← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00195-2021 Tribunal de Apelación Civil y Trabajo Puntarenas Sede Puntarenas Materia Civil · Tribunal de Apelación Civil y Trabajo Puntarenas Sede Puntarenas Materia Civil · 19/07/2021
OutcomeResultado
The exemption from costs is revoked and the plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the expired proceedings.Se revoca la exención de costas y se condena a la parte demandante al pago de las costas del proceso caduco.
SummaryResumen
The Civil and Labor Appeals Court of Puntarenas reviews an appeal against the exemption from costs ordered by the trial court upon declaring the dismissal due to expiration of a summary interlocutory proceeding. The defendant argued that, once the proceeding expired, the plaintiff should bear the costs, as the exemption was based on a presumption of good faith without proper legal reasoning. The appellate court revokes the exemption and imposes costs on the plaintiff, concluding that good faith in litigation was not proven — a necessary condition for applying the exemption under Article 73.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code. It further notes that discussion of bad faith is irrelevant to the cost ruling. The decision reinforces that the general rule is to impose costs on the unsuccessful party and that any exemption must be reasoned and grounded on demonstrated good faith, loyalty, probity, and rational use of the procedural system.El Tribunal de Apelación Civil y Trabajo de Puntarenas analiza un recurso contra la exención de costas decretada por el juzgado de primera instancia al declarar la caducidad de un proceso sumario de interdicto. La parte demandada apeló argumentando que, al declararse la caducidad, la parte actora debía ser condenada al pago de las costas, ya que la exención se basó en una presunción de buena fe sin fundamentación suficiente. El tribunal superior revoca la exención y condena en costas a la parte demandante, al considerar que no se acreditó la buena fe en el litigio, presupuesto necesario para aplicar la eximente del artículo 73.2 inciso 4 del Código Procesal Civil. Además, señala que la discusión sobre la mala fe no es relevante para el pronunciamiento en costas. El fallo establece que la regla general es la condena al vencido y que la exención debe ser razonada y basada en la acreditación de buena fe, lealtad, probidad y uso racional del sistema procesal.
Key excerptExtracto clave
We consider it necessary to make a brief foray into hermeneutics in order to set out the determination of the ruling. The issue of costs must be approached in accordance with Article 73.1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which reads: "In any final decision, the court shall, of its own motion, order the losing party to pay the costs. Costs include attorney’s fees, compensation for the time the party spent attending procedural acts where their presence was necessary, and other essential expenses of the proceedings." This provision contains the first two rules applicable to all civil proceedings: it requires judges to rule on costs of their own motion and imposes this obligation on the party that has been defeated in the proceedings. The provision then goes on to address descriptive norms which, for the purposes of this appeal, need not be examined further, as they are not the subject of deliberation under the arguments presented. Paragraph 2 of the same article sets out the factual circumstances in which the rule requiring the losing party to pay costs may be disapplied when issuing the final decision, by granting an exemption. It reads: "Exemption may be granted, in whole or in part, provided reasons are given when: 1. The complaint or counterclaim includes exaggerated claims. 2. The judgment admits significant defenses raised by the losing party that substantially alter what was sought. 3. There is a significant reciprocal defeat regarding claims, defenses, or exceptions. 4. The party has acted in good faith, loyalty, probity, and made rational use of the procedural system. If no costs are awarded, each party shall bear their own costs, and both parties shall bear common costs." This establishes the conditions under which the costs exemption that must generally accompany any final decision against the losing party may be waived. Of particular interest here is this judicial power, essentially under the fourth condition. It is at this point that the alleged disagreement is resolved. Note that this fourth paragraph allows exemption when the party has acted in good faith, loyalty, probity, and has made rational use of the procedural system. We emphasize that this exemption may be applied by any judge, provided that good faith is proven during the proceedings through loyalty, probity, and rational use of the system. In particular, the discussion of procedural bad faith is by no means part of the assessment that must be followed for the decision on costs. Based on the foregoing, we note that the appellant disagreed with the exemption granted at first instance, arguing that it should have been applied upon the declaration of the expiration of the proceedings and that the defendant was forced to incur attorney's fees for representation and participation in the proceedings. The appellant also alleged that no explanation was given for the good faith applied and that, in their view, bad faith in the litigation was actually established. We consider that the judgment indeed does not contain a determination of the reasons for good faith to apply the costs exemption, as the analysis literally stated: "... IV.- COSTS: In accordance with Article 73.2(4) of the Civil Procedure Code, the court rules without special assessment of costs, as the undersigned judge considers that the plaintiff did not litigate in bad faith when filing the present complaint, which ends in this manner due to the expiration of the proceedings...." That is, the trial judge inappropriately referred to bad faith in the proceedings, which she considered not present, and thereby applied the exemption. It could well be argued that she did not provide any explanation regarding the good faith required for the exemption, since she started from a basis different from that set out in the rule — that is, good faith. We consider that the scope of action afforded by the appeal and the arguments presented allow us to undertake the evaluative task of determining that the judgment must be reversed, without altering the substance of the decision. There is no proof of good faith in the litigation; the trial judge did not so find. That point has not been contested, so the logical consequence is the general imposition of costs under Article 73.1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appellant is correct that the exemption under paragraph 73.2(4) cannot be applied since there is no demonstration of good faith, and as an unproven exception, the general rule on costs applies, as we now decide. This is also consistent with the reasoning of the judgment that found no elements of good faith in the proceedings; although it cited good faith, its reasoning referred to bad faith. Finally, with regard to bad faith, it is irrelevant, as the applicable mandatory rule does not alter the imposition of costs upon proof of bad faith. Therefore, the revocation of the exemption requested by the defendant must be granted without further consideration. In addition, since the appealed decision did not set any amount for costs, whether liquidated or in abstract proportion, this Court lacks the authority to set a percentage or quantification as requested in the appeal. The only consequence of the revocation granted is the imposition on the plaintiff of payment of the costs incurred; the corresponding quantification shall be carried out in due course and in accordance with the procedure provided for that purpose. In conclusion, we reverse the decision appealed from solely with regard to the exemption from costs for the plaintiff, thereby imposing that obligation on the plaintiff.Consideramos necesario realizar una breve incursión en la labor hermenéutica a fin de exponer la determinación del fallo. La forma en que debe ser abordado el tema de las costas, deviene del artículo 73.1 del Código Procesal Civil, que reza "En toda resolución que ponga fin al proceso, de oficio, se condenará al vencido al pago de las costas. Se consideran costas los honorarios de abogado, la indemnización del tiempo invertido por la parte en asistir a los actos del procedimiento en que fuera necesaria su presencia y los demás gastos indispensables del proceso." Dicho numeral contiene las primeras dos normas de aplicación genérica a todo proceso civil, establece la imposición de oficio por parte de las personas juzgadoras, del pronunciamiento sobre costas del proceso; e impone esta condena a la parte que ha sido vencida en el proceso. Luego la norma realizó incursión en normas descriptivas que por el sentido que llevamos en esta relación, no es necesario revisar; además que de no son objeto de deliberación según los argumentos del recurso. El inciso 2, del mismo artículo establece las situaciones de hecho en que la norma de imposición del pago de costas a la parte vencida, puede dejar de aplicarse para dictar la resolución de finalización para el proceso; en cuanto las exime. Así entonces leemos "Se podrá eximir, total o parcialmente, de forma razonada cuando: 1. La demanda o contrademanda comprenda pretensiones exageradas. 2. El fallo admita defensas de importancia invocadas por el vencido, que modifiquen sustancialmente lo pretendido. 3. Haya vencimiento recíproco trascendente sobre pretensiones, defensas o excepciones. 4. La parte haya ajustado su conducta a la buena fe, la lealtad, la probidad y al uso racional del sistema procesal. Si no hubiera condenatoria en costas, cada parte pagará las que hubiera causado y ambas partes las que fueran comunes.". Establece ahora la normativa, los presupuestos bajo los cuales la exención de las costas que en forma genérica debe acompañara todo pronunciamiento de terminación del proceso; sobre el vencido. Aquí nos interesa destacar esta potestad jurisdiccional, básicamente en el 4 presupuesto. Es este punto donde se resuelve la disconformidad alegada. Veamos que este inciso cuarto, permite la exención cuando la parte haya ajustado su conducta a la buena fe, la lealtad, la probidad y el uso racional del sistema procesal. Destacamos que la aplicación de esta exención es viable para todo juzgador, siempre que el tema de la buena fe sea acreditado durante el proceso a través de la lealtad, la probidad y el uso racional del sistema. Notemos en particular que la discusión sobre la mala fe procesal, no es ni por asomo parte de la valoración que debe seguirse para el pronunciamiento en costas. Con lo anterior, notamos que la parte recurrente se mostró inconforme con la exención acordada en primera instancia, dado que estima que debió aplicarse dada la caducidad del proceso; así como la obligación para la accionada de incurrir en gastos de abogado para su representación y participación en el proceso; a la vez que alegó la ausencia de explicación de la buena fe que aplicó; y finalmente, que a su criterio más bien si se acreditó la mala fe en el ligitio. Pues bien, consideramos que ciertamente el fallo no contiene determinación de las razones de buena fe para aplicar la eximente en costas, pues literalmente sobre el análisis dijo "... IV.- COSTAS: De conformidad con el artículo 73.2 inciso 4) del Código Procesal Civil, se procede resolver sin especial condenatoria en costas, ya que considera la suscrita Juzgadora que la parte actora no litigó de mala fe a la hora de interponer la presente demanda, y que culmina de este modo, por la existencia de caducidad....". Es decir, inapropiadamente la juzgadora de instancia hizo mención a la mala fe en el proceso, la que estimó no observable y con ello, aplicó exención. Bien puede sostenerse que no hizo exposición alguna respecto a la buena fe para eximir, desde que partió de una base distinta a la dispuesta por la norma; es decir, la buena fe. Ahora bien, consideramos que la amplitud de acción que nos genera el recurso y los argumentos expuestos, nos permiten la labor evaluadora para observar que debemos revocar el fallo; con lo cual no se altera el contenido del pronunciamiento. No hay acreditación de buena fe en el litigio, no lo determinó así la persona juzgadora de instancia; no ha sido objetado ese punto, por lo que la consecuencia lógica es la imposición genérica del artículo 73.1 del Código Procesal Civil. Lleva razón la parte apelante respecto a que no es dable aplicar la exención del numeral 73.2 inciso 4, toda vez que no hay demostración de buena fe. Siendo ello una excepción no acreditada; aplica la norma genérica de imposición de costas como ahora resolvemos. Es coherente además con la cimentación del fallo que no encontró elementos de buena fe en el proceso; aunque así lo citó, su fundamento fue respecto a la mala fe. Y por último, respecto a la mala fe, se torna estéril desde que la norma imperativa correspondiente, en nada modifica la condena ante tal acreditación. Es así como por ese imperativo, procede sin más la revocatoria peticionada por la accionada de la exención. Aunado a lo anterior, siendo que el pronunciamiento recurrido no realizó fijación alguna de las costas, sea en líquido o sea en proporción abstracta; carece este Tribunal de la facultad de dictar el porcentaje o cuantificación alguna como fue pedido en el recurso. Lo único que permite la revocatoria dictada es la imposición a la parte demandante, del pago de las costas causadas. La fijación correspondiente será realizada de forma oportuna y en resguardo del procedimiento previsto para ello. En conclusión, revocamos el pronunciamiento venido en alzada, únicamente en cuanto eximió del pago de costas a la parte actora; para imponer tal obligación a los demandantes.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"En toda resolución que ponga fin al proceso, de oficio, se condenará al vencido al pago de las costas."
"In any final decision, the court shall, of its own motion, order the losing party to pay the costs."
Considerando Tercero
"En toda resolución que ponga fin al proceso, de oficio, se condenará al vencido al pago de las costas."
Considerando Tercero
"Se podrá eximir, total o parcialmente, de forma razonada cuando: ... 4. La parte haya ajustado su conducta a la buena fe, la lealtad, la probidad y al uso racional del sistema procesal."
"Exemption may be granted, in whole or in part, provided reasons are given when: ... 4. The party has acted in good faith, loyalty, probity, and made rational use of the procedural system."
Considerando Tercero
"Se podrá eximir, total o parcialmente, de forma razonada cuando: ... 4. La parte haya ajustado su conducta a la buena fe, la lealtad, la probidad y al uso racional del sistema procesal."
Considerando Tercero
"No hay acreditación de buena fe en el litigio, no lo determinó así la persona juzgadora de instancia; no ha sido objetado ese punto, por lo que la consecuencia lógica es la imposición genérica del artículo 73.1 del Código Procesal Civil."
"There is no proof of good faith in the litigation; the trial judge did not so find. That point has not been contested, so the logical consequence is the general imposition of costs under Article 73.1 of the Civil Procedure Code."
Considerando Tercero
"No hay acreditación de buena fe en el litigio, no lo determinó así la persona juzgadora de instancia; no ha sido objetado ese punto, por lo que la consecuencia lógica es la imposición genérica del artículo 73.1 del Código Procesal Civil."
Considerando Tercero
Full documentDocumento completo
VOTO NÚMERO 195 - C- L-2021 TRIBUNAL DE APELACIÓN CIVIL Y TRABAJO DE PUNTARENAS. Puntarenas, at thirteen hours twenty-three minutes of the nineteenth of July of two thousand twenty-one.- Appeal filed by attorney Álvaro Meza Lazarus, in his capacity as legal representative of Lemjoy S.A. in a Summary Interdict (Interdicto) proceeding processed in the Civil and Labor Court of Quepos, under case file number 20-000004-0425-Ci.
Drafted by Appeals Judge Jaime Eduardo Rivera Prieto; and
CONSIDERANDO:
First. Background of the case. Of interest for what will be decided, the following are available:
1. The jurisdictional authority processing the case issued, at sixteen hours thirty-two minutes of the thirtieth of April of two thousand twenty, through ruling number 2020000058, the expiration of the case (caducidad del proceso) whose operative part literally states: "In accordance with the foregoing, and the regulations invoked in the considerative part, the exception of expiration (excepción de caducidad) filed by the Special Judicial Representative of the defendants LEMJOY RS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA and [Nombre1] is hereby granted. It is resolved without special condemnation for personal and procedural costs. Once this ruling becomes final, the file shall be definitively archived. Notify." (The highlighting belongs to the original).
2. The defendant party filed an appeal against the previous ruling, and upon its admittance by the competent body, jurisdiction was conferred upon this Tribunal.
Second. Regarding the filed appeal: The appellant expressed disagreement with the decision on the matter of costs, given that it exonerated the plaintiff from that payment due to the expiration of the case (caducidad del proceso). Based on his agreement with the declared expiration, the appellant understands that the decision should have ordered the plaintiffs to pay the costs, given that even as the defendant, the appellants had to incur their own expenses to face the lawsuit. He noted that if the court was going to grant exoneration from costs, it should have done so upon the filing of the lawsuit and not after the answer to the lawsuit (contestación de la demanda). He argued that the exoneration is unfounded since it provides no reasoning for the good faith it cites, leading him to understand that a violation of Article 61.2 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) was committed regarding the legal reasoning of judgments; therefore, he understands that it was a presumption by the judge. He expressed disagreement with the qualification of good faith, and alluded to bad faith because the plaintiff knew of the expiration when filing the action against him. Finally, with this argumentation, he seeks the revocation of what was ordered, so that the plaintiff is ordered to pay costs at fifty percent of the fee schedule of the respective decree.
Third. On the admissibility of the Appeal. Having examined the challenge, this Tribunal concludes that the appellant is correct, as we proceed to explain.
We consider it necessary to make a brief hermeneutical incursion in order to present the determination of the ruling. The manner in which the matter of costs must be addressed derives from Article 73.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), which states: "In every resolution that puts an end to the case, the losing party shall be ordered, ex officio, to pay the costs. Costs are considered to include attorney's fees, the compensation for time invested by the party in attending procedural acts for which their presence was necessary, and other indispensable expenses of the case." Said numeral contains the first two rules of generic application to all civil proceedings; it establishes the imposition, ex officio by the adjudicating persons, of a pronouncement on the costs of the case; and imposes this condemnation on the party that has been defeated in the case. The rule then made an incursion into descriptive norms that, due to the direction we are taking in this account, do not need to be reviewed; furthermore, they are not the subject of deliberation according to the arguments of the appeal. Section 2 of the same article establishes the factual situations in which the rule of imposing the payment of costs on the losing party may be set aside when issuing the termination resolution for the case, insofar as it exonerates them. Thus, we read: "A full or partial exoneration may be granted, with reasoning, when: 1. The lawsuit or counterclaim includes exaggerated claims. 2. The ruling accepts significant defenses invoked by the losing party that substantially modify what was sought. 3. There is a significant reciprocal defeat regarding claims, defenses, or exceptions. 4. The party has adjusted its conduct to good faith, loyalty, probity, and the rational use of the procedural system. If there is no condemnation in costs, each party shall pay those it has caused and both parties shall pay those that are common." The regulation now establishes the assumptions under which the exoneration from costs, which must generically accompany every pronouncement of termination of the case against the losing party, may apply. Here we are interested in highlighting this jurisdictional power, basically under the fourth assumption. It is at this point where the alleged disagreement is resolved. Let us see that this fourth section allows exoneration when the party has adjusted its conduct to good faith, loyalty, probity, and the rational use of the procedural system. We emphasize that the application of this exoneration is viable for every adjudicator, provided that the matter of good faith is accredited during the process through loyalty, probity, and the rational use of the system. We note in particular that the discussion on procedural bad faith is not, by any stretch, part of the assessment that must be followed for the pronouncement on costs.
With the foregoing, we note that the appellant party expressed disagreement with the exoneration granted in the first instance, considering that it should have been applied given the expiration of the case (caducidad del proceso); as well as the obligation for the defendant to incur attorney expenses for their representation and participation in the case; at the same time he alleged the absence of an explanation of the good faith applied; and finally, that in his opinion, bad faith was indeed accredited in the litigation. Well then, we consider that the ruling certainly lacks a determination of the reasons for good faith to apply the cost exemption, since literally, regarding the analysis, it stated: "... IV.- COSTS: In accordance with Article 73.2, section 4) of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), it is resolved without special condemnation in costs, given that the undersigned Judge considers that the plaintiff did not litigate in bad faith when filing the present lawsuit, and which concludes in this manner, due to the existence of expiration (caducidad)...." That is, the first instance judge inappropriately mentioned bad faith in the process, which she considered not observable, and with that, applied exoneration. It can well be argued that she made no exposition regarding the good faith required to exonerate, since she started from a basis different from that provided by the norm; that is, good faith. Now then, we consider that the breadth of action generated by the appeal and the arguments presented allow us the evaluative task to observe that we must revoke the ruling; thereby not altering the content of the pronouncement. There is no accreditation of good faith in the litigation; the first instance adjudicating person did not so determine; that point has not been objected to, so the logical consequence is the generic imposition of Article 73.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil). The appellant party is correct in that it is not permissible to apply the exoneration of numeral 73.2, section 4, since there is no demonstration of good faith. This being an unaccredited exception, the generic rule of imposing costs applies, as we now resolve. It is also consistent with the foundation of the ruling, which did not find elements of good faith in the process; although it cited it, its basis was regarding bad faith. And finally, regarding bad faith, it becomes sterile since the corresponding imperative norm does not in any way modify the condemnation upon such accreditation. It is thus by this imperative that the revocation petitioned by the defendant regarding the exoneration proceeds without further ado. In addition to the above, given that the appealed pronouncement did not make any determination of costs, be it in liquidated amount or in abstract proportion, this Tribunal lacks the authority to dictate the percentage or any quantification as requested in the appeal. The only thing the decreed revocation allows is the imposition upon the plaintiff of the payment of the costs caused. The corresponding determination will be made in a timely manner and in safeguarding the procedure provided for that purpose. In conclusion, we revoke the pronouncement brought on appeal, solely insofar as it exempted the plaintiff from the payment of costs; to impose that obligation on the plaintiffs.
POR TANTO
As we have set forth, the resolution issued in the case file at sixteen hours thirty-two minutes of the thirtieth of April of two thousand twenty is revoked; solely regarding the exoneration concerning costs, to impose upon the plaintiff the payment of the costs produced in this expired case (proceso caduco). In all other respects, the issued pronouncement was not questioned. Judges of the Tribunal.
Of interest for what will be decided, the following are available:
**1.** The jurisdictional authority handling the proceeding issued, at sixteen hours and thirty-two minutes on April thirtieth, two thousand twenty, by resolution number 2020000058, the expiration of the proceeding, the operative part of which literally reads *"In accordance with the foregoing, and the regulations invoked in the recitals section, **the exception of expiration** filed by the Special Judicial Representative of the defendants **LEMJOY RS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA** and **[Name 1]** **is declared with merit.** It is decided without special assessment of personal and procedural costs. Once this resolution becomes final, the proceeding shall be definitively archived. **Notify.**"* (The highlighting belongs to the original).
**2.** The defendant party filed an appeal against the foregoing resolution, and it having been admitted by the competent body, jurisdiction arose for this Tribunal.
**Second. Regarding the appeal filed:** The appellant disagreed with what was decided on the matter of costs, given that the plaintiff party was exonerated from said payment due to the expiration of the proceeding. Based on its agreement with the declared expiration, the appellant believes that the ruling should have ordered the plaintiffs to pay costs, since even as a defendant party, the appellants had to incur their own expenses to face the lawsuit. It noted that if the court was going to grant an exoneration from costs, it should have done so upon the filing of the complaint and not after the defense was filed. It argued that the exoneration is unfounded because it provides no reasons for the good faith it cites, thereby understanding that a violation of Article 61.2 of the Civil Procedure Code was committed regarding the legal reasoning of judgments; and thus believes it was a presumption by the judge. It disagreed with the classification of good faith, and alluded to bad faith given that the plaintiff party knew of the expiration when it brought the action against them. Finally, with that argument it seeks the reversal of the provision, so that the plaintiff is ordered to pay costs at fifty percent of the fee schedule of the respective decree.
**Third. On the Admissibility of the Appeal.** Having examined the challenge, this Tribunal concludes that the appellant is correct, as we proceed to explain.
We consider it necessary to make a brief foray into hermeneutical work in order to explain the determination of the judgment. The manner in which the issue of costs must be addressed derives from Article 73.1 of the Civil Procedure Code, which states *"In every ruling that puts an end to the proceeding, the losing party shall be ordered, ex officio, to pay costs. Costs are considered to be attorney fees, the compensation for the time spent by the party attending procedural acts where their presence was necessary, and other indispensable expenses of the proceeding."* Said numeral contains the first two rules of general application to every civil proceeding; it establishes the ex officio imposition by the judging persons regarding costs of the proceeding; and it imposes this order on the party that has been defeated in the proceeding. The rule then delved into descriptive norms which, given the direction we are taking in this account, it is not necessary to review; moreover, they are not the subject of deliberation according to the arguments of the appeal. Subsection 2 of the same article establishes the factual situations under which the rule imposing the payment of costs on the losing party may be set aside when issuing the termination ruling for the proceeding; to the extent it exempts them. Thus we read: *"It may be exempted, totally or partially, in a reasoned manner, when: 1. The complaint or counterclaim includes exaggerated claims. 2. The judgment admits significant defenses invoked by the losing party, which substantially modify what was sought. 3. There is a significant reciprocal defeat regarding claims, defenses, or exceptions. 4. The party has adjusted its conduct to good faith, loyalty, probity, and the rational use of the procedural system. If there were no order to pay costs, each party shall pay those they have caused and both parties shall pay those that were common."* The regulations now establish the assumptions under which the exoneration from costs, which generically must accompany every pronouncement of termination of the proceeding, may apply to the losing party. Here we are interested in highlighting this jurisdictional power, basically under assumption 4. It is at this point that the alleged disagreement is resolved. Let us see that this fourth subsection allows exoneration when the party has adjusted its conduct to good faith, loyalty, probity, and the rational use of the procedural system. We highlight that the application of this exoneration is viable for every judge, provided that the matter of good faith is credited during the proceeding through loyalty, probity, and the rational use of the system. Let us particularly note that the discussion on procedural bad faith is not even remotely part of the assessment that must be followed for the pronouncement on costs.
With the foregoing, we note that the appealing party disagreed with the exoneration agreed upon in the first instance, given that it believes it should have been applied due to the expiration of the proceeding; as well as the obligation for the defendant to incur attorney expenses for its representation and participation in the proceeding; at the same time, it alleged the lack of explanation of the good faith that was applied; and finally, that in its opinion, bad faith in the litigation was rather proven. Well then, we consider that certainly the judgment contains no determination of the reasons of good faith for applying the cost exemption, since literally, regarding the analysis it stated *"... **IV.- COSTS:** In accordance with Article 73.2 subsection 4) of the Civil Procedure Code, it is decided without special assessment of costs, as the undersigned Judge considers that the plaintiff party did not litigate in bad faith when filing the present complaint, and which concludes in this manner, due to the existence of expiration...."* That is, the judge of the lower court inappropriately mentioned bad faith in the proceeding, which she considered not observable, and with that, applied the exoneration. It can well be argued that she made no argument whatsoever regarding good faith to exonerate, since she started from a basis different from that provided by the rule; that is, good faith. Now then, we consider that the breadth of action that the appeal and the arguments presented generate for us allows the evaluative task of observing that we must reverse the judgment; with which the content of the pronouncement is not altered. There is no accreditation of good faith in the litigation; the judging person of the lower court did not determine it so; that point has not been objected to, therefore the logical consequence is the generic imposition under Article 73.1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The appealing party is correct in stating that it is not possible to apply the exoneration under numeral 73.2 subsection 4, since there is no demonstration of good faith. This being an unsubstantiated exception; the generic rule imposing costs applies, as we now decide. It is also consistent with the foundation of the judgment, which found no elements of good faith in the proceeding; although it cited it thus, its basis was regarding bad faith. And finally, regarding bad faith, the matter becomes moot since the corresponding mandatory rule in no way modifies the order to pay costs upon such accreditation. It is thus, by that imperative, that the reversal requested by the defendant of the exoneration proceeds without further ado. In addition to the above, given that the appealed pronouncement made no fixation whatsoever of costs, whether liquidated or in an abstract proportion; this Tribunal lacks the power to dictate the percentage or any quantification as was requested in the appeal. The only thing the issued reversal allows is the imposition on the plaintiff party of the payment of the costs incurred. The corresponding fixation shall be carried out in a timely manner and in safeguarding of the procedure provided for that purpose. In conclusion, we reverse the pronouncement that came on appeal, solely insofar as it exempted the plaintiff party from the payment of costs; in order to impose such obligation on the plaintiffs.
**POR TANTO** As we have stated, **the resolution** issued in the case file at sixteen hours and thirty-two minutes on April thirtieth, two thousand twenty **is reversed**; solely with respect to the exoneration regarding costs, in order to impose on the plaintiff party the payment of the costs produced by this expired proceeding. In all other respects, the issued pronouncement was not challenged.
<span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Judges of the Tribunal</span><span style="vertical-align:sub">.</span> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore"> </span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub"></span><br /><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">U5WWSSKJ8LW61</span><br /><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">JAIME [Nombre2]</span><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">  </span><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">- DECISION-MAKER JUDGE</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore"> </span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub"></span><br /><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">IHGYTBXPEZM61</span><br /><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">RAUL [Nombre3]</span><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">   </span><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">- PROCESSING JUDGE</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore"> </span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub"></span><br /><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">STW3VTB8S1I61</span><br /><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">GUSTAVO [Nombre4]</span><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">  </span><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">- DECISION-MAKER JUDGE</span></p></td></tr></table> <p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore"> </span></p> <div style="-aw-headerfooter-type:footer-primary; clear:both"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">EXP: 20-000004-0425-CI</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">Tribunales de Justicia de Puntarenas, Tribunal de Apelación Civil y Laboral, [Dirección1]</span><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">  </span><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">Teléfonos: 2630-03-59 y 2630-04-00. Fax: 2661-27-14.</span></p></div> ELECTRONIC MAIL: [...]</span></p><p style="margin-top:1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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"><span style="-aw-import:ignore"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="-aw-import:ignore"> </span></p></div></div></body></html>", "content": "Correo electrónico: [...]</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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\"><span style=\"-aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span style=\"-aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p></div></div></body></html>" } } IV.- COSTS: In accordance with Article 73.2 subsection 4) of the Código Procesal Civil, the matter is resolved without a special ruling on costs (costas), as the undersigned Judge considers that the plaintiff did not litigate in bad faith (mala fe) when filing this claim, and which concludes in this way, due to the existence of expiration (caducidad)....". That is to say, the trial judge inappropriately mentioned bad faith in the process, which she deemed not observable, and with that, applied the exemption. It can well be argued that she made no statement whatsoever regarding good faith (buena fe) to exempt, since she started from a basis different from that provided by the rule; that is, good faith. Now then, we consider that the breadth of action generated by the appeal and the arguments presented allow us the evaluative task of observing that we must revoke the ruling; which does not alter the content of the pronouncement. There is no accreditation of good faith in the litigation, the trial judge did not so determine; that point has not been challenged, therefore the logical consequence is the generic imposition under Article 73.1 of the Código Procesal Civil. The appellant is correct that it is not permissible to apply the exemption of numeral 73.2 subsection 4, since there is no demonstration of good faith. That being an unsubstantiated exception, the generic rule for the imposition of costs (costas) applies as we now resolve. It is also coherent with the foundation of the ruling, which found no elements of good faith in the process; although it cited it thus, its basis was regarding bad faith. And finally, regarding bad faith, it becomes sterile since the corresponding mandatory rule in no way modifies the condemnation upon such accreditation. Thus, by that imperative, the revocation of the exemption petitioned by the defendant proceeds without further ado. In addition to the foregoing, given that the appealed pronouncement made no fixing whatsoever of the costs (costas), whether in liquid form or in abstract proportion, this Court lacks the authority to dictate the percentage or any quantification as was requested in the appeal. The only thing the ordered revocation allows is the imposition upon the plaintiff of the payment of the costs (costas) incurred. The corresponding fixing will be carried out in a timely manner and in safeguarding the procedure provided for that. In conclusion, we revoke the pronouncement on appeal, solely insofar as it exempted the plaintiff from the payment of costs (costas); to impose such obligation on the plaintiffs.
POR TANTO
As we have set forth, the resolution issued in the file at sixteen hours and thirty-two minutes on April thirtieth, two thousand twenty is revoked; solely regarding the exemption concerning costs (costas), to impose upon the plaintiff the payment of the costs produced by this expired process. The rest of the pronouncement issued was not challenged. Judges of the Court.
| <br>U5WWSSKJ8LW61<br>JAIME [Nombre2] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | ||
| <br>IHGYTBXPEZM61<br>RAUL [Nombre3] - JUEZ/A TRAMITADOR/A | ||
| <br>STW3VTB8S1I61<br>GUSTAVO [Nombre4] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |
Tribunales de Justicia de Puntarenas, Tribunal de Apelación Civil y Laboral, [Dirección1] Teléfonos: 2630-03-59 y 2630-04-00. Fax: 2661-27-14. Correo electrónico: [...]
Documento PJEDITOR INTERDICTO ACTOR/A:
CLEERCO PROPERTIES CR LIMITADA DEMANDADO/A:
LEMJOJ RS SA PODER JUDICIAL TRIBUNAL DE APELACIÓN DE PUNTARENAS VOTO NÚMERO 195 - C- L-2021 TRIBUNAL DE APELACIÓN CIVIL Y TRABAJO DE PUNTARENAS. Puntarenas, a las trece horas veintitrés minutos del diecinueve de julio de dos mil veintiuno.- Apelación interpuesta por el licenciado Álvaro Meza Lazarus, en calidad de apoderado de Lemjoy S.A. en proceso Sumario de Interdicto tramitado en el Juzgado Civil y de Trabajo de Quepos, con el número de expediente 20-000004-0425-Ci.
Redacta el Juez de Apelación Jaime Eduardo Rivera Prieto; y
CONSIDERANDO:
Primero. Antecedentes del proceso. De interés para lo que se resolverá se cuenta con los siguientes:
1. La autoridad jurisdiccional que tramita el proceso dictó a las dieciséis horas y treinta y dos minutos del treinta de abril de dos mil veinte, por resolución número 2020000058; la caducidad del proceso cuyo dispositivo literalmente dice "De conformidad con lo expuesto, y la normativa invocada en la parte considerativa, se declara con lugar la excepcion de caducidad interpuesta por el Apoderado Especial Judicial de los demandados LEMJOY RS SOCIEDAD ANÓNIMA y [Nombre1] . Se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas personales y procesales. Firme la presente resolución archívese el proceso en forma definitiva. Notifíquese.".(Lo resaltado pertenece al original).
2. La parte accionada presentó recurso de apelación contra la resolución anterior, por lo que admitido por el órgano competente, se generó la competencia para este Tribunal.
Segundo. Del recurso planteado: El recurrente presentó su inconformidad con lo resuelto en el tema de las costas, dado que exoneró a la parte accionante de ese pago dada la caducidad del proceso. A partir de su conformidad con la caducidad declarada, el apelante comprende que el pronunciamiento debió condenar a los demandantes al pago de las costas, dado que incluso como parte accionada, los apelantes tuvieron que incurrir en gastos propios para enfrentar la demanda. Advirtió que si el juzgado iba a exonerar en costas, debió realizarlo con la presentación de la demanda y no posterior a la contestación de la demanda. Acusó que la exención es infundada pues no da razones de la buena fe que cita, con lo que entiende se cometió una violación al artículo 61.2 del Código Procesal Civil en cuanto a la fundamentación jurídica de las sentencias; por lo que entiende que fue una presunción del juez. Se mostró inconforme con la calificación de buena fe, y aludió a la mala fe desde que la parte actora sabía de la caducidad al establecer la acción en su contra. Finalmente, con esa argumentación pretende la revocatoria de lo dispuesto, para que se imponga a la actora el pago de las costas y que sea al cincuenta por ciento de la tabla de honorarios del decreto respectivo.
Tercero. Sobre la admisibilidad del Recurso. Examinada la impugnación, concluye este Tribunal que lleva razón el apelante conforme que pasamos a exponer.
Consideramos necesario realizar una breve incursión en la labor hermenéutica a fin de exponer la determinación del fallo. La forma en que debe ser abordado el tema de las costas, deviene del artículo 73.1 del Código Procesal Civil, que reza "En toda resolución que ponga fin al proceso, de oficio, se condenará al vencido al pago de las costas. Se consideran costas los honorarios de abogado, la indemnización del tiempo invertido por la parte en asistir a los actos del procedimiento en que fuera necesaria su presencia y los demás gastos indispensables del proceso." Dicho numeral contiene las primeras dos normas de aplicación genérica a todo proceso civil, establece la imposición de oficio por parte de las personas juzgadoras, del pronunciamiento sobre costas del proceso; e impone esta condena a la parte que ha sido vencida en el proceso. Luego la norma realizó incursión en normas descriptivas que por el sentido que llevamos en esta relación, no es necesario revisar; además que de no son objeto de deliberación según los argumentos del recurso. El inciso 2, del mismo artículo establece las situaciones de hecho en que la norma de imposición del pago de costas a la parte vencida, puede dejar de aplicarse para dictar la resolución de finalización para el proceso; en cuanto las exime. Así entonces leemos "Se podrá eximir, total o parcialmente, de forma razonada cuando: 1. La demanda o contrademanda comprenda pretensiones exageradas. 2. El fallo admita defensas de importancia invocadas por el vencido, que modifiquen sustancialmente lo pretendido. 3. Haya vencimiento recíproco trascendente sobre pretensiones, defensas o excepciones. 4. La parte haya ajustado su conducta a la buena fe, la lealtad, la probidad y al uso racional del sistema procesal. Si no hubiera condenatoria en costas, cada parte pagará las que hubiera causado y ambas partes las que fueran comunes.". Establece ahora la normativa, los presupuestos bajo los cuales la exención de las costas que en forma genérica debe acompañara todo pronunciamiento de terminación del proceso; sobre el vencido. Aquí nos interesa destacar esta potestad jurisdiccional, básicamente en el 4 presupuesto. Es este punto donde se resuelve la disconformidad alegada. Veamos que este inciso cuarto, permite la exención cuando la parte haya ajustado su conducta a la buena fe, la lealtad, la probidad y el uso racional del sistema procesal. Destacamos que la aplicación de esta exención es viable para todo juzgador, siempre que el tema de la buena fe sea acreditado durante el proceso a través de la lealtad, la probidad y el uso racional del sistema. Notemos en particular que la discusión sobre la mala fe procesal, no es ni por asomo parte de la valoración que debe seguirse para el pronunciamiento en costas.
Con lo anterior, notamos que la parte recurrente se mostró inconforme con la exención acordada en primera instancia, dado que estima que debió aplicarse dada la caducidad del proceso; así como la obligación para la accionada de incurrir en gastos de abogado para su representación y participación en el proceso; a la vez que alegó la ausencia de explicación de la buena fe que aplicó; y finalmente, que a su criterio más bien si se acreditó la mala fe en el ligitio. Pues bien, consideramos que ciertamente el fallo no contiene determinación de las razones de buena fe para aplicar la eximente en costas, pues literalmente sobre el análisis dijo "... IV.- COSTAS: De conformidad con el artículo 73.2 inciso 4) del Código Procesal Civil, se procede resolver sin especial condenatoria en costas, ya que considera la suscrita Juzgadora que la parte actora no litigó de mala fe a la hora de interponer la presente demanda, y que culmina de este modo, por la existencia de caducidad....". Es decir, inapropiadamente la juzgadora de instancia hizo mención a la mala fe en el proceso, la que estimó no observable y con ello, aplicó exención. Bien puede sostenerse que no hizo exposición alguna respecto a la buena fe para eximir, desde que partió de una base distinta a la dispuesta por la norma; es decir, la buena fe. Ahora bien, consideramos que la amplitud de acción que nos genera el recurso y los argumentos expuestos, nos permiten la labor evaluadora para observar que debemos revocar el fallo; con lo cual no se altera el contenido del pronunciamiento. No hay acreditación de buena fe en el litigio, no lo determinó así la persona juzgadora de instancia; no ha sido objetado ese punto, por lo que la consecuencia lógica es la imposición genérica del artículo 73.1 del Código Procesal Civil. Lleva razón la parte apelante respecto a que no es dable aplicar la exención del numeral 73.2 inciso 4, toda vez que no hay demostración de buena fe. Siendo ello una excepción no acreditada; aplica la norma genérica de imposición de costas como ahora resolvemos. Es coherente además con la cimentación del fallo que no encontró elementos de buena fe en el proceso; aunque así lo citó, su fundamento fue respecto a la mala fe. Y por último, respecto a la mala fe, se torna estéril desde que la norma imperativa correspondiente, en nada modifica la condena ante tal acreditación. Es así como por ese imperativo, procede sin más la revocatoria peticionada por la accionada de la exención. Aunado a lo anterior, siendo que el pronunciamiento recurrido no realizó fijación alguna de las costas, sea en líquido o sea en proporción abstracta; carece este Tribunal de la facultad de dictar el porcentaje o cuantificación alguna como fue pedido en el recurso. Lo único que permite la revocatoria dictada es la imposición a la parte demandante, del pago de las costas causadas. La fijación correspondiente será realizada de forma oportuna y en resguardo del procedimiento previsto para ello. En conclusión, revocamos el pronunciamiento venido en alzada, únicamente en cuanto eximió del pago de costas a la parte actora; para imponer tal obligación a los demandantes.
POR TANTO
Conforme hemos expuesto, se revoca la resolución dictada en el expediente a las dieciséis horas y treinta y dos minutos del treinta de abril de dos mil veinte; únicamente en lo referido a la exención respecto a costas, para imponer a la parte demandante el pago de las costas producidas con este proceso caduco. En lo demás el pronunciamiento dictado no fue cuestionado. Jueces del Tribunal.
JAIME [Nombre2] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A RAUL [Nombre3] - JUEZ/A TRAMITADOR/A GUSTAVO [Nombre4] - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Tribunales de Justicia de Puntarenas, Tribunal de Apelación Civil y Laboral, [Dirección1] Teléfonos: 2630-03-59 y 2630-04-00. Fax: 2661-27-14. Correo electrónico: [...]
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.