Arbitrator Inattention Does Not Breach Due Process If Not Timely ObjectedDesatención del árbitro no quebranta debido proceso si no se protestó oportunamente

Review of the Document File: 23-000007-0004-AR Res: 001840-F-S1-2025 FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten hours forty-eight minutes on December nineteenth, two thousand twenty-five.

In an arbitration proceeding brought by CONDOMINIO LOS PORTONES LOTE NUEVE TLI S.A. against CONDOMINIO LOS PORTONES LOTE OCHO ZYB S.A. before the Conciliation and Arbitration Center of the Costa Rica Chamber of Commerce, the defendant files a motion for annulment against the arbitration award -unnumbered- issued on January ninth, two thousand twenty-three by arbitrators José Rafael Fernández Quesada, Rosa María Aldelnour Granados, and Jorge Manuel Chacón Mora. Appearing in this matter as special attorneys-in-fact for the parties are lawyers Álvaro Lara Vargas (plaintiff) and Francisco Dall´Anese Álvarez (defendant).

Ponente Magistrate Jorge Leiva Poveda

CONSIDERING

I.The plaintiff is the owner of subsidiary farm no. 8, property registered under Folio Real 45399-F-000, and the defendant of subsidiary farm no. 9, registered under Folio Real 221389-000, both adjoining each other, located in the Condominio Horizontal Residencial de fincas primarias individualizadas Los Portones, located in the canton of Santa Ana, province of San José. In May 2021, the defendant began construction of a vehicular pergola (pérgola vehicular) and from the beginning of that work, the plaintiff warned that it violated the construction setbacks (retiros de construcción) established by the Condominium, Administration, and Construction Bylaws (Reglamento de Condominio, Administración y Construcción) of the Condominio Horizontal Residencial Los Portones, which affected her right regarding the space that must be preserved between subsidiary farms. The defendant objected and pointed out that the work had the necessary permits and denied having violated the Condominium Bylaws. The parties resorted to arbitration because the Condominium Bylaws establish this avenue for dispute resolution and the Conciliation and Arbitration Center of the Costa Rica Chamber of Commerce as the venue to process it. The plaintiff, in her claim, requested a declaration of the following: 1) that the defendant's acts disturb her right of possession, 2) that it be ordered to immediately remove the works executed within the five meters of their boundary, 3) that it be ordered: a) to respect the construction parameters ordered by the Condominio Los Portones Bylaws, b) to remove the construction from the five meters ordered by the Condominium Bylaws, c) to remove the works executed on that setback, and d) to pay costs. The defendant company objected and alleged lack of right. In resolving the merits of the controversy, the Arbitration Tribunal found lack of right regarding the first claim, upheld the second, and ordered the respondent to demolish and remove all works executed within the five-meter setback from the boundary with the plaintiff's property, within a non-extendable period of three months from the finality of the award. Those works correspond to the five columns used to support the structure, the concrete footings or pilasters (basamentos o pilastras), the steel beams supporting the roof, the roof or latticework supporting the polycarbonate sheets, the fixed lighting and electricity supply system, the pile for the electric vehicle recharge connection, and the paver floor supporting the transit of vehicles parked in that area. Regarding the third request of the claim, it ordered the respondent to fully respect the construction parameters set forth by the Condominio Los Portones Bylaws and, accordingly, the five-meter construction setback set forth therein. Finally, it imposed on the losing party the payment of both costs, setting personal costs at ₡8,024,299.50 and procedural costs at $5,650. Not finding agreement with the decision, the defendant filed a motion for annulment.

II.In the synthesis that will be included below, only its specific and concrete objections against the arbitration award will be considered, for which a significant amount of preambles and contextualizations will be overlooked. By virtue of the foregoing, the enumeration put forth by the appellant—initially established by paragraphs, a system it later abandons—will not be followed. Rather, its criticisms will be organized, as far as possible, based on its specific censures against the appealed decision. Moreover, given that it develops arguments and later repeats some previous ones, they will be grouped by common themes.

III.In its first objection, it alleges the following. On September 29, 2022, throughout the evidentiary hearing (audiencia de evacuación de pruebas), arbitrator Rosa María Abdelnour Granados was watching and listening to a conference or event on her personal computer, which violates the principle of the natural judge and due process. It then stated: “As proof of this we provide videos taken during the hearing and the presentation of evidence, even in one of them it can be observed how the lady” (sic). The argument remains unfinished because the exposition of the idea ends there, even without a final punctuation mark. Toward the end of its motion, it returns to this topic and transcribes a criminal judgment from a case in which the disintegration of the court was concluded due to the inattention of its members.

IV.To resolve the argument, the following must be considered. The Alternative Dispute Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace Law (Ley de Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social) grants this body specific and limited controlling jurisdiction over certain decisions of the arbitrators. At the culmination of the arbitration, the Chamber is responsible for examining any motion for annulment (recurso de nulidad) filed against the arbitration award. That appellate instance is not subject to special formalities or technical requirements, as Article 65 specifies with clear clarity, but it does establish the requirement that the dissatisfied party identify “the cause of annulment on which it is based,” in accordance with numeral 67 of that regulation. This implies, as this body has repeatedly indicated, that its controlling jurisdiction over the award is limited to the grounds for annulment specified by the legislator in that latter precept, which include the issuance of the award outside the period set for rendering the award, failure to rule on disputed matters, ruling on matters not submitted to arbitration, the non-arbitrability of the dispute, violation of due process or mandatory rules or public policy, and, finally, the lack of jurisdiction (incompetencia) of the arbitration tribunal. Any other objection, for example, disagreements about the factual framework, the weighing of evidence, or the interpretation of substantive law, by the legislator's decision, are not controllable by way of the motion for annulment and are the exclusive responsibility of the arbitrators. (Among many others, see judgments of this Chamber no. 766 at 16 hours 10 minutes on September 26, 2001, 720 at 15 hours 40 minutes on September 27, 2006, 1538-2013 at 09 hours 55 minutes on November 14, 2013, and 299-2018 at 11 hours 34 minutes on April 5, 2018).

V.Now, having delineated the foregoing, in its claim of a violation of due process due to inattention by one of the members of the arbitration tribunal, the party offers supporting evidence. The Law referred to in the previous considering clause contains no precept that deals with offering evidence with the motion for annulment. In the judgment of this body, to define the consequences of that omission, the constitutional guarantee of due process and its particularization of the right to a technical defense must be weighed together with the guarantee of providing evidence. All these paths lead to the conclusion that the omission of a rule on this point does not equate to the impossibility of providing it, provided that it is relevant evidence, that is, transparently linked to a ground for control governed by way of the motion for annulment alleged by the party, which for justified reasons could not have been provided at the procedural opportunity arranged for it. This last requirement derives from the general principle of good faith (buena fe) contained in Article 21 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), in its specification of procedural good faith. Although this Chamber does not ignore the recourse to supplementation with common procedural rules, a possibility provided by numeral 39 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law, the characteristics and particularities of the motion for annulment prevent finding a parallel in the regulation provided for evidence in the second instance by way of appeal, or in cassation, which made it necessary to follow another path to resolve the point. Now, having delineated the foregoing, in an a priori analysis, that is, without examination of the content of the evidence, the relevance of a video can be concluded to prove that members of the arbitration tribunal violated—eventually—the right of defense by attending to other matters while evidentiary hearings are being held, as well as the impossibility of providing it at another procedural moment, since the situation, if it had been observed, would have taken place precisely during the evidentiary hearing, so that provided by the party would be admissible. Now, regarding the usefulness of the content of the videos offered by the party to account for the defect it censures, the following must be noted. The videos are three, of very short duration—totaling just under one minute in all—they lack audio, it is unknown who recorded them, the recording location, their time or date. In the first, which lasts 18 seconds, an unidentified person is observed in a dynamic that appears to be a deposition hearing. At the front, Ms. Abdelnour is observed, along with another unidentified person, in the position of communication receivers, without it being possible to observe whether alongside the first two there is a third person, nor their identity. Ms. Aldelnour has an earpiece in her right ear and is taking notes while the person in front of her appears to be testifying. The second corresponds to a 35-second video in which, again, a dynamic typical of a deposition by an unidentified person appears to be occurring, with Ms. Aldelnour—the only one visible at the front—who has the same earpiece in place and is looking directly at the deponent. The last, five seconds long, shows Ms. Abdelnour with the earpiece in her ear while looking at her computer. In the judgment of this body, the set of videos does not permit corroboration that: 1. their images correspond to some moment of the evidentiary hearing held in this matter, 2. in the hypothetical scenario of admitting that it was the evidentiary hearing of the present arbitration proceeding, Ms. Aldelnour was attending to another matter while people were testifying. The only certain thing from the images is that Ms. Abdelnour had an earpiece in one of her ears, but there is no further evidence that at the moments captured by the videos, she was attending to something else. In any case, in the judgment of this body, it is also improper to attempt to provide a set of very small videos (in terms of time) of whose recording—if it was obtained during the evidentiary hearing of this arbitration—there is no record that notice was given to the Tribunal, nor that protest was made, in accordance with procedural good faith, before that forum, regarding Ms. Aldelnour's eventual inattention. Thus, the videos do not permit verification of a violation of due process in the terms referred to by the appellant, so the argument must be rejected.

VI.In the second ground for annulment, it states that the Tribunal omits "to pronounce" on the claims of its represented party. In another subsequent section of its motion, it adds that although it interposed main claims (pretensiones principales) and alternative claims (subsidiarias), the award omits them, violating Article 67 subsections b), e), and f) of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law (Ley RAC).

VII.In this regard, it is necessary to point out that this Chamber has indicated, on the occasion of its jurisdiction in cassation matters, that incongruence due to citra petita—failure to rule on matters requested—is a violation that seeks to protect the right of defense. Under this consideration, this body will proceed to its analysis in this matter insofar as the objection, if observed, would correspond to a violation of due process, a ground for control by way of the motion for annulment. Now, regarding its argument, the appellant does not explain which of its claims were not considered. In this regard, the award states that the defendant raised "a petition in its response to the claim, which cannot be considered as such since no counterclaim was filed, but the Tribunal understands that the defendant rejects the action filed and requests a declaration: i. That the cost of the arbitration be set at the real amount, based on the seven hundred and fifty thousand United States dollars of the sales contract for the work. ii. That the nullity of everything requested by the plaintiff be declared in accordance with the provisions of Article 23 of the Law Regulating Condominium Property (Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio). iii. That the plaintiff be ordered to pay all procedural costs and personal costs of the proceeding." That is, in the Tribunal's judgment, the "petitions" of the respondent must be understood as opposition to the claim, since it did not file a counterclaim (contrademanda). Thus, if it sought a specific ruling on the matter, it should have raised them in the manner established for this, their inclusion in the response to the claim being insufficient. In any case, and for the sake of argument, the "cost of the arbitration" was ordered in the award, it was not proper to declare the nullity of the opposing party's petitions because such a request completely lacks legal basis—acts or contracts are invalidated, not petitions—and the respondent being the losing party, it was responsible for paying costs. Thus, there is a decision in the award on all these aspects, although contrary to its interests. In sum, the allegation is not admissible and must be denied.

VIII.In its third, fourth, and fifth censures, it alleges the following. Third. There is an erroneous interpretation of the evidence insofar as the award affirms that the defendant did not have authorization to build in the setback (retiro) and points out that throughout the proceeding, the plans which would demonstrate whether or not authorization was given were not provided. The document reveals that it was authorized to build. The Tribunal's position is that such authorization was not had and that said permit was obtained in bad faith. The Tribunal questioned the granted permit but did not request that the plaintiff demonstrate that it was improperly granted. Fourth. The award affirms that the defendant did not respect the prohibition on building in the setback areas, but it is not understood how it affirms that if it “never knew which were the plans approved by the Coordination Board (Junta de Coordinación)”. The minutes provided by the plaintiff as evidence indicate that they were approved on January 18, 2018, but the plans are from March 2020, and according to sound judgment (sana crítica), an approval cannot have been issued prior to the date of the plans. The Tribunal issues a criterion without knowing the plans that were approved and without having the file that would permit a determination of how the conclusion was reached that the permit had to be approved. Fifth. In the seventh proven fact, it is affirmed that the defendant disregarded the condominium rules in the construction within the setbacks, an affirmation that lacks suitable evidence because the “manner” in which the construction permit was approved is unknown, but it has that permit and it acted under good faith as it was granted.

IX.All these objections challenge the merits of the decision because they dispute facts or legal grounds of what was awarded. As noted in Considering Clause III, such types of objections are outside the controlling jurisdiction assigned to this body by Article 67 of the Alternative Dispute Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace Law, and must therefore be rejected.

X.In its sixth objection, it alleges the following. In proven facts eight and nine, it was affirmed that its represented party disregarded the internal rules of the condominium, but it was not even specified which ones they were, which causes defenselessness. The award does not indicate how they were disregarded, which article was violated, and when it was breached. The award “says” that a permit was never granted, but in those facts it is pointed out that there was a permit “for a different work” and on other occasions it is affirmed that it had a permit for a light pergola, approved by the Board, but the file lacks the plans approved by the Coordination Board to compare them with those executed. It then adds: “It is of utmost importance to make this Chamber see that the Arbitration Tribunal heard from witnesses for the plaintiff herself that the plans identified the personnel, as is the case of witness María Trufinovic, an element that the Arbitration Tribunal did not assess.” Regarding proven fact 10, the Tribunal “never knew” which plans the Coordination Board approved, meaning it has no basis to indicate that what was built violates Articles 33, 34, and 35 of the Condominium Bylaws. The Tribunal ignored the request to evaluate whether the Coordination Board approved the construction by way of exception based on Chapter VII of the Bylaws. Later it insists, again, on this argument and adds that it requested that said Board be brought into the litis but it was not admitted, which, in its view, violates Article 67 subsection e) of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Law by not having all parties to the proceeding. It also references the following arguments. There is a lack of diligence on the part of the Arbitration Tribunal in joining the Coordination Board and requesting the administrative file from the local Municipality to contrast the plans with those approved by said Board. The Tribunal “never knew” which plans the Condominium's Coordination Board approved, although it indicated that this disregarded the Bylaws, which it held “blindly”, because the plans approved by the Coordination Board were never available. A false affirmation is made by indicating “that no exception to the prohibition whatsoever is provided for, when Chapter VII exists” which allows agreements of exception to be made affecting only one or more subsidiary farms.

XI.The defenselessness it alleges because, in its view, the award does not specify which rules of the Condominium Bylaws are violated by the works it is ordered to remove, is highly contradictory in light of its own affirmation of lack of support that it violated numerals 33, 34, and 35 of the Condominium Bylaws. Its allegations regarding the lack of proof of approved plans versus executed works are oriented—once again—to a review—somewhat confused and poorly ordered—of the merits of the decision, an aspect outside this annulment instance, and must therefore be rejected. Its reproach regarding the failure to join a “Condominium Coordination Board”, besides not fitting with any of the grounds for annulment, overlooks, contrary to procedural good faith—among other things—that its exception of necessary joinder of parties (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) was opportunely resolved by the Tribunal, without the party protesting what was decided, as the award itself warns. With this, its allegations are not admissible and must be denied.

XII.In its seventh and eighth censures, it raises these arguments. Seventh. The Tribunal has as proven the third, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh facts of the award based on assertions by the plaintiff, lacking logic, evidence, and foundation. Initially it indicates that it built without a permit and then, unexpectedly, contradicts itself as it affirms that the defendant failed to comply with the Condominium Bylaws and what was approved by the condominium authority by building in the setback zone, but in proven fact three it points out that the Commission granted approval for the preliminary construction project (anteproyecto constructivo) indicating respect for the five-meter setbacks. This proves that some plans were delivered to the Coordination Commission (Comisión de Coordinación) and it approved them. Therefore, it cannot be concluded how it is affirmed that it violated what was approved by the Commission and the Bylaws. In this proceeding, the plaintiff had to demonstrate that it built illegally in the setback zone, for which it had to provide the plans approved by the Condominium Coordination Board to the proceeding, but the Tribunal never asked the plaintiff for those plans and relied on the technical review of the preliminary project, which is meager and does not include plans. The Tribunal had the ability to request the plans approved by the Condominium authority and the Municipality, but it did not do so and based its conclusions on facts without proof or foundation. In view of the fact that it did not know which plans were approved, it should have asked the plaintiff to provide them. It was demonstrated in the proceeding that the defendant asked for permission to build a pergola in the setback area and the Commission granted it. The plaintiff alleges that the built structure goes against what was authorized and the Tribunal points out that from the technical review of the preliminary project it cannot be known which plans were approved, despite which it affirms that the defendant did not demonstrate that its construction was lawful. In the proceeding, the plaintiff makes an allegation without providing suitable evidence, the Tribunal warns of this shortcoming and resolves that its represented party did not demonstrate having built lawfully. With this, it inverted the burden of proof (carga de la prueba) by imposing on it the task of discrediting the affirmations of its counterpart, even though it had the approval of the Coordination Board and the Municipality. It was not its responsibility to prove that two sets of plans do not exist. Eighth. The Tribunal failed to assess two pieces of evidence of singular importance: the testimony of Jaime José Vanegas Delgado, who declares that the pergola is quite simple, does not have an electrical installation, rather it comes from the house, and indicates that he approved all inspections carried out by the Municipality, and evidence 1, according to which the technical review of the preliminary project from 2018 was not notified until June 23, 2020. This shows that the Tribunal did not analyze the evidence as the award affirms that the technical review of the preliminary project is from 2018 and the permits before the CFIA and the Municipality are from 2021, and this supposedly shows that it altered the 2018 plans. If the Tribunal had analyzed evidence 1, it would have realized that the technical review of the preliminary project was not notified until 2020, but that piece of information is omitted because the evidence was not studied. Nor is it true that the condominium authority did not authorize the plans and that it was the Condominium management company. If that document is analyzed, in the lower left corner, the names of those who at that time made up the Condominium Coordination Commission are found. The violation of due process is evident by not analyzing all the evidence and not justifying why it was not assessed.

XIII.Once again, although it invokes a violation of due process, all its arguments contest the judgment—on the merits—of the award that concluded the violation of condominium rules and ordered it to restore things to their previous state. The review of the merits of the decision or of the factual framework on which the ruling was based, it is reiterated, is not within the jurisdiction provided for the Chamber in this venue, so all these objections must be dismissed.

XIV. Consequently, none of its arguments having succeeded, the motion for annulment must be denied

THEREFORE

The motion for annulment brought by the defendant is declared without merit.

**Exp.** **23-000007-0004-AR** **Res. 001840-F-S1-2025** **FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at ten forty-eight hours on the nineteenth of December of two thousand twenty-five.

In arbitration proceedings filed by **CONDOMINIO LOS PORTONES LOTE NUEVE TLI S.A.** against **CONDOMINIO LOS PORTONES LOTE OCHO ZYB S.A.** before the Conciliation and Arbitration Center of the Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica, the defendant party files an annulment appeal against the arbitral award—unnumbered—issued on the ninth of January of two thousand twenty-three by the arbitrators José Rafael Fernández Quesada, Rosa María Aldelnour Granados and Jorge Manuel Chacón Mora. In this matter, the attorneys Álvaro Lara Vargas (plaintiff) and Francisco Dall'Anese Álvarez (defendant) are acting as special legal representatives of the parties.

**Reporting Magistrate Jorge Leiva Poveda** **CONSIDERANDO** **I.** The plaintiff is the owner of subsidiary farm no. 8, a property registered under Folio Real 45399-F-000, and the defendant is the owner of subsidiary farm no. 9, registered under Folio Real 221389-000, both of which are adjacent to each other, located in the Residential Horizontal Condominium of individualized primary farms Los Portones, located in the canton of Santa Ana, province of San José. In May 2021, the defendant began the construction of a vehicular pergola, and from the beginning of that work, the plaintiff warned that it violated the building setbacks (retiros de construcción) established by the Regulation for the Condominium, Administration, and Construction of the Residential Horizontal Condominium Los Portones, which affected its right regarding the space that must be safeguarded between subsidiary farms. The defendant opposed this and indicated that the work had the necessary permits and denied having violated the Condominium Regulation. The parties resorted to arbitration because the Condominium Regulation establishes this as the avenue for resolving differences, and the Conciliation and Arbitration Center of the Chamber of Commerce of Costa Rica as the venue to process it. The plaintiff, in its lawsuit, requested that the following be declared: 1) that the defendant's acts disturb its right of possession, 2) that it be ordered to immediately remove the works executed within the five meters of their adjacency, 3) that it be ordered: a) to respect the construction parameters ordered by the Los Portones Condominium Regulation, b) to observe the five-meter building setback (retiro de construcción) ordered by the Condominium Regulation, c) to remove the works executed within that setback, and d) to pay costs. The defendant company opposed this and alleged lack of right. In resolving the merits of the controversy, the Arbitration Tribunal ruled lack of right regarding the first claim, upheld the second and ordered the defendant to demolish and remove all the works executed within the five meters of the building setback (retiro de construcción) from the property line with the plaintiff's property, within a non-extendable period of three months from the finality of the award. Those works correspond to the five columns that serve to support the structure, the concrete foundations or pilasters, the steel beams that support the roof, the roof or lattice that supports the polycarbonate sheets, the fixed lighting and electricity supply system, the pile for the electric vehicle charging connection, and the cobblestone floor that supports the transit of the vehicles parked in that area. Regarding the third request of the lawsuit, it ordered the defendant to fully respect the construction parameters set forth by the Los Portones Condominium Regulation and, specifically, the five-meter building setback (retiro de construcción) set forth therein. Finally, it imposed on the losing party the payment of both costs, for which it set personal costs at ₡8,024,299.50 and procedural costs at $5,650. Not finding conformity with what was decided, the defendant filed an annulment appeal.

**II.** In the synthesis that will be included below, only their specific and concrete disagreements with the arbitration award (laudo arbitral) will be considered, for which a significant amount of preambles and contextualizations will be overlooked. By virtue of the foregoing, the enumeration proposed by the appellant will not be followed—which is initially established by paragraphs, a system later abandoned—but rather their reproaches will be organized, as far as possible, based on their specific censures of the appealed decision. Furthermore, given that they develop arguments and after some others repeat some previous ones, they will be grouped by common themes.

**III.** In their **first** disagreement, they allege the following. On September 29, 2022, throughout the evidentiary hearing (audiencia de evacuación de pruebas), arbitrator Rosa María Abdelnour Granados was watching and listening to a conference or event on her personal computer, which violates the principle of the natural judge (juez natural) and due process (debido proceso). They then stated: *“As proof of this we provide videos taken during the hearing and the evidentiary hearing (evacuación de la prueba), even in one of them it can be observed how the lady”* (sic)*.* The argument remains unfinished because the exposition of the idea ends there, even without a final punctuation mark. Towards the end of their appeal (recurso), they return to this topic and transcribe a criminal judgment from a case in which the disintegration of the court was concluded due to the inattention of its members.

**IV.** To resolve the argument, the following must be considered. The Alternative Conflict Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace Law (Ley de Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social) grants this body specific and limited oversight competencies over certain decisions of the arbitrators. At the culmination of the arbitration, it is the responsibility of this Chamber (Sala) to examine any eventual annulment appeal (recurso de nulidad) filed against the arbitration award. That appellate instance is not subject to special formalities or technical requirements, as specified with clear clarity in its Article 65, but it does establish the requirement that the disagreeing party identify *“the cause of nullity on which it is based”*, in accordance with numeral 67 of that regulation. This implies, as this body has quite repeatedly indicated, that its oversight competence over the award is limited to the grounds for nullity specified by the legislator in that last precept, which include the issuance of the award outside the period established for rendering the award (laudar), the omission of a ruling on disputed matters, the ruling on aspects not submitted to arbitration, the non-arbitrability of the dispute, the violation of due process or mandatory rules or public policy (orden público), and, finally, the lack of competence of the arbitration tribunal (tribunal arbitral). Any other objection, for example, disagreements about the factual framework, the assessment of the evidence (valoración de la prueba), or the interpretation of substantive law, by decision of the legislator, are not controllable through the annulment appeal and are the exclusive responsibility of the arbitrators. (Among many others, rulings of this Chamber no. 766 of 4:10 p.m. on September 26, 2001, 720 of 3:40 p.m. on September 27, 2006, 1538-2013 of 9:55 a.m. on November 14, 2013, and 299-2018 of 11:34 a.m. on April 5, 2018 may be consulted).

**V.** Now, having delimited the foregoing, in their claim of a violation of due process due to inattention by one of the members of the arbitration tribunal, the party offers supporting evidence. The Law referred to in the previous recital (considerando) does not contain any precept dealing with the offering of evidence with the annulment appeal. In the judgment of this body, to define the consequences of that omission, the constitutional guarantee of due process and its particularization of the right to a technical defense (derecho a la defensa técnica) must be weighed together with the guarantee of providing evidence (garantía de aportación de prueba). All these paths lead to the conclusion that the omission of a rule on this point does not equate to an impossibility of providing it, provided it is **pertinent evidence**, that is, clearly **linked to a ground for control regulated through the annulment appeal** alleged by the party, which for **justified reasons** could not have been provided at the procedural opportunity established for it. This last requirement derives from the general principle of good faith (buena fe) contained in Article 21 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), in its specification of procedural good faith. While this Chamber does not disregard recourse to integration with common procedural law, a possibility provided by numeral 39 of the Alternative Conflict Resolution Law, the characteristics and particularities of the annulment appeal prevent finding a parallel in the regulation provided for evidence in the second instance through the appeal (apelación), or in cassation (casación), which required following another path to resolve the point. Now, having delimited the foregoing, in an a priori analysis, that is, without examination of the content of the evidence, the pertinence of a video can be concluded to prove that members of the arbitration tribunal violated—eventually—the right of defense (derecho de defensa) by attending to other matters while evidentiary hearings (audiencias de práctica de pruebas) are being held, as well as the impossibility of providing it at another procedural moment, since the situation, if verified, would have taken place precisely at the evidentiary hearing, so that the evidence provided by the party would be admissible. Now, regarding the usefulness of the content of the videos offered by the party to account for the defect it censures, the following must be noted. The videos are three, of very short duration—they total just under a minute—, they lack audio, it is not known who recorded them, the recording site, their time or date. In the first, which lasts 18 seconds, an unidentified person is observed in a dynamic that appears to be a testimony hearing (audiencia de declaración). In front, Mrs. Abdelnour is observed, next to another unidentified person, in the position of communication receivers, without it being possible to observe whether next to the first two there is a third person, nor their identity. Mrs. Abdelnour has a headphone in her right ear and is taking notes while the person in front of her seems to be testifying. The second corresponds to a 35-second video in which, again, a dynamic typical of a testimony seems to occur by an unidentified person, with Mrs. Abdelnour—the only one visible in front—, who has the same headphone on and is looking directly at the person testifying. The last, five seconds long, shows Mrs. Abdelnour with the headphone in her ear while looking at her computer. In the judgment of this body, the set of videos does not allow corroborating that: 1. its images correspond to any moment of the evidentiary hearing (audiencia de recepción de pruebas) held in this matter, 2. in the hypothetical scenario of admitting that it was the evidentiary hearing of this arbitration proceeding (proceso arbitral), Mrs. Abdelnour was attending to another matter while the people were testifying. The only thing certain from the images is that Mrs. Abdelnour had a headphone in one of her ears, but there is no further evidence that at the moments captured by the videos, she was attending to something else.

In any case, in the judgment of this body, it is also inappropriate to attempt to provide a set of extremely short videos (as far as time is concerned) whose recording—if it was obtained at the evidentiary hearing of this arbitration—has no record of having been brought to the attention of the Tribunal, nor having been protested, in accordance with procedural good faith, before that forum, due to the possible inattention of Mrs. Aldelnour. Thus, the videos do not allow for a breach of due process to be verified in the terms referred to by the appellant, and therefore the argument must be dismissed.

VI.In the second ground for annulment, it is indicated that the Tribunal omits “ruling” on the claims of its represented party. In another later section of its appeal, it adds that although it filed principal and subsidiary claims, the award omits them, violating Article 67, subsections b), e), and f) of the Ley RAC.

VII.In this regard, it is necessary to point out that this Chamber has indicated, with respect to its jurisdiction in matters of cassation appeals, that incongruence due to citra petita—omission of a ruling on requested points—is a violation that seeks to safeguard the right of defense. From this consideration, this body will proceed to its analysis in this matter insofar as the disagreement, if verified, would correspond to a breach of due process, a ground for review through the annulment appeal. However, regarding its argument, the appellant does not explain which of its claims were not considered. In this regard, the award states that the defendant raised “a request in its response to the claim, which cannot be considered as such since no counterclaim (sic) was filed, but the Tribunal understands that the defendant rejects the action filed and requests that it be declared: i. That the cost of the arbitration be fixed at the actual amount, taking as a basis the seven hundred fifty thousand United States dollars of the work’s sales contract. ii. That the nullity of everything requested by the plaintiff be declared in accordance with the provisions of Article 23 of the Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio. iii. That the plaintiff be ordered to pay all procedural and personal costs of the proceeding.” That is to say, in the Tribunal's judgment, the “petitions” of the defendant had to be understood as opposition to the claim, since it did not file a counterclaim. Thus, if it sought a specific ruling on the matter, it should have raised them in the manner established for that purpose, their inclusion in the response to the claim being insufficient. In any case, and for further abundance of reasons, the “cost of the arbitration” was ordered in the award, it was not appropriate to declare the nullity of the counterparty’s petitions because such a request completely lacks legal basis—acts or contracts are invalidated, not petitions—and the defendant being the losing party, it was responsible for the payment of costs. Thus, a decision on all these aspects exists in the award, although contrary to its interests. In sum, the allegation is not admissible and must be denied.

VIII.In its third, fourth, and fifth objections, it alleges the following. Third. There is an erroneous interpretation of the evidence in that the award affirms that the defendant did not have authorization to build in the setback (retiro) and indicates that throughout the process, the plans demonstrating whether or not authorization existed were not provided. The document reveals that it was authorized to build. The Tribunal's position is that this authorization did not exist and that this permit was obtained in bad faith. The Tribunal questioned the granted permit but did not request that the plaintiff demonstrate it was improperly granted. Fourth. The award affirms that the defendant did not respect the prohibition on building in the setback (retiro) areas, but it is not understood how it affirms this if it “never knew (sic) what the plans approved by the Coordinating Board were.” The minutes provided by the plaintiff as evidence indicate that they were approved on January 18, 2018, but the plans are from March 2020, and according to sound criticism, an approval cannot be issued prior to the date of the plans. The Tribunal issues a criterion without knowing the plans that were approved and without having the case file that allows determining how the conclusion was reached that the permit should be approved. Fifth. In the seventh proven fact, it is affirmed that the defendant disrespected the condominium rules in the construction in the setbacks (retiros), an affirmation that lacks suitable evidence since “the manner” in which the construction permit was approved is unknown, but the permit is available and actions were taken under good faith insofar as it was granted.

IX.All these objections challenge the merits of the decision because they dispute facts or legal foundations of the award. As indicated in Considerando III, such types of objections are beyond the oversight jurisdiction assigned to this body by Article 67 of the Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social, and therefore they must be dismissed.

X.In its sixth disagreement, it alleges the following. In proven facts eight and nine, it was affirmed that its represented party disrespected the internal rules of the condominium, but it was not even specified what they were, which causes it defenselessness. The award does not indicate how it was disrespected, which article was violated, and when it was breached. The award “says” that a permit was never granted, but in those facts it is indicated that a permit existed “for a different work,” and on other occasions it is affirmed that it had a permit for a light pergola, approved by the Board, but the case file lacks the plans approved by the Coordinating Board to compare them with the plans executed.

It then adds: “It is of utmost importance to make this Chamber see that the Arbitration Tribunal heard (sic) from the plaintiff's own witnesses that the personal was identified in the plans, (sic) as is the case of the witness María Trufinovic, an element that the Arbitration Tribunal did not assess.” Regarding proven fact 10, the Tribunal “never knew” which plans were approved by the Coordinating Board, so it has no basis to indicate that what was built violates articles 33, 34, and 35 of the Condominium Regulations (Reglamento del Condominio). The Tribunal ignored the request to evaluate whether the Coordinating Board approved the construction by way of exception based on Chapter VII of the Regulations. Later, he insists again on this argument and adds that he requested that this Board be joined to the litis but it was not admitted, which, in his view, violates article 67(e) of the RAC Law by not having all parties to the process. He also raises the following arguments. There is a lack of diligence by the Arbitration Tribunal in joining the Coordinating Board to the litis and requesting the administrative file from the local Municipality to contrast the plans with those approved by that Board. The Tribunal “never knew” which plans the Condominium Coordinating Board approved, despite indicating that this disrespected the Regulations, a claim it made “blindly” because it never had the plans approved by the Coordinating Board. A false assertion is made by stating “that no exception whatsoever is provided for the prohibition when Chapter VII exists” which allows for adopting exception agreements affecting only one or more subsidiary properties (fincas filiales).

**XI.** The defenselessness claimed because, in his view, the award does not specify which normas of the condominium regulations (Reglamento condominal) are violated by the works he is ordered to remove, are quite contradictory in light of his own assertion of lack of basis for having violated numbers 33, 34, and 35 of the Condominium Regulations (Reglamento del Condominio). His arguments regarding the lack of proof of approved plans versus executed works are aimed—once again—at a review—somewhat confusing and poorly ordered—of the merits of the decision, an aspect unrelated to this instance of annulment, and must therefore be rejected. His criticism of the failure to join a “Condominium Coordinating Board”, besides not corresponding to any of the grounds for annulment, overlooks, contrary to procedural good faith (buena fe procesal)—among other things—that his defense of necessary passive joinder (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) was timely resolved by the Tribunal, without the party protesting against the decision, as the award itself notes. In any case, his arguments are not receivable and must be denied.

**XII.** In his seventh and eighth objections, he raises these arguments. **Seventh.** The Tribunal takes the third, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh facts of the award as proven based on assertions of the plaintiff, lacking logic, proof, and foundation. Initially, it indicates that it was built without permission, and later, untimely, contradicts itself by claiming it failed to comply with the Condominium Regulations (Reglamento del Condominio) and what was approved by the condominium authority when building in the setback zone, but in the third proven fact, it states that the Commission granted approval of the preliminary construction project indicating compliance with the five-meter setbacks. This proves that plans were submitted to the Coordinating Commission and that they were approved. Therefore, it cannot be concluded as claimed that it violated what was approved by the Commission and the Regulations. In this process, the plaintiff had to prove that it built illegally in the setback zone, for which it should have provided the process with the plans approved by the Condominium Coordinating Board, but the Tribunal never asked the plaintiff for those plans and relied on the technical review of the preliminary project, which is brief and does not include plans. The Tribunal had the possibility to request the plans approved by the Condominium authority and the Municipality but did not do so and based its conclusions on facts without proof or foundation. Since it did not know which plans were approved, it should have asked the plaintiff to provide them. In the process, it was shown that the defendant requested permission to build a pergola in the setback area and the Commission granted it. The plaintiff claims that the built construction goes against what was authorized, and the Tribunal indicates that the technical review of the preliminary project cannot determine which plans were approved, despite which it states that the defendant did not prove that her construction was lawful. In the process, the plaintiff made an allegation without providing suitable proof; the Tribunal warns of this deficiency and resolves that her client did not prove she built lawfully. In doing so, it reversed the burden of proof, forcing her to discredit the statements of her counterpart, even though she had the approval of the Coordinating Board and the Municipality. She was not responsible for proving that there are no two sets of plans. **Eighth.** The Tribunal omitted to assess two pieces of evidence of singular importance: the testimony of Jaime José Vanegas Delgado, who declares that the pergola is quite simple, has no electrical installation—rather, it comes from the house—and indicates that he approved all inspections carried out by the Municipality, and evidence 1, according to which the technical review of the preliminary project from 2018 was not notified until June 23, 2020. This demonstrates that the Tribunal did not analyze the evidence, as the award states that the technical review of the preliminary project is from 2018 and the permits before the CFIA and the Municipality are from 2021, and this supposedly shows that she altered the 2018 plans. If the Tribunal had analyzed evidence 1, it would have realized that the technical review of the preliminary project was not notified until 2020, but that fact is omitted because the evidence was not studied. It is also not true that the condominium authority did not authorize the plans and that it was the Condominium's management company. If that document is analyzed, the names of those who were then part of the Condominium Coordinating Commission are found in the lower left corner. The violation of due process is evident by failing to analyze all the evidence and not justifying why it was not assessed.

**XIII.** Once again, although it claims a violation of due process, all of its arguments challenge the substantive judgment of the award that concluded the breach of condominium regulations and ordered the restitution of things to their previous state. The review of the merits of the decision or the factual framework on which the ruling was based, it is reiterated, does not fall within the jurisdiction granted to this Chamber in this venue, and therefore all of those objections must be dismissed.

XIV. Consequently, none of its claims having succeeded, the motion to vacate must be rejected

POR TANTO

The motion to vacate filed by the defendant is declared without merit.

<span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">rgonzalezu</span>

<span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span> 1 Of the annulment motion, only the specific and concrete objections to the arbitral award are considered, and preambles and contextualizations are disregarded.

Furthermore, it repeats arguments, so they are grouped by common themes. In one grievance, it is alleged that there is defenselessness because the award does not specify which rules of the condominium regulations were infringed, which is contradictory when it affirms a lack of basis for finding that mandates 33, 34 and 35 of said regulations were violated. Another objection does not fit any of the grounds for annulment (voto 1840-F-2025).

It falls to the Chamber to examine any appeal for annulment (recurso de nulidad) filed against an arbitral award. According to ordinal 65 of the Ley RAC, as to its formalities or technical requirements, the aggrieved party is required to identify “the ground for annulment on which it is based” in accordance with numeral 67 ibidem. Any dissent regarding the factual framework, the evaluation of evidence or the interpretation of substantive law, by decision of the legislator, are the exclusive responsibility of the arbitrators. See decisions 766-2001, 720-2006, 1538-2013 and 299-2018 of the Sala Primera. The objections under review are beyond the supervisory competence of the Chamber, because they challenge the merits of what was decided by disputing facts or legal grounds of the award. Ergo, they are rejected. In another complaint, although it invokes a violation of due process, its arguments challenge the judgment —on the merits— of the award; therefore, it is dismissed (voto 1880-F-2025).

The Ley RAC contains no precept regarding the offering of evidence with the appeal for annulment (recurso de nulidad). Based on the constitutional guarantee of due process, the right to technical defense and the guarantee of adducing evidence, it may be submitted provided it is pertinent evidence, that is, clearly linked to a ground of review governed by the appeal for annulment alleged by the party, which for justified reasons could not have been submitted at the procedural opportunity designated for that purpose (principle of procedural good faith - cardinal 21 Código Civil); without disregarding recourse to integration with the ordinary procedural rules (mandate 39 Ley RAC). In the specific case, the videos offered by the appellant are admitted (voto 1880-F-2025).

It is alleged that, during the evidentiary hearing, the arbitrator was watching and listening to her personal computer, which violates the principle of the natural judge and due process. In the judgment of this Chamber, the videos offered by the appellant do not make it possible to corroborate that: 1. Their images correspond to any moment of that hearing. 2. In the hypothetical scenario of admitting that it was that hearing, that the arbitrator was attending to another matter while the persons were testifying. The only thing certain from the images is that she had an earpiece in one of her ears, but there is no evidence that, at the moments captured by the videos, she was attending to anything else. In any case, it is also not proper to attempt to submit a set of very short videos (in terms of duration) whose recording —if it was obtained at the evidentiary hearing of this arbitration— there is no record that it was brought to the attention of the Tribunal, nor that any objection was raised, in accordance with procedural good faith, regarding the possible inattention of the adjudicator. Thus, the videos do not make it possible to verify a violation of due process (voto 1840-F-2025).

Incongruence for citra petita —omission of a ruling on matters requested— is a violation of the right of defense, a ground for review by way of the appeal for annulment (recurso de nulidad). The appellant does not explain which of its claims were not considered. The award states that the defendant raised “a petition in its statement of defense, which cannot be considered as such since there was no counterclaim”, that is, in the tribunal’s judgment, the “requests” of the plaintiff had to be understood as opposition to the claim, because it did not file a counterclaim. Thus, if it sought a ruling in that regard, it should have raised them in the manner established for that purpose, its inclusion in the statement of defense being insufficient (voto 1840-F-2025).

001840-F-S1-2025 **SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA.** San José, at ten hours forty-eight minutes on the nineteenth of December of two thousand twenty-five.

In arbitral proceedings filed by **CONDOMINIO LOS PORTONES LOTE NUEVE TLI S.A.** against **CONDOMINIO LOS PORTONES LOTE OCHO ZYB S.A.** before the Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje de la Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, the defendant files a motion to set aside (recurso de nulidad) against the arbitral award (laudo arbitral) -without a number- issued on January ninth of two thousand twenty-three by the arbitrators José Rafael Fernández Quesada, Rosa María Aldelnour Granados, and Jorge Manuel Chacón Mora. Appearing in this matter as special legal representatives of the parties are attorneys Álvaro Lara Vargas (plaintiff) and Francisco Dall´Anese Álvarez (defendant).

**Magistrado ponente Jorge Leiva Poveda** **CONSIDERANDO** **I.** The plaintiff is the owner of subsidiary farm no. 8, property registered under Folio Real 45399-F-000, and the defendant of subsidiary farm no. 9, registered under Folio Real 221389-000, both adjacent to each other, located in the Condominio Horizontal Residencial de fincas primarias individualizadas Los Portones, in the canton of Santa Ana, province of San José. In May 2021, the defendant began the construction of a vehicular pergola and from the start of that work, the plaintiff warned that it violated the construction setbacks (retiros de construcción) established by the Reglamento de Condominio, Administración y Construcción del Condominio Horizontal Residencial Los Portones, which affected its right regarding the space that must be preserved between subsidiary farms. The defendant opposed and indicated that the work had the necessary permits and denied having violated the Reglamento del Condominio. The parties resorted to arbitration because the Reglamento del Condominio establishes that avenue for dispute resolution and the Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje de la Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica as the venue to process it. The plaintiff, in its claim, requested that the following be declared: 1) that the defendant's acts disturb its right of possession, 2) that it be ordered to immediately remove the works executed within the five meters of its adjoining boundary, 3) that it be ordered: a) to respect the construction parameters ordered by the Reglamento del Condominio Los Portones, b) to observe the five-meter construction setback ordered by the Reglamento del Condominio, c) to remove the works executed on that setback, and d) to pay costs. The defendant company opposed and alleged lack of right. In resolving the merits of the dispute, the Arbitral Tribunal found a lack of right regarding the first claim, upheld the second, and ordered the defendant to demolish and remove all works executed within the five meters of the construction setback from the boundary with the plaintiff's property, within a non-extendable period of three months from the finality of the award (laudo). Those works correspond to the five columns serving to support the structure, the concrete bases or pilasters, the steel beams supporting the roof, the roof or lattice supporting the polycarbonate sheets, the fixed lighting and electricity supply system, the pile for the electric vehicle recharge connection, and the cobblestone floor supporting the transit of vehicles parked in that area. Regarding the third petition of the claim, it ordered the defendant to fully respect the construction parameters set forth by the Reglamento del Condominio Los Portones and, specifically, the five-meter construction setback provided therein. Finally, it imposed on the losing party the payment of both costs, for which it set the personal costs at ₡8,024,299.50 and the procedural costs at $5,650. Finding no conformity with what was decided, the defendant filed a motion to set aside.

**II.** In the synthesis that will follow, only its punctual and concrete disagreements with the arbitral award will be considered, for which a significant amount of preambles and contextualizations will be omitted. By virtue of the foregoing, the enumeration proposed by the appellant -which is initially established by paragraphs, a system it later abandons- will not be followed, but rather its reproaches will be organized, as far as possible, based on its specific criticisms of the appealed decision. Furthermore, in view of the fact that it develops arguments and after some others repeats some previous ones, they will be grouped by common themes.

**III.** In its **first** disagreement, it alleges the following. On September 29, 2022, throughout the evidentiary hearing (audiencia de evacuación de pruebas), arbitrator Rosa María Abdelnour Granados was watching and listening to a conference or event on her personal computer, which violates the principle of the natural judge and due process. It then stated: *“As proof of this we provide videos taken during the hearing and the taking of evidence, even in one of them you can see how the lady”* (sic). The argument remains unfinished because the exposition of the idea ends there, even without a final punctuation mark. Toward the end of its appeal, it returns to this topic and transcribes a criminal judgment from a case in which the disintegration of the tribunal due to the inattention of its members was concluded.

**IV.** To resolve this point, it is necessary to consider the following. The Ley de Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social grants this body specific and limited supervisory competence over certain decisions of the arbitrators. At the culmination of the arbitration, it falls to this Chamber to examine any eventual motion to set aside (recurso de nulidad) filed against the arbitral award. That appellate instance is not subject to special formalities or technical requirements, as specified with clear clarity by Article 65 thereof, but it does establish the requirement that the aggrieved party identify *“the ground for annulment on which it is based”*, pursuant to numeral 67 of that regulation. This implies, as has been repeatedly indicated by this body, that its supervisory competence over the award is limited to the grounds for annulment specified by the legislator in that last precept, which include the issuance of the award outside the period provided for rendering it, the omission to rule on disputed matters, ruling on matters not submitted to arbitration, the non-arbitrability of the dispute, the violation of due process or imperative or public policy rules, and, finally, the lack of competence of the arbitral tribunal. Any other objection, for example, disagreements about the factual framework, the weighing of evidence, or the interpretation of substantive law, by decision of the legislator, are not controllable through a motion to set aside and are the exclusive responsibility of the arbitrators. (Among many others, see the judgments of this Chamber no. 766 of 16 hours 10 minutes on September 26, 2001, 720 of 15 hours 40 minutes on September 27, 2006, 1538-2013 of 09 hours 55 minutes on November 14, 2013, and 299-2018 of 11 hours 34 minutes on April 5, 2018).

**V.** Now, having delineated the above, regarding its claim of a violation of due process due to the inattention of one of the members of the arbitral tribunal, the party offers supporting evidence. The Law cited in the preceding recital does not contain any precept that addresses the offering of evidence with the annulment appeal. In the judgment of this body, to define the consequences of that omission, the constitutional guarantee of due process and its particularization of the right to a technical defense must be weighed together with the guarantee of presenting evidence. All these paths lead to the conclusion that the omission of a rule on this point does not equate to an impossibility of providing it, provided it involves **pertinent evidence**, that is, clearly **linked to a ground for review regulated through the annulment appeal** raised by the party, which for **justified reasons** could not have been provided at the procedural opportunity established for that purpose. This last requirement derives from the general principle of good faith contained in article 21 of the Civil Code, in its specification of procedural good faith. While this Chamber is not unaware of the recourse to integration with common procedural rules, a possibility provided by numeral 39 of the Alternative Conflict Resolution Law, the characteristics and particularities of the annulment appeal prevent finding a parallel in the regulation provided for evidence in the second instance through the appeal, or in cassation, which forced a different path to resolve the point. Now, having delineated the above, in an a priori analysis, that is, without examining the content of the means of evidence, the pertinence of a video to prove that members of the arbitral tribunal - eventually - violated the right of defense by attending to other matters while evidentiary hearings were being held can be concluded, as well as the impossibility of providing it at another procedural moment, since the situation, had it been verified, would have taken place precisely during the evidentiary hearing, so that the evidence provided by the party would be admissible. Now, regarding the usefulness of the content of the videos offered by the party to account for the defect it censures, the following must be noted. The videos are three, of very short duration - they total just under one minute in total -, they lack audio, it is unknown who recorded them, the site of the recording, its time or date. In the first, which lasts 18 seconds, an unidentified person is observed in a dynamic that appears to be a statement hearing. At the front, Mrs. Abdelnour is observed, next to another unidentified person, positioned as recipients of communication, although it cannot be observed if there is a third person next to the first two, nor their identity. Mrs. Aldelnour has an earpiece in her right ear and is taking notes while the person located opposite her seems to be making a statement. The second corresponds to a 35-second video in which, again, a dynamic typical of a statement given by an unidentified person appears to be taking place, with Mrs. Aldelnour - the only one visible at the front -, who has the same earpiece in place and is looking directly at the person making the statement. The last one, lasting five seconds, shows Mrs. Abdelnour with the earpiece in her ear while looking at her computer. In the judgment of this body, the set of videos does not allow corroborating that: 1. their images correspond to any moment of the hearing for the reception of evidence held in this matter, 2. in the hypothetical scenario of admitting that it was the hearing for the reception of evidence of this present arbitration process, Mrs. Aldelnour was attending to another matter while people were making statements. The only thing certain from the images is that Mrs. Abdelnour had an earpiece in one of her ears, but there is no further evidence that, at the moments captured by the videos, she was attending to something else. In any case, in the judgment of this body, it is also not proper to attempt to provide a set of extremely short videos (with respect to time) whose recording - if obtained at the evidentiary hearing of this arbitration - lacks any record that the Tribunal was warned, nor was any protest made, in accordance with procedural good faith, **before that venue**, due to the eventual inattention of Mrs. Aldelnour. That being the case, the videos do not allow proving a violation of due process in the terms referred to by the appellant, so the claim must be rejected.

**VI.** In the **second** ground for annulment, it indicates that the Tribunal omits "pronouncing" on the claims of its represented party. In another subsequent section of its appeal, it adds that although it filed main and subsidiary claims, the award omits them, violating article 67 subsections b), e), and f) of the Ley RAC.

**VII.** In this regard, it is pertinent to note that this Chamber has indicated, on the occasion of its competence in cassation appeal matters, that incongruence due to *citra petita* - omission of a ruling on requested points - is a violation that seeks to safeguard the right of defense. From that consideration, this body will proceed to its analysis in this matter as the nonconformity, if verified, would correspond to a violation of due process, a ground for review through the annulment appeal. Now, regarding its claim, the appellant does not explain which of its claims were not considered. In this regard, the award states that the defendant raised *“a petition in its response to the lawsuit, which cannot be considered as such since there was no counterclaim (sic), but the Tribunal understands that the defendant rejects the action filed and requests that it be declared: i. The cost of the arbitration be set at the real amount, based on the seven hundred fifty thousand United States dollars of the purchase-sale contract for the work. ii. Nullity be declared over everything requested by the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of article 23 of the Condominium Property Regulatory Law. iii. The plaintiff be ordered to pay all procedural and personal costs of the process.”*. That is, in the Tribunal's judgment, the defendant's "petitions" should be understood as opposition to the lawsuit, since it did not file a counterclaim. Thus, if it sought a specific ruling on the matter, it should have raised them in the manner established for that purpose, their inclusion in the response to the lawsuit being insufficient. In any case, and with greater abundance of reasons, the "cost of the arbitration" was ordered in the award, it was not appropriate to declare nullity over the counterparty's petitions because such a request absolutely lacks legal basis - acts or contracts are invalidated, not petitions - and the defendant being the losing party, it was responsible for the payment of costs. That being the case, a decision on all of those aspects is contained in the award, although contrary to its interests. In sum, the allegation is not acceptable and must be denied.

**VIII.** In its **third**, **fourth**, and **fifth** censures, it alleges the following. **Third**.

There is an erroneous interpretation of the evidence in that the award asserts that the defendant lacked authorization to build in the setback and points out that throughout the proceeding no plans were provided to demonstrate whether or not authorization was granted. The document reveals that she was authorized to build. The Tribunal's position is that she lacked that authorization and that the permit was obtained in bad faith. The Tribunal questioned the permit granted but did not ask the claimant to demonstrate that it was improperly granted.

**Fourth.** The award asserts that the defendant failed to respect the prohibition on building within the setback areas, yet it is not understood how it can assert that if “(sic) never knew which plans were approved by the Coordinating Board (Junta de Coordinación).” The minutes provided by the claimant as evidence indicate that they were approved on January 18, 2018, but the plans are from March 2020, and according to sound criticism, an approval cannot be issued prior to the date of the plans. The Tribunal issues an opinion without knowing which plans were approved and without having the record that would allow it to determine how the conclusion was reached that the permit should be approved.

**Fifth.** In the seventh proven fact, it is asserted that the defendant disrespected the condominium rules in the construction within the setbacks, an assertion that lacks adequate proof because the “manner” in which the construction permit was approved is unknown, but that permit exists and actions were taken in good faith insofar as it was granted.

**IX.** All of these objections challenge the merits of what was decided because they dispute the facts or legal foundations of the award. As indicated in Considerando III, such types of objections are beyond the oversight competence assigned to this body by Article 67 of the Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution and Promotion of Social Peace (Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social, Ley RAC), and they must therefore be dismissed.

**X.** In its **sixth** objection, it alleges the following. In proven facts eight and nine, it was asserted that its represented party disrespected the internal rules of the condominium, but it was not even specified what they were, which causes defenselessness (indefensión). The award does not indicate how they were disrespected, which article was violated, or when it was ignored. The award “states” that a permit was never granted, but in those facts it points out that a permit existed “for a different project” and on other occasions it is asserted that she had a permit for a light pergola, approved by the Board, but the record lacks the plans approved by the Coordinating Board (Junta de Coordinación) to compare them with what was built. It then adds: “It is of utmost importance to make this Chamber see that the Arbitration Tribunal heard from the claimant's own witnesses that the plans identified the person, (sic) as is the case of the witness María Trufinovic, an element that the Arbitration Tribunal did not consider.” Regarding proven fact 10, the Tribunal “never knew” which plans the Coordinating Board (Junta de Coordinación) approved, so it has no basis to indicate that what was built violates Articles 33, 34, and 35 of the Condominium Regulations (Reglamento del Condominio). The Tribunal ignored the request to evaluate whether the Coordinating Board (Junta de Coordinación) approved the construction by way of exception based on Chapter VII of the Regulations. Further on it insists, again, on this argument and adds that it requested that this Board be brought into the dispute (litis) but this was not admitted, which, in its opinion, violates Article 67(e) of the Ley RAC by not having all the parties to the proceeding. It also refers to the following arguments. There is a lack of diligence by the Arbitration Tribunal in integrating the dispute (litis) with the Coordinating Board (Junta de Coordinación) and requesting the administrative file from the local Municipality to compare the plans with those approved by that Board. The Tribunal “never knew” which plans the Coordinating Board (Junta de Coordinación) of the Condominium approved, despite indicating that this disrespected the Regulations, which it held “blindly,” because it never had the plans approved by the Coordinating Board (Junta de Coordinación). A false assertion is made by indicating “that no exception to the prohibition is provided for, when Chapter VII exists,” which allows for the adoption of exception agreements that affect only one or more subsidiary properties.

**XI.** The defenselessness (indefensión) it alleges because, in its opinion, the award does not specify which rules of the condominium Regulations were violated by the works it is ordered to remove, is highly contradictory in light of its own assertion that there is no basis for its having violated numbers 33, 34, and 35 of the Condominium Regulations (Reglamento del Condominio). Its arguments regarding the lack of proof of approved plans versus executed works are oriented — once again — toward a review — somewhat confusing and poorly organized — of the merits of what was decided, an aspect beyond this nullity instance, and they must therefore be dismissed. Its reproach regarding the failure to join a “Condominium Coordinating Board (Junta de Coordinación del Condominio),” in addition to not fitting any of the grounds for nullity, disregards, contrary to procedural good faith — among other things — that its objection of necessary passive joinder of parties (litis consorcio pasivo necesario) was timely resolved by the Tribunal, without the party protesting that decision, as the award itself notes. In any event, its arguments are not admissible and must be denied.

**XII.** In its seventh and eighth censures, it raises these arguments. **Seventh.** The Tribunal holds proven facts three, six, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh of the award based on assertions by the claimant, devoid of logic, proof, and foundation.

Initially, it indicates that construction was carried out without a permit and then, abruptly, contradicts itself by stating that it breached the Condominium Regulations and what was approved by the condominium authority by building in the setback area (zona de retiro), but in the third proven fact it notes that the Commission granted approval for the preliminary construction project, indicating respect for the five-meter setbacks. This proves that plans were submitted to the Coordinating Commission and that it approved them. Therefore, it cannot be concluded, as stated, that it violated what was approved by the Commission and the Regulations. In this proceeding, the plaintiff had to demonstrate that the defendant built illegally in the setback area (zona de retiro), for which purpose it should have submitted to the proceeding the plans approved by the Condominium Coordinating Board, but the Tribunal never asked the plaintiff for those plans and based itself on the technical review of the preliminary project, which is succinct and does not include plans. The Tribunal had the possibility of requesting the plans approved by the Condominium authority and the Municipality, but it did not do so and based its conclusions on facts without evidence or foundation. Given that it did not know which plans were approved, it should have asked the plaintiff to provide them. In the proceeding, it was demonstrated that the defendant requested permission to build a pergola in the setback area (área de retiro) and the Commission granted it to her. The plaintiff alleges that the constructed building goes against what was authorized, and the Tribunal indicates that from the technical review of the preliminary project it cannot be known which plans were approved, despite which it states that the defendant did not demonstrate that her construction was lawful. In the proceeding, the plaintiff makes an allegation without providing suitable evidence; the Tribunal notes this deficiency and resolves that its represented party did not demonstrate having built lawfully. In doing so, it reversed the burden of proof, imposing upon her the need to discredit the assertions of her counterpart, even though she had the approval of the Coordinating Board and the Municipality. It was not for her to prove that there are not two sets of plans. Eighth. The Tribunal omitted to assess two pieces of evidence of singular importance: the testimony of Jaime José Vanegas Delgado, who states that the pergola is quite simple, has no electrical installation but rather derives its power from the house, and indicates that he approved all the inspections carried out by the Municipality; and exhibit 1, according to which the technical review of the preliminary project from 2018 was not notified until June 23, 2020. This accounts for the fact that the Tribunal did not analyze the evidence insofar as the award states that the technical review of the preliminary project is from 2018 and the permits before the CFIA and the Municipality are from 2021, and supposedly this evidences that she altered the 2018 plans. If the Tribunal had analyzed exhibit 1, it would have realized that the technical review of the preliminary project was not notified until 2020, but that fact is omitted because the evidence was not studied. Nor is it true that the condominium authority did not authorize the plans and that it was the Condominium management company. If that document is analyzed, in the lower left corner are the names of those who at that time made up the Condominium Coordinating Commission. The violation of due process is evident in not analyzing all the evidence and not justifying why it was not assessed.

XIII.Once again, although it invokes a breach of due process, all its arguments controvert the substantive judgment of the award, which concluded that condominium rules were breached and ordered it to restore things to their prior state. The review of the merits of what was decided or the factual framework on which the ruling was based, it is reiterated, does not fall within the competence granted to this Chamber in this venue, so all these objections must be dismissed.

XIV. Consequently, as none of its arguments have succeeded, the motion for annulment (recurso de nulidad) must be rejected

POR TANTO

The motion for annulment (recurso de nulidad) filed by the defendant is declared without merit.

rgonzalezu LUIS GUILLERMO RIVAS LOAICIGA - MAGISTRADO/A MARÍA ROSA CASTRO GARCÍA - MAGISTRADO/A CARLOS GUILLERMO ZAMORA CAMPOS - MAGISTRADO/A DAMARIS MARIA VARGAS VASQUEZ - MAGISTRADO/A JORGE LEIVA POVEDA - MAGISTRADO/A 1

Revisión del Documento  Res. 001840-F-S1-2025 SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas cuarenta y ocho minutos del diecinueve de diciembre de dos mil veinticinco.

En proceso arbitral interpuesto por CONDOMINIO LOS PORTONES LOTE NUEVE TLI S.A. contra CONDOMINIO LOS PORTONES LOTE OCHO ZYB S.A. ante el Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje de la Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica, la parte demandada formula recurso de nulidad contra el laudo arbitral -sin número- emitido el nueve de enero de dos mil veintitrés por los árbitros José Rafael Fernández Quesada, Rosa María Aldelnour Granados y Jorge Manuel Chacón Mora. En este asunto intervienen, como apoderados especiales de las partes, los abogados Álvaro Lara Vargas (actora) y Francisco Dall´Anese Álvarez (demandada).

Magistrado ponente Jorge Leiva Poveda

CONSIDERANDO

I.La actora es propietaria de la finca filial no. 8, inmueble matrícula de Folio Real 45399-F-000, y la demandada de la filial no. 9, matrícula de Folio Real 221389-000, ambas colindantes entre sí, ubicadas en el Condominio Horizontal Residencial de fincas primarias individualizadas Los Portones, localizado en el cantón de Santa Ana, provincia de San José. En mayo de 2021 la demandada inició la construcción de una pérgola vehicular y desde el inicio de esa obra la actora advirtió que violaba los retiros de construcción establecidos por el Reglamento de Condominio, Administración y Construcción del Condominio Horizontal Residencial Los Portones, lo que afectaba su derecho respecto del espacio que debía resguardarse entre fincas filiales. La demandada se opuso y señaló que la obra contaba con los permisos necesarios y negó haber violado el Reglamento del Condominio. Las partes acudieron a arbitraje en virtud de que el Reglamento del Condominio establece esa vía para la solución de diferencias y al Centro de Conciliación y Arbitraje de la Cámara de Comercio de Costa Rica como la sede para tramitarlo. La actora, en su demanda, solicitó se declare lo siguiente: 1) que los actos de la demandada perturban su derecho de posesión, 2) se le ordene el retiro inmediato de las obras ejecutadas en los cinco metros de su colindancia, 3) se le imponga: a) respetar los parámetros de construcción ordenados por el Reglamento del Condominio Los Portones, b) el retiro de la construcción de los cinco metros ordenados por el Reglamento del Condominio, c) retirar las obras ejecutadas sobre ese retiro y d) el pago de las costas. La sociedad demandada se opuso y alegó la falta de derecho. Al resolver el fondo de la controversia, el Tribunal Arbitral dispuso la falta de derecho respecto de la primera pretensión, acogió la segunda y le ordenó a la accionada el derribo y retiro de todas las obras ejecutadas en los cinco metros de retiro de la colindancia con la propiedad de la actora, en el plazo improrrogable de tres meses a partir de la firmeza del laudo. Esas obras corresponden a las cinco columnas que sirven para sostener la estructura, los basamentos o pilastras de concreto, las vigas de acero que sostienen la cubierta, el techo o enrejado que sostiene las láminas de policarbonato, el sistema fijo de iluminación y abastecimiento de electricidad, el pilote para la conexión de recarga eléctrica del vehículo eléctrico y el piso de adoquín que soporta el tránsito de los vehículos que se parquean en esa zona. Respecto del tercer pedimento de la demanda, ordenó a la accionada respetar íntegramente los parámetros de construcción dispuestos por el Reglamento del Condominio Los Portones y, en cuenta, el retiro de construcción de cinco metros dispuesto en él. Finalmente impuso a la perdidosa el pago de ambas costas para lo cual fijó las personales en ₡8 024 299,50 y las procesales en $5650. No hallando conformidad con lo decidido, la demandada formuló recurso de nulidad.

II.En la síntesis que de seguido se incluirá, se considerarán únicamente sus disconformidades puntuales y concretas contra el laudo arbitral, para lo cual se soslayarán una importante cantidad de preámbulos y contextualizaciones. En virtud de lo anterior, no se seguirá la enumeración que plantea el recurrente -que inicialmente se establece por párrafos, sistema que luego abandona-, sino que se organizarán sus reproches, en lo posible, a partir de sus censuras específicas contra la decisión recurrida. Además, en vista de que desarrolla argumentos y al cabo de algunos otros repite algunos previos, se aglutinarán por temas comunes.

III.En su primera disconformidad alega lo siguiente. El 29 de septiembre de 2022, a lo largo de la audiencia de evacuación de pruebas, la árbitro Rosa María Abdelnour Granados estuvo viendo y escuchando una conferencia o evento, en su computadora personal, lo que violenta el principio del juez natural y el debido proceso. Luego afirmó: “Como prueba de esto aportamos videos tomados durante la audiencia y la evacuación de la prueba, incluso en uno de ellos se puede observar como la señora” (sic). El argumento queda inconcluso porque ahí termina la exposición de la idea, incluso sin signo de puntuación final. Hacia el final de su recurso vuelve sobre este tema y transcribe una sentencia penal de un caso en el que se concluyó la desintegración del tribunal por la desatención de sus miembros.

IV.Para resolver el planteamiento precisa tener en cuenta lo siguiente. La Ley de Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social otorga a este órgano específicas y acotadas competencias contraloras de algunas decisiones de los árbitros. Al culmen del arbitraje, corresponde a la Sala el examen del eventual recurso de nulidad que se formule contra el laudo arbitral. Esa instancia recursiva no se halla sometida a especiales formalidades o requerimientos técnicos, según especifica con meridiana claridad su artículo 65, pero sí establece la exigencia de que la parte disconforme identifique “la causa de nulidad en la que se funda”, de conformidad con el numeral 67 de esa normativa. Esto implica, según ha señalado en forma harto reiterada este órgano, que su competencia contralora del laudo se acota a los motivos de nulidad especificados por el legislador en ese último precepto, que comprenden la emisión del laudo fuera del plazo dispuesto para laudar, la omisión de pronunciamiento sobre asuntos disputados, la resolución sobre aspectos no sometidos a arbitraje, la inarbitrabilidad de la controversia, el quebranto al debido proceso o a normas imperativas o de orden público y, finalmente, la incompetencia del tribunal arbitral. Cualquier otro reparo, verbigracia, disconformidades sobre el marco fáctico, la valoración de la prueba o la interpretación del derecho sustantivo, por decisión del legislador, no son controlables por la vía del recurso de nulidad y son exclusiva responsabilidad de los árbitros. (Entre muchas otras pueden consultarse las sentencias de esta Sala no. 766 de las 16 horas 10 minutos del 26 de septiembre de 2001, 720 de las 15 horas 40 minutos del 27 de septiembre de 2006, 1538-2013 de las 09 horas 55 minutos del 14 de noviembre de 2013 y 299-2018 de las 11 horas 34 minutos del 05 de abril de 2018).

V.Ahora bien, deslindado lo anterior, en su reclamo de quebranto al debido proceso por desatención de una de las personas integrantes del tribunal arbitral, la parte ofrece prueba de sustento. La Ley referida en el considerando previo no contiene precepto alguno que se ocupe del ofrecimiento de prueba con el recurso de nulidad. A juicio de este órgano, para definir las consecuencias de esa omisión ha de ponderarse la garantía constitucional del debido proceso y su particularización del derecho a la defensa técnica en conjunto con la garantía de aportación de prueba. Todos estos derroteros conducen a que la omisión de norma sobre este extremo no equivalga a imposibilidad de aportarla, siempre que se trate de prueba pertinente, esto es, diáfanamente vinculada con un motivo de control regulado por la vía del recurso de nulidad alegado por la parte, que por razones justificadas no haya podido ser aportada en la oportunidad procesal dispuesta para ello. Esta última exigencia se deriva del principio general de buena fe contenido en el artículo 21 del Código Civil, en su especificación de buena fe procesal-. Si bien no desconoce esta Sala el recurso a la integración con la normativa procesal común, posibilidad dispuesta por el numeral 39 de la Ley de Resolución Alterna de Conflictos, las características y particularidades del recurso de nulidad impiden encontrar un parangón en la regulación dispuesta para la prueba en segunda instancia por la vía de apelación, o en casación, lo que obligó a seguir otro camino para resolver el punto. Ahora bien, deslindado lo anterior, en un análisis apriorístico, esto es, sin examen del contenido del medio de prueba, puede concluirse la pertinencia de un video para acreditar que integrantes del tribunal arbitral vulneraron -eventualmente- el derecho de defensa por atender otros asuntos mientras se celebran audiencias de práctica de pruebas, así como la imposibilidad de aportarlo en otro momento procesal, pues la situación, de haberse constatado, habría tenido lugar justamente en la audiencia probatoria, de modo que la aportada por la parte sería admisible. Ahora, en cuanto a la utilidad del contenido de los videos ofrecidos por la parte para dar cuenta del vicio que censura, ha de señalarse lo siguiente. Los videos son tres, de muy corta duración -suman poco menos de un minuto en total-, carecen de audio, no se sabe quién los grabó, el sitio de la grabación, su hora o fecha. En el primero, que dura 18 segundos, se observa a una persona no identificada en una dinámica que pareciera ser una audiencia de declaración. Al frente se observa a la señora Abdelnour, junto a otra persona no identificada, en posición de receptores de comunicación, sin que pueda observarse si junto a los primeros dos hay una tercera persona, ni su identidad. La señora Aldelnour tiene un audífono en su oído derecho y se encuentra tomando notas mientras quien se ubica frente a ella parece encontrarse declarando. El segundo corresponde a un video de 35 segundos en el que, de nuevo, parece darse una dinámica propia de una declaración a cargo de una persona no identificada, con la señora Aldelnour -única visible al frente-, quien tiene colocado el mismo audífono y se encuentra mirando directamente a la persona declarante. El último, de cinco segundos, muestra a la señora Abdelnour con el audífono en su oído mientras mira su computadora. A juicio de este órgano, el conjunto de videos no permite corroborar que: 1. sus imágenes correspondan a algún momento de la audiencia de recepción de pruebas celebrada en este asunto, 2. en el escenario hipotético de admitir que se trataba de la audiencia de recepción de pruebas del presente proceso arbitral, la señora Aldelnour se encontraba atendiendo otro asunto mientras las personas declaraban. Lo único cierto de las imágenes es que la señora Abdelnour tenía un audífono en uno de sus oídos, pero no hay mayor evidencia de que en los momentos captados por los videos, estuviera atendiendo otra cosa. En cualquier caso, a juicio de este órgano, tampoco es propio que se intente aportar un conjunto de pequeñísimos videos (en lo que a tiempo se refiere) de cuya grabación -si se obtuvo en la audiencia de pruebas de este arbitraje- no obra constancia que se haya advertido al Tribunal, ni se haya protestado, conforme a la buena fe procesal, ante esa sede, por la eventual desatención de la señora Aldelnour. Así las cosas, los videos no permiten comprobar un quebranto al debido proceso en los términos referidos por el recurrente, por lo que el planteamiento deberá rechazarse.

VI.En el segundo motivo de nulidad señala que el Tribunal omite “manifestarse” acerca de las pretensiones de su representada. En otro acápite ulterior de su recurso abona que si bien interpuso pretensiones principales y subsidiarias, el laudo las omite, vulnerando el artículo 67 incisos b), e) y f) de la Ley RAC.

VII.Al respecto precisa señalar que esta Sala ha indicado, con ocasión de su competencia en materia de recurso de casación, que la incongruencia por citra petita -omisión de pronunciamiento sobre extremos rogados- es un quebranto que procura resguardar el derecho de defensa. Desde tal consideración, procederá este órgano a su análisis en esta materia en tanto la disconformidad, de constatarse, correspondería a un quebranto al debido proceso, motivo de control por la vía del recurso de nulidad. Ahora bien, en cuanto a su planteamiento, no explica la recurrente cuáles pretensiones suyas no fueron consideradas. Al respecto el laudo refiere que la demandada planteó “una petitoria en su contestación de la demanda, la cual no puede tenerse por tal al no haber mediado contravención (sic), pero el Tribunal entiende que la demandada rechaza la acción interpuesta y pide se declare: i. Se fije el costo del arbitraje en la cuantía real, tomando como base los setecientos cincuenta mil dólares norteamericanos del contrato de compraventa de la obra. ii. Se declare la nulidad sobre todo lo pedido por la actora de acuerdo a lo establecido por el artículo 23 de la Ley Reguladora de la Propiedad en Condominio. iii. Que se condene a la actora al pago de todas las costas procesales y personales del proceso.”. Es decir, a juicio del Tribunal, los “pedimentos” de la accionada debían entenderse como oposición a la demanda, pues no entabló contrademanda. De este modo, si procuraba pronunciamiento específico al respecto, debió plantearlos en la forma establecida para ello, siendo insuficiente su inclusión en la contestación de la demanda. En cualquier caso, y a mayor abundamiento de razones, el “costo del arbitraje” fue dispuesto en el laudo, no procedía declarar la nulidad sobre pedimentos de la contraparte porque tal solicitud que carece absolutamente de asidero jurídico -se invalidan actos o contratos, no peticiones- y siendo la accionada la parte vencida, le correspondía el pago de las costas. Así las cosas, sobre todos esos aspectos media decisión en el laudo, aunque contraria a sus intereses. En suma, el alegato no es de recibo y deberá denegarse.

VIII.En su tercera, cuarta y quinta censuras alega lo siguiente. Tercera. Hay errónea interpretación de la prueba en tanto el laudo afirma que la demandada no contó con autorización para construir en el retiro y señala que a lo largo del proceso no se aportaron los planos que demostraran si medió o no autorización. El documento revela que se le autorizó a construir. La posición del Tribunal es que no se contó con esa autorización y que ese permiso se obtuvo de mala fe. El Tribunal cuestionó el permiso otorgado pero no solicitó a la actora que demostrase que fue mal concedido. Cuarta. El laudo afirma que la demandada no respetó la prohibición de construir en las áreas de retiro, pero no se comprende cómo afirma eso si “nunca supo cuales (sic) fueron los planos aprobados por la Junta de Coordinación”. El acta que aporta la actora como prueba indica que fueron aprobados el 18 de enero de 2018, pero los planos son de marzo de 2020 y conforme a la sana crítica no se puede emitir una aprobación anterior a la fecha de los planos. El Tribunal emite criterio sin conocer los planos que fueron aprobados y sin contar con el expediente que permita determinar cómo se llegó a la conclusión de que el permiso debía aprobarse. Quinta. En el séptimo hecho probado se afirma que la demandada irrespetó las normas condominales en la construcción en los retiros, afirmación que carece de prueba idónea pues no se conoce “la forma” en que se aprobó el permiso de construcción, pero se cuenta con ese permiso y se actuó bajo la buena fe en tanto fue otorgado.

IX.Todos estos reparos controvierten el fondo de lo decidido porque disputan hechos o fundamentos jurídicos de lo laudado. Conforme a lo señalado en el Considerando III, tal tipo de reparos son ajenos a la competencia contralora asignada a este órgano por el artículo 67 de la Ley sobre Resolución Alterna de Conflictos y Promoción de la Paz Social, por lo que deberán rechazarse.

X.En su sexta disconformidad alega lo siguiente. En los hechos probados ocho y nueve se afirmó que su representada irrespetó las normas internas del condominio, pero ni siquiera se precisó cuáles eran, lo que le provoca indefensión. El laudo no indica cómo se irrespetó, cuál artículo se violentó y cuándo se inobservó. El laudo “dice” que nunca se otorgó un permiso, pero en esos hechos se señala que existía un permiso “para una obra diferente” y en otras ocasiones se afirma que tenía permiso para una pérgola liviana, aprobada por la Junta, pero el expediente carece de los planos aprobados por la Junta de Coordinación para compararlos con los ejecutados. Luego añade: “Es de suma importancia hacer ver a esta Sala que el Tribunal Arbitral escucho (sic) de testigos de la propia parte actora que en los planos se identificaba la personal, (sic) como es el caso de la testigo María Trufinovic, elemento que no entró a valorar el Tribunal Arbitral.” Respecto al hecho probado 10 el Tribunal “nunca supo” cuáles planos aprobó la Junta de Coordinación, de modo que no tiene base para indicar que lo construido viola los artículos 33, 34 y 35 del Reglamento del Condominio. El Tribunal ignoró la solicitud de evaluar si la Junta de Coordinación aprobó la construcción por vía de excepción con fundamento en el Capítulo VII del Reglamento. Más adelante insiste, de nuevo, en este argumento y abona que solicitó que se trajese a esa Junta a la litis pero no se admitió lo que, en su criterio, vulnera el artículo 67 inciso e) de la Ley RAC al no contar con todas las partes del proceso. También refiere los siguientes argumentos. Hay falta de diligencia del Tribunal arbitral en integrar la litis con la Junta de Coordinación y solicitar el expediente administrativo de la Municipalidad local para contrastar los planos con los aprobados por esa Junta. El Tribunal “nunca supo” cuales planos aprobó la Junta de Coordinación del Condominio pese a que indicó que eso irrespetó el Reglamento, lo que sostuvo “a ciegas”, porque nunca se contó con los planos aprobados por la Junta de Coordinación. Se hace una afirmación falsa al indicar “que no se prevé excepción alguna a la prohibición siendo que existe el Capítulo VII” que permite tomar acuerdos de excepción que afecten solo a una o más fincas filiales.

XI.La indefensión que alega porque, en su criterio, el laudo no precisa cuáles son las normas del Reglamento condominal vulneradas con las obras que se le ordena remover, resultan harto contradictorias a la luz de su propia afirmación de falta de sustento de que haya vulnerado los numerales 33, 34 y 35 del Reglamento del Condominio. Sus alegatos en torno a la falta de prueba de planos aprobados versus obras ejecutadas se orientan -de nuevo- a una revisión -algo confusa y poco ordenada- del fondo de lo decidido, aspecto ajeno a esta instancia de nulidad, por lo que deberán rechazarse. Su reproche de falta de integración de una “Junta de Coordinación del Condominio”, además de no encargarse con ninguna de las causales de nulidad, soslaya de forma contraria a la buena fe procesal -entre otras cosas- que su excepción de litis consorcio pasivo necesario fue oportunamente resuelta por el Tribunal, sin que la parte protestara al respecto contra lo decidido, según advierte el propio laudo. Con todo, sus alegatos no son de recibo y deberán denegarse.

XII.En su sétima y octava censuras plantea estos argumentos. Sétima. El Tribunal tiene por probados los hechos tercero, sexto, séptimo, octavo, noveno, décimo y undécimo del laudo con base en aseveraciones de la parte actora, carentes de lógica, prueba y fundamento. Inicialmente indica que se construyó sin permiso y luego, de forma intempestiva, se contradice pues afirma que incumplió con el Reglamento del Condominio y lo aprobado por la autoridad del condominio al construir en la zona de retiro, pero en el hecho probado tercero señala que la Comisión otorgó aprobación el anteproyecto constructivo indicando el respeto de los retiros de cinco metros. Esto prueba que se entregaron unos planos a la Comisión de Coordinación y ésta los aprobó. Entonces no puede concluirse cómo se afirma que violentó lo aprobado por la Comisión y el Reglamento. En este proceso la parte actora debía demostrar que construyó de forma ilegal en la zona de retiro, para lo cual debió aportar al proceso los planos aprobados por la Junta de Coordinación del Condominio, pero el Tribunal nunca le pidió a la actora esos planos y se basó en la revisión técnica de anteproyecto, que es escueta y no incluye planos. El Tribunal contaba con posibilidad de pedir los planos aprobados por la autoridad del Condominio y la Municipalidad, pero no lo hizo y basó sus conclusiones en hechos sin prueba ni fundamento. En vista de que no conocía cuáles planos se aprobaron, debió pedirle a la actora que los aportara. En el proceso se demostró que la demandada pidió permiso para construir una pérgola en el área de retiro y la Comisión se la otorgó. La actora alega que la construcción edificada va en contra de lo autorizado y el Tribunal señala que de la revisión técnica del anteproyecto no se puede saber cuáles planos se aprobaron, pese a lo cual afirma que la demandada no demostró que su construcción estuviera a derecho. En el proceso la actora hace un alegato sin aportar prueba idónea, el Tribunal advierte esa falencia y resuelve que su representada no demostró haber construido a derecho. Con ello invirtió la carga de la prueba imponiéndole desacreditar las afirmaciones de su contraparte, aunque contaba con la aprobación de la Junta de Coordinación y la Municipalidad. No le correspondía probar que no existen dos juegos de planos. Octava. El Tribunal omitió valorar dos pruebas de singular importancia: el testimonio de Jaime José Vanegas Delgado, quien declara que la pérgola es bastante simple, no cuenta con instalación eléctrica, sino que proviene de la casa e indica que aprobó todas las inspecciones realizadas por la Municipalidad, y la prueba 1 según la cual la revisión técnica del anteproyecto del 2018 fue notificada hasta el 23 de junio de 2020. Esto da cuenta de que el Tribunal no analizó la prueba en tanto el laudo afirma que la revisión técnica del anteproyecto es del 2018 y los permisos ante el CFIA y la Municipalidad son del 2021 y supuestamente esto evidencia que alteró los planos del 2018. Si el Tribunal hubiera analizado la prueba 1 se habría dado cuenta de que la revisión técnica del anteproyecto fue notificada hasta el 2020, pero ese dato se omite porque no se estudió la prueba. Tampoco es cierto que la autoridad del condominio no autorizó los planos y que haya sido la compañía administradora del Condominio. Si se analiza ese documento, en la esquina inferior izquierda se encuentran los nombres de quienes en ese momento conformaban la Comisión de Coordinación del Condominio. Es evidente la violación al debido proceso al no analizar toda la prueba y no justificar por qué no se valoró.

XIII.Una vez más, aunque invoca quebranto al debido proceso, todos sus argumentos controvierten el juicio -de fondo- del laudo que concluyó el quebranto de normas condominales y le obligó a la restitución de las cosas al estado anterior. La revisión del fondo de lo decidido o del marco fáctico en que se fundó el fallo, se reitera, no figuran dentro de la competencia dispuesta para la Sala en esta sede, por lo que todos esos reparos deberán desestimarse.

XIV. En consecuencia, no habiendo prosperado ninguno de sus planteamientos, el recurso de nulidad deberá rechazarse

POR TANTO

Se declara sin lugar el recurso de nulidad promovido por la demandada. rgonzalezu  LUIS GUILLERMO RIVAS LOAICIGA - MAGISTRADO/A  MARÍA ROSA CASTRO GARCÍA - MAGISTRADO/A  CARLOS GUILLERMO ZAMORA CAMPOS - MAGISTRADO/A  DAMARIS MARIA VARGAS VASQUEZ - MAGISTRADO/A  JORGE LEIVA POVEDA - MAGISTRADO/A 1