Overtime in public employment requires prior authorization and is void without itHoras extra en empleo público requieren autorización previa y no proceden sin ella

Review of the Document Supreme Court of Justice SECOND CHAMBER Case File: 16-001465-1178-LA Resolution: 2023-001286 SECOND CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE. San José, at fourteen hours and thirty-five minutes on the twenty-sixth of May, two thousand twenty-three.

Ordinary labor proceeding followed before the Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, Second Section, by [Name 001], general manager, against the COSTA RICAN INSTITUTE OF AQUEDUCTS AND SEWERS (INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS), represented by its general attorney-in-fact [Name 002], divorced, business administrator. Appearing as special judicial attorneys; for the plaintiff, licensed attorney Nelson Loaiza Araya; for the defendant, licensed attorney Ericka Brenes Mirault, resident of Cartago. All of legal age, married, attorneys, and residents of San José, with the exceptions noted.

Magistrate Vargas Soto writes the opinion; and,

CONSIDERING:

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, asserting that he began working for the defendant from 2003 to the present. He added that he worked as a General Water Manager (Gestor General en Aguas) in Sabana Sur. He earned a salary of approximately four hundred seventeen thousand colones monthly. He explained that his schedule was Monday through Friday from 7:45 a.m. to 4 p.m. He detailed that they had logs of the overtime owed, and these were reviewed by the immediate supervisor. He established that these logs were for overtime on days he came in early, left late, or worked Saturdays or Sundays. He stated that he requests payment of overtime for the periods from October 2010 to June 2014, during which the months of August and December 2013 and January and April 2014 were paid. He specified that there were 38 partially paid months and 5 months for which no amount was paid: July, August, and September 2010, April and September 2012.

He indicated that in the period from October 2010 to December 2015, no amount was paid. He determined that he was insured with the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social). He requested that the lawsuit be granted and that the defendant be ordered to pay the partially owed and unpaid overtime, legal interest that may accrue on the approved sums, and both costs of the proceeding. (images 1 to 3 of the complete electronic court file). The defendant responded negatively and raised the defenses of lack of right and lack of active and passive standing to sue (falta de legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva). (images 31 to 40 of the complete electronic court file). The first instance court rejected the defenses of lack of right and lack of passive and active standing and granted the lawsuit. The Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers is ordered to recognize the plaintiff for overtime worked and not paid, corresponding to twenty unpaid overtime hours during the partially paid months and fifty overtime hours during the months in which there was no remuneration for that item, as follows: in the periods from October 2010 to June 2014, (corresponding to 38 partially paid months; in these periods, 4 months were paid, which would be August and December 2013 and January and April 2014) and 5 months for which no amount was paid (which would be July, August, and September 2010 and April and September 2012), and in the periods from July 2014 to December 2015, no amount was paid.

Likewise, it ordered payment to the worker of the corresponding adjustments to the items for vacation (vacaciones), year-end bonus (aguinaldo), and school salary (salario escolar) for said periods, legal interest, indexing (indexación), and both costs of the proceeding, setting the personal costs at 25% of the total condemnation. (image 1707-1720 of the complete electronic court file). Due to disagreement with the judgment, the losing party filed a cassation appeal (recurso de casación). (images 1723-1734 of the complete electronic court file).

II. GRIEVANCES

The defendant files an appeal based on the following grounds of grievance: It alleges there is an improper assessment of evidence because the judge gave credibility to the plaintiff's witnesses, but witness [Name 004] was clear in pointing out that AyA had directives urging a reduction in spending and requesting that extraordinary work be reduced to the maximum. It establishes that, if the salary books are analyzed, it is evident that the overtime was duly paid following the determined procedures and in accordance with the directives and regulations in force. It states that the plaintiff's claim lacks foundation because for payment for said overtime to proceed, there must be a report of it approved by the corresponding superior (jefatura), a situation that does not occur in this specific case since the worker does not demonstrate that said hours were duly authorized. On the other hand, it indicates there is inapplicability of substantive law and defines that from the response to the complaint, it was expressed that for the payment of overtime, compliance with the stipulations in the Autonomous Service Regulation of AyA (Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del AyA), Agreement No. 2004-465 published in La Gaceta No. 162 of August 19, 2004, is required.

It cites articles 37, 38, and 39 of said agreement and stipulates that autonomous institutions are governed by the principle of administrative legality, therefore they cannot grant greater benefits than those expressly authorized by the legal system. It references articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the General Law of Public Administration that regulate said principle. Furthermore, it mentions vote 2000-00106 from nineteen hours and forty-five minutes on January fourth, two thousand, of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) and a resolution of the Second Chamber. It considers that AyA cannot accede to the plaintiff's request for reasons of legality and constitutionality. It therefore requests that the cassation appeal be granted and the first instance judgment be overturned, ordering the plaintiff to pay both costs of the proceeding.

III. ANALYSIS OF THE CASE

• 1)On the improper assessment of evidence: The judicial representative of the Costa Rican Institute of Aqueducts and Sewers alleges that the judge commits a serious error in ruling that the plaintiff worked a total of 50 overtime hours per month, between July 2010 and December 2015; pointing out that the defendant must pay the plaintiff 20 unpaid overtime hours during the partially paid months and 50 overtime hours during the months in which there was no remuneration for that item, as follows: in the period from October 2010 to June 2014 (corresponding to 38 partially paid months; in these periods, 4 months were paid, which would be August and December 2013 and January and April 2014) and 5 months for which no amount was paid, which would be July, August, September 2010 and April and September 2012. The party reproaches that what was requested by the plaintiff was for April and September 2012 since the worker did not work in the UEN of Environmental Management (UEN de Gestión Ambiental) for July, August, and September 2010. The appellant is correct regarding this grievance, since the same plaintiff in his claims specifies that first it is in the period from October 2010 to June 2014, however later there is an inconsistency with it and he indicates that in July, August, and September 2010 no amount was paid for overtime. In fact, at the hearing, the judicial attorney for the plaintiff makes a clarification of the sixth fact and states: "to Mr. [Name 001], what was partially paid were the months of October 2010 to June 2014 except for the months of August and December 2013 and January and April 2014. (..) and he was not paid any extraordinary working day in the months of July, August, and September 2010, April and September 2012, and July 2014 to December 2015. That is the same thing that the sixth fact says, only with commas and separated. Having made this clarification and also in accordance with article 567, Mr. [Name 001]'s claim, the main claim in point a) that appears on folio 4 of the file, is the payment of partially owed overtime that have not been paid; here it would be necessary to add two things, first, not only those that were partially paid but also those that were completely not paid. (…) The claim is from October 2010 to December 2015." (From minute four and one second to minute eight and twenty-four seconds of the hearing audio incorporated into the file on July 15, 2019, at 15:07:20). Likewise, from the evidence called the Salary Book (Libro de salarios), it can be denoted that in the period from January 2010 to December 2010, the plaintiff had payroll 1-6 Deputy General Management (Subgerencia General) and by January 2011 to December 2011, he had payroll 11-9 UEN Environmental Management. (See images 73 and 74 of the complete electronic court file). Similarly, according to personnel action No. 353741, Mr. [Name 001] is transferred workplace effective as of 15/10/2010. From the documents called Travel Expense Settlements (Liquidación de Gastos de Viaje), it can be observed that in January, February, March, April, May, August, and September 2010, the plaintiff performed other functions that are not in accordance with those described for the position of General Water Manager (Gestor General en Aguas), that is, in all those documents with those dates, he appears as part of Deputy General Management (Subgerencia General) performing jobs such as engineer transfer, meeting in Puerto Caldera, water distribution in Coronado, water distribution in Cartago, visits to projects in Limón, etc. (See images 118 to 132 of the complete electronic court file). And it is not until the travel expense settlement document dated November 2, 2010, that the plaintiff appears already in the UEN Environmental Basic Studies Department (Departamento UEN Ambiental Estudios Básicos), performing monthly stream gauging program duties in the protection of Water Resources (recurso Hídrico) and collection of water samples to determine turbidity in the Huetar Region. Thus, from the inconsistency that exists in the claim and as there is documentary evidence establishing that the plaintiff was not in said department in the months of July, August, and September 2010, this grievance is upheld. On the other hand, it alleges that the judgment gave credibility to the plaintiff's witnesses; however, witness [Name 004] was clear in pointing out that AyA had directives urging a reduction in spending and requesting that extraordinary work be reduced to the maximum. While it is true, the defendant's witness, [Name 004], expressed what the appellant stated, but also stated that: "what exceeded the time I was authorized to use was not paid (…) if it is time that is not authorized, the payment process cannot be carried out" (Minute 24, second 27 of the hearing audio incorporated into the file on July 19, 2019, at 11:04:17). Furthermore, from a study of the hearing held on July 19, 2019, it is clear that the plaintiff worked an extraordinary working day that could sometimes extend beyond the overtime hours authorized by the superior, since not only the plaintiff's witnesses [Name 007] and [Name 008] but also the defendant's witnesses [Name 005], [Name 006], and [Name 004] determined that the duties of said position could take their time, that long distances had to be walked depending on the area, and that said measurements were necessary, so extraordinary working days were undertaken to be able to carry out the work. For the foregoing, this grievance is upheld. 2) On the inapplicability of substantive law: The defendant bases its argument that in matters of salary and public employment, autonomous institutions, as is the case of AyA, are governed by the principle of administrative legality, also called the "legality block" (bloque de legalidad), so it is not possible to grant greater benefits than those expressly authorized by the legal system regulating this matter. Likewise, it considers that for the payment of overtime, the stipulations in articles 37 and 39 of the Autonomous Service Regulation of AyA, Agreement number 2004-465, published in La Gaceta No. 162 of August 19, 2004, must be met. In this regard, it is necessary to determine that both this Chamber and the Constitutional Chamber have repeatedly established that statutory relationships, that is, public employment, as in the present case, are governed by Public Law, even with principles different from those of Labor Law, in accordance with ordinals 111 and 112 of the General Law of Public Administration. (Regarding the statutory nature of the relationship of AyA employees, votes from this Chamber number 160-2002 and 228-2005 may be consulted.) It should be noted that the Constitutional Chamber, through ruling number 1696-92, at fifteen hours and thirty minutes on August 23, 1992, stated: "This public employment regime necessarily implies consequences derived from the nature of that relationship, with its own general principles, no longer only distinct from those of (private) labor law, but often opposed to them." For the foregoing reasons, given a relationship of employment of this nature, the principle of legality that prevails in the public sector applies, according to which only those obligations that are authorized by the legal system can be considered lawful and effective against the respective entities. This is regulated in numerals 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration. Thus, the time worked can only be classified as an extraordinary working day, with the consequences that classification implies, if it is expressly justified and authorized. It is important to point out that, in the case in question, since it corresponds to a public service relationship, the governing principle is that of legality. Furthermore, in matters of public employment, the administrative tendency has been to restrict the concept of extraordinary working day, in order to seek adequate protection of public resources. As an example, the Public Administration Salary Law, in its canon 17, establishes: "The Minister may authorize work during overtime hours, but only in exceptional situations, when it is indispensable to satisfy special demands of the public service." Furthermore, article 6 of Law No. 8343, which is the Fiscal Contingency Law (Ley de Contingencia Fiscal), states: "Extraordinary working days may not be authorized for the same person successively for more than three months, by virtue of the fact that it distorts the extraordinary nature of this type of working day. Except for express justification and in accordance with said criteria, the authorization of overtime payments by human resources instances and the heads of each State institution must be carried out in strict adherence to the criteria of necessity, reasonableness, and rationalization of public spending." In the present proceeding, AyA has an Autonomous Service Regulation, Regulation No. 465 of July 20, 2004, published in La Gaceta on August 19, 2004, in which its article 39 regulates that: "Extraordinary time must be previously and expressly requested by the corresponding dependency, and authorized by the Human Resources Directorate (Dirección de Recursos Humanos) or Regional Superior (Jefatura Regional) as applicable, except in duly demonstrated emergency cases, once the respective procedures have been completed. Likewise, the payment of overtime hours to which employees are entitled according to the law shall be processed in independent reports, indicating the position held by each employee, the number of working hours, and the cause that motivated this working day. Said controls must necessarily be submitted within the fifteen days immediately following the day on which the extraordinary work was performed, and the failure to submit the corresponding reports shall imply the non-existence of the extraordinary working day." This Chamber considers that the plaintiff was approved a number of monthly overtime hours, which were recognized as appropriate. Regarding the burden of proof, in accordance with Transitory Provision I, subsection 1) of Law No. 9343: "this reform shall be applicable to proceedings initiated before the entry into force of this law, with the following exceptions: 1) the applicable evidentiary regime (evidentiary burdens and assessment of probative elements) shall be that of the previous legislation." Then, applying what was cited supra, the plaintiff had to demonstrate having been previously authorized by the respective superior or competent body to work the overtime hours petitioned before the judicial instance. The content of the logs provided by the defendant to accredit the overtime worked does not demonstrate that those hours were previously endorsed by the superior. Similarly, from the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses, that is, Messrs. [Name 007] and [Name 008], it is deduced that they fail to prove that the overtime worked was previously authorized by the superior. Rather, both stated that they were always paid less than the reported overtime hours and that the problem occurred when they sent the report to the superior to make the effective payment since they recorded the extraordinary working day worked and they were paid a lower amount. In contrast, the defendant's witnesses: Mrs. [Name 005], and Messrs. [Name 004] and [Name 006], declare that in accordance with the directives, they could not pay them for hours exceeding those approved and that they were only paid for those previously authorized. From the other evidence submitted to the proceeding, the foregoing cannot be evidenced either, so this Chamber concludes that the plaintiff fails to meet his evidentiary obligation. Now, it is worth noting that in a similar trial, this Chamber resolved: "It is important to highlight that the relationship between the parties was a public employment relationship, so in order to work overtime and subsequently claim its payment, this must have been previously authorized, since it cannot be left to the worker's will the possibility of working beyond his ordinary working day to then claim payment, without having had the approval of the employer (…). In this regard, this Chamber has already indicated on repeated occasions that the payment of overtime in the public sector only proceeds when there is prior authorization to work them: 'Likewise, as it is a public employment relationship, the principle of legality that prevails in the public sector applies, according to which only those obligations that are authorized by the legal system can be considered lawful and effective against the respective entities (articles 11 of the Political Constitution, 11 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration). Accordingly, the time worked can only be classified as an extraordinary working day, with the consequences that classification implies, if it is expressly justified and authorized, which does not happen in the case under study when it first exceeded 10 hours per month and then 30 (see vote 331-04 at 15:20 on May 15, 2004)' (Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote no. 172-15 at 9:15 on February 12, 2015)" (judgment number 682-2015). As a corollary of the foregoing, this Chamber concludes that the grievance is admissible.

IV. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the arguments described above, the appeal is partially granted. The defenses of lack of standing, both active and passive, and lack of right are upheld, inasmuch as the plaintiff is not entitled to his claim. The lawsuit is dismissed in all its extremes and resolved without special condemnation for costs (sin especial condenatoria en costas), as this Chamber considers that the plaintiff acted in good faith in the processing of the proceeding and could have believed he had the right to the payment of the claimed overtime hours, in accordance with ordinal 563 of the reformed Labor Code.

THEREFORE:

The appeal is partially granted. The defenses of lack of standing, both active and passive, and lack of right are upheld. The lawsuit is dismissed and resolved without special condemnation for costs.

Res: 2023001286 CCASTRILLO Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Roxana Chacón Artavia Alexis Fernando Vargas Soto Rodrigo Campos Esquivel Maureen Roxana Solís Madrigal 1 CASE FILE: 16-001465-1178-LA Telephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 and 2295-4406. Facsimile: 2295-3009.

Email: sala-segunda@poder-judicial.go.cr Res: 2023-001286 SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA.

San José, at fourteen hours thirty-five minutes on the twenty-sixth of May two thousand twenty-three.

Ordinary proceeding followed before the Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, Second Section, by [Nombre 001], general manager, against the INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS, represented by its general attorney-in-fact [Nombre 002], divorced, business administrator. Appearing as special judicial attorneys; for the plaintiff, licensed attorney Nelson Loaiza Araya; for the defendant, licensed attorney Ericka Brenes Mirault, resident of Cartago. All of legal age, married, attorneys, and residents of San José, with the exceptions indicated.

Drafted by Judge Vargas Soto; and,

CONSIDERING:

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff filed a complaint, alleging that he began working for the defendant from 2003 to the present. He added that he worked as General Manager of Water in Sabana Sur. He earned a salary of approximately four hundred seventeen thousand colones per month. He explained that his schedule was Monday through Friday from 7:45 a.m. to 4 p.m. He detailed that they had logs (bitácoras) of the overtime owed, and these were reviewed by the immediate supervisor. He established that said logs (bitácoras) were for overtime on days he arrived early, left late, or if he worked Saturdays or Sundays. He stated that he requests payment for overtime for the periods from October 2010 to June 2014, in which the months of August and December 2013 and January and April 2014 were paid. He specified that there were 38 months partially paid, 5 months for which no amount was paid: July, August, and September 2010, April and September 2012.

He indicated that in the period from October 2010 to December 2015, no amount was paid. He determined that he was indeed insured with the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. He requested that the complaint be granted and that the defendant be ordered to pay the partially owed overtime that has not been paid, legal interest that may be generated from the approved sums, and both costs of the proceeding. (images 1 to 3 of the complete view of the Court's electronic file). The defendant responded negatively and raised the defenses of lack of right and lack of standing to sue and be sued (falta de derecho y falta de legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva). (images 31 to 40 of the complete view of the Court's electronic file). The court of first instance rejected the defenses of lack of right and lack of passive and active standing to sue and be sued and granted the complaint. The Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is ordered to recognize to the plaintiff the overtime worked and not paid, corresponding to twenty unpaid overtime hours during the months that were partially paid and fifty overtime hours during the months in which there was no remuneration whatsoever for said item, as follows: in the periods from October 2010 to June 2014, (corresponding to 38 months partially paid, in these periods 4 months were paid, which would be August and December 2013 and January and April 2014) and 5 months for which no amount was paid (which would be July, August, and September 2010 and April and September 2012), and in the periods from July 2014 to December 2015, no amount was paid.

Likewise, it ordered payment to the worker of the corresponding adjustments in the items of vacation, year-end bonus (aguinaldo), and school salary (salario escolar) for said periods, legal interest, indexation, and both costs of the proceeding, setting the personal costs at 25% of the total condemnation award. (image 1707-1720 of the complete view of the Court's electronic file). Due to disagreement with the judgment, the losing party filed a cassation appeal. (images 1723-1734 of the complete view of the Court's electronic file).

II. GRIEVANCES

The defendant files an appeal based on the following grounds of grievance: It alleges there is an improper valuation of evidence (indebida valoración de la prueba) since the judge gave credibility to the plaintiff's witnesses, but witness [Nombre 004] was clear in pointing out that AyA had directives urging a reduction in spending and requesting that extraordinary work be reduced to the maximum. It establishes that, if the salary books are analyzed, it is evident that the extraordinary time was duly paid following the determined procedures and in accordance with the directives and regulations in force. It states that the plaintiff's allegation lacks foundation because for payment for said extraordinary time to proceed, there must be a report of the same approved by the corresponding management, a situation that does not occur in this specific case since the worker does not demonstrate that said hours were duly authorized.

On the other hand, it indicates there is an inapplicability of substantive law and defines that from the answer to the complaint it was expressed that for the payment of extraordinary time, what is stipulated in the Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del AyA, Agreement No. 2004-465 published in La Gaceta No. 162 of August 19, 2004, must be complied with. It cites Articles 37, 38, and 39 of said agreement and stipulates that autonomous institutions are governed by the principle of administrative legality, so they cannot grant greater benefits than those expressly authorized by the legal system. It references Articles 11 of the Political Constitution and 11 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública that regulate said principle. Furthermore, it mentions ruling 2000-00106 of nineteen hours forty-five minutes on January fourth, two thousand of the Constitutional Chamber and a resolution of the Second Chamber.

It considers that AyA cannot accede to the plaintiff's petition for reasons of legality and constitutionality. It therefore requests that the cassation appeal be granted and the first instance judgment be revoked, ordering the plaintiff to pay both costs of the proceeding.

III. CASE ANALYSIS

• 1)Regarding the improper valuation of evidence (indebida valoración de la prueba): The judicial attorney for the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados alleges that the judge commits a serious error by ruling that the plaintiff worked a total of 50 overtime hours per month; between July 2010 and December 2015; pointing out that the defendant must pay the plaintiff 20 unpaid overtime hours during the months that were partially paid and 50 overtime hours during the months in which there was no remuneration whatsoever for said item as follows: in the period from October 2010 to June 2014 (corresponding to 38 months partially paid, in these periods 4 months were paid, which would be August and December 2013 and January and April 2014) and 5 months for which no amount was paid, which would be July, August, September 2010 and April and September 2012. The party criticizes that what was requested by the plaintiff was April and September 2012 since the worker in July, August, and September 2010 was not working in the UEN de Gestión Ambiental. The appellant is correct regarding this grievance since the plaintiff himself in his claims specifies that first it is in the period from October 2010 to June 2014, however later there is inconsistency with it and indicates that in July, August, and September 2010 no amount was paid for overtime. In fact, in the hearing, the plaintiff's judicial attorney makes a clarification of the sixth fact and states: *“don [Nombre 001] was partially paid for the months of October 2010 to June 2014 with the exception of the months of August and December 2013 and January and April 2014. (..) and he was not paid any extraordinary workday in the months of July, August, and September 2010, April and September 2012, and July 2014 to December 2015. That is the same thing that the sixth fact says, nothing more than with commas and separated. Having made this clarification and also in accordance with Article 567, the claim of don [Nombre 001], the main claim in point a) that appears in folio 4 of the file, is the payment of partially owed overtime hours that have not been paid, here it would be necessary to necessarily add two things, first, not only those that were partially paid to him but those that were not paid to him at all. (…) The claim is from October 2010 to December 2015”*. (From minute four second one to minute eight second twenty-four of the hearing audio incorporated into the file on July 15, 2019, at 15:07:20). Likewise, from the evidence called Salary Book, it can be denoted that in the period from January 2010 to December 2010, the plaintiff had payroll 1-6 Subgerencia General and by January 2011 to December 2011, he had payroll 11-9 UEN Gestión Ambiental. (See images 73 and 74 of the complete electronic file of the Court). Similarly, according to personnel action No. 353741, Mr. [Nombre 001] is transferred from workplace, effective 10/15/2010.

  From the documents called Travel Expense Liquidations (Liquidación de Gastos de Viaje), it can be observed that in January, February, March, April, May, August, and September 2010, the plaintiff performed other functions that are not in accordance with those described for the position of General Manager of Water, that is, in all those documents with said dates, he appears as part of the Deputy General Management performing work such as transfer of an engineer, meeting in Puerto Caldera, water distribution in Coronado, water distribution in Cartago, visit to projects in Limón, etc. (See images 118 to 132 74 of the complete electronic court file) And it is not until the travel expense liquidation document dated November 2, 2010, that the plaintiff appears already in the UEN Ambiental Estudios Básicos Department performing tasks of a monthly gauging program for the protection of water resources (recurso hídrico) and water sample collection to determine turbidity in the Huetar Region. Thus, due to the inconsistency in the claim and given the documentary evidence establishing that the plaintiff was not in said department in the months of July, August, and September 2010, this grievance is upheld.

  On the other hand, it alleges that the judgment gave credibility to the plaintiff's witnesses; however, the witness [Name 004] was clear in pointing out that the AyA had directives urging a reduction in spending and requesting that extraordinary work hours be reduced to the maximum. Although it is true that the defendant's witness [Name 004] expressed what the appellant stated, he also stated that: *“the time that exceeded what I had authorized to use was not paid (…) if it is time that is not authorized, the payment process cannot be carried out”* (Minute 24 second 27 of the hearing audio incorporated into the file on July 19, 2019, at 11:04:17) Furthermore, from a study of the hearing held on July 19, 2019, it is clear that the plaintiff worked an extraordinary workday that could sometimes extend beyond the overtime authorized by the superior, since not only the plaintiff's witnesses [Name 007] and [Name 008] but also the defendant's witnesses [Name 005], [Name 006], and [Name 004] determined that the functions of that position can take their time, that they had to walk long distances depending on the area, and that these measurements were necessary, so extraordinary workdays were done to carry out the work. Therefore, this grievance is upheld.

• 2)Regarding the inapplicability of substantive law: The defendant bases its argument on the principle that in matters of public salary and employment, autonomous institutions, as is the case of the AyA, are governed by the principle of administrative legality, also called “block of legality” (bloque de legalidad), meaning it is not possible to grant greater benefits than those expressly authorized by the legal framework regulating this matter. Likewise, it considers that for the payment of extraordinary time, the stipulations of Articles 37 and 39 of the AyA's Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio, agreement number 2004-465, published in La Gaceta No. 162 of August 19, 2004, must be complied with. In this regard, it is necessary to determine that both this Chamber and the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) have repeatedly established that statutory relations, that is, public employment, as in the present case, are governed by Public Law, even with principles different from those of Labor Law in accordance with articles 111 and 112 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. (Regarding the statutory nature of the relationship of AyA employees, see rulings of this Chamber number 160-2002 and 228-2005) It should be noted that the Constitutional Chamber, through ruling number 1696-92, at fifteen thirty hours on August 23, 1992, indicated: *"This public employment regime necessarily implies consequences derived from the nature of that relationship, with its own general principles, no longer just different from those of (private) labor law, but often opposed to them."* By reason of the foregoing, dealing with an employment relationship of this nature, the principle of legality that prevails in the public sector applies, according to which, only those obligations that are authorized by the legal framework can be considered lawful and effective as obligations chargeable to the respective entities. This is regulated in articles 11 of the Constitución Política and 11 and 13 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Thus, the time worked can only be classified as an extraordinary workday, with the consequences that classification implies, if it is justified and expressly authorized. It is important to indicate that, in the case in question, since it corresponds to a public service relationship, the principle that prevails is that of legality.

Furthermore, in public employment matters, the administrative trend has been to restrict the concept of an extraordinary workday, in order to seek adequate protection of public resources. As an example, the Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, in its canon 17, stipulates: *“The Minister may authorize work during overtime, but only in exceptional situations, when it is essential to meet special public service demands”*. On its side, Article 6 of Law No. 8343, which is the Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, states: *“Extraordinary workdays may not be authorized for the same person successively for more than three months, because it distorts the extraordinary nature of this type of workday. Except with express justification and in accordance with said criteria, the authorization of overtime payments by human resources departments and the heads of each State institution must be carried out in strict adherence to the criteria of necessity, reasonableness, and rationalization of public spending."* In the present process, the AyA has a Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio, Regulation No. 465 of July 20, 2004, published in La Gaceta on August 19, 2004, in which its Article 39 regulates that: *“Extraordinary time must be previously and expressly requested by the corresponding department, and authorized by the Dirección de Recursos Humanos or the Regional Headquarters as applicable, except in duly demonstrated emergency cases, once the respective procedures have been completed.

Likewise, the payment of overtime to which employees are entitled by law shall be processed in independent reports, indicating the position held by each employee, the number of work hours, and the cause that motivated this workday. Said controls must necessarily be submitted within the fifteen days immediately following the day on which the extraordinary work was done, and failure to submit the corresponding reports will imply the nonexistence of an extraordinary workday”*. This Chamber considers that the plaintiff was approved a quantity of monthly overtime hours, which were recognized as appropriate.

Regarding the burden of proof, according to Transitory Provision I, subsection 1) of Law No. 9343: *“this reform shall be applicable to processes initiated before the effectiveness of this law, with the following exceptions: 1) the applicable evidentiary regime (evidentiary burdens and assessment of evidentiary elements) shall be that of the previous legislation.”* Then, applying what was cited above, the plaintiff had to demonstrate having been previously authorized by the respective leadership or competent body to work the overtime hours he petitions before the judicial instance. The content of the logbooks (bitácoras) provided by the defendant to prove the overtime hours worked does not demonstrate that these hours had been previously endorsed by the leadership. Similarly, from the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses, that is, Mr. [Name 007] and Mr. [Name 008], it can be deduced that they fail to prove that the overtime hours worked were previously authorized by the Leadership.

Rather, both stated that they were always paid less than the reported overtime hours and that the problem occurred when they sent the report to the leadership to make the effective payment, since they recorded the extraordinary workday worked and were paid a lesser amount. In contrast, the defendant's witnesses: Ms. [Name 005], and Messrs. [Name 004] and [Name 006], declare that according to the directives, they could not pay them for hours that exceeded those approved and that only those previously authorized were paid. From the other evidence provided to the process, the above cannot be evidenced either, which is why this Chamber concludes that the plaintiff fails to meet his evidentiary obligation.

Now, it is worth noting that in a similar trial, this Chamber resolved: “*It is important to emphasize that the relationship between the parties was a public employment relationship, such that in order to work overtime and subsequently seek payment for it, it must have been previously authorized, since the possibility of working beyond the ordinary working day cannot be left to the will of the employee, to then later seek payment, without having had the employer's approval (…). In this regard, this Chamber has repeatedly indicated that payment for overtime in the public sector only proceeds when there is prior authorization to work them: ‘Likewise, since it is a public employment relationship, the principle of legality that governs the public sector applies, according to which only those obligations authorized by the legal system can be considered lawful and effective as obligations chargeable to the respective entities (articles 11 of the Political Constitution, 11 and 13 of the General Public Administration Law).

Accordingly, time worked can only be classified as overtime, with the consequences that such classification implies, if it is justified and expressly authorized, which was not the case in the matter under study when it exceeded first, 10 hours per month and later, 30 (see vote 331-04 of 15:20 hours on May 15, 2004)’* (Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote no. 172-15 of 9:15 hours on February 12, 2015)” (judgment number 682-2015). As a corollary to the foregoing, this Chamber concludes that the grievance is well-founded.

IV. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the arguments described above, the appeal is partially granted. The exceptions of lack of standing (falta de legitimación) both active and passive, and lack of right, are upheld, inasmuch as the claimant is not entitled to his claim. The lawsuit is dismissed in all respects and it is resolved without special award of costs (sin especial condenatoria en costas), as this Chamber considers that the petitioner acted in good faith in the processing of the case and could have believed he was entitled to payment of the overtime sought, in accordance with article 563 of the amended Labor Code (Código de Trabajo).

POR TANTO:

The appeal is partially granted.

The objections of lack of standing (falta de legitimación), both active and passive, and lack of right (falta de derecho) are accepted. The claim (demanda) is dismissed and the matter is resolved without special imposition of costs (sin especial condenatoria en costas).

Res: 2023001286 CCASTRILLO

Image of a handwritten signature Roxana Chacón Artavia Image of a handwritten signature Alexis Fernando Vargas Soto Image of a handwritten signature Rigoberto Ramírez Pérez

Property Boundaries: Area: Two thousand one hundred square meters and fifty-one square decimeters. Plan: M-1013040-2012.

II Information on the Nature, Site, or Destination: Agricultural land with buildings. It is occupied by a house and corrals and is used as pasture and orchard. Public services: Electricity, potable water, asphalted public street, legal telephone access, and public street lighting.

III Information on Appraisals: The administrative appraisal is 999,000.00 colones and the fiscal appraisal is 799,000.00 colones.

IV Information on Owners in Common: Owners: Campos Esquivel Rodrigo, identity card 1-690-842, married once, is the owner of: undivided half of the total; Solís Madrigal Maureen Roxana, identity card 1-968-594, married three times, is the owner of: undivided half of the total.

Origin: Title: The property: By merger of farms; Title: The undivided rights: Purchase through Public Deed Number thirty-two, granted in San José, at eleven o'clock on January thirty-first, two thousand and two, before Notary Sylvia Leitón Alvarado. Citations: 489-08844-01-0900-001; 489-05118-01-0900-001. Location: San José.

Date of Registration: FEBRUARY 12, 2002.

V Information on Easements, Reservations, Restrictions, and Annotations: None there are.

VI Cancellations of the Previous Section: None there are.

VII Affections, Annotations, and Administrative Procedures: Affectation Number one: File: 2819-2021. Right: administrative affectation (afección administrativa) under Article 26 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) Number 7575, of February 5, 1996, resulting from this administrative file. Location: Pérez Zeledón, San Ramón Sur. Farm(s): 184940-000, 184941-000 and 184942-000.

Nature: In accordance with studies from the National System of Conservation Areas (SINAC) and the Puntarenas Conservation Area (ACOPAC), there exists forest cover (cobertura boscosa) in the area of protection of springs (nacientes), located in permanent protection areas for water resources, as established by Articles 33 and 34 of the Forest Law (Ley Forestal) Number 7575.

Pursuant to the literal terms of the land use capability map prepared by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (MINAET), Department of Soils and Waters, it is determined that the aforementioned property(s) present areas of protection.

Date of Registration: MAY 27, 2021.

Registration is made pursuant to Official Letter Number ACOPAC-PF-029-2015, issued by the Head of the Process of Puntarenas Conservation Area (ACOPAC) Sub-Regional Office at 10:05 AM on March 24, 2015.

The digital affections certificate is issued for the purposes of Law 7575. Any owner(s) are hereby notified of said affectation for legal purposes. The annotation was made in the margin of Farm(s): 184940, 184941 and 184942.

Provisional Cadastral Maps: M-1013040-2012, M-0968657-2012 and M-0968656-2012.

(R-102871-2021)(489-2020005215-01). File: 2819-2021.

VII Affections, Annotations, and Administrative Procedures: Affectation Number two: File: 2819-2021. Right: Annotation of interest (anotación de interés) under Articles 18 and 19 of the Regulations to the Forest Law (Reglamento a la Ley Forestal), Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) Number 25721-MINAE, of October 17, 1996. Location: Pérez Zeledón, San Ramón Sur. Farm(s): 184940-000, 184941-000 and 184942-000.

Nature: In accordance with the literal terms of the land use capability map of the property(s) prepared by the Ministry of Environment, Energy and Telecommunications (MINAET) edaphology area, it is determined that the property presents areas for agricultural, agroforestry, or silvopastoral use according to land use capability and areas of protection, as well as recoverable land, as established in Article 19 of Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) Number 25721-MINAE of October 17, 1996.

Date of Registration: MAY 27, 2021.

Registration is made pursuant to Official Letter Number ACOPAC-PF-029-2015, issued by the Head of the Process of Puntarenas Conservation Area (ACOPAC) Sub-Regional Office at 10:05 AM on March 24, 2015, in which the annotation of interest is ordered on the property(s) for the purposes of Law 7575 and its Regulations.

The digital affections certificate is issued. Any owner(s) are hereby notified of said annotation for legal purposes. The annotation was made in the margin of Farm(s): 184940, 184941 and 184942.

Provisional Cadastral Maps: M-1013040-2012, M-0968657-2012 and M-0968656-2012.

(R-102872-2021)(489-2020005215-01). File: 2819-2021.

1 DENIAL OF OVERTIME PAY. IMPROPER WEIGHING OF THE EVIDENCE. THE PLAINTIFF WAS APPROVED FOR A MONTHLY AMOUNT OF OVERTIME (horas extra) THAT WAS RECOGNIZED AS CORRESPONDING AND DID NOT MEET THE BURDEN OF PROOF (carga de la prueba) TO DEMONSTRATE HAVING BEEN PRE-AUTHORIZED BY THE RESPECTIVE MANAGEMENT TO WORK THE OVERTIME HE PETITIONS BEFORE THE JUDICIAL INSTANCE.

<b>PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY.</b> [1286-23] Res: 2023-001286 SECOND CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.

San José, at fourteen thirty-five hours on the twenty-sixth of May of two thousand twenty-three.

Ordinary proceeding followed before the Labor Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José, Second Section, by [Nombre 001], general manager, against the INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS, represented by its general attorney-in-fact [Nombre 002], divorced, business administrator. Appearing as special judicial attorneys; for the plaintiff, licensed attorney Nelson Loaiza Araya; for the defendant, licensed attorney Ericka Brenes Mirault, resident of Cartago. All of legal age, married, attorneys, and residents of San José, with the exceptions indicated.

Drafted by Judge Vargas Soto; and,

CONSIDERING:

I. BACKGROUND

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging that he began working for the defendant from 2003 to the present. He added that he worked as General Manager of Water in Sabana Sur. He earned a salary of approximately four hundred seventeen thousand colones per month. He explained that his schedule was Monday through Friday from 7:45 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. He detailed that they had logs (bitácoras) of the owed overtime hours, and these were reviewed by the immediate supervisor. He established that said logs (bitácoras) were for overtime hours for days he arrived early, left late, or if he worked Saturdays or Sundays. He stated that he requests payment of overtime hours for the periods from October 2010 to June 2014, in which the months of August and December 2013 and January and April 2014 were paid. He specified that there were 38 months paid partially, 5 months for which no amount was paid: July, August, and September 2010, April and September 2012.

He indicated that in the period from October 2010 to December 2015, no amount was paid. He determined that he was indeed insured with the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. He requested that the lawsuit be granted and that the defendant be ordered to pay partially owed overtime hours that have not been paid, legal interest that may be generated from the approved sums, and both costs of the proceeding. (images 1 to 3 of the complete view of the electronic court file). The defendant responded negatively and raised the defenses of lack of right (falta de derecho) and lack of active and passive standing (falta de legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva). (images 31 to 40 of the complete view of the electronic court file). The trial court rejected the defenses of lack of right (falta de derecho) and lack of passive and active standing (falta de legitimación pasiva y activa) and granted the lawsuit.

The Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados is ordered to compensate the plaintiff for overtime hours worked and not paid, corresponding to twenty unpaid overtime hours during the months that were partially paid and fifty overtime hours during the months for which there was no remuneration whatsoever for said item, as follows: in the periods from October 2010 to June 2014, (corresponding to 38 months paid partially, in these periods 4 months were paid, which would be August and December 2013 and January and April 2014) and 5 months for which no amount was paid (which would be July, August, and September 2010 and April and September 2012), and in the periods from July 2014 to December 2015, no amount was paid. Likewise, it ordered the payment to the worker of the corresponding adjustments in the items of vacation pay (vacaciones), year-end bonus (aguinaldo), and school salary (salario escolar) for said periods, legal interest, indexation (indexación), and both costs of the proceeding, setting the personal costs at 25% of the total award.

(image 1707-1720 of the complete view of the electronic court file). Due to disagreement with the judgment, the losing party filed an appeal for cassation (recurso de casación). (images 1723-1734 of the complete view of the electronic court file).

II. GRIEVANCES

The defendant files the appeal based on the following grounds for grievance: It alleges an improper valuation of evidence because the judge gave credibility to the plaintiff's witnesses, but witness [Nombre 004] was clear in pointing out that AyA had directives urging spending reduction and requesting that overtime work be reduced to the maximum. It establishes that, if the salary books are analyzed, it is evident that the overtime was duly paid following the determined procedures and in accordance with the directives and current regulations. It states that the plaintiff's allegation lacks foundation because for payment for said overtime to proceed, there must be a report thereof approved by the corresponding management, a situation that does not occur in this specific case since the worker does not demonstrate that said hours were duly authorized. On the other hand, it indicates there is inapplicability of substantive law and defines that from the response it was expressed that for the payment of overtime, what is stipulated in the Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del AyA, Agreement No. 2004-465 published in La Gaceta No. 162 of August 19, 2004, must be complied with.

It cites Articles 37, 38, and 39 of said agreement and stipulates that autonomous institutions are governed by the principle of administrative legality, so they cannot grant greater benefits than those expressly authorized by the legal system. It references Articles 11 of the Constitución Política and 11 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública that regulate said principle. Furthermore, it mentions vote 2000-00106 of nineteen forty-five hours on January fourth, two thousand, of the Sala Constitucional and a resolution of the Sala Segunda. It considers that AyA cannot grant the plaintiff's request for reasons of legality and constitutionality. It therefore requests that the appeal for cassation (recurso de casación) be granted and that the trial judgment be revoked, ordering the plaintiff to pay both costs of the proceeding.

III. CASE ANALYSIS

• 1)Regarding the improper valuation of evidence: The judicial attorney for the Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados alleges that the judge commits a serious error by ruling that the plaintiff worked a total of 50 overtime hours per month; between July 2010 and December 2015; pointing out that the defendant must pay the plaintiff 20 unpaid overtime hours during the months that were partially paid and 50 overtime hours during the months for which there was no remuneration whatsoever for said item as follows: in the period from October 2010 to June 2014 (corresponding to 38 months paid partially, in these periods 4 months were paid, which would be August and December 2013 and January and April 2014) and 5 months for which no amount was paid, which would be July, August, September 2010 and April and September 2012. The party reproaches that what was requested by the plaintiff was April and September 2012 since the worker did not work in the UEN de Gestión Ambiental during July, August, and September 2010. The appellant is correct regarding this grievance since the plaintiff himself in his claims specifies that first it is in the period from October 2010 to June 2014; however, there is later an inconsistency with it and he indicates that in July, August, and September 2010 no amount was paid for overtime hours. In fact, at the hearing, the plaintiff's judicial attorney makes a clarification of fact six and states: *“to [Nombre 001], what was partially paid to him were the months of October 2010 to June 2014, with the exception of the months of August and December 2013 and January and April 2014. (...) and no overtime was paid to him in the months of July, August, and September 2010, April and September 2012, and July 2014 to December 2015. That is the same as what fact six says, just with commas and separated. Having made this clarification and also in accordance with Article 567, the claim of [Nombre 001], the main claim in point a) that appears on folio 4 of the file, is the payment of partially owed overtime hours that have not been paid, here it would be necessary to add two things, first, not only those that were partially paid but those that were not paid at all. (...) The claim is from October 2010 to December 2015”*. (From minute four and one second to minute eight and twenty-four seconds of the hearing audio incorporated into the file on July 15, 2019, at 15:07:20). Likewise, from the evidence called the Salary Book, it can be denoted that in the period from January 2010 to December 2010 the plaintiff had payroll 1-6 Subgerencia General and by January 2011 to December 2011 he had payroll 11-9 UEN Gestión Ambiental. (See images 73 and 74 of the complete electronic court file). Similarly, according to personnel action No.353741, [Nombre 001] is transferred workplace, effective as of 10/15/2010.

  From the documents called Travel Expenses Settlement (Liquidación de Gastos de Viaje) it can be observed that in January, February, March, April, May, August, and September 2010, the plaintiff performed other functions that are not consistent with those described for the position of General Water Manager (Gestor General en Aguas), that is, in all those documents with said dates he appears as part of the Deputy General Management performing work such as engineer transfer, meeting in Puerto Caldera, water distribution in Coronado, water distribution in Cartago, visit to projects in Limón, etc. (See images 118 to 132 74 of the complete electronic court file) And it is not until the travel expenses settlement document dated November 2, 2010, that the plaintiff appears already in the UEN Ambiental Estudios Básicos Department performing tasks of the monthly gauging program for the protection of water resources (recurso hídrico) and collection of water samples to determine turbidity in the Huetar Region. Thus, given the incongruity that exists in the claim and there being documentary evidence establishing that the plaintiff was not in said department in the months of July, August, and September 2010, this grievance is upheld.

  On the other hand, it alleges that in the judgment credibility was granted to the plaintiff's witnesses, however, witness [Nombre 004] was clear in pointing out that AyA had directives urging a decrease in spending and requesting that overtime work be reduced to the maximum. While it is true that the defendant's witness [Nombre 004] expressed what the appellant stated, he also disclosed that: “the time that exceeded what I had authorized to use was not paid (...) if it is time that is not authorized, the payment process cannot be carried out” (Minute 24 second 27 of the hearing audio incorporated into the file on July 19, 2019, at 11:04:17). Furthermore, from a study of the hearing held on July 19, 2019, it is clear that the plaintiff worked an overtime shift (jornada extraordinaria) that could sometimes extend beyond the overtime hours authorized by the superior since not only the plaintiff's witnesses [Nombre 007] and [Nombre 008] but also the defendant's witnesses [Nombre 005], [Nombre 006] and [Nombre 004] determined that the functions of said position can take their time, that they had to walk long distances depending on the area, and that said measurements were necessary, so overtime shifts were performed in order to carry out the work. For the foregoing, this grievance is upheld.

• 2)Regarding the inapplicability of substantive law: The defendant grounds its argument on the fact that, in salary and public employment matters, autonomous institutions, as is the case of AyA, are governed by the principle of administrative legality (principio de legalidad administrativa), also called the “legality block,” so it is not possible to grant greater benefits than those expressly authorized by the legal system that regulates this matter. Likewise, it considers that for the payment of overtime, the stipulations of Articles 37 and 39 of the AyA Autonomous Service Regulations (Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del AyA), agreement number 2004-465, published in La Gaceta No. 162 of August 19, 2004, must be complied with. In this regard, it must be determined that both this Chamber and the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) have repeatedly established that statutory relations, that is, public employment (empleo público), as in the present case, are governed by Public Law, even with principles different from those of Labor Law in accordance with ordinals 111 and 112 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública). (On the statutory nature of the relationship of AyA employees, see this Chamber's rulings number 160-2002 and 228-2005). It should be noted that the Constitutional Chamber, through ruling number 1696-92, at fifteen hours and thirty minutes of August 23, 1992, indicated: "This public employment regime (régimen de empleo público) necessarily implies consequences derived from the nature of that relationship, with its own general principles, which are not only different from those of (private) labor law but often opposed to them." By reason of the foregoing, as this is an employment relationship of this nature, the principle of legality that prevails in the public sector applies, according to which only those obligations authorized by the legal system can be considered lawful and effective as obligations on the part of the respective entities. This is regulated in numerals 11 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) and 11 and 13 of the General Public Administration Law. Thus, the time worked can only be categorized as overtime shift (jornada extraordinaria), with the consequences that this classification implies, if it is expressly justified and authorized. It is important to point out that, in the case in question, as it corresponds to a public service relationship, the prevailing principle is that of legality. Furthermore, in public employment matters, the administrative trend has been to restrict the concept of overtime shift, in order to seek adequate protection of public resources. As an example, the Public Administration Salary Law (Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública), in its canon 17, establishes: “The Minister may authorize work during overtime hours, but only in exceptional situations, when it is indispensable to satisfy special demands of the public service.” For its part, Article 6 of Law No. 8343, which is the Fiscal Contingency Law (Ley de Contingencia Fiscal), reads: “Overtime shifts may not be authorized for the same person successively for more than three months, by virtue of the fact that it distorts the extraordinary nature of this type of shift. Except for express justification and in accordance with said criteria, the authorization of overtime payments by the human resources instances and the heads of each State institution must be carried out with strict adherence to the criteria of necessity, reasonableness, and rationalization of public spending." In the present proceeding, AyA has an Autonomous Service Regulations, Regulation No. 465 of July 20, 2004, published in La Gaceta of August 19, 2004, in which its Article 39 regulates that: “The overtime (tiempo extraordinario) must be previously and expressly requested by the corresponding department, and authorized by the Human Resources Directorate (Dirección de Recursos Humanos) or Regional Headquarters (Jefatura Regional) as appropriate, except in duly demonstrated emergency cases, once the respective procedures have been completed. Likewise, the payment of overtime hours to which employees are entitled in accordance with the law shall be processed in independent reports, indicating the position held by each employee, the number of work hours, and the cause that motivated this shift. Said controls must necessarily be submitted within the fifteen days immediately following the day on which the overtime work was done, and the failure to submit the corresponding reports will imply the nonexistence of the overtime shift.” This Chamber considers that the plaintiff was approved a number of monthly overtime hours, which were recognized as appropriate. Regarding the burden of proof, in accordance with transitory provision I subsection 1) of Law No. 9343: “the present reform shall be applicable to proceedings initiated before the effectiveness of this law, with the following exceptions: 1) the applicable evidentiary regime (evidentiary burdens and appraisal of evidentiary elements) shall be that of the prior legislation.” Therefore, applying the above cited, the plaintiff had to demonstrate having been previously authorized by the respective head or competent body to work the overtime hours he petitions before the judicial instance. The content of the logs provided by the defendant to accredit the overtime hours worked does not demonstrate that those hours had previously been endorsed by the head. Similarly, from the statements of the plaintiff's witnesses, that is, Messrs. [Nombre 007] and [Nombre 008], it can be deduced that they fail to prove that the overtime hours worked were previously authorized by the Head. Rather, both disclosed that they were always paid less than the reported overtime hours and that the problem occurred when they sent the report to the head to make the effective payment since they recorded the overtime shift worked and they were paid a lesser amount. In contrast, the defendant's witnesses: Mrs. [Nombre 005] and Messrs. [Nombre 004] and [Nombre 006], declare that in accordance with the directives, they could not pay them the hours that exceeded those approved and that only those previously authorized were paid to them. From the other evidence provided to the proceeding, the foregoing cannot be evidenced either, so this Chamber concludes that the plaintiff fails to meet his evidentiary obligation.

Now, it should be noted that in a similar trial this Chamber resolved: “It is important to highlight that the relationship between the parties was a public employment relationship, so that in order to work overtime and subsequently claim payment for it, this must have been previously authorized, since the possibility of working beyond the ordinary workday cannot be left to the worker’s will and then later claim payment, without having had the employer’s approval (…). In this regard, this Chamber has already indicated on repeated occasions that the payment of overtime in the public sector only proceeds when there is prior authorization to work it: ‘Likewise, since this is a public employment relationship, the principle of legality that prevails in the public sector is applicable, according to which only those obligations that are authorized by the legal system can be considered lawful and effective as obligations chargeable to the respective entities (articles 11 of the Political Constitution, 11 and 13 of the General Law of Public Administration).

According to this, the time worked can only be classified as overtime, with the consequences that this classification entails, if it is expressly justified and authorized, which does not occur in the case under study when it first exceeded 10 hours per month and later, 30 (see vote 331-04 of 15:20 hours of May 15, 2004)’ (Second Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, vote no. 172-15 of 9:15 hours of February 12, 2015)” (judgment number 682-2015). As a corollary to the foregoing, this Chamber concludes that the grievance is well-founded.

IV. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS

Based on the arguments previously described, the appeal is partially granted. The exceptions of lack of standing, both active and passive, and lack of right are upheld, since the plaintiff has no merit in his claim. The lawsuit is dismissed in all respects and it is resolved without special condemnation for costs, as this Chamber considers that the petitioner acted in good faith in the processing of the case and could have believed he had a right to the payment of the overtime claimed, in accordance with article 563 of the reformed Labor Code.

THEREFORE:

The appeal is partially granted.

The exceptions of lack of standing, both active and passive, and lack of right are granted. The claim is dismissed, and it is resolved without a special award of costs.

Res: 2023001286 CCASTRILLO | | <img src="" width="162" height="74" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" data-mce-src=""> | | Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez | | | | <img src="" width="162" height="74" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" data-mce-src=""> | | | The Notary recorded: that he has verified the identity of the grantors by means of the respective identification documents in accordance with the Law, which are indicated for each one below, and that the transaction contained in this deed does not contravene the provisions of the Social Protection Law against Domestic Violence, Ley 7586, nor any other special law; and that the area of the property is outside the Zona Marítimo Terrestre (ZMT), Forestry Reserve, National Park, or any other protected area.

I.ADRIAN ALONSO CAMPOS ALVARADO, holder of identity card number dos cero cuatrocientos noventa novecientos sesenta y seis, married once to IVETTE VANESA VENEGAS ZAMORA, holder of identity card number cinco cero trescientos diecisiete mil tres, and

II.FRANCISCO JAVIER CHAVES CHAVES, holder of identity card number uno setecientos cuarenta y nueve quinientos sesenta y nueve, married once to ROXANA CHACÓN ARTAVIA, holder of identity card number uno setecientos cuarenta y nueve mil seiscientos sesenta y dos,

</p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">Rodrigo</span><span style="width:1.58pt; display:inline-block"> </span><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub"> Campos Esquivel</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore"> </span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="\" width=\"162\" height=\"74\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" data-mce-src=\"\"></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub\">Maureen Roxana Solís Madrigal</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">Digitally Signed Document</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:'Times New Roman'; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">-- Verification code --</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\"></span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">N4BKHSSUIYM61 </span></p><div style=\"-aw-headerfooter-type:footer-primary; clear:both\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"-aw-field-start:true\"></span><span style=\"-aw-field-code:'PAGE'\"></span><span style=\"-aw-field-separator:true\"></span><span style=\"font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">1</span><span style=\"-aw-field-end:true\"></span><span style=\"font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">EXP: </span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">16-001465-1178-LA</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:1pt; text-align:center; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; border-top:0.75pt solid #000000; background-color:#ffffff; -aw-border-top:0pt single\"><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\"> </span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">Telephones: 2295-3671, 2295-3676, 2295-3675 y 2295-4406.</span></p> Facsimile: 2295-3009. Email: sala-segunda@poder-judicial.go.cr

<span data-mce-type="bookmark" id="mce_1_start" data-mce-style="overflow:hidden;line-height:0px" style="overflow: hidden; line-height: 0px;"></span>Revisión del Documento Corte Suprema de Justicia Res: 2023-001286 SALA SEGUNDA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las catorce horas treinta y cinco minutos del veintiseis de mayo de dos mil veintitres .

Proceso ordinario seguido ante el Juzgado de Trabajo del Primer Circuito Judicial de San José, Sección Segunda, por [Nombre 001], gestor general, contra el INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ACUEDUCTOS Y ALCANTARILLADOS, representado por su apoderada generalísima [Nombre 002], divorciada, administrador de empresas. Figuran como apoderados especiales judiciales; del accionante, el licenciado Nelson Loaiza Araya; del accionado, la licenciada Ericka Brenes Mirault, vecina de Cartago. Todos mayores, casados, abogados y vecinos de San José, con las excepciones indicadas.

Redacta el Magistrado Vargas Soto; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

I. ANTECEDENTES

La parte actora interpuso demanda, aduciendo que empezó a laborar para la parte demandada desde el 2003 hasta la actualidad. Añadió que trabajó como Gestor General en Aguas en Sabana Sur. Devengó un salario de cuatrocientos diecisiete mil colones mensuales aproximadamente. Explicó que su horario era de lunes a viernes de 7:45 a.m. a 4 p.m. Detalló que tenían bitácoras de las horas extra adeudadas, y estas eran revisadas por el jefe inmediato. Estableció que dichas bitácoras eran de horas extra por días que entraba antes, salía tarde o si trabajaba sábados o domingos. Exteriorizó que solicita el pago de las horas extra de los periodos de octubre de 2010 a junio de 2014, en el cual se pagaron los meses agosto y diciembre de 2013 y enero y abril de 2014. Específico que fueron 38 meses pagados parcialmente, 5 meses que no se pagó ningún monto: julio, agosto y setiembre de 2010, abril y setiembre de 2012.

Indicó que en el periodo de octubre de2010 a diciembre 2015 no se canceló ningún monto. Determinó que si se encontraba asegurado ante la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social. Solicitó que se declare con lugar la demanda y se condene a la parte demandada al pago horas extra parcialmente adeudadas que no han sido canceladas, intereses legales que se pueden generar de las sumas que se aprueben y ambas costas del proceso. (imágenes 1 al 3 de la vista completa del expediente electrónico del Juzgado). La parte demandada respondió de forma negativa e interpuso las excepciones de falta de derecho y falta de legitimación ad causam activa y pasiva. (imágenes 31 al 40 de la vista completa del expediente electrónico del Juzgado). El juzgado de primera instancia rechazó las excepciones de falta de derecho y falta de legitimación pasiva y activa y declaró con lugar la demanda. Se condena al Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados a reconocerle al actor las horas extras laboradas y no canceladas correspondientes a veinte horas extras no remuneradas durante los meses que se pagaron parcialmente y cincuenta horas extras durante los meses que no hubo remuneración alguna sobre dicho rubro, de la siguiente forma: en los períodos de octubre del 2010 a junio del 2014, (correspondiente a 38 meses pagados parcialmente, en estos períodos se pagaron 4 meses que serían agosto y diciembre del 2013 y enero y abril del 2014) y 5 meses que no se pagó ningún monto que (serian julio, agosto y septiembre del 2010 y abril y septiembre del 2012), y en los períodos de julio del 2014 a diciembre del 2015, no se canceló ningún monto.

Asimismo, ordenó el pago al trabajador de los ajustes correspondientes en los rubros de vacaciones, aguinaldo y salario escolar para dichos períodos, intereses legales, indexación y ambas costas del proceso fijando las personales en un 25% del total de la condenatoria. (imagen 1707-1720 de la vista completa del expediente electrónico del Juzgado) A razón de la inconformidad con la sentencia, la parte vencida presentó recurso de casación. (imágenes 1723-1734 de la vista completa del expediente electrónico del Juzgado)

II. AGRAVIOS

La parte demandada interpone recurso con fundamento en los siguientes motivos de agravio: Alega existe una indebida valoración de la prueba ya que la jueza les otorgó credibilidad a los testigos del actor, pero el testigo [Nombre 004] fue claro en señalar que AyA tuvo directrices donde se instaba a disminuir el gasto y solicitaba que el trabajo extraordinario se redujera al máximo. Establece que, si se analiza los libros de salarios, se evidencia que el tiempo extraordinario fueron debidamente cancelados siguiendo los procedimientos determinados y conforme a las directrices y normativa vigente. Manifiesta que carece de fundamento el alegato del actor porque para que proceda el pago por dicho tiempo extraordinario debe de haber un reporte del mismo aprobado por la jefatura correspondiente, situación que no se da en este caso en concreto ya que el trabajador no demuestra que dichas horas fueron debidamente autorizadas.

Por otro lado, indica que hay inaplicabilidad de ley sustantiva y define que desde la contestación se expreso que para el pago de tiempo extraordinario se debe cumplir con lo estipulado en el Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del AyA, Acuerdo No.2004-465 publicado en la Gaceta No.162 del 19 de agosto de 2004. Cita los artículos 37, 38 y 39 de dicho acuerdo y estipula que las instituciones autónomas se rigen por el principio de legalidad administrativa por lo que no pueden otorgar mayores beneficios que los que expresamente estén autorizados por el ordenamiento jurídico. Hace referencia a los artículos 11 de la Constitución Política y 11 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública que regulan dicho principio. Además, menciona el voto 2000-00106 de las diecinueve horas con cuarenta y cinco minutos del cuatro de enero del dos mil de la Sala Constitucional y una resolución de Sala Segunda. Considera que el AyA no puede acceder a la petición del actor por razones de legalidad y constitucionalidad. Solicita entonces que se declare con lugar el recurso de casación y se revoque la sentencia de primera instancia condenando a la parte actora al pago de ambas costas del proceso.

III. ANÁLISIS DEL CASO

• 1)Sobre la indebida valoración de la prueba: La apoderada judicial del Instituto Costarricense de Acueductos y Alcantarillados alega que la jueza comete un grave error al sentenciar que el actor laboró un total de 50 horas extra mensuales; entre julio del año 2010 a diciembre del 2015; señalando que la demandada debe cancelar al actor, 20 horas extra no remuneradas durante los meses que se pagaron parcialmente y 50 horas extra durante los meses que no hubo remuneración alguna sobre dicho rubro de la siguiente forma: en el periodo de octubre del 2010 a junio de 2014 (correspondiente a 38 meses pagados parcialmente, en estos periodos se pagaron 4 meses que serían agosto y diciembre del 2013 y enero y abril del 2014) y 5 meses que no se pagó ningún monto que serían julio, agosto, setiembre del 2010 y abril y setiembre del 2012. Reprocha la parte que lo peticionado por el actor fue abril y setiembre del 2012 ya que el trabajador para julio, agosto y setiembre del 2010 no laboraba en la UEN de Gestión Ambiental. Lleva razón el recurrente en cuanto a este agravio puesto que el mismo actor en sus pretensiones especifica que primero es en el periodo de octubre del 2010 a junio del 2014 sin embargo luego existe incongruencia con la misma e indica que en julio, agosto y setiembre 2010 no se pagó ningún monto por horas extra. De hecho, en la audiencia el apoderado judicial del actor hace una aclaración del hecho sexto y manifiesta: “a don [Nombre 001] lo que se le pago parcialmente fueron los meses de octubre 2010 a junio 2014 a excepción de los meses de agosto y diciembre de 2013 y enero y abril del 2014. (..) y no le canceló jornada extraordinaria alguna en los meses de julio, agosto y setiembre de 2010, abril y setiembre 2012 y julio de 2014 a diciembre a 2015. Eso es lo mismo que dice el hecho sexto nada más que con comas y separado. Hecha esta aclaración y también de conformidad con el artículo 567, la pretensión de don [Nombre 001], la pretensión principal en el punto a) que consta en el folio 4 del expediente, es el pago de hora extra parcialmente adeudas que no han sido canceladas, aquí habría que necesariamente que adicionarle dos cosas, primero, no solo las que se le pagaron parcialmente sino las que del todo no se le pagaron. (…) El reclamo es de octubre de 2010 de diciembre del 2015“. (Del minuto cuatro con un segundo al minuto ocho segundo veinticuatro del audio de audiencia incorporada al expediente el 15 de julio de 2019 a las 15:07:20) Asimismo, de la prueba denominada como Libro de salarios se puede denotar que en el periodo de enero 2010 a diciembre 2010 el actor tenía una planilla 1-6 Subgerencia General y ya para enero 2011 a diciembre 2011 tenía la planilla 11-9 UEN Gestión Ambiental. (Ver imágenes 73 y 74 del expediente completo electrónico del Juzgado) De igual manera de acuerdo a la acción de personal No.353741 se traslada de lugar de trabajo al señor [Nombre 001] rigiendo a partir del 15/10/2010. De los documentos denominados Liquidación de Gastos de Viaje se puede observar que en enero, febrero, marzo, abril, mayo, agosto y setiembre 2010, el actor realizó otras funciones que no son conforme a las descritas para el puesto de Gestor General en Aguas, es decir, en todos esos documentos con dichas fechas sale como parte de Subgerencia General realizando trabajos como traslado de ingeniero, reunión en Puerto Caldera, reparto de agua en Coronado, reparto de agua en Cartago, visita a proyectos en Limón, etc. (Ver imágenes 118 a 132 74 del expediente completo electrónico del Juzgado) Y no es hasta el documento de liquidación de gastos de viaje con fecha de 2 de noviembre de 2010 que sale el actor ya en el Departamento UEN Ambiental Estudios Básicos realizando labores de programa mensual de aforos en la protección del recurso Hídrico y recolección de muestras de agua para determinar turbiedad en la Región Huetar. Así las cosas, de la incongruencia que existe en la pretensión y al haber prueba documental que establezca que el actor no estaba en dicho departamento en los meses de julio, agosto y setiembre de 2010, se procede a acoger dicho agravio. Por otro lado, alega que en la sentencia se les otorgó credibilidad a los testigos del actor, sin embargo, el testigo [Nombre 004] fue claro al señalar que el AyA tuvo directrices, donde se instaba a disminuir el gasto y se solicitaba que el trabajo extraordinario se redujera al máximo. Si bien es cierto, el testigo de la parte demandada [Nombre 004] expresó lo dicho por la recurrente, también exteriorizó que: “lo que sobrepasaba el tiempo que yo tenía autorizado para utilizar no se pagó (…) si es un tiempo que no esta autorizado no se puede realizar el trámite de pago” (Minuto 24 segundo 27 del audio de la audiencia incorporado al expediente el 19 de julio de 2019 a las 11:04:17) Además, de un estudio de la audiencia realizada el 19 de julio de 2019, queda claro que el actor laboró una jornada extraordinaria que podía extenderse a veces más de las horas extra autorizadas por el superior puesto que no solo los testigos del actor [Nombre 007] y [Nombre 008] sino los testigos de la parte demandada [Nombre 005], [Nombre 006] y [Nombre 004] determinaron que las funciones de dicho puesto pueden llevarse su tiempo, que se tenían que caminar grandes trayectos dependiendo de la zona y que dichas mediciones eran necesarias por lo que se hacían jornadas extraordinarias para poder llevar a cabo el trabajo. Por lo anterior, se acoge este agravio. 2) Sobre la inaplicabilidad de la ley sustantiva: Fundamenta la parte accionada que en materia salarial y de empleo público, las instituciones autónomas como es el caso del AyA, se rigen por el principio de legalidad administrativa o también llamado “bloque de legalidad” por lo que es no es posible otorgar mayores beneficios que los expresamente autorizados por el ordenamiento jurídico que regula esta materia. Asimismo, considera que para el pago de tiempo extraordinario se debe cumplir con lo estipulado en los artículos 37 y 39 del Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio del AyA, acuerdo número 2004-465, publicado en La Gaceta N°. 162 del 19 de agosto del 2004. Al respecto, es necesario determinar que, tanto esta Sala como la Sala Constitucional, de manera reiterada, han establecido que las relaciones estatutarias, es decir, de empleo público, como en el presente caso se rigen por el Derecho Público, incluso con principios distintos a los del Derecho Laboral de conformidad con los ordinales 111 y 112 de La Ley General de la Administración Pública. (Sobre la naturaleza estatutaria de la relación de los servidores del AyA, pueden consultarse los votos de esta Sala número 160-2002 y 228-2005) Cabe destacar que la Sala Constitucional mediante el fallo número 1696-92, de las quince horas y treinta minutos del 23 de agosto de 1992, señaló: "Este régimen de empleo público implica, necesariamente, consecuencias derivadas de la naturaleza de esa relación, con principios generales propios, ya no solo distintos de los del derecho laboral (privado), sino muchas veces contrapuestos a estos". A razón de lo anterior, tratándose de una relación de empleo de esta naturaleza, resulta de aplicación el principio de legalidad que impera en el sector público, de acuerdo con el cual, únicamente se pueden considerar lícitas y efectivas como obligaciones a cargo de los respectivos entes, aquellas que se encuentren autorizadas por el ordenamiento. Esto regulado en los numerales 11 de la Constitución Política y 11 y 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Así las cosas, el tiempo laborado solo puede ser conceptuado como jornada extraordinaria, con las consecuencias que esa calificación implica, si está justificado y autorizado de manera expresa. Es de importancia indicar que, en el caso en cuestión, al corresponder a una relación de servicio público, el principio que impera es el de legalidad. Además, en materia de empleo público, la tendencia administrativa ha sido la de restringir el concepto de jornada extraordinaria, con el fin de buscar una protección adecuada de los recursos públicos. A modo de ejemplo, la Ley de Salarios de la Administración Pública, en su canon 17 estatuye: “El Ministro podrá autorizar el trabajo durante horas extras, pero sólo en situaciones excepcionales, cuando sea indispensable satisfacer exigencias especiales del servicio público”. Por su lado, el artículo 6 de la Ley No. 8343, que es la Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, reza: “No podrán autorizarse jornadas extraordinarias a una misma persona en forma sucesiva durante más de tres meses, en virtud de que desnaturaliza el carácter extraordinario de este tipo de jornada. Salvo justificación expresa y conforme a dichos criterios, la autorización de los pagos de horas extras por parte de las instancias de recursos humanos y los jerarcas de cada institución del Estado, deberá realizarse con estricto apego a los criterios de necesidad, razonabilidad y racionalización del gasto público". En el presente proceso, el AyA, cuenta con un Reglamento Autónomo de Servicio, Reglamento No. 465 del 20 de julio de 2004, publicado en La Gaceta del 19 de agosto de 2004, en el cual su artículo 39 regula que: “El tiempo extraordinario debe ser previa y expresamente solicitado por la dependencia correspondiente, y autorizado por la Dirección de Recursos Humanos o Jefatura Regional según corresponda, salvo en casos de emergencia debidamente demostrados, una vez cumplidos los trámites respectivos. Asimismo, el pago de horas extraordinarias a que tengan derecho los servidores de acuerdo con la ley, se tramitará en reportes independientes, indicando el cargo que desempeña cada servidor, el número de horas de trabajo y la causa que motivó esta jornada. Dichos controles deberán presentarse necesariamente dentro de los quince días inmediatos siguientes a aquél en que se hizo el trabajo extraordinario, y la falta de presentación de los reportes correspondientes implicará la inexistencia de jornada extraordinaria”. Considera esta Sala que al accionante se le aprobó una cantidad de horas extra mensuales, las cuales era reconocidas como correspondía. En cuanto a la carga de la prueba, de acuerdo con el transitorio I inciso 1) de la Ley No. 9343: “la presente reforma será aplicable a los procesos iniciados antes de la vigencia de esta ley, con las siguientes excepciones: 1) el régimen probatorio aplicable (cargas probatorias y valoración de los elementos probatorios) será el de la legislación anterior.” Entonces, aplicando lo citado supra, el demandante debía demostrar haber sido de previo autorizado por la jefatura respectiva u órgano competente para laborar las horas extra que peticiona ante la instancia judicial. El contenido de las bitácoras aportadas por el demandado para acreditar las horas extra trabajadas no demuestran que esas horas hubiesen sido previamente avaladas por la jefatura. De igual manera, de las manifestaciones de los testigos de la parte actora, es decir de los señores [Nombre 007] y [Nombre 008], se deduce que no logran acreditar que las horas extra laboradas fueron autorizadas previo por la Jefatura. Mas bien, ambos exteriorizaron que siempre les pagaban menos de las horas extra reportadas y que el problema sucedía cuando mandaban el reporte a la jefatura para hacer el pago efectivo puesto que ellos antotaban la jornada extraordinaria laborada y les pagaban un monto menor. En cambio, los testigos de la parte demandada: la señora [Nombre 005], y los señores [Nombre 004] y [Nombre 006], declaran que de acuerdo con las directrices no podían pagarles las horas que sobrepasaran de las aprobadas y que solamente se les cancelaba las previamente autorizadas. De la demás prueba aportada al proceso, tampoco puede evidenciarse lo anterior, por lo que esta Sala concluye que el accionante incumple con su obligación probatoria. Ahora bien, cabe acotar que en un juicio similar esta Sala resolvió: “Es importante resaltar que la relación entre las partes era una relación de empleo público, de manera que para laborar tiempo extraordinario y pretender posteriormente su pago, esto debía de haber estado autorizado de previo, pues no puede dejarse a la voluntad del trabajador la posibilidad de laborar más allá de su jornada ordinaria para después pretender el pago, sin haber contado con el visto bueno del empleador (…). Al respecto, esta Sala ya ha indicado en reiteradas ocasiones que el pago de horas extra en el sector público solo procede cuando existe autorización previa para laborarlas: “Asimismo, al tratarse de una relación de empleo público, resulta de aplicación el principio de legalidad que impera en el sector público, según el cual sólo pueden considerarse lícitas y efectivas como obligaciones a cargo de los respectivos entes, aquellas que se encuentren autorizadas por el ordenamiento (artículos 11 de la Constitución Política, 11 y 13 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública). Conforme a ello, el tiempo laborado solo puede ser conceptuado como jornada extraordinaria, con las consecuencias que esa calificación implica, si está justificado y autorizado de manera expresa, lo que no sucede en el caso en estudio cuando sobrepasaba primero, las 10 horas por mes y después, las 30 (ver voto 331-04 de las 15:20 horas del 15 de mayo del 2004)” (Sala Segunda de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, voto n.º 172-15 de las 9:15 horas del 12 de febrero del 2015)” (sentencia número 682-2015). Como corolario de lo expuesto, esta Sala concluye que es de recibo el agravio.

IV. CONSIDERACIONES FINALES

Con base en los argumentos anteriormente descritos, se procede a declarar parcialmente con lugar el recurso. Se acoge las excepciones de falta de legitimación tanto activa como pasiva, y falta de derecho, por cuanto, al accionante no le asiste razón en su reclamo. Se declara sin lugar la demanda en todos los extremos y se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas, pues considera esta Sala que el promovente actuó de buena fe en la tramitación del proceso y pudo creer tener derecho al pago de las horas extra pretendidas, de conformidad con el ordinal 563 del Código de Trabajo reformado.

POR TANTO:

Se declara parcialmente con lugar el recurso. Se acogen las excepciones de falta de legitimación tanto activa como pasiva, y falta de derecho. Se declara sin lugar la demanda y se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas.

Res: 2023001286 CCASTRILLO Luis Porfirio Sánchez Rodríguez Roxana Chacón Artavia Alexis Fernando Vargas Soto Rodrigo Campos Esquivel Maureen Roxana Solís Madrigal 1