley de Reforma Procesal Laboral" entered the legislative process, processed under legislative file No. 19.819. This one, in general terms, used the previous bill as a basis, but with the modification of some rules (those that were the subject of the veto). The wording of Article 414 transcribed above, remained unchanged, albeit with the reduction of the period to one month, as had been approved since the discussion of the first bill. Said bill was approved and became Law No. 9343 of January 25, 2016, called "Reforma Procesal Laboral", which entered into force on July 25, 2017.

Likewise, on the matter of the statute of limitations (prescripción) of rights, it was indicated that the regulation of the expiration period (plazo de caducidad) available to the Administrations for executing disciplinary sanctions they have imposed was being introduced, which filled a gap that had been a subject of discussion. It was also pointed out that an important innovation of the bill was to grant competence to labor judges to hear labor proceedings related to the public sector. Regarding the latter, it was expressly stated: *"This competence is expressly established, with the purpose of eliminating the discussions that have occurred in the past at the jurisprudential level about whether only some processes of public servants can be heard by labor judges, because others (not very clearly defined) are under the jurisdiction of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. In this, it is harmonized with the Draft Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, which excludes from the scope of competence of judges in that matter all legal conflicts related to public service."* Another innovation highlighted was that, in proceedings against the State, its institutions or bodies, reinstatement or suspension of the effects of the act was provided as a precautionary measure, which the Judge should assess according to the convenience of the measure, taking into account criteria such as the public interest or the harmony of the entity. Thus, from the reading of these rationales, it is clear that said reform was not focused solely on private employment relations, but explicitly included the public sector. In fact, during the discussion of the final drafting report of the bill, there was a debate among the deputies regarding the interpretation of article 415 of the bill, which deals with the period to execute the disciplinary sanction, in which Deputy Saborío Mora stated: *"In article 415, perhaps so that the spirit of the legislator is clear [...] Let's see if I understood it. When the administrative procedure that establishes the sanctions concludes, which rather recommends sanctions. The sanctions must be established by the head of the entity... let's see, there are two acts there.* One is the proposal made by the disciplinary body (órgano de sanciones) and the other is the sanction itself. In this regard, Deputy Villalta Florez-Estrada stated: “This article says: ‘when it is necessary to follow a procedure and record the disciplinary sanctions in a written act, the enforcement of those imposed sanctions lapses for all purposes one year from the finality of the act.’ / That article, which forms part of Title IX on statute of limitations (prescripción) and lapse (caducidad), refers to the lapse of the enforcement of the sanction. The one-year lapse period refers to the enforcement of that sanction […].” (Minutes of Ordinary Session No. 15 of September 10, 2012, included in legislative file No. 15.990). From the foregoing, this Chamber deduces that during the legislative processing of the bill, it became evident that the legislator's intent was not limited to private employment. The inclusion of terms such as "Administration," "hierarch (jerarca)," and "administrative procedure," predominantly applicable in the public sector, demonstrates the dual vocation of the bill: applicable to both the private and public regimes.

In the text of the law proposed at that time, the following normative provision was originally included, which was initially located in Article 415, and later in Article 414: “Without prejudice to what special provisions establish regarding the statute of limitations period, employers' rights and actions to justifiably dismiss workers or to discipline their faults shall lapse in a term of three months, which shall begin to run from the moment the cause for separation or sanction arose, or, as applicable, from when the causal facts were known. / In the event that the employer must comply with a disciplinary procedure, the intention to sanction must be notified to the employee within that period, and from that moment the three months shall begin to run again from the moment the employer or the competent body, as applicable, is in a position to resolve, unless the procedure is paralyzed or halted due to fault exclusively attributable to the employer, a situation in which the statute of limitations is applicable, if the paralysis or suspension covers that period.” Said norm was the subject of a motion in the first debate, which proposed reducing the period from three months to one month.

This was approved without major discussion, its final wording remaining in the same terms as presented, but with a one-month period. However, the bill in question was approved in the first and second debates; nonetheless, it did not become a Law of the Republic on that occasion, because it was partially vetoed by the Executive Branch. After the change of government and legislators, in 2015, a new bill entered the legislative process, identified as “Ley de Reforma Procesal Laboral,” which was processed under legislative file No. 19.819. This bill, in general terms, used the previous bill as a basis, but with the modification of some provisions (those that were subject to the veto). The wording of article 414 transcribed supra remained unchanged, albeit with the reduction of the period to one month, as had been approved since the discussion of the first bill. Said bill was approved and became Law No. 9343 of January 25, 2016, called "Reforma Procesal Laboral," which entered into force as of July 25, 2017." This project sought a transformation in the labor procedural regime, with the express inclusion of public employment. Thus, for example, in the statement of motives, reference was made to the introduction of regulations for negotiated settlement and arbitration in economic and social conflicts in the public sector, so that workers in that sector would have a peaceful means of resolving those conflicts, in respect of the principle of legality. Likewise, regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción) of rights, it was indicated that the regulation of the expiration period (plazo de caducidad) available to Administrations to execute disciplinary sanctions they have imposed was being introduced, which filled a gap that had been a subject of discussion. It was also noted that an important innovation of the project was to grant jurisdiction to labor judges to hear labor processes related to the public sector. On this last point, it was expressly stated: “This jurisdiction is expressly established, with the purpose of eliminating the discussions that have occurred in the past at the jurisprudential level about whether only some processes of public employees can be heard by labor judges, because others (not very clearly defined) are under the jurisdiction of the contentious-administrative jurisdiction. In this, it is harmonized with the Draft Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, which excludes from the scope of jurisdiction of judges in that matter all legal conflicts related to public service.” Another of the highlighted innovations was that, in processes against the State, its institutions or bodies, reinstatement or suspension of the effects of the act was provided for as a precautionary measure, which the Judge had to assess according to the suitability of the measure, considering criteria such as the public interest or the harmony of the enterprise. Thus, from the reading of said motives, it is clear that said reform did not focus solely on private employment relations, but explicitly included the public sector. In fact, during the discussion of the final drafting report of the project, there was a debate among the deputies regarding the interpretation of Article 415 of the project, which deals with the period to execute the disciplinary sanction, in which Deputy Saborío Mora stated: “In Article 415, perhaps so that the spirit of the legislator is clear […] Let us see if I understood it.” When the administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo) that establishes the sanctions concludes — or rather, recommends sanctions. The sanctions must be established by the head of the institution (jerarca)… we will see that there are two acts here. / One is the proposal made by the sanctioning body, and the other is the sanction itself." In that regard, Deputy Villalta Florez-Estrada stated: "This article says: 'when it is necessary to follow a procedure and record disciplinary sanctions in a written act, the enforcement of those sanctions imposed therein expires for all purposes one year after the act becomes final.' / That article, which is part of Title IX on statute of limitations and expiration, refers to the expiration of the enforcement of the sanction. The one-year expiration period refers to the enforcement of that sanction […]." (Minutes of Ordinary Session No. 15 of September 10, 2012, included in legislative file No. 15,990). From the foregoing, this Chamber infers that, during the legislative processing of the bill, it became evident that the legislator's intention was not limited to private employment. The inclusion of terms such as "Administration" (Administración), "head of the institution" (jerarca), and "administrative procedure" (procedimiento administrativo), predominantly applicable in the public sector, demonstrate the dual vocation of the bill: applicable to both the private and public regimes.

In the text of the law proposed at that time, the following normative provision was originally included, which at first was located in article 415, later in 414: "Without prejudice to what special provisions establish regarding the statute of limitations period, the rights and actions of employers to justifiably dismiss workers or to discipline their faults shall be statute-barred within a term of three months, which shall begin to run from the time the cause for separation or sanction arose, or, as the case may be, from when the causal facts were known." In the event that the employer must comply with a disciplinary procedure, the intention to sanction must be notified to the employee within that period, and from that moment the **three months** will begin to run again from the time the employer or the competent body, as the case may be, is in a position to resolve, unless the procedure is paralyzed or halted due to fault attributable exclusively to the employer, a situation in which the statute of limitations (prescripción) is applicable, if the paralysis or suspension extends to cover that period.” Said rule was the subject of a motion in the first debate, in which it was proposed to reduce the three-month period to one month. This was approved without much discussion, resulting in its final wording being in the same terms set forth, but with a one-month period. However, the bill in question was approved in the first and second debates; however, it did not become a Law of the Republic at that time, because it was partially vetoed by the Executive Branch. After the change of government and legislators, in 2015, a new bill entered the legislative stream identified as “Ley de Reforma Procesal Laboral”, which was processed under legislative file No. 19.819. In general terms, this bill used the previous draft law as its basis, but with the modification of certain rules (those that had been vetoed). The wording of Article 414 transcribed supra was kept unchanged, albeit with the reduction of the period to one month, as had been approved since the discussion of the first bill. Said bill was approved and became Law No. 9343 of January 25, 2016, called “Reforma Procesal Laboral”, which entered into force as of July 25, 2017.

"V.- El Estatuto de Servicio Civil, normativa que regula la relación de empleo público en el caso en examen, no contiene disposición expresa sobre el plazo con que cuenta la Administración para disciplinar a sus servidores. Tampoco la Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP) establece un término específico en este sentido. Esta ausencia normativa ha llevado, desde vieja data, a la aplicación supletoria del Código de Trabajo para colmar dicha laguna, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 51 del Estatuto de Servicio Civil. Antes de la entrada en vigencia de la Reforma Procesal Laboral, se recurría al artículo 603 del Código de Trabajo, el cual establecía que los derechos y acciones del patrono para despedir justificadamente o disciplinar a un trabajador prescribían en el plazo de un mes. A pesar de ser una norma orientada a las relaciones de empleo privado, su utilización en el ámbito público se justificaba ante el vacío legal existente. No obstante, siempre se tuvo claro que su aplicación era restringida, pues por el principio de autointegración normativa del derecho administrativo (artículo 9 de la LGAP), lo procedente es acudir de forma prioritaria a normas administrativas para llenar ausencias o falencias que se den dentro del mismo ordenamiento administrativo. Ahora bien, en el año 2005, entró a la corriente legislativa el proyecto de ley identificado como “Ley de Reforma Procesal Laboral”, que se tramitó bajo el expediente legislativo No. 15.990. Con este proyecto se buscó una transformación en el régimen procesal laboral, con inclusión expresa del empleo público. Así, por ejemplo, en la exposición de motivos, se hizo referencia a la introducción de regulaciones para la solución negociada y el arbitraje en los conflictos económicos y sociales en el sector público, a fin de que los trabajadores de ese sector contasen con una vía pacífica de solución a esos conflictos y en respeto al principio de legalidad. Asimismo, en el tema relativo a la prescripción de los derechos, se indicó que se introducía la regulación del plazo de caducidad con que cuentan las Administraciones para ejecutar las sanciones disciplinarias que hayan impuesto, lo que colmaba una laguna que había sido motivo de discusión. También se señaló que una innovación importante del proyecto era dotar de competencia a los jueces de trabajo para conocer de los procesos labores relacionados con el sector público. Sobre esto último, expresamente se indicó: “De manera expresa se establece esa competencia, con el propósito de eliminar las discusiones que se han dado en el pasado a nivel jurisprudencial acerca de si solo algunos procesos de servidores públicos pueden ser conocidos por los jueces de trabajo, porque otros (no muy claramente definidos) son de conocimiento de la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa. En esto se armoniza con el Proyecto de Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo, que excluye del ámbito de la competencia de los jueces de esa materia todos los conflictos jurídicos relacionados con el servicio público”. Otra de las innovaciones resaltadas fue que, en los procesos contra el Estado, sus instituciones u órganos, se previó como medida cautelar la reinstalación o suspensión de los efectos del acto, lo que debía valorar el Juzgador según la conveniencia de la medida, atendiendo a criterios tales como el interés público o la armonía de la empresa. Así las cosas, de la lectura de dichos motivos, es claro que dicha reforma no se enfocó únicamente en relaciones de empleo privado, sino que incluyó explícitamente al sector público. De hecho, durante la discusión del informe de redacción final del proyecto, hubo un debate entre los diputados en relación con la interpretación del artículo 415 del proyecto, que versa sobre el plazo para ejecutar la sanción disciplinaria, en el que la diputada Saborío Mora manifestó: “En el artículo 415, tal vez para que quede claro el espíritu del legislador […] Vamos a ver si lo entendí. Cuando termine el procedimiento administrativo que establece las sanciones, que más bien recomienda sanciones. Las sanciones las debe establecer el jerarca… vamos a ver es que hay dos actos ahí. / Una es la propuesta que hace el órgano de sanciones y otra es la sanción”. Al respecto, el diputado Villalta Florez-Estrada indicó: “Dice este artículo: “cuando sea necesario seguir un procedimiento y consignar las sanciones disciplinarias en un acto escrito, la ejecución de las allí impuestas caduca para todo efecto en un año desde la firmeza del acto”. / Ese artículo que forma parte del Título IX sobre prescripción y caducidad se refiere a la caducidad de la ejecución de la sanción. El plazo del año de caducidad se refiere a la ejecución de esa sanción […]”. (Acta de Sesión Ordinaria No. 15 del 10 de setiembre de 2012, incluido en el expediente legislativo No. 15.990). De lo anterior, esta Cámara colige, durante el trámite legislativo del proyecto, quedó en evidencia que la intención del legislador no se limitaba al empleo privado. La inclusión de términos como "Administración", "jerarca", y "procedimiento administrativo", aplicables predominantemente en el sector público, demuestran la vocación dual del proyecto: aplicable tanto al régimen privado como al público. En el texto de ley propuesto en aquella oportunidad, originalmente se incluía la siguiente disposición normativa, la cual, en un inicio se ubicó en el artículo 415, luego en el 414: “Sin perjuicio de lo que establezcan disposiciones especiales sobre el plazo de prescripción, los derechos y acciones de los empleadores o empleadoras para despedir justificadamente a los trabajadores o trabajadoras o para disciplinar sus faltas, prescribirán en el término de tres meses, que comenzará a correr desde que se dio la causa para la separación o sanción, o en su caso, desde que fueron conocidos los hechos causales. / En el caso de que la parte empleadora deba cumplir con un procedimiento sancionador, la intención de sanción debe notificarse al empleado dentro de ese plazo y a partir de ese momento los tres meses comenzarán a correr de nuevo en el momento en que la persona empleadora o el órgano competente en su caso, esté en posibilidad de resolver, salvo que el procedimiento se paralice o se detenga por culpa atribuible exclusivamente a la parte empleadora, situación en la cual la prescripción es aplicable, si la paralización o suspensión alcanza a cubrir ese plazo”. Dicha norma fue objeto de una moción en el primer debate, en la que se propuso disminuir el plazo de tres meses a un mes. Esta fue aprobada sin mayor discusión, quedando su redacción final en los mismos términos expuestos, pero con el plazo de un mes. Ahora bien, el proyecto de ley en cuestión fue aprobado en primer y segundo debate; sin embargo, no se convirtió en Ley de la República en aquella oportunidad, debido a que fue vetado parcialmente por el Poder Ejecutivo. Después del cambio de gobierno y legisladores, en el año 2015, ingresó a la corriente legislativa un nuevo proyecto de Ley identificado como “Ley de Reforma Procesal Laboral”, el cual se tramitó bajo el expediente legislativo No. 19.819. Este, en términos generales, utilizaba como base el proyecto de ley anterior, pero con la modificación de algunas normas (las que fueron objeto de veto). La redacción del artículo 414 transcrito supra, se mantuvo incólume, eso sí, con la reducción del plazo a un mes, como había sido aprobado desde la discusión del primer proyecto. Dicho proyecto fue aprobado y se convirtió en la Ley No. 9343 del 25 de enero de 2016, denominada "Reforma Procesal Laboral”, que entró a regir a partir del 25 de julio de 2017".