Denial of prohibition pay for municipal environmental services coordinatorImprocedencia del pago de prohibición a coordinador de servicios ambientales municipales

*150002330639LA* Supreme Court of Justice SECOND CHAMBER Case File: 15-000233-0639-LA Resolution: 2020-001344 SECOND CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at ten o'clock on the twenty-second of July, two thousand twenty.

Ordinary proceeding filed before the Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, by [Nombre 001], engineer and resident of Heredia, against the MUNICIPALITY OF ALAJUELA, represented by its mayor, attorney Roberto Hernán Thompson Chacón, resident of Alajuela. Both of legal age and married.

WHEREAS:

1.- The plaintiff, in a document dated April fourteenth, two thousand fifteen, filed this action so that, in judgment, the defendant be ordered to recognize and retroactively pay the bonus called prohibition (prohibición), as well as to pay the differences generated in Christmas bonus (aguinaldo), school salary (salario escolar), social security contributions (cargas sociales), interest, and both costs of the proceeding.

2.- The defendant's representative answered the lawsuit out of time.

3.- The Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, by judgment at ten hours nineteen minutes on October thirteenth, two thousand sixteen, ordered: "In accordance with the foregoing, cited legal provisions, and indicated case law, I rule: the defense of LACK OF RIGHT (FALTA DE DERECHO) raised by the defendant Municipality is upheld; the present ordinary labor lawsuit filed by [Nombre 001], identity card number [Valor 001], against the MUNICIPALITY OF ALAJUELA is declared WITHOUT MERIT (SIN LUGAR). Pursuant to the provisions of Article 494 of the Labor Code and Article 222 of the Civil Procedure Code, as this Judge considers that the plaintiff has litigated in good faith, believing himself to be entitled to a right that has been proven not to correspond to him, and by reason of the social nature of this matter, this matter is resolved without special award of costs..." (Sic)

4.- The plaintiff appealed, and the Labor Appeals Tribunal of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, by judgment at sixteen hours thirty-four minutes on February twenty-first, two thousand eighteen, resolved: "No defects or omissions causing nullity or defenselessness are observed. The appealed judgment is CONFIRMED." 5.- The plaintiff filed an appeal before this Chamber in a brief dated March twenty-first, two thousand eighteen, which is based on the grounds that will be stated in the considering part.

6.- The prescriptions of law have been observed in the proceedings.

Magistrate Chacón Artavia writes the opinion; and,

CONSIDERING:

I.- BACKGROUND: The plaintiff stated that he is a forestry engineer and that he began working at the Municipality of Alajuela on January 29, 2001. According to his statement, he has held the positions of coordinator of the solid waste collection activity (from January 1, 2004, to January 19, 2010) and coordinator of the environmental services sub-process (from January 20, 2010, to the present). He stated that among his duties, ensuring the proper tax management of municipal services stands out. He mentioned that he administratively requested the payment of the prohibition (prohibición); however, this was denied to him by resolution at 8 o'clock on October 9, 2014. He requested that the defendant be ordered to pay him said wage bonus retroactively, from January 1, 2004; the differences this generates in Christmas bonus (aguinaldo), school salary (salario escolar), and social security contributions (cargas sociales); interest; and both costs (folios 1-9). By order at 11:27 hours on January 14, 2016, the lawsuit was deemed answered out of time (folio 248). The first instance judge dismissed the claims and resolved without a special award of costs (folios 266-272). The plaintiff appealed (document filed on October 31, 2016, at 12:19:19 hours to the Court's virtual desk), but the Tribunal confirmed the ruling (images 15-23 of the complete view of the Tribunal's electronic file).

II.- GRIEVANCES: The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the Ad-quem's judgment. He argues that he provided abundant documentary evidence demonstrating that the functions he performs are linked to the taxing power that municipalities have by law, which, regardless of the department in which he is assigned, makes him entitled to the claimed bonus. He alleges that the first instance judge breached his obligation to administer justice by failing to perform his work in a competent, responsible, and committed manner. He reproaches that, despite this, which was acknowledged by the appellate body, it confirmed the A-quo's ruling. He transcribes an excerpt from the appealed judgment and highlights that among his tasks are actions typical of municipal tax administration. He argues that if he does not carry out the calculation studies for updating fines and costs, nor the review, correction, or updating of rates (tasas) and taxes, it is very likely that municipal tax management would be deficient. He accuses improper appreciation of the evidence and violation of the principle of the primacy of reality (principio de primacía de la realidad), as more importance was given to the nomenclature of the Municipality's structure and the department where he provides his services than to the nature of these and their tax impact. He criticizes that one of the arguments put forth by the Tribunal to deny the claim is that, although the appellant is responsible for the studies and calculations for charging rates (tasas) and tributes, he does not approve them. He considers that, based on that argument, only council members could receive the claimed component and not other officials; which makes no sense and contradicts the logic of the payment in question. He insists that if it is extracted from the evidence that his functions have a direct relationship with the tax administration, it is proper that this wage bonus be paid to him. He copies an excerpt from this Chamber's judgment No. 1016-2006. He analyzes his situation in light of the study conducted by Dr. [Nombre 004], titled "General Overview of the Municipal Tax System" (Visión General del Sistema Tributario Municipal). He requests that the appeal be granted, the ruling be revoked, and the lawsuit be declared with merit (folios 290-307).

III.- INADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE LOWER COURT'S JUDGMENT: The claims made against the final judgment issued in first instance are not admissible. Article 556 of the former Labor Code clearly stipulates that the appeal before this Chamber, in labor matters, is only admissible against judgments issued by the Tribunals, in the specific cases regulated therein.

IV.- INADMISSIBLE GRIEVANCES: The appeal alleges improper appreciation of the evidence, but it fails to indicate which elements of evidence were improperly valued or failed to be appreciated by the judges of the preceding instances, what the improper valuation consisted of, or specifically what evidence was not taken into account and that supports his position at trial. He merely points out that there was no proper assessment of the evidence, and this mere assertion does not empower this jurisdictional body to carry out an ex officio analysis of all the evidentiary elements contained in the case file. Although the principle of informality prevails in this matter, it does not release the appellant from the obligation to state, clearly and precisely, the reasons for challenging the judgment rendered in the preceding instance; as provided in subsection c) of Article 557 of the former Labor Code. Thus, in light of said article, this grievance is inadmissible, as it fails to meet one of the formal requirements demanded by our legal system for its admissibility, by not presenting clear and precise reasons for its protest. Furthermore, Article 608 of the former Civil Procedure Code, of supplementary application in labor matters by express referral from Article 452 of the also former Labor Code, states: "Matters that have not been proposed and timely debated by the litigants may not be the subject of the cassation appeal. The judgment rendered may not cover points other than those that have been the subject of the appeal." According to this rule, in this last instance, matters that were not part of the debate and those that were not timely challenged are inadmissible. Before this Chamber, an analysis of the worker's situation is presented in light of the study conducted by Dr. [Nombre 004], titled "General Overview of the Municipal Tax System" (Visión General del Sistema Tributario Municipal). This argument is new, as it was not part of the debate nor was it presented in the appeal, but is introduced for the first time only at this third rogated instance, and, consequently, is also inadmissible.

V.- SPECIFIC CASE: The plaintiff claims that, as coordinator of the solid waste collection activity and coordinator of the environmental services sub-process, both of the Municipality of Alajuela, he is entitled to receive the wage component called prohibition (prohibición). In support of his thesis, he argues that within his functions there are typical actions of municipal tax administration. On this matter, it is important to note that the Chamber is clear that municipalities form part of the so-called tax administration. The status of active subject creditor of tributes is held by municipalities by constitutional provision (Articles 121, subsection 13, and 170. Moreover, it was so conceived since the former Municipal Code, Law No. 4574, effective as of January 1, 1971). With the entry into force of the current Municipal Code (Law No. 7794 of April 30, 1998), municipalities were also admitted as an integral part of the tax administration, as expressly indicated in subsections d) and e) of Article 4, which, in order, establish, among other powers of municipalities, those of "d) Approve municipal rates (tasas), prices, and contributions (contribuciones), and propose draft municipal tax tariff bills" and "e) Receive and administer, in its capacity as tax administration, the tributes and other municipal revenues" (emphasis added). Now, the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, in its Article 99, defines the Tax Administration as "the administrative body responsible for collecting and supervising tributes, whether involving the Treasury or other public entities that are active subjects, in accordance with Articles 11 and 14 of this Code" (emphasis added). Article 11 of that regulatory body defines the tax obligation as that which "arises between the State or other public entities and the passive subjects as soon as the taxable event provided for by law occurs; and constitutes a bond of a personal nature, even if its fulfillment is ensured by a real guarantee or with special privileges" (emphasis added). For its part, Article 14 stipulates: "The active subject of the legal relationship is the entity creditor of the tribute." In that same order of ideas, Article 118 of said code provides for a type of general prohibition (prohibición): "The General Directors, Deputy Directors, Chiefs or Deputy Chiefs of Department and Section, of the Tax Administration dependencies, as well as the proprietary members of the Tax Administrative Tribunal and the acting substitutes, may not hold other public positions with or without a dependency relationship, except for teaching or functions performed with the authorization of their respective hierarchical superior, whose positions are remunerated only with per diems (dietas). In general, the personnel of the aforementioned entities are prohibited, with the sole exception of teaching, from carrying out activities related to tax matters in the private sector. Likewise, said personnel are prohibited from making claims on behalf of taxpayers or advising them in their arguments or presentations in any of the instances, unless it involves their personal interests, those of their spouse, ascendants, descendants, siblings, parents-in-law, sons/daughters-in-law, and brothers/sisters-in-law. In the exception cases referred to in this article, to avail oneself of them, the superior of the dependency must be notified of their decision to make use of the exceptions provided for in this Code. (As amended by Article 1 of Law No. 5179 of February 27, 1973). (As renumbered by Article 6 of the Tax Justice Law No. 7535 of August 1, 1995, which moved it from the former Article 113 to the current one)" (emphasis added). That provision gave rise to the enactment of Law No. 5867 of December 15, 1975 (Law on Compensation for Payment of Prohibition, Ley de Compensación por Pago de Prohibición) through which the wage bonus or economic compensation for prohibition (prohibición) was created and the percentages of economic remuneration for that concept were established on the base salary of the salary scale of the Public Administration Salary Law, for the personnel of the tax administration who, by reason of their positions, were subject to the prohibition (prohibición) contained in Article 113 (now 118) of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures. However, not all officials who hold positions in the units known as "tax administrations" are recipients of the wage bonus for prohibition (prohibición), since, as indicated in Article 1 of the law that originated this right, it was established "for the Tax Administration personnel who are subject, by reason of their positions, to the prohibition contained in Article 113 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures", already mentioned. These rules refer to the "Tax Administration personnel," which Article 105 of the cited Code in force when Law No. 5867 came into effect (current Article 99) defines as the "administrative body in charge of the collection and supervision of tributes, whether involving the Treasury or other public entities that are active subjects, in accordance with Articles 11 and 14 of this Code" (the underlining is not in the original); specifying the "active subject" as the entity creditor of the tribute. Thus, the potential right of municipal officials to receive the prohibition (prohibición) component derives first from the fact that these corporations fall within the concept of tax administration, inasmuch as they are conceived as an "active subject", in the terms of the transcribed precept, given that it is clear that said entities are constituted as creditors of tributes. However, the wage compensation for the prohibition (prohibición) to practice the profession privately cannot be granted to all municipal employees, but only to those who perform tasks strictly related to tax matters (collection and supervision). In the case under study, the plaintiff bases his request mainly on the fact that within his tasks there are typical actions of municipal tax administration, as he carries out the calculation studies for updating fines and costs, as well as the review, correction, or updating of rates (tasas) and taxes. Having analyzed the profiles of the positions held by the plaintiff, it is concluded that these do not fall within the factual circumstances authorizing the payment of the claimed wage bonus; given that it is not inferred that his main objective is the joint and comprehensive collection and administration of tributes, as required by the regulations previously analyzed. According to the Municipality's Position Classification Manual, the "Coordinator of Environmental Services" is responsible for "Technically regulating the domiciliary operational services provided by the institution, considering product quality, service quality, expansion of the service to the largest possible population, and the sustainability of the service over time (renewal and rehabilitation). Maintaining an economic regulation of the services, which implies the regulation of the tariff system, the price level, and the subsidy policy. Carrying out economic and technical control of the regulation of domiciliary operational services. Establishing a tariff regime capable of ensuring income for the institution to cover investments, operational costs, and eventual benefits. Verifying the coverage, quantity, quality, timeliness, frequency, User attention, efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the domiciliary operational services provided by the municipality by administration or concession. Proposing improvements in the provision of municipal services. Technical supervision and regulation of the services provided by the Municipality: Review of tender documents establishing technical parameters that, adhering to current legislation, ensure the efficacy and efficiency in the subsequent execution of services. Ensuring compliance with the service provision policies established by the coordinator of the Habitat process. Establishing contracting procedures for the provision of technically and financially viable services. Supervision of services ensuring compliance with contracts and the quality required by users. Developing and supervising the service provision regulations for each of the services. Integrating procedures for optimizing human resources assigned to the services area: Creating and supervising an internal database maintenance unit whose personnel work in all services; according to pre-established procedures and audits. Creation of a single procedure for addressing administrative claims and quality of service provision, reducing requirements and optimizing resources. Economic and technical control of services: integration of database maintenance processes, addressing administrative claims and collection management to maximize revenues from service provision. Projections of income and expenses for each activity based on income behavior. Control in the execution of the PAO of each activity to ensure its execution is not lacking. Cost optimization in the execution of services, better service at a better cost. Regulation of the tariff system that supports the effective provision of services: Modification of tariff systems to include fair and representative categories of the real cost of service provision. Review, correction, and update of previous tariff calculations. Update of rates (tasas) and tax (own elaboration). Which has resulted in a decrease in Municipal expenses, by not having to make contracts for this purpose" (sic. Folios 160-161) and the "Coordinator of Solid Waste" must "Plan, organize, coordinate all the efforts of the Solid Waste Activity. Guarantee the environmental and financial sustainability of the garbage collection service, by coordinating the monitoring of the collection, transport, and final disposal process of waste carried out by the collection companies, and the review of the weight and content of each collection vehicle. Additionally, the verification of user complaints for service deficiencies, and the processing of claims for undue garbage charges. Preparation of tender documents. Internal trainer for municipal personnel Operator of the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management program developed by IFAM. Technical evaluation of contracting processes ranging from public bidding to direct contracting. Coordination with other public entities and institutions for project development (MINAE; SETENA, Ministries of Health, Costa Rican Social Security Fund, IFAM). Coordinator of the environmental area in the Local Development Program (PRODELO). Member of the commissions: Municipal Revenue Commission, Inter-institutional Commission against Dengue, Inter-institutional Commission for the Environmental Sanitation of Alajuela" (sic. folio 182). These tasks do not relate to the direct collection and supervision of tributes. Although as coordinator of environmental services, the position he currently holds, he must establish a tariff regime; regulate and modify tariff systems; review, correct, and update previous tariff calculations, these functions are presented as secondary or indirect and not as the primary one. Therefore, the worker did not meet the requirements demanded by our legal system to be entitled to this wage component. Furthermore, the payment of prohibition (prohibición) would also not proceed under Law No. 8422, Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Service, as even if we started from the premise that the plaintiff held a director position among those mentioned there (which in any case did not occur, since it was accredited that he has served as coordinator of the solid waste collection activity and coordinator of the environmental services sub-process, proven facts 2 and 3 of the first instance judgment, ratified by the Ad-quem), because Article 27 of the regulation of that legal body clarified that for the purposes of Article 14 of said law - regarding department directors and deputy directors - it must be understood as referring exclusively to the person or persons who hold a leadership position in the procurement offices of the public sector (see judgment of this Chamber No. 327, at 09:15 hours on April 13, 2012). In light of the foregoing, it is deemed that the plaintiff is not correct in his criticisms, and the ruling must be upheld.

VI.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: As a corollary of the foregoing, as there is no objection to be made to the challenged judgment in the terms set forth in the appeal, the only proper course is to confirm it.

THEREFORE:

In what was the subject of grievance, the appealed judgment is confirmed.

Orlando Aguirre Gómez Julia Varela Araya Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Jorge Enrique Olaso Álvarez Roxana Chacón Artavia Res: 2020001344 PROJASM/mrg ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Telephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 and 2295-4406. Facsimile: 2295-3009. Emails: [email protected].

**Exp: 15-000233-0639-LA** **Res: 2020-001344** **SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA**. San José, at ten o'clock on the twenty-second of July two thousand twenty.

Ordinary proceeding established before the Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, by [Name 001], engineer and resident of Heredia, against the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA**, represented by its mayor, attorney Roberto Hernán Thompson Chacón, resident of Alajuela. Both of legal age and married.

**WHEREAS:** **1.-** The plaintiff, in a filing dated April fourteenth, two thousand fifteen, brought this action so that in judgment the defendant be ordered to recognize and retroactively pay the bonus called prohibition (prohibición), as well as to pay the differences generated in Christmas bonus (aguinaldo), school salary (salario escolar), social security contributions (cargas sociales), interest, and both costs of the proceeding.

**2.-** The defendant's representative answered the complaint (contestó la litis) untimely.

**3.-** The Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, by judgment at ten hours nineteen minutes on October thirteenth, two thousand sixteen, **ordered**: "In accordance with the foregoing, legal citations invoked, and jurisprudence cited, I rule: the defense of **LACK OF RIGHT** (FALTA DE DERECHO) raised by the defendant Municipalidad is granted; the present ordinary labor lawsuit filed by [Name 001], identity card number [Value 001], against the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA** is declared **WITHOUT MERIT** (SIN LUGAR). In accordance with the provisions of article 494 of the Código de Trabajo and article 222 of the Código Procesal Civil, as this Judge considers that the plaintiff has litigated in good faith, believing himself entitled to a right, which has been shown does not correspond to him, and due to the social nature of this matter, this matter is resolved without a special award of costs...". (Sic)

**4.-** The plaintiff appealed, and the Labor Appeals Tribunal of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, by judgment at sixteen hours thirty-four minutes on February twenty-first, two thousand eighteen, **resolved**: "No defects or omissions causing nullity or defenselessness (indefensión) are observed. The judgment brought on appeal is CONFIRMED." **5.-** The plaintiff filed an appeal (recurso) before this Chamber in a brief dated March twenty-first, two thousand eighteen, which is based on the grounds that will be stated in the considering part.

**6.-** The prescriptions of law have been observed in the proceedings.

**Drafted by Judge Chacón Artavia; and,** **CONSIDERING:** **I.- BACKGROUND:** The plaintiff stated that he is a forestry engineer (ingeniero forestal) and that he began working at the Municipalidad de Alajuela on January 29, 2001. He indicated that he has held the positions of coordinator of the solid waste collection activity (from January 1, 2004, to January 19, 2010) and coordinator of the environmental services sub-process (sub proceso servicios ambientales) (from January 20, 2010, to the present). He explained that among his duties, ensuring proper tax management (gestión tributaria) of municipal services stands out. He mentioned that he administratively requested payment of the prohibition (prohibición); however, this was denied by a resolution at 8 hours on October 9, 2014. He requested that the defendant be ordered to pay him said salary bonus (plus salarial) retroactively, from January 1, 2004; the differences this generates in Christmas bonus (aguinaldo), school salary (salario escolar), and social security contributions (cargas sociales); interest; and both costs (folios 1-9). By an order at 11:27 hours on January 14, 2016, the answer to the complaint (demanda) was deemed filed untimely (folio 248). The first-instance judge dismissed the claims and resolved without a special award of costs (folios 266-272). The plaintiff appealed (document filed on October 31, 2016, at 12:19:19 hours to the Court's virtual desktop), but the Tribunal confirmed the ruling (images 15-23 of the complete view of the Tribunal's electronic case file (expediente electrónico)).

**II.- GRIEVANCES (AGRAVIOS):** The plaintiff disagrees with the judgment of the *Ad-quem*. He argues that he provided abundant documentary evidence demonstrating that the functions he performs are linked to the taxing power (potestad tributaria) that municipalities have by law, which, regardless of the department to which he is assigned, makes him entitled to the claimed bonus (plus). He alleges that the first-instance judge breached his obligation to administer justice by not carrying out his work competently, responsibly, and with commitment. He reproaches that, despite this, which was acknowledged by the appellate body (órgano de alzada), it confirmed the ruling of the *A-quo*. He transcribes an excerpt from the appealed judgment and highlights that among his tasks are actions typical of municipal tax administration (administración tributaria municipal). He contends that if he does not carry out the calculation studies for updating fines and costs, nor the review, correction, or updating of rates (tasas) and taxes, the municipal tax management (gestión tributaria municipal) would most likely be deficient. He accuses improper appreciation of evidence and a violation of the principle of the primacy of reality (principio de primacía de la realidad), as more importance was given to the nomenclature of the Municipality's structure and the department where he provides his services than to their nature and their tax impact. He criticizes that one of the arguments made by the Tribunal to deny the claim is that, although the appellant is responsible for the studies and calculations for charging rates (tasas) and taxes, he does not approve them. He considers that, based on that argument, only council members (regidores) could receive the claimed component and not other public officials (personas funcionarias); which makes no sense and contravenes the logic of the payment in question. He insists that if it is extracted from the evidence that his functions are directly related to tax administration (administración tributaria), it is proper that this salary bonus (plus salarial) be paid to him. He copies an excerpt from judgment no. 1016-2006 of this Chamber. He performs an analysis of his situation in light of the study conducted by Dr. [Name 004], titled *"General Overview of the Municipal Tax System"* ("Visión General del Sistema Tributario Municipal"). He requests that the appeal (recurso) be granted, the ruling be revoked, and the lawsuit (demanda) be declared with merit (folios 290-307).

**III.- INADMISSIBILITY OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE LOWER COURT'S JUDGMENT:** The complaints raised against the final resolution issued in the first instance are not admissible. Article 556 of the former Código de Trabajo clearly stipulates that the appeal (recurso) before this Chamber, in labor matters, is only admissible against judgments issued by the Tribunals, in the specific cases regulated therein.

**IV.- INADMISSIBLE GRIEVANCES (AGRAVIOS):** The appeal (recurso) alleges improper appreciation of evidence, but it fails to indicate which pieces of evidence were improperly assessed or disregarded by the judges of the preceding instances, what the improper assessment consisted of, or what specific evidence was not taken into account and supports his position at trial. He merely points out that a proper assessment of the evidence was not given, and this mere assertion does not empower this jurisdictional body to conduct an *ex officio* analysis of all the evidentiary elements contained in the case file (autos). Although the principle of informalism governs in this area, it does not release the appellant from the obligation to set forth, clearly and precisely, the reasons why they challenge the ruling issued in the preceding instance, as provided in numeral 557, subsection c, of the former Código de Trabajo.

Thus, in light of said provision, this grievance is inadmissible, as it fails to comply with one of the formal requirements demanded by our legal system for its admissibility, by not setting forth the clear and precise reasons for its protest. On the other hand, Article 608 of the former Civil Procedure Code, applicable supplementarily in labor matters by express referral of numeral 452 of the also former Labor Code, states: <i>"Questions that have not been timely proposed or debated by the litigants may not be the subject of the appeal in cassation (recurso de casación). The judgment issued may not encompass points other than those that have been the subject of the appeal"</i>. In accordance with this rule, in this last instance, questions that have not formed part of the debate and those that have not been challenged in a timely manner are inadmissible. Before this Chamber, an analysis of the worker's situation is proposed in light of the study conducted by Dr. [Nombre 004], entitled <i>"General Overview of the Municipal Tax System"</i>. This argument is new, as it did not form part of the debate nor was it set forth in the appeal (recurso de apelación) but is introduced for the first time only in this third rogatory instance, and, consequently, it is also inadmissible.

**V.- SPECIFIC CASE:** The plaintiff alleges that, as coordinator of the solid waste collection activity and coordinator of the environmental services sub-process, both of the Municipality of Alajuela, he is entitled to receive the salary component called prohibition (prohibición). In support of his thesis, he argues that within his functions there are actions typical of the municipal tax administration. On this matter, it is important to note that the Chamber is clear that municipalities form part of the so-called tax administration. The condition of active subject creditor of taxes is held by municipalities by constitutional provision (ordinals 121, subsection 13, and 170. Furthermore, it was conceived as such since the former Municipal Code, Law No. 4574, effective from January 1, 1971). With the effectiveness of the current Municipal Code (Law No. 7794 of April 30, 1998), municipalities were also admitted as an integral part of the tax administration, as expressly indicated in subsections d) and e) of Article 4 which, in order, establish, among other powers of the municipalities, those of <i>"d) Approving municipal rates, prices, and contributions, and proposing draft municipal tax schedules"</i> and <i>"e) Collecting and managing, <b><i>in their capacity as tax administration</i></b>, the taxes and other municipal revenues"</i> (emphasis added). Now then, the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), in its numeral 99 defines the Tax Administration as <i>"the administrative body charged with collecting and supervising taxes, whether it be the Treasury or <b><i><u>other public entities that are active subjects</u></i></b>, pursuant to Articles 11 and 14 of this Code"</i> (emphasis added). Ordinal 11 of that regulatory body specifies the tax obligation as that which <i>"arises between the State <b><i><u>or other public entities and the passive subjects</u></i></b> when the taxable event provided for in the law occurs; and constitutes a bond of a personal nature, even if its fulfillment is secured through a real guarantee or with special privileges"</i> (emphasis added). For its part, Article 14 stipulates: <i>"The active subject of the legal relationship is the entity that is the creditor of the tax"</i>. In that same line of thought, numeral 118 of said code provides for a type of general prohibition: <i>"The General Directors, Deputy Directors, Chiefs or Deputy Chiefs of Department and Section, of the dependencies of the Tax Administration, as well as the proprietary members of the Administrative Tax Tribunal and the acting substitutes, may not hold other public positions with or without an employment relationship, with the exception of teaching or functions performed with authorization from their respective hierarchical superior, whose positions are remunerated only with per diems. <b><i><u>In general, personnel of the entities cited above are prohibited, with the sole exception of teaching, from performing activities related to tax matters in private enterprise. Likewise, said personnel are prohibited from making claims on behalf of taxpayers or advising them in their allegations or submissions in any of the instances, unless it concerns their personal interests, those of their spouse, ascendants, descendants, siblings, parents-in-law, sons/daughters-in-law, and brothers/sisters-in-law.</u></i></b> In the cases of exception referred to in this article, to avail oneself of them, one must communicate to the superior of the dependency their decision to make use of the exceptions provided for in this Code. (As amended by Article 1 of Law No. 5179 of February 27, 1973). (Thus corrected its numbering by Article 6 of the Tax Justice Law No. 7535 of August 1, 1995, which transferred it from the former 113 to the current one)" </i> (emphasis added). That provision gave rise to the enactment of Law No. 5867 of December 15, 1975 (Law on Compensation for Payment of Prohibition (Ley de Compensación por Pago de Prohibición)) through which the salary bonus or economic compensation for prohibition was created and the percentages of economic remuneration for that concept were set on the base salary of the salary scale of the Public Administration Salaries Law, for personnel of the tax administration who, by reason of their positions, were subject to the prohibition contained in ordinal 113 (now 118) of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures. Now then, not all public officials who hold positions in the units known as "tax administrations" are recipients of the salary bonus for prohibition, since, as indicated in its Article 1, the law that originated this right established the same <i>"for personnel of the Tax Administration who are subject, by reason of their positions, to the prohibition contained in Article 113 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures"</i>, already mentioned. Those rules refer to "personnel of the Tax Administration", which numeral 105 of the cited Code in force when Law No. 5867 came into effect (current 99) defines as <i>"the administrative body responsible for the <u>collection and supervision</u> of taxes, whether it be the Treasury or other public entities that are active subjects, pursuant to Articles 11 and 14 of this Code"</i> (the underlining is not in the original); specifying the "active subject" as the entity that is the creditor of the tax. Thus, the eventual right of municipal public officials to receive the component for prohibition derives primarily from the fact that these corporations fall within the concept of tax administration, insofar as they are conceived as an "active subject", in the terms of the transcribed precept, given that it is clear that said entities constitute themselves as creditors of taxes. However, the salary compensation for the prohibition against practicing the profession privately cannot be granted to all municipal public servants, but only to those who perform work strictly related to tax matters (collection and supervision). In the case under study, the plaintiff bases his request mainly on the fact that within his tasks there are actions typical of the municipal tax administration, since he carries out calculation studies for updating fines and costs, as well as the review, correction, or updating of rates and taxes. Having analyzed the profiles of the positions held by the plaintiff, the conclusion is that these are not subsumed within the factual assumptions that authorize the payment of the salary bonus sought; given that it cannot be inferred that his main objective is the collection and administration of taxes jointly and integrally, as required by the regulations analyzed above. In accordance with the Municipality's Manual of Position Classes, the "Coordinator of Environmental Services" is responsible for <i>"Technically regulating the domiciliary operational services provided by the institution, contemplating product quality, service quality, expansion of the service to the largest possible number of the population, and the sustainability of the service over time (renewal and rehabilitation). Maintaining an economic regulation of the services, which implies the regulation of the tariff system, the price level, and the subsidy policy. Carrying out the economic and technical control of the regulation of domiciliary operational services. Establishing a tariff regime such that it is capable of securing income for the institution to cover investments, operating costs, and eventual benefits. Verifying the coverage, quantity, quality, timeliness, frequency, user service, efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the domiciliary operational services provided by the municipality by administration or under concession. Proposing improvements in the provision of municipal services. Technical supervision and regulation of the services provided by the Municipality: Review of bidding terms setting technical parameters that, adhering to current legislation, ensure efficacy and efficiency in the subsequent execution of services. Ensuring compliance with the service provision policies established by the coordinator of the Hábitat process. Establishing contracting procedures for the provision of technically and financially viable services. Supervision of services ensuring compliance with contracts and the quality required by users. Drafting and supervising the regulations for the provision of each of the services. Integrating procedures for the optimization of human resources assigned to the services area: Creating and supervising an internal database maintenance unit whose staff works in all services; according to established procedures and audits. Creation of a single procedure for addressing administrative and quality complaints in the provision of services, reducing requirements and optimizing resources. Economic and technical control of services: integration of database maintenance processes, handling of administrative complaints, and collection management to maximize revenues from the provision of services. Income and expense projections for each activity based on income behavior. Control in the execution of the PAO of each activity to ensure its non-execution. Cost optimization in the execution of services, a better service at a better cost. Regulation of the tariff system that supports the effective provision of services: Modification of tariff systems to include fair categories representative of the real cost of service provision. Review, correction, and updating of previous tariff calculations. Updating of rates and taxes (own elaboration). Which has resulted in a decrease in Municipal expenses, by not having to make contracts for that purpose" </i> (sic. Folios 160-161) and the "Solid Waste Coordinator" must <i>"Plan, organize, coordinate all efforts of the Solid Waste Activity. Guarantee the environmental and financial sustainability of the garbage collection service, by coordinating the monitoring of the collection, transport, and final disposal process of waste carried out by the collection companies, and the review of the weight and content of each collection vehicle. Additionally, verifying user complaints about service deficiencies, and processing claims for undue garbage charges. Preparation of bidding terms. Internal trainer for municipal personnel Operator of the Integrated Solid Waste Management program developed by IFAM. Technical evaluation of contracting processes ranging from public bidding to direct contracting. Coordination with other public entities and institutions for the development of projects (MINAE; SETENA, Ministry of Health, Costa Rican Social Security Fund, IFAM). Coordinator of the environmental area in the Local Development Program (PRODELO). Member of the commissions: Municipal Revenue Commission, Inter-institutional Commission against Dengue, Inter-institutional Commission for the Environmental Sanitation of Alajuela" </i> (sic. folio 182). These tasks are not related to the direct collection and supervision of taxes. Although as coordinator of environmental services, the position he currently holds, he must establish a tariff regime; regulate and modify tariff systems; review, correct, and update previous tariff calculations, these functions are presented as secondary or indirect and not as the main one. Then, the worker did not fulfill the requirements demanded by our legal system to be entitled to this salary component. Furthermore, the payment of prohibition would not proceed under Law No. 8422, Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Service, either, since, even if one were to assume that the plaintiff held a director position of those mentioned therein (which in any case did not occur, as it was considered accredited that he has served as coordinator of the solid waste collection activity and coordinator of the environmental services sub-process, proven facts 2 and 3 of the first-instance judgment, ratified by the *Ad-quem*), because ordinal 27 of the regulation of that legal body clarified that for the purposes of Article 14 of said law - regarding directors and deputy directors of department - it must be understood to refer exclusively to the person or persons who hold a supervisory position in the procurement offices (proveedurías) of the public sector (see judgment of this Chamber No. 327, of 09:15 hours on April 13, 2012). By reason of the foregoing, it is considered that the plaintiff is not correct in his reproaches and what was resolved must be upheld.

**VI.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS:** as a corollary to the foregoing, there being no objection whatsoever to be made to the judgment challenged in the terms set forth in the appeal, the only appropriate course is to confirm it.

**POR TANTO:** Regarding what was the object of grievance, the appealed judgment is confirmed.

**Orlando Aguirre Gómez** **Julia Varela Araya Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez** **Jorge Enrique Olaso Álvarez Roxana Chacón Artavia** Res: 2020001344 PROJASM/mrg ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ **Exp: 15-000233-0639-LA** **Res: 2020-001344** **SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA**.

San José, at ten o'clock on the twenty-second of July, two thousand twenty.

Ordinary proceeding filed before the Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, by [Nombre 001], engineer and resident of Heredia, against the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA**, represented by its mayor, attorney Roberto Hernán Thompson Chacón, resident of Alajuela. Both of legal age and married.

**WHEREAS:** **1.-** The plaintiff, in a filing dated April fourteenth, two thousand fifteen, brought this action so that, in judgment, the defendant be ordered to recognize and retroactively pay the bonus called prohibition (prohibición), as well as to pay the differences generated in Christmas bonus (aguinaldo), school salary (salario escolar), social security contributions (cargas sociales), interest, and both costs of the proceeding.

**2.-** The defendant's representative answered the complaint untimely.

**3.-** The Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, by judgment at ten hours nineteen minutes on October thirteenth, two thousand sixteen, **ordered**: "In accordance with the foregoing, cited legal provisions, and indicated case law, I rule: the defense of **LACK OF RIGHT** raised by the defendant Municipality is granted; the present ordinary labor lawsuit filed by [Nombre 001], identity card number [Valor 001], against the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA** is declared **WITHOUT MERIT**. Pursuant to the provisions of article 494 of the Labor Code and article 222 of the Civil Procedure Code, as this Judge considers that the plaintiff has litigated in good faith, believing himself to be entitled to a right that has been proven not to correspond to him, and due to the social nature of this matter, this case is resolved without a special award of costs...". (Sic)

**4.-** The plaintiff appealed, and the Labor Appeals Tribunal of the First Judicial Circuit of Alajuela, by judgment at sixteen hours thirty-four minutes on February twenty-first, two thousand eighteen, **resolved**: "No defects or omissions causing nullity or defenselessness are observed. The judgment brought on appeal is CONFIRMED".

**5.-** The plaintiff filed an appeal before this Chamber in a brief dated March twenty-first, two thousand eighteen, which is based on the grounds that will be stated in the considering part.

**6.-** The prescriptions of law have been observed in the proceedings.

**Drafted by Judge Chacón Artavia; and,** **CONSIDERING:** **I.- BACKGROUND:** The plaintiff stated that he is a forestry engineer and began working at the Municipality of Alajuela on January 29, 2001. He indicated that he has held the positions of coordinator of the solid waste collection activity (from January 1, 2004, to January 19, 2010) and coordinator of the environmental services sub-process (from January 20, 2010, to the present). He explained that his duties notably include ensuring the proper tax management of municipal services. He mentioned that he administratively requested the payment of the prohibition (prohibición); however, this was denied by resolution at 8:00 a.m. on October 9, 2014. He requested that the defendant be ordered to pay him said wage bonus retroactively, from January 1, 2004; the differences this generates in Christmas bonus (aguinaldo), school salary (salario escolar), and social security contributions (cargas sociales); interest; and both costs (folios 1-9). By order at 11:27 a.m. on January 14, 2016, the demand was deemed to have been answered in an untimely manner (folio 248). The first instance judge dismissed the claims and resolved without a special award of costs (folios 266-272). The plaintiff appealed (document incorporated on October 31, 2016, at 12:19:19 p.m. to the Court's virtual desk), but the Tribunal confirmed the ruling (images 15-23 of the complete view of the Tribunal's electronic case file).

**II.- OBJECTIONS:** The plaintiff disagrees with the judgment of the *Ad-quem*. He argues that he provided abundant documentary evidence demonstrating that the functions he performs are linked to the tax authority that municipalities hold by law, which, regardless of the department to which he is assigned, makes him entitled to the claimed bonus. He alleges that the first instance judge breached his obligation to administer justice, having failed to perform his duties in a competent, responsible, and committed manner. He reproaches that, despite this, which was recognized by the appellate body, it confirmed the ruling of the *A-quo*. He transcribes an excerpt from the appealed judgment and emphasizes that among his tasks are actions typical of municipal tax administration. He argues that if he were not to carry out the calculation studies for updating fines and costs, nor the review, correction, or updating of rates and taxes, municipal tax management would very likely be deficient. He accuses improper weighing of evidence and violation of the principle of the primacy of reality, since more importance was given to the nomenclature of the Municipality's structure and the department where he renders his services than to the nature of these services and their tax impact. He complains that one of the arguments made by the Tribunal to deny his claim is that, although the appellant is responsible for the studies and calculations for charging rates and taxes, he does not approve them. He considers that, based on that argument, only council members (regidores) could receive the claimed component and not other public officials; which is nonsensical and contradicts the logic of the payment in question. He insists that if the evidence shows that his functions are directly related to tax administration, the proper outcome is that he be paid this wage bonus. He copies an excerpt from judgment No. 1016-2006 of this Chamber. He performs an analysis of his situation in light of the study conducted by Dr. [Nombre 004], titled *"General Overview of the Municipal Tax System"*. He requests that the appeal be granted, the ruling be revoked, and the lawsuit be declared with merit (folios 290-307).

**III.- IMPROPRIETY OF THE APPEAL AGAINST THE TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT:** The objections raised against the final resolution issued in the first instance are not proper. Article 556 of the former Labor Code clearly stipulates that the appeal before this Chamber, in labor matters, is only appropriate against judgments issued by the Tribunals, in the specific cases regulated therein.

**IV.- INADMISSIBLE OBJECTIONS:** The appeal alleges improper weighing of evidence, but it omits to indicate which elements of evidence were improperly valued or omitted from appreciation by the judges of the preceding instances, what the improper valuation consisted of, or what specific evidence was not taken into account and supports his position at trial. He merely points out that the evidence was not properly valued, and that mere statement does not empower this jurisdictional body to conduct an ex officio analysis of all the evidentiary elements in the record. Although the principle of informality prevails in this matter, it does not release the appellant from the obligation to state, clearly and precisely, the reasons why they challenge the ruling issued in the preceding instance; as provided in numeral 557, subsection c, of the former Labor Code. This being the case, in light of said provision, this objection is inadmissible, as it fails to comply with one of the formal requirements demanded by our legal system for its proceeding, by not stating the clear and precise reasons for its protest. Furthermore, article 608 of the former Civil Procedure Code, of supplementary application in labor matters by express remission of numeral 452 of the also former Labor Code, states: *"Matters that have not been timely raised and debated by the litigants may not be the subject of the cassation appeal. The judgment issued may not encompass points other than those that have been the subject of the appeal"*. In accordance with this rule, in this last instance, matters that were not part of the debate and those that were not challenged in a timely manner are inadmissible. Before this Chamber, an analysis of the worker's situation is presented in light of the study conducted by Dr. [Nombre 004], titled *"General Overview of the Municipal Tax System"*. This argument is novel, as it was not part of the debate nor was it set forth in the appeal, but rather it is introduced for the first time only at this third rogatory instance, and, consequently, it is also inadmissible.

**V.- SPECIFIC CASE:** The plaintiff claims that, as coordinator of the solid waste collection activity and coordinator of the environmental services sub-process, both of the Municipality of Alajuela, he is entitled to receive the wage component called prohibition (prohibición). In support of his thesis, he argues that within his functions there are actions typical of municipal tax administration. In this regard, it is important to note that the Chamber is clear that municipalities form part of the so-called tax administration. The status of active subject creditor of taxes is held by municipalities by constitutional provision (numerals 121, subsection 13, and 170. Furthermore, this was conceived since the previous Municipal Code, Law No. 4574, effective from January 1, 1971). With the current Municipal Code (Law No. 7794 of April 30, 1998) becoming effective, municipalities were also admitted as an integral part of the tax administration, as expressly indicated in subsections d) and e) of article 4 which, in order, establish, among other powers of the municipalities, those of *"d) Approving municipal rates, prices, and contributions, and proposing draft municipal tax tariffs"* and *"e) Collecting and administering, **in their capacity as tax administration**, the taxes and other municipal revenues"* (emphasis added). Now, the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, in its numeral 99 defines the Tax Administration as *"the administrative body responsible for collecting and auditing taxes, whether it is the Treasury or **other public entities that are active subjects**, in accordance with articles 11 and 14 of this Code"* (emphasis added). Numeral 11 of that regulatory body defines the tax obligation as one that *"arises between the State **or other public entities and the passive subjects as soon as the taxable event provided for in the law occurs**; and constitutes a personal bond, although its fulfillment is ensured by a real guarantee or with special privileges"* (emphasis added). For its part, article 14 stipulates: *"The **active subject** of the legal relationship is the entity creditor of the tax"*. In that same line of thought, numeral 118 of said code provides a type of general prohibition: *"The Directors General, Deputy Directors, Heads or Deputy Heads of Department and Section of the Tax Administration divisions, as well as the permanent members of the Fiscal Administrative Tribunal and alternates in office, may not hold other public positions with or without an employment relationship, except for teaching or functions performed with authorization from their respective hierarchical superior, whose positions are only remunerated with per diems. **In general, the personnel of the aforementioned entities are prohibited, with the sole exception of teaching, from performing activities related to tax matters in private enterprise. Likewise, said personnel are prohibited from making claims on behalf of taxpayers or advising them in their allegations or submissions in any of the instances, except when it concerns their personal interests, or those of their spouse, ascendants, descendants, siblings, parents-in-law, sons-in-law, and brothers-in-law.** In the cases of exception referred to in this article, to benefit from them, the decision to make use of the exceptions provided in this Code must be communicated to the head of the division. (As amended by article 1 of Law No. 5179 of February 27, 1973). (Its numbering thus corrected by article 6 of the Tax Justice Law No. 7535 of August 1, 1995, which transferred it from the former 113 to the current one)"* (emphasis added). This provision gave rise to the enactment of Law No. 5867 of December 15, 1975 (Law of Compensation for Prohibition Payment) by which the wage bonus or economic compensation for prohibition (prohibición) was created and the percentages of economic compensation for that concept were set on the base salary of the wage scale of the Public Administration Salary Law, for the personnel of the tax administration who, by reason of their positions, were subject to the prohibition contained in numeral 113 (now 118) of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures. Now then, not all personnel who hold positions in the units known as "tax administrations" are recipients of the wage bonus for prohibition (prohibición), since, as indicated in its article 1, the law that gave rise to this right established it *"for the personnel of the Tax Administration who are subject, by reason of their positions, to the prohibition contained in article 113 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures"*, already mentioned. These rules refer to the "personnel of the Tax Administration", which numeral 105 of the cited Code in force when Law No. 5867 took effect (current 99) defines as the *"administrative body in charge of the **collection and auditing** of taxes, whether it is the Treasury or other public entities that are active subjects, in accordance with articles 11 and 14 of this Code"* (underlining not in original); specifying the "active subject" as the entity creditor of the tax. Thus, the potential right of municipal employees to receive the component for prohibition (prohibición) derives firstly from the fact that these corporations fall within the concept of tax administration, insofar as they are conceived as an "active subject", in the terms of the transcribed precept, given that it is clear that said entities are constituted as creditors of taxes. However, the wage compensation for the prohibition of privately practicing the profession cannot be granted to all municipal employees, but only to those who perform duties strictly related to tax matters (collection and auditing). In the case under study, the plaintiff bases his request mainly on the fact that within his tasks there are actions typical of municipal tax administration, since he carries out calculation studies for updating fines and costs, as well as the review, correction, or updating of rates and taxes. Having analyzed the profiles of the positions held by the plaintiff, it is concluded that these do not fall within the factual prerequisites that authorize the payment of the intended wage bonus; given that it is not inferred that his main objective is the collection and administration of taxes jointly and integrally, as required by the regulations analyzed above. According to the Municipality's Position Classification Manual, the "Coordinator of Environmental Services" is responsible for *"Technically regulating the domiciliary operational services provided by the institution, contemplating the quality of the product, the quality of the service, the expansion of the service to the greatest possible amount of the population, and the sustainability of the service over time (renewal and rehabilitation). Maintaining an economic regulation of the services, which implies regulation of the tariff system, price level, and subsidy policy. Carrying out the economic and technical control of the regulation of domiciliary operational services. Establishing a tariff regime capable of ensuring income for the institution that allows covering investments, operational costs, and eventual benefits. Verifying the coverage, quantity, quality, timeliness, frequency, customer service, efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the domiciliary operational services provided by the municipality through administration or concession. Proposing improvements in the provision of municipal services. Technical supervision and regulation of the services provided by the Municipality: Review of bidding documents establishing technical parameters that, in compliance with current legislation, ensure the efficacy and efficiency in the subsequent execution of the services. Ensuring compliance with the service provision policies established by the coordinator of the Habitat process. Establishing technically and financially viable contracting procedures for the provision of services. Supervision of services ensuring compliance with contracts and the quality required by users. Preparing and supervising the service provision regulations for each of the services. Integrating procedures for the optimization of the human resources assigned to the services area: Creating and supervising an internal database maintenance unit whose personnel works on all services; according to established procedures and audits. Creation of a single procedure for handling administrative and quality claims in the provision of services, reducing requirements and optimizing resources. Economic and technical control of services: integration of database maintenance processes, handling of administrative claims, and collection management to maximize revenues from the provision of services. Projections of income and expenditures for each activity based on revenue behavior. Control in the execution of the Annual Operating Plan for each activity to ensure its non-execution. Optimization of costs in the execution of services, a better service at a better cost."* Regulation of the tariff system that supports the effective provision of services: Modification of tariff systems to include fair categories that are representative of the real cost of service provision. Review, correction, and updating of previous rate calculations. Updating of fees and taxes (own elaboration). This has resulted in a decrease in Municipal expenses, by not having to make contracts for this purpose" (sic. Folios 160-161) and the "Solid Waste Coordinator" must "Plan, organize, coordinate all efforts of the Solid Waste Activity. Guarantee the environmental and financial sustainability of the garbage collection service, through the coordination of monitoring of the collection, transport, and final disposal process of waste carried out by collection companies, and the review of the weight and content of each collection vehicle. In addition, the verification of user complaints for service deficiencies, and the processing of claims for improper garbage charges. Preparation of tender documents. Internal trainer for municipal staff Operator of the Integrated Solid Waste Management program developed by IFAM. Technical evaluation of procurement processes ranging from public bidding (licitación pública) to direct contracting (contratación directa). Coordination with other public entities and institutions for the development of projects (MINAE; SETENA, Ministries of Health, Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, IFAM). Coordinator of the environmental area in the Local Development Program (PRODELO). Member of the commissions: Municipal Revenue Commission, Inter-institutional Commission against Dengue, Inter-institutional Commission for the Environmental Sanitation of Alajuela" (sic. folio 182). These tasks are not related to the direct collection and oversight of taxes. Although as coordinator of environmental services, a position he currently holds, he must establish a tariff regime; regulate and modify tariff systems; review, correct and update previous rate calculations, these functions are presented as secondary or indirect and not as the primary one. Therefore, the worker did not meet the requirements demanded by our legal system to be entitled to this salary component. Moreover, the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) would also not be appropriate under Law No. 8422, Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Service, since, even if one were to assume that the plaintiff held a position of director of those mentioned therein (which in any case did not occur, as it was deemed accredited that he has served as coordinator of the solid waste collection activity and coordinator of the environmental services sub-process, proven facts 2 and 3 of the first instance judgment, ratified by the Ad-quem), because ordinal 27 of the regulation of that legal body clarified that for the purposes of Article 14 of said law—regarding department directors and sub-directors—it must be understood as referring exclusively to the person or persons who hold a chief position in the procurement departments (proveedurías) of the public sector (see judgment of this Chamber No. 327, of 09:15 hours on April 13, 2012). In light of the foregoing, it is considered that the plaintiff is not correct in his reproaches, and the decision must be upheld.

VI.- FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: as a corollary of the foregoing, since there is no objection to be made to the contested judgment in the terms indicated in the appeal, the only thing to do is to confirm it.

POR TANTO:

Within the scope of the grievance, the appealed judgment is confirmed.

Orlando Aguirre Gómez Julia Varela Araya Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Jorge Enrique Olaso Álvarez Roxana Chacón Artavia Res: 2020001344 PROJASM/mrg ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Telephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 and 2295-4406. Facsimile: 2295-3009. Emails: [email protected]. and [email protected]

*150002330639LA* Corte Suprema de Justicia SALA SEGUNDA Res: 2020-001344 SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las diez horas del veintidós de julio de dos mil veinte.

Proceso ordinario establecido ante el Juzgado de Trabajo del Primer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, por [Nombre 001], ingeniero y vecino de Heredia, contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA, representada por alcalde el licenciado Roberto Hernán Thompson Chacón, vecino de Alajuela. Ambos mayores y casados.

RESULTANDO:

1.- El actor, en escrito fechado catorce de abril de dos mil quince, promovió la presente acción para que en sentencia se condenara a la demandada al reconocimiento y al pago retroactivo del plus denominado prohibición, así como al pago de las diferencias generadas en aguinaldo, salario escolar, cargas sociales, intereses y ambas costas del proceso.

2.- El representante de la demandada contestó la litis extemporaneamente.

3.- El Juzgado de Trabajo del Primer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, por sentencia de las diez horas diecinueve minutos del trece de octubre de dos mil dieciséis, dispuso: "De conformidad con lo expuesto, citas legales invocadas y jurisprudencia señalada, fallo: se declara con lugar la excepción de FALTA DE DERECHO opuesta por la Municipalidad demandada; se declara SIN LUGAR la presente demanda ordinaria laboral establecida por [Nombre 001], cédula de identidad número [Valor 001], en contra de la MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELA. De conformidad con lo previsto por el artículo 494 del Código de Trabajo y el artículo 222 del Código Procesal Civil, por considerar este Juzgador que el actor ha litigado de buena fe, creyéndose acreedor de un derecho, que se ha demostrado no le corresponde, y en razón del carácter social de esta materia, se resuelve el presente asunto sin especial condenatoria en costas...". (Sic)

4.- El actor apeló y el Tribunal de Apelación de Trabajo del Primer Circuito Judicial de Alajuela, por sentencia de las dieciséis horas treinta y cuatro minutos del veintiuno de febrero de dos mil dieciocho, resolvió : "No se observan defectos ni omisiones causantes de nulidad o indefensión. Se CONFIRMA, la sentencia venida en alzada".

5.- La parte accionante formuló recurso para ante esta Sala en memorial de data veintiuno de marzo de dos mil dieciocho, el cual se fundamenta en los motivos que se dirán en la parte considerativa.

6.- En los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones de ley.

Redacta la Magistrada Chacón Artavia; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- ANTECEDENTES: el actor refirió que es ingeniero forestal y que ingresó a trabajar en la Municipalidad de Alajuela el 29 de enero de 2001. Según indicó, ha ocupado los cargos de coordinador de la actividad recolección de desechos sólidos (del 1° de enero de 2004 al 19 de enero de 2010) y de coordinador del sub proceso servicios ambientales (del 20 de enero de 2010 a la actualidad). Expuso que entre sus funciones destaca velar por la adecuada gestión tributaria de los servicios municipales. Mencionó que gestionó, administrativamente, el pago de la prohibición; sin embargo, este le fue denegado mediante resolución de las 8 horas del 9 de octubre de 2014. Solicitó se condene a la demandada a pagarle dicho plus salarial retroactivamente, desde el 1° de enero de 2004; las diferencias que ello genere en aguinaldo, salario escolar y cargas sociales; intereses y ambas costas (folios 1-9). Mediante auto de las 11:27 horas del 14 de enero de 2016 se tuvo por contestada en forma extemporánea la demanda (folio 248). El juez de primera instancia desestimó las pretensiones y resolvió sin especial condenatoria en costas (folios 266-272). El accionante apeló (documento incorporado el 31 de octubre de 2016 a las 12:19:19 horas al escritorio virtual del Juzgado), pero el Tribunal confirmó lo dispuesto (imágenes 15-23 de la vista completa del II.- AGRAVIOS: el demandante se muestra disconforme con la sentencia del Ad-quem. Arguye que aportó abundante prueba documental que demuestra que las funciones que desempeña se vinculan con la potestad tributaria que por ley tienen las municipalidades, lo cual, indistintamente del departamento en el cual se encuentra destacado, lo hace acreedor del plus reclamado. Alega que el juez de primera instancia incumplió su obligación de administrar justicia, al no haber realizado su labor en forma competente, responsable y comprometida. Reprocha que, a pesar de ello, lo cual fue reconocido por el órgano de alzada, este haya confirmado lo dispuesto por el A-quo. Trascribe un extracto de la sentencia recurrida y destaca que entre sus tareas hay actuaciones típicas de la administración tributaria municipal. Aduce que si su persona no lleva a cabo los estudios de cálculos para la actualización de multas y costos, ni la revisión, corrección o actualización de tasas e impuestos, muy probablemente la gestión tributaria municipal sería deficiente. Acusa indebida apreciación de la prueba y violación al principio de primacía de la realidad, en tanto se le dio más importancia a la nomenclatura de la estructura de la Municipalidad y a la dependencia donde presta sus servicios que a la naturaleza de estos y al impacto tributario que tienen. Recrimina que uno de los argumentos esbozados por el Tribunal para denegar lo pretendido es que, si bien el recurrente es responsable de los estudios y cálculos para el cobro de tasas y tributos, este no los aprueba. Considera que, con base en esa argumentación, solamente los regidores podrían percibir el componente reclamado y no así otras personas funcionarias; lo cual carece de sentido y contraviene la lógica del pago en cuestión. Insiste en que si de las pruebas se extrae que sus funciones tienen relación directa con la administración tributaria, lo propio es que se le cancele este plus salarial. Copia un extracto de la sentencia de esta Sala n.° 1016-2006. Realiza un análisis de su situación a la luz del estudio realizado por el Dr. [Nombre 004], titulado “Visión General del Sistema Tributario Municipal”. Solicita se acoja el recurso, se revoque lo resuelto y se declare con lugar la demanda (folios 290-307).

III.- IMPROCEDENCIA DEL RECURSO CONTRA LA SENTENCIA DEL JUZGADO: los reclamos expuestos contra la resolución final emitida en primera instancia no resultan procedentes. El artículo 556 del anterior Código de Trabajo claramente estipula que el recurso para ante esta Sala, en materia laboral, solo procede contra las sentencias dictadas por los Tribunales, en los concretos supuestos que ahí se regulan.

IV.- AGRAVIOS INADMISIBLES: en el recurso se alega indebida apreciación de la prueba, mas se omite indicar cuáles fueron los elementos de prueba indebidamente valorados o dejados de apreciar por las y los juzgadores de las instancias precedentes, en qué consistió la indebida valoración, o cuál fue en concreto la prueba que no se tomó en cuenta y que da sustento a su posición en juicio. Solamente se limita a apuntar que no se dio una debida valoración de la prueba y esa mera afirmación no faculta a este órgano jurisdiccional a realizar un análisis oficioso de todos los elementos probatorios que constan en los autos. Si bien en esta materia prima el principio del informalismo, este no libera a quien recurre de la obligación de exponer, en forma clara y precisa, las razones por las cuales impugna el fallo dictado en la instancia precedente; según lo dispone el numeral 557, inciso c, del anterior Código de Trabajo. Así las cosas, a la luz de dicho ordinal, este agravio resulta inadmisible, en tanto incumple uno de los requisitos formales exigidos por nuestro ordenamiento jurídico para su procedencia, al no exponer las razones claras y precisas de su protesta. Por otro lado, el artículo 608 del anterior Código Procesal Civil, de aplicación supletoria en materia laboral por remisión expresa del numeral 452 del también anterior Código de Trabajo, reza: “No podrán ser objeto del recurso de casación cuestiones que no hayan sido propuestas ni debatidas oportunamente por los litigantes. La sentencia que se dicte no podrá abrazar otros puntos que no sean los que hubieren sido objeto del recurso”. De conformidad con esta norma, en esta última instancia, las cuestiones que no hayan formado parte del debate y aquellas que no hayan sido impugnadas en forma oportuna son inadmisibles. Ante esta Sala se plantea un análisis de la situación del trabajador a la luz del estudio realizado por el Dr. [Nombre 004], titulado “Visión General del Sistema Tributario Municipal”. Este argumento es novedoso, pues no formó parte del debate ni se expuso en el recurso de apelación sino que se introduce por primera vez hasta en esta tercera instancia rogada, y, por consiguiente, también resulta inadmisible.

V.- CASO CONCRETO: el actor alega que, como coordinador de la actividad recolección de desechos sólidos y coordinador del sub proceso servicios ambientales, ambos de la Municipalidad de Alajuela, tiene derecho a percibir el componente salarial denominado prohibición. En sustento de su tesis, arguye que dentro de sus funciones hay actuaciones típicas de la administración tributaria municipal. Sobre el particular, es importante señalar que la Sala tiene claro que las municipalidades integran la llamada administración tributaria. La condición de sujeto activo acreedor de tributos la ostentan las municipalidades por disposición constitucional (ordinales 121, inciso 13, y 170. Además, así estaba concebido desde el Código Municipal anterior, Ley n.° 4574, vigente a partir del 1° de enero de 1971). Con la vigencia del actual Código Municipal (Ley n.° 7794 del 30 de abril de 1998) se admitieron también los municipios como parte integrante de la administración tributaria, según lo indicado expresamente en los incisos d) y e) del artículo 4 que, en su orden, establecen, entre otras atribuciones de las municipalidades, las de “d) Aprobar las tasas, los precios y las contribuciones municipales, y proponer los proyectos de tarifas de impuestos municipales” y “e) Percibir y administrar, en su carácter de administración tributaria , los tributos y demás ingresos municipales” (el resaltado es agregado). Ahora bien, el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, en su numeral 99 define la Administración Tributaria como “el órgano administrativo encargado de percibir y fiscalizar los tributos, se trate del Fisco o de otros entes públicos que sean sujetos activos , conforme a los artículos 11 y 14 del presente Código” (el resaltado es agregado). El ordinal 11 de ese cuerpo normativo precisa la obligación tributaria como aquella que “surge entre el Estado u otros entes públicos y los sujetos pasivos en cuanto ocurre el hecho generador previsto en la ley; y constituye un vínculo de carácter personal, aunque su cumplimiento se asegure mediante garantía real o con privilegios especiales” (el resaltado es agregado). Por su parte, el artículo 14 estipula: “Es sujeto activo de la relación jurídica el ente acreedor del tributo”. En ese mismo orden de ideas, el numeral 118 de dicho código dispone un tipo de prohibición en general: “Los Directores Generales, los Subdirectores, los Jefes o Subjefes de Departamento y de Sección, de las dependencias de la Administración Tributaria, así como los miembros propietarios del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo y los suplentes en funciones, no pueden ejercer otros puestos públicos con o sin relación de dependencia, excepción hecha de la docencia o de funciones desempeñadas con autorización de su respectivo superior jerárquico, cuyos cargos estén sólo remunerados con dietas. En general queda prohibido al personal de los entes precedentemente citados, con la única excepción de la docencia, desempeñar en la empresa privada actividades relativas a materias tributarias. Asimismo está prohibido a dicho personal hacer reclamos a favor de los contribuyentes o asesorarlos en sus alegatos o presentaciones en cualesquiera de las instancias, salvo que se trate de sus intereses personales, los de su cónyuge, ascendientes, descendientes, hermanos, suegros, yernos y cuñados. En los casos de excepción a que se refiere este artículo, para acogerse a ellos, debe comunicarse al superior de la dependencia su decisión de hacer uso de las excepciones previstas en este Código. (Así reformado por el artículo 1º de la ley Nº 5179 de 27 de febrero de 1973). (Así corregida su numeración por el artículo 6 de la Ley de Justicia Tributaria No.7535 del 1 de agosto de 1995, que lo traspasó del antiguo 113 al actual)” (el resaltado es agregado). Esa disposición dio origen a la promulgación de la Ley n.° 5867 del 15 de diciembre de 1975 (Ley de Compensación por Pago de Prohibición) mediante la cual se creó el plus salarial o compensación económica por prohibición y se fijaron los porcentajes de retribución económica por ese concepto sobre el salario base de la escala de sueldos de la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, para el personal de la administración tributaria que, por razón de sus cargos, se encontraba sujeto a la prohibición contenida en el ordinal 113 (hoy 118) del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. Ahora bien, no todas las personas funcionarias que ocupen puestos en las unidades conocidas como “administraciones tributarias” son destinatarios del plus salarial por prohibición, puesto que, como lo indica en su artículo 1° la ley que originó este derecho, el mismo se estableció “para el personal de la Administración Tributaria que se encuentre sujeto, en razón de sus cargos, a la prohibición contenida en el artículo 113 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios”, ya mencionado. Esas normas hacen referencia al “personal de la Administración Tributaria”, la que el numeral 105 del citado Código vigente cuando la Ley n.° 5867 entró a regir (actual 99) define como el “órgano administrativo que tenga a su cargo la percepción y fiscalización de los tributos, ya se trate del Fisco o de otros entes públicos que sean sujetos activos, conforme a los artículos 11 y 14 del presente Código” (el subrayado no está en el original); puntualizando al “sujeto activo” como el ente acreedor del tributo. Así, el eventual derecho de las personas funcionarias municipales a percibir el componente por prohibición deriva primeramente del hecho de que esas corporaciones se enmarcan dentro del concepto de administración tributaria, en tanto se conciben como un “sujeto activo”, en los términos del precepto transcrito, dado que está claro que dichas entidades se constituyen en acreedoras de tributos. Sin embargo, la compensación salarial por la prohibición de ejercer privadamente la profesión no puede serle concedida a todas las personas servidoras municipales, sino solo a los que desempeñan labores estrictamente relacionadas con la materia tributaria (percepción y fiscalización). En el caso bajo estudio, el accionante fundamenta su solicitud, principalmente, en que dentro de sus tareas hay actuaciones típicas de la administración tributaria municipal, pues lleva a cabo los estudios de cálculos para la actualización de multas y costos, así como la revisión, corrección o actualización de tasas e impuestos. Analizados los perfiles de los puestos ocupados por el demandante, se concluye que estos no se subsumen dentro de los presupuestos de hecho que autorizan el pago del plus salarial pretendido; toda vez que no se infiere que este tenga como objetivo principal la recaudación y administración de tributos en forma conjunta e integral, como lo exige la normativa antes analizada. De conformidad con el Manual de Clases de Puestos de la Municipalidad al “Coordinador de Servicios Ambientales” le corresponde “Regular técnicamente los servicios operativos domiciliarios que brinda la institución, contemplando la calidad del producto, la calidad del servicio, la expansión del servicio a la mayor cantidad de posible de la población, y la sostenibilidad del servicio en el tiempo (renovación y rehabilitación). Mantener una regulación económica de los servicios, que implica la regulación del sistema tarifario, del nivel de precios, y la política de subsidios. Realizar el control económico y técnico de la regulación de los servicios operativos domiciliarios. Establecer un régimen tarifario tal que sea capaz de asegurar ingresos a la institución que permitan cubrir las inversiones, costos operativos y eventuales beneficios. Verificar la cobertura, cantidad, calidad, oportunidad, frecuencia, atención al/la Usuario/a, eficacia, eficiencia y efectividad de los servicios operativos domiciliarios que brinda la municipalidad por administración o en concesión. Proponer mejoras en la prestación de los servicios municipales. Supervisión y regulación técnica de los servicios que presta la Municipalidad: Revisión de carteles de licitación estableciendo parámetros técnico que apegados a la legislación vigente aseguren la eficacia y eficiencia en la posterior ejecución de los servicios. Asegurar el cumplimiento de las políticas de prestación de los servicios establecidas por la coordinadora del proceso de Hábitat. Establecer los procedimientos de contratación para la prestación de servicios técnica y financieramente viables. Supervisión de los servicios asegurando el cumplimiento de los contratos y la calidad requerida por los usuarios. Elaborar y supervisar los reglamentos de prestación de cada uno de los servicios. Integrar procedimientos para la optimización del recurso humano asignado al área de servicios: Crear y supervisar una Unidad interna de mantenimiento de base de datos cuyo personal trabaje en todos los servicios; de acuerdo a procedimientos y auditorias pre establecidos. Creación de procedimiento único para la atención de reclamos administrativos y de calidad en la prestación de los servicios, reduciendo requisitos y optimizando recursos. Control económico y técnico de los servicios: integración de los procesos de mantenimiento de base de datos, atención de reclamos administrativos y gestión de cobro para maximizar los ingresos por prestación de los servicios. Proyecciones de ingresos y egresos de cada actividad basados en el comportamiento de los ingresos. Control en la ejecución del PAO de cada actividad para asegurar que no haya su ejecución. Optimización de costos en la ejecución de servicios, un mejor servicio a un mejor costo. Regulación del sistema tarifario que da sostén a la prestación eficaz de los servicios: Modificación de los sistemas tarifarios para incluir categorías justas y representativas del costo real de presentación de los servicios. Revisión corrección y actualización de cálculos de tarifas anteriores. Actualización de tasas e impuesto (elaboración propia). Lo que se ha traducido en disminución de gastos Municipales, al no tener que realizar contrataciones para tal efecto” (sic. Folios 160-161) y el “Coordinador de Desechos Sólidos” debe “Planear, organizar, coordinar todas las gestiones de la Actividad de Desechos Sólidos. Garantizar la sostenibilidad ambiental y financiera del servicio de recolección de basura, mediante la coordinación del monitoreo del proceso de recolección, transporte y disposición final de desechos realizado por las empresas recolectoras, y la revisión del peso y contenido de cada vehículo recolector. Además, la verificación de quejas de los usuarios por deficiencias en el servicio, y el trámite de reclamos por cobros de basura indebido. Preparación de carteles de licitación. Capacitador interno del personal municipal Operador del programa de Gestión Integral de Residuos Sólidos desarrollado por el IFAM. Evaluación técnica de procesos de contratación que van desde licitación pública hasta contratación directa. Coordinación con otras entidades e instituciones públicas para el desarrollo de proyectos (MINAE; SETENA, Ministerios de Salud, Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, IFAM). Coordinador del área ambiental en el Programa de Desarrollo Local (PRODELO). Miembro de las comisiones: Comisión Municipal de Ingresos, Comisión interinstitucional contra el dengue, Comisión interinstitucional para el saneamiento ambiental de Alajuela” (sic. folio 182). Estas labores no tienen que ver con la percepción y fiscalización directa de tributos. Si bien como coordinador de servicios ambientales, cargo que ocupa actualmente, debe establecer un régimen tarifario; regular y modificar los sistemas tarifarios; revisar, corregir y actualizar cálculos de tarifas anteriores, estas funciones se plantean como secundarias o indirectas y no como la principal. Luego, el trabajador no cumplió con los presupuestos exigidos por nuestro ordenamiento jurídico para ser acreedor de este componente salarial. A mayor abundamiento, el pago de prohibición tampoco procedería al amparo de la Ley n.° 8422, Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, ya que, aun cuando se partiera de que el actor ocupó un cargo de director de los allí mencionados (lo que en todo caso no se dio, pues según se tuvo por acreditado este ha fungido como coordinador de la actividad recolección desechos sólidos y coordinador del sub proceso servicios ambientales, hechos probados 2 y 3 de la sentencia de primera instancia, ratificados por el Ad-quem), por cuanto el ordinal 27 del reglamento de ese cuerpo legal aclaró que para efectos del artículo 14 de dicha ley -en cuanto a directores y subdirectores de departamento- debe entenderse referido exclusivamente a la persona o personas que ocupen un puesto de jefatura en las proveedurías del sector público (véase sentencia de esta Sala n.° 327, de las 09:15 horas del 13 de abril de 2012). En razón de lo expuesto, se estima que no lleva razón el accionante en sus reproches y debe mantenerse lo resuelto.

VI.- CONSIDERACIONES FINALES: como corolario de lo expuesto, al no haber reparo alguno que hacerle a la sentencia impugnada en los términos señalados en el recurso, lo único que cabe es confirmarla.

POR TANTO:

En lo que fue objeto de agravio, se confirma la sentencia recurrida.

Orlando Aguirre Gómez Julia Varela Araya Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Jorge Enrique Olaso Álvarez Roxana Chacón Artavia Res: 2020001344 PROJASM/mrg ________________________________________________________________________________________________________ [email protected]. y [email protected]