Partial nullification of energy back-billing due to ICE's metering constant errorNulidad parcial de cobro de energía no facturada por error en constante de medición del ICE

PROCEEDING:

ORDINARY PLAINTIFF:

GRUPO AGROINDUSTRIAL TRES JOTAS DEFENDANT:

INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD Nº CED123694 CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL. FIRST SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. ANNEX A. Goicoechea, at nine thirty hours on the ninth of August of two thousand twenty-two.- Ordinary proceeding, oral and public trial, brought by Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota Sociedad Anónima, legal identification number CED123695, represented by its Special Judicial Attorney, Lic. Juan Carlos Castro Loría, adult, attorney, bar association number CED123696, against the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, represented by Licda. Marcela Segura Salazar, adult, attorney, bar association number CED87784, in her capacity as Special Judicial Attorney.

WHEREAS

I.- PRELIMINARY ASPECTS. As part of the procedural history, the following is noted:

1.- The plaintiff requests that the judgment declare the present lawsuit meritorious in all its aspects, ordering the absolute nullity of official communication number CED123697, of June 27, 2018, adopted by the Brunca Region Agency of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, as well as the absolute nullity of the document identified with number CED123693, of August 7 of the current year, issued by the Brunca Regional Office of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, San Isidro Agency. Similarly, by connection, that the nullity of any subsequent act derived from or consequent to the indicated official communications be declared. 2.- That the defendant Institute be ordered to pay the damages that may eventually result from the previously indicated acts, and which, due to the circumstances of their non-execution as a result of the precautionary measure ordered by the Tribunal, must be set as of unestimable amount. 3.- That the defendant be ordered to pay the costs incurred. B. SUBSIDIARY PETITIONS. 1. That the debt whose collection the defendant Institute seeks be declared time-barred (prescripción). 2. That the defendant Institute be ordered to pay the damages that may eventually result from the previously indicated acts and which, due to the circumstances of their non-execution, as a result of the precautionary measure ordered by the Tribunal, must be set as of unestimable amount. 3. That the defendant be ordered to pay the costs incurred. (Images 126-171, electronic file).

• 2)By a brief dated October 18, 2018, the legal representative of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad appears in the proceeding, opposing the lawsuit and requesting that the proceeding be dismissed (images 134 -138, electronic file).
• 3)That on August 8, 2019, the preliminary hearing was held, at which the proceeding was cured, and the new facts presented in the brief of November 24, 2020, were accepted, and the claims were fixed according to the original lawsuit brief and with the following Expansion: Nullity of official communication number 0510-00688-18 of September 18, 2018 (images 105-107, electronic file).
• 4)On July 27, 2022, the oral and public trial was held. The testimonial evidence offered by the parties was taken, and during the closing arguments, the parties reiterated what was indicated in the procedural phase. (Listen to digital recording).

In the proceedings, the terms and legal requirements have been observed, and no defects or omissions susceptible of causing nullity or defenselessness to the parties are noted. This ruling is issued within the legal term, after deliberation, unanimously, and in writing by the reporting judge Nombre155265, with the affirmative vote of judges Alexandra Zúñiga Mora and Lindsay Rodríguez Cubero.

II.- PROVEN FACTS: The following are considered relevant for the resolution of this matter:

• 1)That on May 21, 2009, the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. requested from ICE an electric service applying the medium voltage (MT) tariff for its meat processing plant (Cf. 1, administrative file).
• 2)That on May 22, 2009, the plaintiff company and ICE signed an addendum to the original contract for the supply of electric energy type: low, medium, and high voltage subscribers (f. 15, electronic file).
• 3)That on May 27, 2009, the electric service requested by the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jotas was provided, the location of which was assigned reference number 635590009454, in which the meter was installed with the following characteristics: "Placa32095° , Brand Itron, Type SS4A2T, Registration Type FM 10 A, Case 20, Elements 3, Phases 3, Wires 4, Kh 1.8, Volts 120/480, Sc. KW Electronic. Three ABB brand current transformers 600/5 each, with an energy constant of 122.40 (f. 17-18, administrative file).
• 4)That on August 31, 2009, the installed meter (proven fact 3) was changed because it did not have a load profile and one with a load profile was needed, with a billing constant of 61.2 (f. 20-22, administrative file).
• 5)That on November 7, 2016, the meter was changed to number 1341360 for maintenance reasons, with a billing constant of 61.2 (f. 34, administrative file).
• 6)That on November 9, 2016, ICE prepared the Inspection and Testing Record of Measurement Systems form for meter number 1341360 with a measurement constant of 61.20 (Images 36, administrative file).
• 7)By note of May 30, 2017, the General Manager of Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. requests the relocation of the transformer bank (f. 37, administrative file).
• 8)That on May 29, 2018, the form is prepared by official Nombre155266, unnumbered, called "Movements in Maximum Demand Measurements" in which it is indicated: "Change constant from 61.2 to 122.4" Remote reading, please apply in billing starting from month 6/18" (f. 45, administrative file).
• 9)By note of May 29, 2018, Lic. José Antonio Rivera Fuentes, Customer Service Executive, informs Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. that there is an erroneous application in the constant of the measurement system for meter number 1341360, and that the amounts to be paid for the difference according to technical regulations will be sent subsequently (f. 46, administrative file).
• 10)By official communication number 1612-485-2018 of June 2, 2018, signed by Licda. Nombre155267, the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. is notified of the administrative collection proceeding for energy consumed and not billed for the period from August 2009 to May 2018, for an amount of Five Hundred Eleven Million Three Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Eighteen colones. Official communication duly notified on July 17, 2018 (f. 55-57, administrative file).
• 11)By note received on July 20, 2018, at the Agencia de San Isidro Norte de Pérez Zeledón, Mr. Nombre155268, in his capacity as General Manager of Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A., opposes the collection made by ICE (proven fact 10) and requests a new study, but in the event that said petition is not granted, he files a revocation appeal with subsidiary appeal (f. 62, administrative file).

III.- UNPROVEN FACTS. The following are considered unproven facts relevant to this matter: 1) That the difference in the reading of the energy supplied and billed by ICE is the responsibility of the plaintiff company (the records). 2) The damages caused to the plaintiff company (lack of evidence).

IV.- ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY: By way of synthesis and without prejudice to the Tribunal's comprehensive reading of the lawsuit brief, the plaintiff indicates the following grievances: That its client requested an electric energy service, having meter number Placa32096 installed on May 27, 2009, with a constant of 122.4 (f.18); subsequently, on August 21, 2009, the meter was changed to number Placa32097 and a constant of 61.2 was set (f. 22-23). That on November 7, 2016, for maintenance reasons, a new meter change was made to number 1341360, carrying over the same constant error of 61.2, and it was not until May 29, 2018, that the Administration noticed the error and ordered the constant change. That two effects derive from what occurred: first, that the errors incurred by the defendant administration originated in administrative behaviors that evidence inattentiveness on its part, and that can in no way be attributed to its client; and second, that the error persisted for many years despite the frequent inspections carried out by ICE officials. That in accordance with article 51 of the technical standard (AR-NT-SUCOM), there is a time limit that makes collection beyond said historical event impossible, that is, from the last meter installed by ICE. That given that the technical standard issued by the regulatory body is mandatory and nullifies any claim to go beyond what was set by ARESEP, it causes the challenged acts to have a substantial and temporal defect regarding the subjective element of competence of the act, which it requests be declared. That in addition to the foregoing, according to the criteria outlined by the Procuraduría, the regulation applicable to collections derived from the provision of services is that regulated in the Commercial Code (4 years) and not the ten-year term of the Civil Code; therefore, it requests that the debt whose collection the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad seeks be declared time-barred (prescripción).

V.- ARGUMENTS OF THE INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD. The legal representation of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, when answering the lawsuit, opposed it, and stated, in summary form and without prejudice to the comprehensive reading of its allegations, the following: That since its creation, ICE was entrusted, as part of its purposes, with making its technical, administrative, and financial procedures models of efficiency that not only guarantee the good functioning of the Institute but can also serve as a standard for other activities of Costa Ricans, having to use all means at its disposal to increase the production of electric energy, hence the importance of the income received, as it will be reinvested in constant development for the benefit of the country. That its client, as a public entity subject to the principle of legality, carries out periodic inspections in the electricity sector service agencies on the installed services, in which the operation of the measurement system and the use being given to it are verified in order to determine if the recorded consumption is correct. For this reason, the plaintiff is not correct in the cause attributed as the basis for the collection, because in reality, the error that occurred was the product of an erroneous application of the constant used in ICE's billing system, which is an arithmetic error and not a measurement error in the system itself as such. That on May 29, 2018, ICE personnel carried out a technical inspection on meter number 1341360 and at that time detected an irregularity in the translation of the information collected by the technician regarding the constant used in the billing process. That inconsistency caused the electric energy actually consumed not to be registered as such in the billing, since it was being registered and billed with a constant of 61.2 when in reality the constant 122.4 should have been used. The procedure for correcting billing errors is a mechanism recognized and endorsed by the regulations governing the operation of companies providing electric services; therefore, within said procedure, it was determined that the electric energy consumed and not billed to the plaintiff between August 2009 and May 2018 was provided by its client.

VI.- OF THE ALLEGED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (PRESCRIPCIÓN). Even though the statute of limitations (prescripción) defense interposed by the plaintiff is invoked as a subsidiary claim, being a privileged defense, which if declared with merit could influence the knowledge of the merits of the case, this Tribunal considers that it must rule on said figure beforehand. In synthesis, the plaintiff states as a basis for said defense that, according to the criterion of the Procuraduría in its opinion number C-082-92, the statute of limitations (prescripción) for invoices for the provision of public electricity services should be applied the four-year term provided in article 984 of the Commercial Code, and not the one regulated in article 868 of the Civil Code that the Administration maintains. Tribunal's Criterion. Before resolving the alleged statute of limitations (prescripción), it is important to define briefly and broadly the legal nature of ICE in relation to the sale of electric service. Through Decree-Law No. 449 of April 8, 1949, ICE was created and was attributed the fundamental competence of providing electric energy to the country. Thus, article 1 of the Decree entrusts it with the "rational development of the sources of physical energy that the Nation possesses, especially hydraulic resources." Obligation to channel the use of hydroelectric energy towards strengthening the national economy and the well-being of our inhabitants. These competences were expanded in Law No. 3226 of October 28, 1963, to telephone, telegraphic, radiotelegraphic, and radiotelephonic communication services; competences that were further expanded upon the approval of the Law approving the Framework Treaty for the Central American Electricity Market, Law No. 7848 of November 20, 1998. Now, the scope of these competences is reiterated in the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities in the Telecommunications Sector, No. 8660 of August 8, 2008. Within the framework of strengthening and modernizing the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, this Law has as its objectives in its second article, the following: "Objectives of the Law. a) Strengthen, modernize, and provide the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE), its companies, and its attached bodies with the legislation that allows it to adapt to all changes in the legal regime for the generation and provision of electricity services, as well as telecommunications, infocommunications, information products and services, and other convergent services. b) Complement Decree-Law No. 449, of April 8, 1949, Regulation for the creation of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, and its amendments, to provide ICE with the necessary legal, financial, and administrative conditions to continue with the provision and commercialization of electricity and telecommunications products and services, within the national territory and abroad (….)". Objectives that must be achieved with the development and execution of the competence assigned in Article 6 of the same Law, which states: "Competences of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad and its companies. ICE and its companies, within the national territory and abroad, shall be competent for the following: a) Generate, install, and operate networks, provide, acquire, and commercialize electricity, telecommunications, and infocommunications products and services, as well as other information products and services and others in convergence, directly or through agreements, cooperation agreements, associations, strategic alliances, or any other form of association with other national or foreign, public or private entities. b) Be agents of the electricity market in other countries that adhere to the Framework Treaty for the Central American Electricity Market, approved by Law No. 7848, of November 20, 1998, or any other instrument that may be signed and ratified in the future". Generation, installation, and operation of electricity and telecommunications networks, provision of electricity, telecommunications, and infocommunications services, and other convergent services. For the fulfillment of these competences, it is authorized to enter into business associations, as well as to sell services to third parties." With the above background, this collegiate body considers that the service provided by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad in its different indicated areas falls within industry and remunerated commerce, that is, through a public price, which must be understood as those considerations paid for the exclusive use or special exploitation of the public domain, as well as the provision of services or performance of administrative activities when their request or receipt is not mandatory, or when they are capable of being provided by the private sector, as they do not imply the exercise of authority. On this matter, Article 3 of the General Public Administration Law provides for this situation and establishes: "1- Public law shall regulate the organization and activity of public entities, unless an express rule provides otherwise. 2- Private law shall regulate the activity of entities that, due to their overall regime and the requirements of their line of business, may be considered common industrial or commercial companies." Thus, it can be affirmed, in accordance with the tenor of said article, that the distribution of electricity provided in this case by a public entity (ICE) is of a commercial nature; although the entity is subject to dual regulation regarding its organization and control, submitting itself as a whole to the fundamental principles of public service, to ensure its continuity, efficiency, and adaptability, it must be understood that the relationships resulting from the provision of the service (considering its nature as well) would be subject to the Private Law regime, unless we are in the presence of the exercise of an authority power, which does not happen in the sub examine. This is important, because when the commercialization of a service occurs between the provider and the administered party who pays for its enjoyment, such relationship and its derivations are subject to the sphere of private law, specifically commercial law. Now, regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción) for the billing for the payment of the service provided, regardless of whether said public service is provided by a state entity or by a private individual, the rules of the Commercial Code must be applied, and not those contained in the Civil Code, this, as reiterated, because we are facing a relationship (service contract) of a commercial and not civil nature. In this vein, article 968 of the Commercial Code, in what is relevant, provides: "Actions arising from commercial acts and contracts shall prescribe in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Prescription operates by the non-exercise of the respective right within the legally indicated term." For its part, article 984 of the Commercial Code establishes: "Unless expressly provided in other chapters of this Code, every right and its corresponding action prescribe in four years, with the following exceptions which prescribe in one year. (...) ". On the subject, Section V of this Tribunal, in the resolution that was referred to by ICE's representation within its closing arguments and that appears in file No. 16-09528-1027-CA, when issuing judgment No. 57-2018-V of 14:20 hrs. of July 23, 2018, and in what is relevant, indicated: "For this, it is necessary to specify that in the case under examination, we are faced with a public price, a figure that operates when we find ourselves facing the exploitation of a public domain asset, or before the provision of a public service such as drinking water, telephone service, or energy supply. Public prices are not set based on the power of authority, but rather in attention to criteria of an economic and even political nature. This public price derived from the provision of a also public service, in the case under examination, arises from a relationship of a commercial nature, and despite it not being overlooked that the activity is subject to dual regulation - of private law and public law -, the truth is that the rules applicable to the aspect of the commercialization of the service are those of private law, and in the specific case, those provided in the Commercial Code. In this sense, the applicable rule is that provided in article 984 of said legal body, which provides for a statute of limitations period of four years." In conclusion, from what has been indicated up to here, this Chamber considers that the statute of limitations (prescripción) term for invoices for electricity service is that contained in the Commercial Code, that is, 4 years. Term that must be computed from the date of the billing of the last meter installed. Lastly, and for the knowledge of the parties, it must be indicated that this position is also held by the Civil Tribunals when resolving collection proceedings for public services, changing their criterion regarding the application of the ten-year statute of limitations (prescripción) contained in the Civil Code that was alleged here; thus, the First Civil Appeals Tribunal of San José, in resolution No. 0067-2020 of 2:50 p.m. on February 21, 2020, in what is relevant, indicated: "This Chamber has long held that the statute of limitations (prescripción) in this type of matter is that set forth in the Commercial Code. Thus, it has been indicated: '… In the provision of the public service of electricity, public lighting, and telecommunications, the acting Institute acts in the exercise of a commercial enterprise. Of course, we are in the presence of services provided by a public enterprise. On this basis and in accordance with the provisions of article 3 subsection 2) of the General Public Administration Law, it is a provision regulated by commercial law in its relationship with the user or beneficiary. Thus, as the appellant states, the ordinary four-year statute of limitations (prescripción) provided for in article 984 of the Commercial Code applies in the species, and not the ten-year one of the Civil Code, erroneously applied by the first instance Judge...' (First Civil Tribunal, Vote 649-1C of 9:05 a.m. on August 14, 2015)". Having resolved the issue regarding the applicable regulation concerning the statute of limitations (prescripción), in the sub examine it is found that ICE, after realizing that there was an error in the billing for the electricity service provided to the plaintiff company, opened the administrative collection proceeding with file number ENF-1612-001-2018, and through official communication No. 1612-845-2018 of June 27, 2018, duly notified on July 17, 2018 (date on which the statute of limitations would be interrupted), communicated to the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. the administrative collection for energy consumed and not billed for the period between August 2009 and May 2018 for an amount of exactly five hundred eleven million three hundred fifty-six thousand five hundred eighteen colones. Now, to resolve this specific case, given that there is an express rule on how the difference between the energy provided and the energy billed must be collected, it is indispensable to bring up what was ordered by the Board of Directors of the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos when approving the regulatory technical standard called "Supervision of the commercialization of the electric supply in low and medium voltage" AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014" which in its article 51, in what pertains to this specific issue of the statute of limitations (prescripción), provides: "If the electric company determines faults in the measurement system, including the measurement constant, that resulted in billing lower than what was actually consumed (energy) and demanded (power) by the subscriber or user, it must make the corresponding adjustment from the billing of the last meter installed." In this understanding, the meter change occurred on November 7, 2016 (this specific topic, i.e., the rest of the period billed, will be addressed by this Chamber later), so that would be the date from which ICE is entitled to collect and when the beginning of the term for the statute of limitations (prescripción) would start to run. Now, given that ICE becomes aware with the report made by official Nombre155266 on May 19, 2018, in which he indicates "change constant from 61.2 to 122.4" (proven fact 8), and the generation of the corrected invoice is as of the month of May 2018, and the administrative collection for the unbilled difference was duly notified on July 17, 2018, a period in which the statute of limitations (prescripción) is interrupted. Now, from a simple arithmetic operation, in application of article 984 of the Commercial Code, the four years provided in said article, the debt for the unbilled amount would be as of November 7, 2016, in application of article 51 of the cited regulatory framework, so the debt would not be time-barred, and the statute of limitations (prescripción) defense must therefore be rejected.

VII.- ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. Having indicated the foregoing, this Chamber proceeds to hear the merits of the parties' arguments. From the framework of the claims raised by the party, both in its lawsuit brief and as they were adjusted in the preliminary hearing, in essence, the nullity of official communications number 1612-485-2018 of June 27, 2018, 1612-522-20188 of August 7, 2018, 0510-00688-18 of September 18, 2018, is requested, as well as the damages caused. To support its claims, the representation of the plaintiff company stated that from the facts that occurred and are recorded in the file, it can be deduced that the errors incurred by the defendant administration originated in administrative behaviors that evidence inattentiveness on its part, and that can in no way be attributed to its client, in addition to the fact that the error persisted for many years despite the frequent inspections carried out by ICE officials. That in accordance with article 51 of the technical standard (AR-NT-SUCOM), there is a time limit that makes collection beyond said historical event impossible, that is, from the last meter installed by ICE. That given that the technical standard issued by the regulatory body is mandatory and nullifies any claim to go beyond what was set by ARESEP, it causes the challenged acts to have a substantial and temporal defect regarding the subjective element of competence of the challenged administrative act and those that depend on it. Tribunal's Criterion. A) From the factual framework, it can be deduced that there is no dispute regarding the energy consumed by the plaintiff and that was not billed at the time by ICE; the issue to be resolved is whether ICE has the right to collect the consumed energy not billed to the plaintiff and until what date. One must start from the basis, as indicated in the previous Whereas clause, that the relationship between the plaintiff company and ICE arises from the electric energy service contract that exists between them, where, due to the particularities of the public service, it is regulated by law regarding its tariffs and conditions, but by the contract signed between both, as provided in article 411 of the Commercial Code, "the parties shall be bound in the manner and under the terms in which they appear to have wished to bind themselves," a rule that is effectively a reflection of article 1022 of the Civil Code, which provides "Contracts are law between the parties." Due to this, in principle, since ICE has accredited, and it is thus inferred from the documentary evidence and constitutes an undisputed fact by the parties, that ICE effectively supplied the electric energy to the plaintiff company but billed it a lesser amount due to an error in the measurement constant made by ICE officials, after the technical aspect was corrected, it is the company's obligation to pay for the electricity consumed. Now, the parties are clear that said issue is duly regulated in articles 51 and 52 of Resolution No. RJD-072-2015 "Supervision of the commercialization of the electric supply in low and medium voltage" AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014" but it is submitted to this Tribunal for the correct interpretation and application of these rules for this specific case. In this line of reasoning, the articles of the cited regulatory framework provide: "Article 51. Billing errors due to problems in the measurement system.

If the electric company determines failures in the metering system, including the metering constant (constante de medición), that resulted in billing for less than what was actually consumed (energy) and demanded (power) by the subscriber or user, it must make the corresponding adjustment from the billing of the last installed meter. For this purpose, the electric company must notify the subscriber or user and the charge must be made in a separate billing, unless the subscriber or user authorizes the inclusion of said item in the corresponding bill, through an agreement to that effect. If, on the contrary, the electric company detects that failures in the metering system, including the metering constant, are causing billing for more than what was actually consumed and demanded by the subscriber or user, it must reimburse all amounts overcharged, according to the procedure established by the company for refunds. In either case, the energy and demand consumed shall be estimated based on the provisions of Article 52. Article 52. Procedure for charging consumed and unbilled energy and power. When the service provider demonstrates that, in a service, electric energy was consumed and power was demanded that was not billed in its entirety, or more energy was billed than consumed or more power was billed than demanded, it may estimate the energy consumed and the power demanded. To calculate the amount to be charged for the consumed and unbilled energy and the demanded and unbilled power, the electric company shall use as a basis three actual readings subsequent to the correction of the cause that gave rise to the error or, in those services where there is a seasonal-type load (for example: sugar mills (ingenios), coffee processing plants (beneficios de café) or customers with a time-of-use/seasonal rate), the month in which the failure occurred shall be compared with its seasonality average from the previous year. In cases of overcharges for power and energy, it must return the totality of the amount charged in excess, based on the company's records or the evidence provided by the subscriber or user. Under no circumstances may the electric company suspend the service if the subscriber or user is current in the payment of the electric energy bill for the last consumption period put up for collection." From a careful reading of both articles, this Court does not find the points of discussion that have the parties in conflict, specifically, that ordinal 52 regulates cases involving human errors such as the one that occurred in the case at bar (sub judice), it being clear that the first typifies the legal situation that would arise when there is an error in the metering system and the second succinctly outlines the procedure to follow for charging consumed and unbilled energy and power; this interpretation is reinforced by the provision of the same ordinal 51 in the final paragraph which reads: “In either case, the energy and demand consumed shall be estimated based on the provisions of Article 52”; it is clear, then, that there is no room for another interpretation. In this understanding, and without prejudice to what has been indicated, even if the hypothesis were accepted that from Article 52 one could extract that the will of the regulatory legislator was to regulate those situations of human error not attributable to the consumer but to the service provider and unrelated to the metering systems including the constant, as the defendant's representative alleges, said rule could not be applied either because, in the opinion of this Chamber, the dispute between the parties submitted to this Court is resolved by the provisions of Article 51 as will be indicated below. In this understanding, said rule provides that “if the electric company determines failures in the metering system, including the metering constant, that resulted in billing for less than what was actually consumed (energy) and demanded (power) by the subscriber or user, it must make the corresponding adjustment from the billing of the last installed meter”; note that the rule is very clear that the failure can occur in either “the metering system” or in “the metering constant” or even both at the same time, so to know when we are in the first scenario (failure in the metering system), article three of said rule, in reference to definitions, indicates that the metering system must be understood as follows: “Metering system: is the set of equipment and materials (energy meters, wiring, communication device, potential and current transformers) used for the measurement and recording of the energy and power required in an electric service”; that is, when there is underbilling or overbilling of energy due to the metering system, it is because some of the set of equipment or material that the service provider uses to measure the supplied energy has failed. Now, for the second scenario called “metering constant”, said rule does not define it; however, the witness-expert Nombre155269, an expert in the field and offered by ICE, clarified said technical term by stating: “The constant is a ratio between what the meter is registering and what is actually being delivered to the customer. This metering constant must be transferred to the information system that allows billing for the electric service so that when the reading data arrives, they can be scaled to the real value that must be billed.” From everything said by the expert, it can be affirmed that the metering constant is an arithmetic value (formula) used to determine the real value of the energy delivered and consumed, by virtue of what was expressed by the expert witness Mora Zúñiga; likewise, the witness Nombre155267 testified in the same vein confirming this situation, that is, the installed equipment do not directly measure or mark said value as happens with normal meters installed in homes, because high-voltage energy is present, meaning it is necessary to record the reading of the data registered by the metering systems (it is reiterated, equipment or meter) and subsequently apply the corresponding metering constant (arithmetic formula) to obtain the exact value (which in this case should have been 122.4 and not 61.2) and proceed with correct billing. In this line of thought, from the documentation provided and from what the parties themselves have said, it is clear that the error occurred in the metering constant, to the extent that the rule expressly regulates said situation (factual scenario) and makes no differentiation, as the parties have tried to suggest (basis of the conflict), whether it is an arithmetic error or a human error, negligence, or incompetence; it simply indicates “including the constant,” therefore admitting no other interpretation. It is clear to this Court, with the explanation given by the expert regarding what should be understood as the metering constant, that said factor can never be entered into the system or measured by an instrument, as it is an arithmetic factor that the person in charge records on the form depending on the metering system used (Art. 3 of the Technical Standard), so it is irrelevant to determine whether or not it is a human error, as this was taken into account by the regulatory legislator in the rule by expressly including said element within the metering error and not only failures in the instruments; given that we are in the presence of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the service provider in a consumer relationship in accordance with the provisions of ordinal 35 of Law No. 7472, being released if, and only if, it is unrelated to the damage. In addition to the above, there is no doubt that the error was made by the defendant itself (an uncontested fact accepted by ICE); in this regard, both Mr. Nombre155269 and Ms. Nombre155267 were unanimous in indicating that the official in charge of taking the measurement initially made a mistake in recording the constant; regarding this specific topic, Mr. Nombre155269, when asked by the ICE representative, stated: “The human error that was committed was that the technician recorded that the transformers were 300 to 5 and not 600 to 5 as they really are; by varying this, the real constant varied from 61.2 to 122.4, so the metering system had no problem, but rather recorded what it had to record; the problem occurred due to a human error in the billing system which is a separate system, that is, the reading is taken from the metering system and transferred to another system which is the billing system. In the billing system there was an arithmetic error; there is a value, a constant that was entered inappropriately.” Now, from a thorough review of the administrative file, it emerges that when the form dated May 27, 2009, called “Movimiento en Mediciones de Máxima Demanda,” was completed for the installation of the new service, the Current Transformer box recorded three transformers “Brand: ABB, Ratio 600/5” corresponding to meter No. 1055582, with a constant of 122.4, installed by official Nombre155266 (pp. 18-19, administrative file). Subsequently, on August 31, 2009, the same official completed the form for the meter change service, recording the note “it is changed because the existing meter does not have a load profile and one with a load profile is needed,” recording in the Current Transformer box, 3 ABB brand transformers, with a ratio of 300/5, and also that there is no change of current transformer nor changes of potential transformer (p. 22, administrative file). It is from this point (completion of the form) onwards that the constant error carried forward and was detected when the change of meter No. 1341360 was made, in which the transformer ratio 600/5 was recorded again and it is indicated in observations that the constant must be changed from 61.2 to 122.4 for its application in the billing for month 6/18 (p. 45). Now, it draws the attention of this Court, although it is not a matter of discussion nor does it influence the resolution of the case, that the forms reviewed here in the timeline, which clearly caused an error at the time of billing the energy provided by ICE and consumed by the subscriber, were completed by the same official when performing the change or maintenance services; therefore, it is not understood, nor is there evidence brought to the case related to it, why said official changed the value of the transformers that resulted in the change of the constant to be used, i.e., from 61.2 to 112.4.

Having outlined the above, and being clear that the rule (Art. 51) makes no differentiation whether the failure in the constant is a human or arithmetic error, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 of Law No. 7274, which states that release from liability only exists when it is demonstrated that the merchant (in this case, the service provider) is unrelated to the damage, which has not happened here (as the ICE representative itself accepts the fact), it only remains to review whether the period put up for collection for the concept of energy delivered and not billed, to which ICE is effectively entitled, is in accordance with the law or not. In this line of thought, Article 51 provides that once the failure is detected, the service provider “must make the corresponding adjustment from the billing of the last installed meter,” meaning not only for the equipment or constant as in this specific case, but the adjustment of the difference, whether in favor of the provider or in favor of the consumer (when overcharged), from the billing of the last installed meter; according to the proven facts and as accepted by the parties (uncontested), the last installed meter was on November 7, 2016. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, in accordance with the legal maxim “in lex claris, no interpretatio,” there is no choice but to indicate that it is from that date onward that the defendant can charge the unbilled difference, not being able to charge beyond that, by legal mandate, from when that specific event occurred; that is, the period charged from August 2009 up to November 7, 2016, is inadmissible, and ICE must adjust the amounts claimed by excluding said period from that sum. This Court does not omit to indicate that there is no doubt between the parties that the plaintiff company consumed the amount of metered energy, as the equipment did not fail, but that there was an error in the billing equation (constant) that resulted in ICE charging a lower value than the real amount, for which, in principle and according to the contract, it would be entitled to said remuneration for the service provided; however, it is also clear that even though we are in a commercial consumer relationship, as indicated supra, ICE remains subject to public law in its organization and activity, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 1) of Article 3 of the General Public Administration Law; consequently, it could not act contrary to what an express rule provides (such as the one pertaining to this specific case), under penalty of violating the Principle of Legality.

• B)Regarding the nullity alleged by the plaintiff of the challenged official letters, it indicated that there is a substantial and temporal defect in the subjective element of competence of the act for being contrary to the provisions of Article 51 of the referenced technical standard by charging periods that are not authorized. Well, this grievance must be rejected by virtue of the fact that according to doctrine and jurisprudence, a defect in the subjective element of the act is due to reasons of existence of the entity and its capacity, the existence of the body and its competence, and in this case there is no doubt that ICE not only has the capacity but also the competence to put up for collection the difference of unbilled energy based not only on the rules already indicated but also on the contract signed by both parties. The issue here arises from an erroneous interpretation made by ICE of said rule that leads it to establish in the challenged act a different sum for an unauthorized period; consequently, what would be vitiated is the element called “content” according to the provisions of subsection 2) of Article 132 of the General Public Administration Law, which must be proportional to the legal purpose and correspond to the motive, and in the case at bar (sub examine) the motive element (legal antecedent), as already indicated, expressly authorizes the rule to charge the difference but with a time limit. Now, given that in accordance with Constitutional Article 49, which grants this jurisdiction the power to review the administrative function of the State and its institutions, in relation to Article 1 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, this Chamber proceeds to review the pathology of the challenged act, determining in that regard, by what has been said so far, that there is indeed a defect of absolute nullity in it, but not in its subjective element as the aggrieved party alleges, but in the objective element called “content,” which in accordance with the provisions of ordinal 167 of LGAP, which reads: “There shall be relative nullity of the act when one of its constitutive elements is imperfect, unless the imperfection prevents the realization of the purpose, in which case it shall be absolute” (underlining not in the original), must be declared ex officio, as is indeed done at this time. Now, in accordance with the provisions of Article 122 of the Procedural Code, the declaration of nullity just decreed is dimensioned in the following sense: the administration must proceed to carry out the respective calculations for the energy delivered and not billed from the date on which the last meter was installed, i.e., November 7, 2017, and up to the date on which the correction was made and the plaintiff company began to pay the correct amount with the constant 122.4.
• C)Finally, regarding the alleged damages (daños y perjuicios), they must be rejected for the following considerations. As already determined supra, in this specific case there is a commercial consumer relationship, therefore the fundamental rights of consumers must be applied, which are established in Article 46, fifth paragraph, of the Political Constitution, as well as developed in the cited Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer. These are summarized as the consumer having the right to the following: 1. Protection of their health; 2. Protection of their environment; 3. Protection of their safety; 4. Protection of their economic interests; 5. The right to receive adequate and truthful information about the services or goods they acquire; 6. Freedom of choice of the goods and services they wish to acquire or use; 7. Equitable treatment, meaning that the merchant or provider must treat the consumer in an equitable and respectful manner in the face of their simple claims, or in the protection of their rights both in administrative and judicial venues. Now, these fundamental consumer rights must be interpreted within the legal nature of commercial consumer relationships, which protect the weaker party in that relationship. Precisely, this has been clearly explained by our Constitutional Court in ruling (voto) 8587-02, as well as in other binding precedents of that jurisdictional body, by pointing out that in the commercial consumer relationship between the merchant or provider and the consumer, there exists, due to the natural dynamics of commerce, an inequality between both, and the consumer in this relationship is the weaker party; therefore, our Political Constitution comes to balance that consumer relationship, granting the consumer a series of fundamental rights that protect them from their natural inequality with the merchant and provider. Furthermore, our constitutional text imposes on the State the obligation to support the rights that defend the consumer; this means that in processes where a conflict arising within a commercial consumer relationship must be resolved, as in the present matter, the interpretation and application of the rules, in case of doubt, must favor the weaker party, i.e., the consumer. Precisely, in consumer protection matters, something similar occurs to what happens in labor venues with the principle of in dubio pro operario and in criminal procedure with in dubio pro reo. In general, these are protectionist rules that defend the weaker party in a relationship; therefore, in case of conflict, the judge must interpret and apply the legal rule always bearing in mind that the consumer has a series of fundamental rights, so procedurally speaking, the merchant or provider has the obligation to demonstrate that they have fulfilled their obligations in the consumer relationship and that they have respected the fundamental rights of the consumer. That is, they bear the burden of proof, which is a fundamental rule in consumer protection matters. Consequently, if a violation of the constitutional and legal rights of the consumer occurs by the merchant or provider, the latter must repair the harmful effect caused to the consumer, under the strict liability regime established in Article 35 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, which provides: “Liability regime. The producer, the provider, and the merchant must respond concurrently and independently of the existence of fault, if the consumer is harmed by reason of the good or the service, inadequate or insufficient information about them, or their use and risks. Only those who demonstrate that they are unrelated to the damage are released. The legal representatives of mercantile establishments or, as the case may be, the managers of the business are responsible for their own acts or deeds or for those of their dependents or auxiliaries. Technicians and those in charge of elaboration and control are jointly and severally liable, when appropriate, for violations of this Law to the detriment of the consumer. From the examination of said mandate, the following rules for the application of this type of liability are reached: 1- It is strict liability, in which demonstrating intent or fault of the author of the damage is not necessary; rather, what is important is the imputation of the damage; 2- There must be harmful conduct, active or by omission; this means that an active or passive violation of the fundamental rights of the consumer must be presented by the merchant or provider; 3- Damage must occur, meaning an injury to the protected legal interest, which in this case would be consumer protection, as this is the weaker party in the commercial consumer relationship; 4- A causal link connecting the harmful conduct and the damage produced; 5- This causal link can only be broken if the party to whom the damage is imputed, merchant or provider, demonstrates “that they are unrelated to the damage,” that is, they bear the burden of proof in a jurisdictional process. The foregoing is because we are in the presence of strict liability, which is related to the purpose of the constitutional and legal norms to protect the consumer as the weaker party within the commercial consumer relationship; therefore, it is incumbent upon the merchant or provider, to exonerate themselves from liability, to prove that they fulfilled their obligations to the consumer, as well as that they were totally and without any doubt unrelated to any damage caused to the latter. In the case at bar (sub examine), although, as determined, there is conduct contrary to law for which nullity was declared, it is also true, and in this sense, it has not been demonstrated by the plaintiff that the conduct deployed by ICE, specifically putting up for collection the sum owed, caused them any damage or harm; this is determined because even once the administrative charge was notified on July 17, 2018, the legal representative of Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. on July 23, 2018, filed before this Office a pre-action precautionary measure (medida cautelar antecausam) requesting the suspension of the effects of official letter No. 1612-485-2018, granting by resolution at 14:40 hrs. on July 26, 2018, the provisionalísima precautionary measure, which was resolved on the merits by judgment No. 522-2018 at 09:40 hrs. on September 14, 2018, and confirmed by the Court of Appeals through ruling (voto) No. 409-2008-I at 11:04 hrs. on November 12, 2018, the effects of the challenged administrative act, which is hereby annulled, having been suspended up to this day. In conclusion, there is no damage that has been caused to the party, and as a corollary of this, its rejection is imposed.

VIII.- ON THE EXCEPTIONS AND CLAIMS OF THE PROCESS.

• A)When answering the complaint, the ICE representative did not expressly raise any of the preliminary or substantive exceptions regulated in the Code in question; however, it is the judge's obligation to analyze the substantive procedural prerequisites called lack of standing (falta de legitimación), lack of interest (falta de interés), and lack of right (falta de derecho). In this line of thought, it is verified by what was indicated above that there is passive and active standing of the parties in conflict, as well as a current interest in the claims. However, there is partially a lack of right of the plaintiff in their claim, thus rejecting whatever is not expressly granted as indicated below.
• B)With respect to the claims set by the plaintiff in the preliminary hearing and ratified in the oral and public trial, given that, based on the evidence and arguments previously put forth by this Court, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 119, 120, and 121 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, the lack of right raised by the ICE representative must be partially upheld only regarding the amount charged for the period from November 7, 2016, to May 2018. Due to the foregoing, the plaintiff's claim regarding the nullity of the charge made by ICE to its represented party for the period from August 2009 to November 6, 2016, is partially upheld.
• C)In relation to the claimed damages (daños y perjuicios), since no damage was caused, as indicated above, the execution of the acts aimed at collection was suspended by the precautionary measure; they were not executed, and consequently, there is no damage to repair, therefore, it is rejected as indicated in Considerando VIII.

IX.- ON COSTS. In accordance with what is regulated in Article 193 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, personal and procedural costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party for the fact of being so, and their waiver only proceeds when there was, in the Court's opinion, sufficient reason to litigate, or when the judgment is issued by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the case under study, as there is a reciprocal defeat, the exemption of costs is appropriate according to the provisions of Article 73.2.3 of the Civil Procedure Code, of supplementary application by referral of Article 220 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, which provides: Exemption (…) “There is a significant reciprocal defeat on claims, defenses, or exceptions.”

Therefore

The exception of Prescription is rejected. In accordance with Article 51 of the Technical Standard for Supervision of the Commercialization of Electric Supply in Low and Medium Voltage AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014, Article 35 of Law No. 7274, Article 167 of the General Public Administration Law, Articles 119, 122 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, the complaint is declared partially with merit, understanding as denied that which is not expressly granted. Official letter number 1612-485-2018, of June 27, 2018, adopted by the Brunca Region Agency of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, is annulled only with respect to the period from August 2009 to November 6, 2016, the date on which the billing was duly adjusted. Official letters No. 1612-2018 of June 27, 2018, and No. 0510-00688-18 of September 18, 2018, are annulled due to their connection. This declaration of nullity is dimensioned in that the administrative file is returned so that the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad proceeds to carry out the respective calculations for the charge of unbilled electricity service from November 7, 2016, the date on which the last meter was installed, up to May 29, 2018, the date on which the correction of the metering constant was made. No special ruling on costs. Notify.

Nombre155265 Alexandra Zúñiga Mora Lindsay Rodríguez Cubero ????????????????

ALEXANDRA DE LOS ÁNGELES ZÚÑIGA MORA, JUDGE/CLERK LINDSAY RODRÍGUEZ CUBERO, DECIDING JUDGE ELEUTERIO Nombre155265, DECIDING JUDGE Goicoechea, Dirección01, 50 meters west of BNCR, in front of Dirección02. Phones: 2545-0107 (EXT 01-2707) or 2545-0099 (EXT 01-2599). Fax: 2241-5664 and 2545-0006.

CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR/A:

GRUPO AGROINDUSTRIAL TRES JOTAS DEMANDADO/A:

INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD Nº CED123694 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN PRIMERA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A. Goicoechea, at nine thirty hours on the ninth of August, two thousand twenty-two.- Ordinary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento) of oral and public trial, filed by Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota Sociedad Anónima, corporate identification number CED123695, represented by its Special Judicial Attorney-in-Fact, Lic. Juan Carlos Castro Loría, of legal age, attorney, bar association number CED123696, against the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, represented by Licda. Marcela Segura Salazar, of legal age, attorney, bar association number CED87784, in her capacity as Special Judicial Attorney-in-Fact.

CONSIDERANDO

I.- PRELIMINARY ASPECTS. The procedural history (iter procesal) includes the following:

1.- The plaintiff requests that the judgment declare the present claim (demanda) with merit in all its aspects, ordering the absolute nullity of official communication number CED123697, dated June 27, 2018, adopted by the Brunca Region Agency of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, as well as the absolute nullity of the document identified with number CED123693, dated August 7 of the current year, issued by the Brunca Regional Directorate of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, San Isidro Agency. Likewise, by connection (conexidad), that the nullity of any subsequent act that is a derivation or consequence of the indicated official communications be declared. 2.- That the defendant Institute be ordered to pay the damages (daños y perjuicios) that may eventually result from the aforementioned acts, and which, due to the circumstances of their non-execution as a result of the precautionary measure ordered by the Tribunal, must be set as of unquantifiable amount (cuantía inestimable). 3.- That the defendant be ordered to pay the costs incurred (costas causadas). B. SUBSIDIARY CLAIMS. 1. That the statute of limitations (prescripción) be declared for the sums whose collection the defendant Institute seeks. 2. That the defendant Institute be ordered to pay the damages that may eventually result from the aforementioned acts and which, due to the circumstances of their non-execution as a result of the precautionary measure ordered by the Tribunal, must be set as of unquantifiable amount. 3. That the defendant be ordered to pay the costs incurred. (Images 126-171, electronic file).

• 2)By brief dated October 18, 2018, the legal representative of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad appeared in the proceeding, opposing the claim and requesting that the proceeding be dismissed (Images 134-138, electronic file).
• 3)That on August 8, 2019, the preliminary hearing was held in which the proceeding was sanitized (saneó), and the new facts presented in the brief of November 24, 2020, were accepted, and the claims were established according to the original claim brief and with the following Amendment: Nullity of official communication number 0510-00688-18 dated September 18, 2018 (Images 105-107, electronic file).
• 4)On July 27, 2022, the oral and public trial was held. The testimonial evidence offered by the parties was presented, and during closing arguments the parties reiterated what was indicated in the procedural phase. (Listen to digital recording).

In the proceedings, the terms and prescriptions of law have been observed, and no defects or omissions capable of producing nullity or defenselessness (indefensión) to the parties are noted. This ruling is issued within the legal term, after deliberation, unanimously, and in writing by the reporting judge (juez ponente) Nombre155265, with the affirmative vote of judges Alexandra Zúñiga Mora and Lindsay Rodríguez Cubero.

II.- PROVEN FACTS (HECHOS PROBADOS): The following are considered as such due to their importance for the resolution of this matter:

• 1)That on May 21, 2009, the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. requested from ICE an electrical service applying the medium-voltage (media tensión, MT) tariff for its meat processing plant (Cf. 1, administrative file).
• 2)That on May 22, 2009, the plaintiff company and ICE signed an addendum (adenda) to the original contract for the supply of electrical energy type: low, medium, and high voltage subscribers (f. 15, electronic file).
• 3)That on May 27, 2009, the electrical service requested by the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jotas was carried out, whose location was assigned reference number 635590009454, in which the meter was installed with the following characteristics: "Placa32095°, Brand Itron, Type SS4A2T, Registration Type FM 10 A, Case 20, Elements 3, Phases 3, Wires 4, Kh 1.8, Volts 120/480, Sc. KW Electronic. Three ABB brand current transformers 600/5 each, with an energy constant of 122.40 (f. 17-18, administrative file).
• 4)That on August 31, 2009, the installed meter (proven fact 3) was changed because it did not have a load profile and one with a load profile was needed, with a billing constant of 61.2 (f. 20-22, administrative file).
• 5)That on November 7, 2016, a meter change was made with number 1341360 for maintenance reasons with a billing constant of 61.2 (f. 34, administrative file).
• 6)That on November 9, 2016, ICE prepared the Inspection and Testing Record for Measurement Systems form for meter number 1341360 with a measurement constant of 61.20 (Images 36, administrative file).
• 7)By note dated May 30, 2017, the General Manager of Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A., requested the relocation of the transformer bank (f. 37, administrative file).
• 8)That on May 29, 2018, the form was prepared by official Nombre155266, and without a number called "Movements in Maximum Demand Measurements" in which it is indicated: "Change constant from 61.2 to 122.4" Remote reading, please apply in billing starting from month 6/18" (f. 45, administrative file).
• 9)By note dated May 29, 2018, Lic. José Antonio Rivera Fuentes, Customer Service Executive, notified Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. that there was an erroneous application of the constant in the measurement system of meter number 1341360, and that the amounts to be paid for the difference according to technical regulations would be sent subsequently (f. 46, administrative file).
• 10)By official communication number 1612-485-2018 dated June 2, 2018, signed by Licda. Nombre155267, the administrative collection process for energy consumed and not billed for the period from August 2009 to May 2018, in the amount of Five Hundred Eleven Million Three Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Eighteen colones, was communicated to the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. Official communication duly notified on July 17, 2018 (f. 55-57, administrative file).
• 11)By note received on July 20, 2018, at the San Isidro Norte de Pérez Zeledón Agency, Mr. Nombre155268, in his capacity as General Manager of Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A., opposed the collection made by ICE (proven fact 10) and requested a new study, but if said petition was not granted, he filed an appeal for reconsideration with appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación) (f. 62, administrative file).

III.- UNPROVEN FACTS (HECHOS NO PROBADOS). The following are considered unproven facts relevant to this matter: 1) That the difference in the reading of the energy supplied and charged by ICE is the responsibility of the plaintiff company (the court records). 2) The damages caused to the plaintiff company (lack of evidence).

IV.- ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY: By way of summary and without prejudice to the Tribunal's comprehensive reading of the claim brief, the plaintiff indicates the following grievances: That its represented party requested an electrical energy service, and meter number Placa32096 was installed on May 27, 2009, with a constant of 122.4 (f.18). Subsequently, on August 21, 2009, the meter was changed to number Placa32097 and a constant of 61.2 was applied (f. 22-23). That on November 7, 2016, for maintenance reasons, a new meter change was made with number 1341360, carrying forward the same constant error of 61.2, and it was not until May 29, 2018, that the Administration noticed the error and ordered the constant change. That two effects derive from what happened: first, that the errors incurred by the defendant administration originated from administrative behaviors that evidence neglect on its part, and which can in no way be attributed to its represented party; and second, that the error persisted for many years despite the frequent inspections carried out by ICE officials. That in accordance with Article 51 of the technical standard (AR-NT-SUCOM), there is a temporal limit that prevents collections beyond that historical event, that is, from the last meter installed by ICE. Since the technical standard issued by the regulatory body is mandatory and nullifies any claim to go beyond what is established by ARESEP, this causes the challenged acts to have a substantial and temporal defect regarding the subjective element of competence of the act, which it requests be declared. That in addition to the above, according to the opinion outlined by the Procuraduría, the applicable regulation for collections derived from the provision of services is that regulated in the Commerce Code (Código de Comercio) (4 years) and not the ten-year period of the Civil Code (Código Civil); therefore, it requests that the statute of limitations be declared for the sums whose collection the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad seeks.

V.- ARGUMENTS OF THE INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD. The legal representation of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, upon answering the claim, opposed it, and stated, in summary form and without prejudice to the comprehensive reading of its allegations, the following: That since its creation, ICE was entrusted with the task of making its technical, administrative, and financial procedures models of efficiency that not only guarantee the Institute's proper functioning but can also serve as a standard for other activities of Costa Ricans, having to use all means at its disposal to increase the production of electrical energy, hence the importance of the income received as it will be reinvested in constant development for the benefit of the country. That its represented party, as a public entity subject to the principle of legality (principio de legalidad), carries out periodic inspections at the electricity sector service agencies on installed services, in which the operation of the measurement system and the use being given to it are verified to determine if the recorded consumption is correct. For this reason, the plaintiff's argument attributed as the basis for the collection is incorrect, because in reality, the error that occurred was the product of a wrong application of the constant used in ICE's billing system, which is an arithmetic error and not a measurement error in the system itself. That on May 29, 2018, ICE personnel carried out a technical inspection on meter number 1341360 and at that moment detected an irregularity in the translation of the information gathered by the technician regarding the constant used in the billing process. This inconsistency caused that the electrical energy actually consumed was not recorded as such in the billing, since it was being recorded and billed with a constant of 61.2 when, in reality, the constant 122.4 should have been used. The procedure for correcting billing errors is a mechanism recognized and endorsed by the regulations governing the operation of companies providing electrical services, so within that procedure it was determined that the electrical energy consumed and not billed to the plaintiff between August 2009 and May 2018 was provided by its represented party.

VI- OF THE ALLEGED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS. Even though the statute of limitations defense (excepción de prescripción) filed by the plaintiff is invoked as a subsidiary claim, being a privileged defense, which if declared with merit could influence the decision on the merits of the matter, this Tribunal considers that it must rule on this figure beforehand. In summary, the plaintiff states to support this defense that according to the opinion of the Procuraduría in its opinion number C-082-92, the statute of limitations for invoices for the provision of public electricity services must be subject to the four-year period provided in Article 984 of the Commerce Code, and not that regulated in Article 868 of the Civil Code which the Administration maintains. Criterion of the Tribunal. Before resolving the alleged statute of limitations, it is important to briefly and roughly define the legal nature of ICE in relation to the sale of electrical service. Through Decree Law No. 449 of April 8, 1949, ICE was created and assigned the fundamental competence of providing electrical energy to the country. Thus, Article 1 of the Decree entrusts it with the "rational development of the physical energy-producing sources that the Nation possesses, especially hydraulic resources." An obligation to channel the use of hydroelectric energy in strengthening the national economy and the well-being of our inhabitants. These competences were expanded in Law No. 3226 of October 28, 1963, to telephone, telegraphic, radiotelegraphic, and radiotelephonic communication services; competences that were further expanded upon the approval of the Law approving the Central American Electricity Market Framework Treaty, Law No. 7848 of November 20, 1998. Now, the scope of these competences is reiterated in the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities of the Telecommunications Sector, No. 8660 of August 8, 2008. Within the framework of strengthening and modernization of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, this Law has as its objectives in its second article, the following: "Objectives of the Law.

• a)Strengthen, modernize, and equip the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (ICE), its companies, and its attached bodies with the legislation that allows it to adapt to all changes in the legal regime for the generation and provision of electricity services, as well as telecommunications, infocommunications, information products and services, and other converged services. b) Complement Decree-Law No. 449, of April 8, 1949, Regulation for the creation of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute, and its amendments, to provide ICE with the legal, financial, and administrative conditions necessary for it to continue providing and marketing electricity and telecommunications products and services, within national territory and outside it (….)”. Objectives that must be achieved with the development and execution of the competence assigned in Article 6 of the same Law, which reads: “Competences of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute and its companies. ICE and its companies, within national territory and outside it, shall be competent for the following: a) Generate, install, and operate networks, provide, acquire, and market electricity, telecommunications, and infocommunications products and services, as well as other information and converged products and services, directly or through agreements, cooperation conventions, associations, strategic alliances, or any other form of association with other national or foreign entities, public or private. b) Act as agents of the electrical market in the other countries that adhere to the Framework Treaty of the Central American Electrical Market, approved by Law No. 7848, of November 20, 1998, or any other instrument that may be signed and ratified in the future.” Generation, installation, and operation of electricity and telecommunications networks, provision of electricity, telecommunications, and infocommunications services, and other converged services. To fulfill these competences, it is authorized to enter into business associations, as well as to sell services to third parties.” With the foregoing background, this collegiate body considers that the service provided by the Costa Rican Electricity Institute in its different indicated areas falls within the scope of industry and remunerated commerce, albeit through a public price, which must be understood as those considerations satisfied for the private use or special exploitation of the public domain, as well as the provision of services or performance of administrative activities when their request or receipt is not mandatory, or when they are capable of being provided by the private sector, as they do not involve the exercise of authority. In this regard, Article 3 of the General Law of the Public Administration provides for this situation and establishes: "1- Public law shall regulate the organization and activity of public entities, unless express rule provides otherwise. 2- Private law shall regulate the activity of entities that, due to their overall regime and the requirements of their line of business, may be considered as common industrial or commercial enterprises." It is thus that, in accordance with said article, it can be affirmed that the distribution of electricity provided in this case by a public entity (ICE) is of a commercial nature, and while the entity is subject to dual regulation regarding its organization and control, submitting as a whole to the fundamental principles of public service to ensure its continuity, efficiency, and adaptability, it must be understood that the relationships resulting from the provision of the service (considering also its nature) would be subject to the regime of Private Law, unless we are in the presence of the exercise of an imperium power, which does not happen in the sub examine. The foregoing is important, because when the commercialization of a service occurs between the provider and the administered party who pays for its enjoyment, such a relationship and its derivations are subject to the ambit of private law, specifically commercial law. Now, regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción) for billing for the payment of the service provided, regardless of whether said public service is provided by a state entity or by a private party, the rules of the Code of Commerce must be applied, and not the one contained in the Civil Code, as reiterated, because we are facing a relationship (service contract) of a commercial and not civil nature. Along these lines, Article 968 of the Code of Commerce, in what is relevant, provides: "Actions arising from commercial acts and contracts shall prescribe in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Prescription occurs by the non-exercise of the respective right within the legally indicated period." For its part, Article 984 of the Code of Commerce establishes: "Unless expressly provided otherwise in other chapters of this Code, all rights and their corresponding actions prescribe in four years, with the following exceptions that prescribe in one year. (...)". On the subject, Section V of this Tribunal, in the resolution that was referenced by ICE's representation within its closing arguments and which is recorded in file No. 16-09528-1027-CA, upon issuing judgment No. 57-2018-V at 2:20 p.m. on July 23, 2018, and in what is relevant, stated: "For this purpose, it is necessary to specify that in the case under examination, we are facing a public price, a figure that operates when we are facing the exploitation of a public domain asset, or the provision of a public service such as drinking water, telephone service, or energy supply. Public prices are not set based on the imperium power, but rather in attention to criteria of an economic and even political nature. This public price, derived from the provision of a service that is also public, in the case under examination arises from a relationship of a commercial nature, and despite not obviating that the activity is subject to dual regulation—private law and public law—the truth is that the rules applicable to the aspect of the commercialization of the service are those of private law, and in the specific case, those provided in the Code of Commerce. In this sense, the applicable rule is the one provided in Article 984 of said legal body, which provides for a statute of limitations (prescripción) period of four years." In conclusion to what has been indicated so far, this Chamber considers that the statute of limitations (prescripción) period for electricity service invoices is the one contained in the Code of Commerce, that is, 4 years. A period that must be computed from the date of the billing of the last installed meter. Finally, and for the knowledge of the parties, it must be indicated that this position is also held by the Civil Courts when resolving collection processes for public services, changing their criterion regarding the application of the ten-year statute of limitations (prescripción) contained in the Civil Code and that was alleged here, thus; the First Court of Civil Appeals of San José, in resolution No. 0067-2020 at 2:50 p.m. on February 21, 2020, in what is relevant, stated: "This Chamber has long since referred that the statute of limitations (prescripción) in this type of matter is the one set forth in the Code of Commerce. Thus, it has been indicated: '… In the provision of the public service of electricity, public lighting, and telecommunications, the petitioner Institute acts in the exercise of a commercial enterprise. Of course, we are in the presence of services provided by a public company. On this basis and in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 subsection 2) of the General Law of the Public Administration, this is a provision regulated by commercial law in its relationship with the user or beneficiary. This being the case, as the appellant states, the ordinary four-year statute of limitations (prescripción) prescribed in Article 984 of the Code of Commerce applies in this case, and not the ten-year one from the Civil Code, erroneously applied by the First Instance Judge...' (First Civil Court, Vote 649-1C at 9:05 on August 14, 2015)". Having resolved the issue regarding the applicable regulation on the statute of limitations (prescripción), in the sub examine, it is found that ICE, after realizing there was an error in the billing for the electricity service provided to the plaintiff company, opened the administrative collection procedure with file number ENF-1612-001-2018, and through official letter No. 1612-845-2018 of June 27, 2018, duly notified on July 17, 2018 (a date on which the statute of limitations (prescripción) would be interrupted), communicated to the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. the administrative charge for energy consumed and not billed for the period between August 2009 and May 2018 for an exact amount of five hundred eleven million three hundred fifty-six thousand five hundred eighteen colones. Now, to resolve this specific case, given that there is an express rule on how the difference between the energy delivered and the energy billed must be charged, it is essential to bring up what was ordered by the Board of Directors of the Regulatory Authority of Public Services upon approving the regulatory technical standard called "Supervision of the commercialization of the electrical supply in low and medium voltage" AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014”, which in its Article 51, in what is relevant to this specific issue of the statute of limitations (prescripción), provides: "If the electrical company determines failures in the metering system, including the metering constant, that caused lower billing than what was actually consumed (energy) and demanded (power) by the subscriber or user, it must make the corresponding adjustment starting from the billing of the last installed meter." In this context, the meter change occurred on November 7, 2016 (this specific topic, that is, the rest of the charged period, will be addressed by this Chamber later), which would be the date on which ICE is legitimized to charge, and the start of the statute of limitations (prescripción) period would begin to run. Now, since ICE became aware through the report made by official Nombre155266 on May 19, 2018, in which he indicates “change constant from 61.2 to 122.4” (proven fact 8) and the generation of the corrected invoice is from the month of May 2018, and the administrative charge for the unbilled difference was duly notified on July 17, 2018, a time at which the statute of limitations (prescripción) is interrupted. Now, by a simple arithmetic operation, applying Article 984 of the Code of Commerce and the four years provided in said article, the debt for the unbilled amount would be from November 7, 2016, applying Article 51 of the cited regulatory framework, therefore the debt would not be prescribed, and the statute of limitations (prescripción) defense must be rejected on that basis.

VII.- ON THE MERITS OF THE MATTER. Having stated the foregoing, this Chamber proceeds to hear the arguments of the parties on the merits. From the framework of the claims raised by the party, both in its lawsuit and as they were adjusted in the preliminary hearing, at the core, the annulment of official letters number 1612-485-2018 of June 27, 2018, 1612-522-20188 of August 7, 2018, 0510-00688-18 of September 18, 2018, is requested, as well as the damages caused. To support its claims, the representation of the plaintiff company stated that from the events that occurred and are recorded in the file, it can be derived that the errors incurred by the defendant administration originated from administrative behaviors that show a lack of diligence on its part, and in no way can be attributed to its client, further noting that the error persisted for many years despite the frequent inspections carried out by ICE officials. That according to Article 51 of the technical standard (AR-NT-SUCOM), there is a temporal limit that makes charges beyond that historical event impossible, that is, from the last meter installed by ICE. That since the technical standard dictated by the regulatory body is mandatory and vitiates any attempt to go beyond what was set by ARESEP, it makes the challenged acts have a substantial and temporal defect regarding the subjective element of competence of the challenged administrative act and those that depend on it. Criterion of the Tribunal. A) From the factual framework, it can be extracted that there is no controversy regarding the energy consumed by the plaintiff party and that was not billed at the time by ICE; the issue to be resolved is whether or not ICE has the right to charge for the consumed energy not billed to the plaintiff and up to what date. It must be started, in accordance with what was indicated in the previous recital (considerando), that the existing relationship between the plaintiff company and ICE comes from the electric energy service contract that exists between both, where due to the particularities of the public service, it is regulated by law in terms of its rates and conditions, but by the contract signed between both, in accordance with the provisions of Article 411 of the Code of Commerce, “the parties shall be bound in the manner and in the terms that appear they wished to be bound,” a rule that is effectively a reflection of Article 1022 of the Civil Code which provides “Contracts are law between the parties.” Due to this, in principle, since ICE has accredited and it follows from the documentary evidence, constituting an uncontested fact by the parties, that ICE effectively supplied electric energy to the plaintiff company but billed it a lesser amount due to an error in the metering constant carried out by ICE officials, after correcting the technical aspect, it is the company's obligation to pay for the consumed electricity. Now, on this topic the parties are clear that it is duly regulated in Articles 51 and 52 of Resolution No. RJD-072-2015 “Supervision of the commercialization of the electrical supply in low and medium voltage" AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014”, but which is submitted to this Tribunal for the correct interpretation and application of said rules for this specific case. In this vein, the articles of the cited regulatory framework provide: "Article 51. Billing errors due to problems in the metering system. If the electrical company determines failures in the metering system, including the metering constant, that caused lower billing than what was actually consumed (energy) and demanded (power) by the subscriber or user, it must make the corresponding adjustment starting from the billing of the last installed meter. For this purpose, the electrical company must notify the subscriber or user, and the charge must be made in a separate invoice, unless the subscriber or user authorizes the inclusion of said item in the corresponding bill, through an agreement to that effect. If, on the contrary, the electrical company detects that failures in the metering system, including the metering constant, are causing higher billing than what was actually consumed and demanded by the subscriber or user, it must reimburse everything overcharged, according to the procedure established by the company for returns. In either case, the energy and demand consumed shall be estimated based on what is indicated in Article 52. Article 52. Procedure for charging consumed and unbilled energy and power. When the service provider demonstrates that, in a service, electrical energy was consumed and power was demanded that was not charged in its entirety, or more energy was charged than consumed or more power was charged than demanded, it may estimate the energy consumed and the power demanded. To calculate the amount to charge for the consumed and unbilled energy and the demanded and unbilled power, the electrical company shall use as a basis three actual readings subsequent to the correction of the cause that gave rise to the error or, in those services where there is a seasonal type load (for example: sugar mills, coffee processing plants, or clients with a seasonal/time-of-use rate), the month in which the failure occurred shall be compared with its seasonality average from the previous year. In case of overcharging for power and energy, it must return the totality of the excess charged, based on the company's records or the evidence provided by the subscriber or user. Under no circumstance may the electrical company suspend the service if the subscriber or user is up to date with the payment of the electric energy bill for the last consumption period put up for collection." From a careful reading of both articles, this Tribunal does not find the alleged discussion points that have the parties in conflict, specifically, that Article 52 regulates cases when dealing with human errors such as the one that occurred in the sub judice, it being clear that the first typifies the legal situation that would arise when there is an error in the metering system, and the second succinctly describes the procedure to follow to charge for the consumed and unbilled energy and power. This interpretation is reinforced by what is provided in the same Article 51 in the final paragraph which reads: “In either case, the energy and demand consumed shall be estimated based on what is indicated in Article 52,” it is clear then, that there is no room for another interpretation. In this context, and without prejudice to what has been indicated, even if one were to accept the hypothesis that from Article 52 it could be extracted that the will of the regulatory legislator was to regulate those assumptions of human error not attributable to the consumer but to the service provider and unrelated to the metering systems including the constant, as the defendant's representation alleges, said rule could also not be applied because, in the criterion of this Chamber, the controversy between the parties submitted to this Tribunal is resolved with the provisions of Article 51 as will be indicated below. In this context, said rule provides that “if the electrical company determines failures in the metering system, including the metering constant, that caused lower billing than what was actually consumed (energy) and demanded (power) by the subscriber or user, it must make the corresponding adjustment starting from the billing of the last installed meter”; note that the rule is very clear that the failure can occur in “the metering system” or in “the metering constant” or even both at the same time, so to know when we are in the first scenario (failure in the metering system), Article three of said standard, in reference to definitions, indicates that a metering system must be understood as follows: “Metering system: is the set of equipment and materials (energy meters, wiring, communication device, potential and current transformers) used for the measurement and registration of the energy and power required in an electrical service”; that is; when there is lower or higher billing for energy due to the metering system, it is because some of the set of equipment or materials that the service provider uses to measure the supplied energy has failed. Now, for the second scenario called “metering constant”, said standard does not define it, however, the witness-expert Nombre155269, an expert in the field offered by ICE, clarified this technical term indicating: “The constant is a relationship between what the meter is registering and what is actually being delivered to the client.

That measurement constant must be transferred to the information system that allows for the billing of the electric service so that when the reading data arrive, they can be scaled to the real value to be billed”;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> from everything stated by the expert, it can be affirmed that the measurement constant is an arithmetic value (formula) used to determine the real value of the energy delivered and consumed, by virtue of what the expert witness Mora Zúñiga expressed, and likewise the witness Nombre155267</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">stated the same, confirming such situation, that is, the installed equipment does not measure or directly mark said value as happens with normal meters installed in homes, because high-voltage energy is involved, therefore, in that regard, the reading of the data registered by the measurement systems (reiterating, equipment or meter) must be noted and subsequently the corresponding measurement constant (arithmetic formula) must be applied to obtain the exact value (which in this case should have been 122.4 and not 61.2) and proceed with the correct billing. In this line of reasoning, from the documentation provided and from what the parties themselves have said, it is clear that the error occurred in the measurement constant, and to that extent, the regulation expressly regulates said situation (factual assumption) and makes no distinction, as the parties have tried to make it seem (basis of the conflict), whether it is an arithmetic error or a human error, negligence or lack of skill; it simply indicates </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“including the constant”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">, thus not admitting any other interpretation. It is clear to this Tribunal, based on the explanation given by the expert regarding what should be understood as the measurement constant, that said factor can never be entered into the system or measured by an instrument, as it is an arithmetic factor that the employee records on the work order depending on the measurement system used (Article 3 of the Technical Standard), therefore it is irrelevant to determine whether or not it is a human error, as this was taken into account by the regulatory legislator in the standard by expressly including said element within the measurement error and not only failures in the instruments; given that we are in the presence of strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) of the service provider in a consumer relationship, pursuant to the provisions of Article 35 of Law No. 7472, from which liability is released only if the provider is unrelated to the damage. In addition to the above, there is no doubt that the error was made by the defendant itself (an uncontested fact accepted by ICE), in that sense both Mr. Nombre155269</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">and Mrs. Nombre155267 were unanimous in indicating that the official in charge of performing the measurement initially made a mistake in recording the constant; in this regard and on this specific topic, Mr. Nombre155269</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">, when asked by ICE’s legal representation, indicated: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“The human error that was made was that the technician recorded that the transformers were 300 to 5</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">and not 600 to 5 as they really are, by varying this, the real constant varied from 61.2 to 122.4, so the measurement system had no problem, rather it recorded what it had to record, the problem occurred due to a human error in the billing system which is a separate system, that is, the reading is taken in the measurement system and transferred to another system, which is the billing system. In the billing system there was an arithmetic error, there is a value, a constant that was entered inadequately”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">. Now, from a thorough review of the administrative file, it is evident that when the work order dated May 27, 2009, called “Movimiento en Mediciones de Máxima Demanda” for the installation of the new service was made, three current transformers “Brand: ABB, Ratio 600/5” were recorded in the Current Transformer field corresponding to meter No. 1055582, with a constant of 122.4, installed by the official Nombre155266</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">(pages 18-19, administrative file), subsequently on August 31, 2009, the same official made the work order with which the meter change service is performed and</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">the note is recorded </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“it is changed because the meter it has does not have a load profile and one with a load profile is needed”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">, recording in the Current Transformer field, 3 ABB brand transformers, with a ratio of 300/5, and also that there is no change of current transformer nor changes of potential transformer (page 22, administrative file). It is from this point (preparation of the work order) that the constant error is carried forward and was detected when the change of meter No. 1341360 was made, in which the transformer ratio 600/5 is recorded again and it is indicated in observations that the constant must be changed from 61.2 to 122.4 for its application in the billing for month 6/18 (page 45). Now, it draws this Tribunal’s attention, although it is not a topic of discussion nor does it influence the resolution of the matter, that the work orders outlined here in the timeline and that clearly caused the error at the time of billing the energy provided by ICE and consumed by the subscriber, were made by the same official when performing the change or maintenance services, so it is not understood, nor is there evidence brought to the case in relation to it, why said official changed the value of the transformers that ultimately resulted in the change of the constant to be used, that is, from 61.2 to 112.4. Having outlined the above, and being clear that the regulation (Article 51) makes no distinction whether the failure in the constant is a human or arithmetic error, and pursuant to the provisions of Article 35 of Law No. 7274, that liability would only be released when it is demonstrated that the merchant (in this case the service provider) is unrelated to the damage, which has not happened here (as ICE’s own representation accepts the fact); it only remains to review whether the period charged for the concept of energy delivered and not billed, to which ICE is effectively entitled, is adjusted to law or not. In this line of reasoning, Article 51 provides that once the failure is detected, the service provider </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“must make the corresponding adjustment </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:sub\">from the billing of the last meter installed</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">, meaning not only the equipment or constant as in this specific case, but the adjustment of the difference, whether in favor of the provider or in favor of the consumer (when overcharged), from the billing of the last meter installed; according to the proven facts and as accepted by the parties (uncontested), the last meter was installed on November 7, 2016, so in the opinion of this Tribunal, adhering to the legal maxim </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“in lex claris, no interpretatio”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">, there is no other remedy but to indicate that it is from said date that the defendant can charge the unbilled difference, and cannot charge beyond that due to the legal imperative of when said specific event occurs, meaning the period charged from August 2009 until November 7, 2016, is improper, and ICE must adjust the claimed amounts by excluding said period from that sum. This Tribunal does not omit to state that there is no doubt between the parties that the plaintiff company has consumed the amount of measured energy because the equipment has not failed, but that there was an error in the billing equation (constant) that resulted in ICE charging a value lower than the real one, which in principle, according to the contract, would give it the right to said remuneration for the service provided; however, it is also clear that even though we are in a commercial consumer relationship, as indicated supra, ICE continues to be subject to public law in its organization and activity, pursuant to the provisions of subsection 1) of Article 3 of the General Public Administration Law, consequently it could not act contrary to what an express regulation provides (such as the one pertaining to this specific case), under penalty of violating the Principle of Legality. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">B) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">Regarding the nullity alleged by the plaintiff of the contested official letters, it indicated that there is a substantial and temporal defect (vicio) in the subjective element of competence of the act for being contrary to the provisions of Article 51 of the referenced technical standard by charging periods not authorized. Well, said grievance must be rejected by virtue of the fact that, according to doctrine and jurisprudence, the defect in the subjective element of the act is due to reasons of the entity’s existence and its capacity, the organ’s existence and its competence, and in this case there is no doubt that ICE not only has the capacity but also the competence to charge the difference of unbilled energy based not only on the regulations already indicated but also on the contract signed by both parties. The issue here arises from an erroneous interpretation made by ICE of said regulation, which leads it to stipulate in the contested act a different sum for an unauthorized term, therefore what would indeed be defective would be the element called “content” pursuant to the provisions of subsection 2) of Article 132 of the General Public Administration Law, which must be proportional to the legal purpose and correspond to the motive, and in the sub examine the motive element (legal antecedent), as already indicated, expressly authorizes charging the difference but with a temporal limit. Now, given that according to Article 49 of the Constitution, which grants this jurisdiction the power to review the administrative function of the State and its institutions, in relation to Article 1 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, this Chamber proceeds to review the pathology of the contested act, determining in that sense, from what has been said so far, that there effectively exists a defect of absolute nullity in it, but not in its subjective element as alleged by the aggrieved party, but in the objective element called “content,” which, pursuant to the provisions of Article 167 of the LGAP, which reads: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“There shall be relative nullity of the act when one of its constituent elements is imperfect, except </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:sub\">that the imperfection prevents the realization of the purpose, in which case it shall be absolute</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">” (underlining is not from the original)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> must be declared ex officio, as is indeed done at this moment. Now, pursuant to the provisions of Article 122 of the Procedural Code, the declaration of nullity just decreed is dimensioned in the following sense: the administration must proceed to make the respective calculations of the energy delivered and not billed from the date the last meter was installed, that is, November 7, 2017, until the date the correction was made and the plaintiff company began to pay the correct amount with the constant 122.4</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; color:#ff0000\">. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">C) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">Finally, regarding the alleged damages and losses, they must be rejected for the following considerations. As already determined supra, in this specific case there exists a commercial consumer relationship, so the fundamental rights of consumers must be applied, which are established in Article 46, fifth paragraph, of the Political Constitution, as well as developed in the cited Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense. They are summarized in that the consumer has the right to the following: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">1.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Protection of their health; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">2.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Protection of their environment; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">3.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Protection of their security; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">4.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Protection of their economic interests; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">5.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Right to receive adequate and truthful information about the services or goods they acquire; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">6.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Freedom of choice of the goods and services they wish to acquire or use; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">7.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Equitable treatment, meaning that the merchant or provider must treat the consumer equitably and respectfully regarding their simple claims, or in the protection of their rights both in administrative and judicial venues. Now, these fundamental consumer rights must be interpreted within the legal nature of commercial consumer relationships, which protect the weaker party in that relationship. Precisely, this has been clearly explained by our Constitutional Court in ruling 8587-02, as well as in other binding precedents of that jurisdictional body, by pointing out that in the commercial consumer relationship between the merchant or provider and the consumer, there exists, due to the natural dynamics of commerce, an inequality between them, and the consumer in this relationship is the weaker party, so our Political Constitution comes to balance that consumer relationship, granting the consumer a series of fundamental rights that protect them from their natural inequality with the merchant and provider. Furthermore, our constitutional text imposes on the State the obligation to support the rights that defend the consumer, this means that in proceedings where a conflict produced within a commercial consumer relationship must be resolved, as in the present matter, the interpretation and application of the rules, in case of doubt, must favor the weaker party, that is, the consumer. Precisely, in matters of consumer protection, something similar happens to what occurs in the labor venue with the indubio pro operario principle and in the criminal process itself with the indubio pro reo principle. In general, they are protectionist rules that defend the weaker party in a relationship, so that, in case of conflict, the judge must interpret and apply the legal rule always bearing in mind that the consumer has a series of fundamental rights, so procedurally speaking, the merchant or provider has the</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">obligation to demonstrate that they have fulfilled their obligations in the consumer relationship and that they have respected the fundamental rights of the consumer. That is, they have the burden of proof, which is a fundamental rule in matters of consumer protection. Consequently, if a violation of the constitutional and legal rights of the consumer occurs by the merchant or provider, the latter must repair the harmful effect caused to the consumer, under the strict liability regime established in Article 35 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Consumer Defense, which provides: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“Liability regime. The producer, the provider, and the merchant must respond concurrently and independently of the existence of fault, if the consumer is harmed by reason of the good or the service, of inadequate or insufficient information about them, or of their use and risks. Only one who demonstrates that they have been unrelated to the damage is released. The legal representatives of commercial establishments or, where appropriate, those in charge of the business are responsible for their own acts or facts or those of their dependents or auxiliaries. The technicians, those in charge of preparation and control respond jointly and severally, when appropriate, for violations of this Law to the detriment of the consumer.</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">From the examination of said mandate, the following rules for the application of this type of liability are reached: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">1-</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> It is strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva), in which the demonstration of intent or fault of the author of the damage is not necessary, but rather what is important is the imputation of the damage; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">2-</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> There must be harmful conduct, by action or omission, this means that a violation, active or passive, of the fundamental rights of the consumer must be presented by the merchant or provider; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">3-</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Damage must be caused, which means an injury to the protected legal interest, which in this case would be consumer protection as the consumer is the weaker party in the commercial consumer relationship; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">4-</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> A causal link that connects the harmful conduct and the damage produced; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">5-</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> This causal link can be broken only if the party to whom the damage is imputed, the merchant or provider, demonstrates \"</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">that they have been unrelated to the damage\",</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> that is, they have the burden of proof in a jurisdictional process. The foregoing is because we are in the presence of strict liability, which is related to the purpose of the constitutional and legal rules to protect the consumer as the weakest party within the commercial consumer relationship, so it is up to the merchant or provider, to exonerate themselves from liability, to prove that they fulfilled their obligations to the consumer, as well as that they were completely and without any doubt unrelated to any damage caused to the latter. In the sub examine, although as determined, there is conduct contrary to law for which nullity was declared, it is also true, and in that sense it is not proven by the plaintiff that the conduct displayed by ICE, specifically charging the sum owed, caused them any damage or loss. This is determined because even once the administrative charge was notified on July 17, 2018, the legal representative of Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. on July 23, 2018, filed an antecausam precautionary measure before this Court requesting the suspension of the effects of official letter No. 1612-485-2018, granting by resolution at 14:40 hrs. on July 26, 2018, the provisionalísima precautionary measure, which was resolved on the merits by judgment No. 522-2018 at 09:40 hrs. on September 14, 2018, and confirmed by the Court of Appeals through ruling No. 409-2008-I at 11:04 hrs. on November 12, 2018, with the effects of the contested administrative act, which is here annulled, remaining suspended to this day. In conclusion, there is no damage that has been caused to the party, and as a corollary of this, its rejection is imposed.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">VIII.- ON THE DEFENSES AND CLAIMS OF THE PROCESS.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">A)</span><span> In answering the complaint, the representation of ICE did not expressly file any of the preliminary or substantive defenses regulated in the Code of the matter; however, it is the obligation of the judge to analyze the substantive prerequisites called lack of standing, lack of interest, and lack of right. In this order of ideas, it is verified from what has been indicated earlier that there is passive and active standing of the conflicting parties, as well as a current interest in the claims. However, there is partially a lack of right of the plaintiff in its claim, thus denying what is not expressly granted as indicated below.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">B)</span><span> With respect to the claims set by the plaintiff in the preliminary hearing and ratified in the oral and public trial, given that based on the evidence and arguments set forth previously by this Tribunal, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 119, 120, and 121 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, the lack of right filed by ICE’s representation must be partially upheld only regarding the amount charged for the period from November 7, 2016, to May 2018. Due to the foregoing, the plaintiff's claim is partially upheld regarding the nullity of the charge made by ICE to its represented party for the period from August 2009 to November 6, 2016.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">C)</span><span> In relation to the claimed damages and losses, since there is no damage caused because, as indicated earlier, the execution of the acts aimed at collection were suspended by the precautionary measure, they were not executed and consequently there is no damage to repair, so it is rejected as indicated in Considerando VIII.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">IX.- ON COSTS.</span><span> Pursuant to what is regulated in Article 193 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, personal and procedural costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by the fact of being such, and their dispensation only proceeds when, in the Tribunal's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate, or when the judgment is issued based on evidence whose existence the opposing party was unaware of. In the case under study, as there is reciprocal defeat, the exemption of costs proceeds pursuant to the provisions of Article 73.2.3 of the Civil Procedure Code, of supplementary application by remission of Article 220 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, which provides: </span><span style=\"font-style:italic\">Exemption (…)</span><span> </span><span style=\"font-style:italic\">“There is transcendent reciprocal defeat on claims, defenses, or exceptions”.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"-aw-import:ignore\">&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">Por Tanto</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-right:23.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span>The defense of Statute of Limitations is rejected. In accordance with Article 51 of the Technical Standard for Supervision of the Commercialization of the Electric Supply in Low and Medium Voltage AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014, Article 35 of Law No. 7274, Article 167 of the General Public Administration Law, Articles 119 and 122 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code, the complaint is partially upheld, with anything not expressly granted being understood as denied. Official letter number 1612-485-2018, of June 27, 2018, adopted by the Brunca Region Agency of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad is annulled only regarding the period from August 2009 to November 6, 2016, the date on which the billing was duly adjusted. By connection, official letters No. 1612-2018 of June 27, 2018, and No. 0510-00688-18 of September 18, 2018, are annulled.</span></p> The scope of this declaration of nullity is defined such that the administrative case file is returned so that the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad may proceed to perform the respective calculations for the billing of unbilled electric service from November 7, 2016, the date on which the last meter was installed, through May 29, 2018, the date on which the measurement constant was corrected. No special ruling on costs. <span style="font-weight:bold">Notify.</span> <span style="font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub">Nombre155265</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces"> </span> <span style="font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub">Alexandra Zúñiga Mora</span><span style="width:18.66pt; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub; display:inline-block"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub">Lindsay Rodríguez Cubero</span>

<span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">EXP: 18-006049-1027-CA</span> <span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">Goicoechea, Dirección01 , 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Dirección02 . Teléfonos: 2545-0107 (EXT 01-2707) ó 2545-0099 (EXT 01-2599). Fax: 2241-5664 y 2545-0006.</span> Email: ...01</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\">&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span style=\"-aw-import:ignore\">&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span style=\"-aw-import:ignore\">&#xa0;</span></p> JUDICIAL POWER, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ, CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY COURT. Goicoechea, at ten hours fifteen minutes on the twenty-third of November of two thousand twenty-two.

...

| --- | --- | | **Plaintiff:** | MUNICIPALITY OF PÉREZ ZELEDÓN | | **Defendant:** | COSTA RICAN ELECTRICITY INSTITUTE (INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD) | Nº CED123694 CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY COURT.

FIRST SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. ANNEX A.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Goicoechea, at nine thirty hours on the ninth of August, two thousand twenty-two.-</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:5.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">Ordinary proceeding for oral and public trial,</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> filed by </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">Grupo</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">Agroindustrial Tres Jota Sociedad Anónima</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">, legal identification number CED123695, represented by its Special Judicial Attorney-in-Fact, Lic. Juan Carlos Castro Loría, of legal age, attorney, bar association number CED123696, against the </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">represented by Licda. Marcela Segura Salazar, of legal age, attorney, bar association number CED87784, in her capacity as Special Judicial Attorney-in-Fact.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">CONSIDERING</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">I.- PRELIMINARY ASPECTS. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">As part of the procedural history (iter procesal), the following is noted:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">1.-</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\"> The plaintiff requests that the judgment declare this action granted in all its terms, ordering the absolute nullity of official communication number CED123697, of June 27, 2018, adopted by the Brunca Regional Agency of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, as well as the absolute nullity of the document identified with number CED123693, of August 7 of the current year, issued by the Brunca Regional Directorate of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, San Isidro Agency. In the same sense, by connection, that the nullity be declared of any subsequent act that may be a derivation or consequence of the indicated official communications. 2.- That the defendant Institute be ordered to pay the damages that may eventually result from the acts previously indicated, and which, due to the circumstances of their non-execution as a result of the precautionary measure ordered by the Tribunal, must be set as of unquantifiable amount. 3.- That the defendant party be ordered to pay the costs incurred. B. SUBSIDIARY CLAIMS. 1. That the statute of limitations (prescripción) be declared for the sums whose collection the defendant Institute seeks. 2. That the defendant Institute be ordered to pay the damages that may eventually result from the acts previously indicated and which, due to the circumstances of their non-execution, as a result of the precautionary measure ordered by the Tribunal, must be set as of unquantifiable amount. 3. That the defendant party be ordered to pay the costs incurred. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">(Images 126-171, electronic file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">2)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> By brief of October 18, 2018, the legal representative of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad appears in the proceeding, opposing the claim and requesting that the proceeding be declared without merit (images 134-138, electronic file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">3) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">That on August 8, 2019, the preliminary hearing was held in which the proceeding was corrected (saneó), and the new facts presented in the brief of November 24, 2020, were accepted, and the claims were fixed according to the original complaint brief and with the following Amplification:</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\"> Nullity of official communication number 0510-00688-18 of September 18, 2018</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> (images 105-107, electronic file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">4) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">On July 27, 2022, the oral and public trial was held. The testimonial evidence offered by the parties was taken, and during closing arguments the parties reiterated what was indicated in the procedural phase. (Listen to digital media).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-right:3.55pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-style:italic\">The terms and legal prescriptions have been observed in the proceedings, and no defects or omissions likely to produce nullity or defenselessness to the parties are noted. </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">This judgment is issued within the legal term, after deliberation, unanimously, and in writing by </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.15pt\">the reporting judge Nombre155265, with the affirmative vote of judges Alexandra Zúñiga Mora and Lindsay Rodríguez Cubero.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">II.-</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">PROVEN FACTS</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">: Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following are deemed as such: </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">1)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> That on May 21, 2009, the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. requested from ICE an electrical service applying the medium-voltage tariff</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">(MT) for its meat processing plant (Cf. 1, administrative file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">2) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">That on May 22, 2009, the plaintiff company and ICE signed an addendum to the original contract for the supply of electrical energy type: low, medium, and high-voltage subscribers (f. 15, electronic file). </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">3) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">That on May 27, 2009, the electrical service requested by the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jotas was carried out, whose location was assigned reference number 635590009454, in which the meter was installed with the following characteristics: “Placa32095°, Brand Itron, Type SS4A2T, Registration Type FM 10 A, Case 20, Elements 3, Phases 3, Wires 4, Kh 1.8, volts 120/480, Esc. KW Electronic. Three ABB brand current transformers 600/5 each, with an energy constant of 122.40 (f. 17-18, administrative file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">4) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">That on August 31, 2009, the installed meter (proven fact 3) is changed for reasons that it does not have a load profile and one with a load profile is needed, with a billing constant of 61.2 (f. 20-22, administrative file). </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">5) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">That on November 7, 2016, a meter change was made with number 1341360 for maintenance reasons with a billing constant of 61.2 (f. 34, administrative file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">6) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">That on November 9, 2016, ICE prepared the Inspection and Test Record form (boleta de Registro de Inspección y Prueba) for Measurement Systems on meter number 1341360 with a measurement constant of 61.20 (Images 36, administrative file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">7) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">By note of May 30, 2017, the General Manager of Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A., requests the relocation of the transformer bank (f. 37, administrative file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">8) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">That on May 29, 2018, the form is prepared by the official Nombre155266, and without number, called “Movements in Maximum Demand Measurements” in which it is indicated: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“Change constant from 61.2 to 122.4” Remote reading, please apply in billing starting from month 6/18”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> (f. 45, administrative file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">9)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Through a note of May 29, 2018, Lic. José Antonio Rivera Fuentes, Customer Service Executive, informs Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. that there is an erroneous application in the constant of the measurement system of meter number 1341360, and that subsequently the amounts to be paid for the difference according to the technical regulations will be sent (f. 46, administrative file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">10) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">By official communication number 1612-485-2018 of June 2, 2018, signed by Licda. Nombre155267</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. is notified of the administrative collection action for energy consumed and not billed for the period from August 2009 to May 2018, for an amount of Five Hundred Eleven Million Three Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand Five Hundred Eighteen colones. Official communication duly notified on July 17, 2018 (f. 55-57, administrative file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">11) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">Through a note received on July 20, 2018, at the San Isidro Norte de Pérez Zeledón Agency, Mr. Nombre155268</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">, in his capacity as General Manager of Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A., objects to the collection made by ICE (proven fact 10) and requests a new study, but in the event this petition is not granted, he files a motion for reconsideration (recurso de revocatoria) with appeal (f. 62, administrative file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">III.- UNPROVEN FACTS.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Of relevance to this matter, the following are deemed as unproven facts: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">1) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">That the difference in the reading of the energy supplied and charged by ICE is the responsibility of the plaintiff company (the records). </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">2)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> The damages caused to the plaintiff company (lack of evidence). </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">IV.-</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">ARGUMENTS OF THE PLAINTIFF COMPANY: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">By way of summary and without prejudice to the comprehensive reading that the Tribunal performs of the complaint brief, the plaintiff party indicates the following grievances: That its principal requested an electrical energy service, and on May 27, 2009, meter number Placa32096 was installed with a constant of 122.4 (f.18); subsequently, on August 21, 2009, a meter change is made with number Placa32097 and a constant of 61.2 is set (f. 22-23). That on November 7, 2016, for maintenance reasons, a new meter change is carried out with number 1341360, carrying over the same constant error of 61.2, and it was not until May 29, 2018, that the Administration noticed the error and ordered the constant change. That two effects derive from what occurred: first, that the errors incurred by the defendant administration originated from administrative behaviors that evidence neglect on its part, and which in no way can be attributed to its principal; and second, that the error persisted for many years despite the frequent inspections carried out by ICE officials. That according to Article 51 of the technical standard (AR-NT-SUCOM), there is a temporal limit that makes it impossible to charge beyond that historical event, namely from the last meter installed by ICE. That given that the technical standard issued by the regulatory body is of mandatory compliance and overrides any claim to go beyond what is set by ARESEP, it causes the appealed acts to have a substantial and temporal defect regarding the subjective element of competence of the act, which it requests be declared. That in addition to the above, according to the criterion outlined by the Procuraduría, the regulations applicable to charges derived from the provision of services are those regulated in the Code of Commerce (4 years) and not the ten-year period of the Civil Code; therefore, it requests that the statute of limitations (prescripción) be declared for the sums whose collection the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad seeks.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">V.- ARGUMENTS</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">OF THE INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">The legal representation of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, upon answering the complaint, opposed it, and stated in summary, and without prejudice to the comprehensive reading of its arguments, the following: That since its creation, ICE was tasked as part of its purposes to make its technical, administrative, and financial procedures models of efficiency that not only guarantee the proper functioning of the Institute, but can also serve as a standard for other activities of Costa Ricans, having to use all means at its disposal to increase electrical energy production, hence the importance of the income received as it will be reinvested in constant development for the country's benefit. That its principal, in its condition as a public entity subject to the principle of legality, conducts periodic inspections at the electricity sector service agencies on the installed services, in which the operation of the measurement system and the use being given to it are verified in order to determine if the recorded consumption is correct. For this reason, the plaintiff party is not correct in the cause attributed as the basis for the charge, because in reality, the error that occurred was the product of a mistaken application of the constant used in the ICE billing system, which is an arithmetic error and not a measurement error in the system itself. That on May 29, 2018, ICE personnel conducted a technical inspection on meter number 1341360 and at that moment detected an irregularity in the translation of the information gathered by the technician regarding the constant used in the billing process. That inconsistency caused the electrical energy that was actually consumed not to be registered as such in the billing, since it was being registered and billed with a constant of 61.2 when in reality the constant 122.4 should have been used. The procedure for correcting billing errors is a mechanism recognized and endorsed by the regulations governing the operation of companies providing electrical services, so within said procedure it was determined that the electrical energy consumed and not billed to the plaintiff between August 2009 and May 2018 was provided by its principal. </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">VI- OF THE ALLEGED STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (PRESCRIPCIÓN).</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Even though the defense of statute of limitations (prescripción) raised by the plaintiff party is invoked as a subsidiary claim, and it being a privileged defense, which if declared with merit could influence the decision on the merits of the matter, this Tribunal considers that it must first rule on said legal figure. In summary, the plaintiff party states to support said defense that according to the criterion of the Procuraduría in its opinion number C-082-92, the statute of limitations for bills for the provision of public electricity services should apply the four-year term provided in Article 984 of the Code of Commerce, and not the one regulated in Article 868 of the Civil Code that the Administration maintains. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">Criterion of the Tribunal.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"> Before resolving the alleged statute of limitations, it is important to define succinctly and broadly the legal nature of ICE in relation to the sale of electrical service. Through Decree-Law No. 449 of April 8, 1949, ICE was created and was attributed the fundamental competence of providing the country with electrical energy. Thus, Article 1 of the Decree entrusts it with the “</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">rational development of the physical energy-producing sources that the Nation possesses, especially hydraulic resources</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">”. An obligation to channel the use of hydroelectric energy toward strengthening the national economy and the well-being of our inhabitants. These competences were expanded in Law No. 3226 of October 28, 1963, to include telephone, telegraphic, radiotelegraphic, and radiotelephonic communication services; competences that were expanded even further upon the approval of the Law approving the Framework Treaty of the Central American Electrical Market, Law No. 7848 of November 20, 1998. Now, the scope of these competences is reiterated in the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities of the Telecommunications Sector, No. 8660 of August 8, 2008. Within the framework of strengthening and modernizing the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, this Law has the following objectives in its second article: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“Objectives of the Law. a)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Strengthen, modernize, and equip the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE), its companies, and its attached bodies, with legislation that allows it to adapt to all changes in the legal regime for the generation and provision of electricity services, as well as telecommunications,</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">infocommunications, information products and services, and other converged services.</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">b)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Complement Decree-Law No. 449, of April 8, 1949, Regulation for the creation of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, and its reforms, to provide ICE with the legal, financial, and administrative conditions necessary for it to continue with the provision and commercialization of electricity and telecommunications products and services, within the national territory and outside it (….)”.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\">Objectives that must be achieved with the development and execution of the competence assigned in Article 6 of the same Law, which reads:</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Competences of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad and its companies. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">ICE and its companies, within the national territory and outside it, shall be competent for the following: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">a)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Generate, install, and operate networks, provide, acquire, and commercialize electricity, telecommunications, and</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">infocommunications products and services, as well as other information products and services and others in convergence, directly or through agreements, cooperation agreements, associations, strategic alliances, or any other form of association with other national or foreign entities, public or private.</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">b)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Be agents of the electrical market in other countries that adhere to the Framework Treaty of the Central American Electrical Market, approved by Law No. 7848, of November 20, 1998, or any other instrument that may be signed and ratified in the future”. Generation, installation, and operation of electricity and telecommunications networks, provision of electricity, telecommunications, and</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">infocommunications</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">services, and other converged services.</span> To fulfill these competencies, it is authorized to form business associations, as well as to sell services to third parties.” With the foregoing background, this collegiate body considers that the service provided by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad in its different indicated areas falls within the scope of remunerated industry and commerce, albeit through a public price (precio público), which must be understood as those considerations paid for the exclusive use or special exploitation of the public domain, as well as for the provision of services or the performance of administrative activities when their request or receipt is not mandatory, or when they are capable of being provided by the private sector, as they do not imply the exercise of authority.

In this regard, Article 3 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública) provides for this situation and establishes: "1- Public law shall regulate the organization and activity of public entities, unless expressly stated otherwise. 2- Private law shall regulate the activity of entities that, due to their overall regime and the requirements of their line of business, can be considered as common industrial or commercial enterprises." It can thus be affirmed, under the terms of said article, that the distribution of electricity provided in this case by a public entity (ICE) is of a commercial nature. Although the entity is subject to dual regulation regarding its organization and control, submitting as a whole to the fundamental principles of public service to ensure its continuity, efficiency, and adaptability, it must be understood that the relationships resulting from the provision of the service (considering its nature as well) would be subject to the regime of Private Law, unless we are in the presence of the exercise of sovereign power, which is not the case in the matter at hand (sub examine).

The foregoing is important because, when the marketing of a service occurs between the provider and the administered party who pays for its enjoyment, such relationship and its derivations are subject to the scope of private law, specifically commercial law. Now, regarding the statute of limitations for billing for the payment of the service provided, regardless of whether said public service is provided by a state entity or by a private individual, the rules of the Commerce Code must be applied and not those contained in the Civil Code. This is, as reiterated, because we are facing a relationship (service contract) of a commercial and not civil nature. In this vein, Article 968 of the Commerce Code, insofar as it is relevant, provides: "Actions arising from commercial acts and contracts shall prescribe in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Prescription shall occur due to the failure to exercise the respective right within the legally indicated period." For its part, Article 984 of the Commerce Code establishes: "Unless expressly provided in other chapters of this Code, every right and its corresponding action shall prescribe in four years, with the following exceptions that prescribe in one year. (...) " On this subject, Section V of this Tribunal, in the resolution that was referenced by the ICE's representation in its closing arguments and which is contained in case file No. 16-09528-1027-CA, when issuing judgment No. 57-2018-V at 2:20 p.m. on July 23, 2018, and insofar as it is relevant, stated: "For this, it is necessary to specify that in the case under examination we are dealing with a public price (precio público), a figure that operates when we are dealing with the use of a public domain asset, or the provision of a public service such as drinking water, telephone service, or energy supply. Public prices are not set based on sovereign power, but rather according to economic and even political criteria. This public price derived from the provision of a service that is also public, in the case under examination, arises from a relationship of a commercial nature, and although it is not overlooked that the activity is subject to dual regulation - private law and public law - the truth is that the rules applicable to the marketing aspect of the service are those of private law, and in the specific case, those set forth in the Commerce Code. In this sense, the applicable rule is that provided in Article 984 of said legal body, which establishes a prescription period of four years." In conclusion to what has been indicated so far, this Chamber considers that the prescription term for the electricity service invoices is that contained in the Commerce Code, i.e., 4 years. This term must be computed starting from the billing date of the last installed meter. Finally, and for the knowledge of the parties, it must be indicated that this position is also held by the Civil Courts when resolving public service collection proceedings, changing their criterion regarding the application of the ten-year prescription contained in the Civil Code, which was alleged here; thus, the First Court of Civil Appeals of San José (Tribunal Primero de Apelaciones Civil de San José), in resolution No. 0067-2020 at 2:50 p.m. on February 21, 2020, insofar as it is relevant, stated: "This Chamber has long held that the prescription in this type of matters is that established in the Commerce Code. It has thus been indicated: '… In the provision of the public electricity, public lighting, and telecommunications service, the plaintiff Institute acts in the exercise of a commercial enterprise. Of course, we are in the presence of services provided by a public enterprise. On this basis and in accordance with the provisions of Article 3, subsection 2) of the General Public Administration Law, it is a provision regulated by commercial law in its relationship with the user or beneficiary. Thus, as stated by the appellant, the four-year ordinary prescription mandated in Article 984 of the Commerce Code applies in this case, and not the ten-year prescription of the Civil Code, erroneously applied by the first-instance Judge...' (First Civil Tribunal, Ruling 649-1C at 9:05 a.m. on August 14, 2015)". Having resolved the issue regarding the applicable regulations concerning the statute of limitations, in the matter at hand (sub examine), it is noted that ICE, after realizing there was an error in the billing for the electricity service provided to the plaintiff company, opened the administrative collection procedure with case file number ENF-1612-001-2018, and through official letter No. 1612-845-2018 of June 27, 2018, duly notified on July 17, 2018 (the date on which the prescription would be interrupted), informed the company Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. of the administrative collection for energy consumed and not billed for the period between August 2009 and May 2018, for an amount of five hundred eleven million three hundred fifty-six thousand five hundred eighteen colones exactly. Now, to resolve this specific case, given that there is an express rule on how the difference between the energy provided and the energy billed must be collected, it is essential to invoke the provisions of the Board of Directors of the Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos when approving the regulatory technical standard called "Supervision of the commercialization of low and medium voltage electricity supply" AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014," which in its Article 51, insofar as it is relevant to this specific topic of prescription, provides: "If the electric company determines faults in the metering system, including the metering constant, which caused lower billing than what was actually consumed (energy) and demanded (power) by the subscriber or user, it must make the corresponding adjustment starting from the billing of the last installed meter." In this understanding, the meter change occurred on November 7, 2016 (this specific topic, i.e., the rest of the charged period, will be addressed by this Chamber later), which would be the date from which ICE is authorized to collect and when the beginning of the prescription term would start to run. Now, given that ICE became aware through the report made by official [Name155266] on May 19, 2018, in which he indicates "change constant from 61.2 to 122.4" (proven fact 8) and the generation of the corrected invoice was from the month of May 2018, and the administrative collection for the unbilled difference was duly notified on July 17, 2018, the period on which the prescription is interrupted. Now, by a simple arithmetic operation, in application of Article 984 of the Commerce Code, the four years provided in said article, the debt for the unbilled amount would be from November 7, 2016, in application of Article 51 of the cited regulatory framework, so the debt would not be time-barred, and the objection of prescription must be rejected on that account.

VII.- ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. Having stated the foregoing, this Chamber proceeds to hear the merits of the parties' arguments. From the framework of the claims raised by the party, both in its complaint and as adjusted in the preliminary hearing, in essence, the annulment of official letters number 1612-485-2018 of June 27, 2018, 1612-522-20188 of August 7, 2018, 0510-00688-18 of September 18, 2018, is sought, as well as the damages caused. To support its claims, the representation of the plaintiff company stated that from the events that occurred and are recorded in the file, it can be deduced that the errors incurred by the defendant administration were caused by administrative behaviors that show negligence on its part, and which can in no way be blamed on its represented party, in addition to the fact that the error persisted for many years despite the frequent inspections carried out by ICE officials. That, in accordance with Article 51 of the technical standard (AR-NT-SUCOM), there is a time limit that makes it impossible to collect charges beyond that historical event, i.e., from the last meter installed by ICE. That since the technical standard issued by the regulatory body is mandatory and overrides any claim to go beyond what is set by ARESEP, it renders the challenged acts substantially and temporally flawed concerning the subjective element of competence of the challenged administrative act and those that depend on it. Criterion of the Tribunal. A) From the factual framework, it can be inferred that there is no controversy regarding the energy consumed by the plaintiff and not billed at the time by ICE; the issue to be resolved is whether or not ICE has the right to charge for the energy consumed and not billed by the plaintiff, and up to what date. It must be taken as a starting point, as indicated in the previous Whereas Clause, that the relationship between the plaintiff company and ICE derives from the electric power service contract existing between both parties. Due to the particularities of the public service, it is regulated by law in terms of its rates and conditions, but by the contract signed between both parties, as provided in Article 411 of the Commerce Code, "the parties shall be bound in the manner and under the terms they appear to have intended to bind themselves," a rule that effectively reflects Article 1022 of the Civil Code, which provides: "Contracts are law between the parties." Because of this, in principle, as ICE has proven, and as derived from the documentary evidence, which constitutes an undisputed fact by the parties, that ICE effectively supplied electric power to the plaintiff company but billed it a lesser amount due to an error in the metering constant made by ICE officials, after the technical issue was corrected, it is the company's obligation to pay for the electricity consumed. Now, on this topic, the parties are clear that it is duly regulated in Articles 51 and 52 of Resolution No. RJD-072-2015 "Supervision of the commercialization of low and medium voltage electricity supply" AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014," but it is submitted to this Tribunal for the correct interpretation and application of said standards to this specific case. In this vein, the articles of the cited regulatory framework provide: "Article 51. Billing errors due to problems in the metering system. If the electric company determines faults in the metering system, including the metering constant, which caused lower billing than what was actually consumed (energy) and demanded (power) by the subscriber or user, it must make the corresponding adjustment starting from the billing of the last installed meter. For this purpose, the electric company must notify the subscriber or user, and the charge must be made in a separate bill, unless the subscriber or user authorizes the inclusion of said item in the corresponding bill, through an agreement in this regard. If, on the contrary, the electric company detects that faults in the metering system, including the metering constant, are causing higher billing than what was actually consumed and demanded by the subscriber or user, it must reimburse all overcharged amounts, according to the procedure established by the company for refunds. In either case, the energy and demand consumed shall be estimated based on the provisions of Article 52. Article 52. Procedure for charging energy and power consumed and not billed. When the service provider demonstrates that, in a service, electrical energy was consumed and power was demanded that was not charged in its entirety, or more energy than was consumed was charged, or more power than was demanded was charged, it may estimate the energy consumed and the power demanded. To calculate the amount to be charged for the energy consumed and not billed and the power demanded and not billed, the electric company will use as a basis three actual readings subsequent to the correction of the cause that gave rise to the error or, in those services where there is a seasonal-type load (for example: sugar mills, coffee processing plants, or clients with a seasonal/time-of-use tariff), the month in which the failure occurred will be compared with its seasonality average from the previous year. In cases of overcharging for power and energy, it must return all of the overcharged amount, based on the company's records or the evidence provided by the subscriber or user. Under no circumstances may the electric company suspend the service if the subscriber or user is up to date with the payment of the electric power bill for the last consumption period submitted for collection." From a careful reading of both articles, this Tribunal does not find the contentious assumptions that have the parties in conflict, specifically, that Article 52 regulates cases involving human errors like the one that occurred in the case at bar (sub judice). It is clear that the first article typifies the legal situation that would arise when there is an error in the metering system, and the second succinctly describes the procedure to follow for charging the energy and power consumed and not billed. This interpretation is reinforced by the provision in the same Article 51, in the last paragraph, which reads: "In either case, the energy and demand consumed shall be estimated based on the provisions of Article 52." It is clear, then, that there is no margin for another interpretation. In this understanding, and without prejudice to the foregoing, even if the hypothesis were accepted that from Article 52 it could be inferred that the regulatory legislator's intent was to regulate those cases of human error not attributable to the consumer but to the service provider and unrelated to the metering systems including the constant, as alleged by the defendant's representation, said rule could not be applied either, because in the opinion of this Chamber, the dispute between the parties submitted to this Tribunal is resolved by the provisions of Article 51, as will be indicated below. In this understanding, that rule provides that "if the electric company determines faults in the metering system, including the metering constant, which caused lower billing than what was actually consumed (energy) and demanded (power) by the subscriber or user, it must make the corresponding adjustment starting from the billing of the last installed meter"; note that the rule is very clear that the fault can occur in "the metering system," in "the metering constant," or even both at the same time. Therefore, to know when we are in the first case (fault in the metering system), Article 3 of said standard, regarding definitions, indicates that the metering system should be understood as follows: "Metering system: is the set of equipment and materials (energy meters, wiring, communication device, potential and current transformers) used for measuring and recording the energy and power required in an electric service." That is, when there is a lower or higher billing of energy due to the metering system, it is because some of the set of equipment or materials that the service provider uses to measure the supplied energy has failed. Now, for the second case called "metering constant," this standard does not define it; however, the expert witness [Name155269], an expert in the field and offered by ICE, clarified this technical term, stating: "The constant is a relationship between what the meter is registering and what is actually being delivered to the client. This metering constant must be transferred to the information system that allows billing for the electrical service so that when the reading data arrives, it can be scaled to the actual value to be billed." From everything stated by the expert, it can be affirmed that the metering constant is an arithmetic value (formula) used to determine the real value of the energy delivered and consumed, by virtue of what expert witness Mora Zúñiga stated. Likewise, witness [Name155267] testified to the same effect, confirming this situation, namely, that the installed equipment does not directly measure or indicate said value, as happens in normal meters installed in houses, because we are in the presence of high-voltage energy. Consequently, it is necessary to record the data reading from the metering systems (it is reiterated, equipment or meter) and later apply the corresponding metering constant (arithmetic formula) to obtain the exact value (which in this case should have been 122.4 and not 61.2) and proceed with the correct billing. In this vein, from the documentation provided and from what the parties themselves have stated, it is clear that the error occurred in the metering constant. In this respect, the rule expressly regulates said situation (factual assumption) and makes no differentiation, as the parties (the basis of the conflict) have tried to make it seem, whether it is an arithmetic error or a human error, negligence, or lack of skill; it simply says "including the constant," not admitting any other interpretation in this regard. It is clear to this Tribunal, from the explanation given by the expert regarding what should be understood as the metering constant, that this factor can never be entered into the system or measured by an instrument, as it is an arithmetic factor that the person in charge records on the form depending on the metering system used (Art. 3 of the Technical Standard). Therefore, it is meaningless to determine whether or not it is a human error, since the regulatory legislator took this into account in the standard by expressly including this element within the metering error, and not just instrument failures. This means we are in the presence of strict liability of the service provider in a consumer relationship under the terms of Article 35 of Law No. 7472, being released only if they are unconnected to the damage. In addition to the above, there is no doubt that the error was made by the defendant itself (an undisputed fact accepted by ICE). In that sense, both Mr. [Name155269] and Ms. [Name155267] were unanimous in indicating that the official in charge of carrying out the measurement initially made a mistake in recording the constant. In this regard and on this specific topic, Mr. [Name155269], when asked by the ICE's representation, stated: "The human error that was made was that the technician recorded that the transformers were 300 to 5 and not 600 to 5 as they really are; upon varying this, the actual constant changed from 61.2 to 122.4. Therefore, the metering system had no problem; rather, it recorded what it had to record. The problem was due to a human error in the billing system, which is a separate system; that is, the reading is taken from the metering system and transferred to another system, which is the billing system. In the billing system, there was an arithmetic error; there is a value, a constant, that was entered inappropriately." Now, from a meticulous review of the administrative file, it is clear that when the form dated May 27, 2009, called “Movimiento en Mediciones de Máxima Demanda” for the installation of the new service was completed, three transformers were entered in the Current Transformer box: “Brand: ABB, Ratio 600/5” corresponding to meter No. 1055582, with a constant of 122.4, installed by the official Nombre155266 (pp. 18-19, administrative file). Subsequently, on August 31, 2009, the same official completed the form used to perform the meter change service, and the note was entered: “*se cambia ya que el medidor que tiene no tiene perfil de carga y se ocupa con perfil de carga*” (it is changed because the meter it has does not have a load profile and one with a load profile is needed), entering in the Current Transformer box: 3 ABB brand transformers, with a ratio of 300/5, and also indicating that there is no current transformer change nor potential transformer changes (p. 22, administrative file). It is from this point (preparation of the form) that the error in the constant was carried forward, an error which was detected when the change of meter No. 1341360 was made, in which the transformer ratio was again entered as 600/5 and it was noted in observations that the constant must be changed from 61.2 to 122.4 for its application in the billing for month 6/18 (p. 45). Now, it draws the attention of this Court, although it is not a topic of discussion nor does it influence the resolution of the matter, that the forms detailed here in the timeline, which clearly caused an error in the billing of the energy supplied by ICE and consumed by the subscriber, were prepared by the same official when performing the change or maintenance services. It is therefore not understood, nor is there evidence brought to the case regarding this, why said official changed the value of the transformers that ultimately resulted in the change of the constant to be used, that is, from 61.2 to 112.4. Having outlined the above, and being clear that the regulation (Art. 51) makes no distinction as to whether the fault in the constant is a human or arithmetic error, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 35 of Law N° 7274, which establishes that there will only be release from liability when it is proven that the merchant (in this case the service provider) is unconnected to the damage—which has not happened here (as ICE’s own representation accepts the fact)—it only remains to be reviewed whether the period charged for the concept of energy delivered and not billed, to which ICE is effectively entitled, is in accordance with the law or not. In this vein, Article 51 provides that once the fault is detected, the service provider “*deberá hacer el ajuste correspondiente desde la facturación del último medidor instalado*” (must make the corresponding adjustment from the billing of the last installed meter). This is understood to be not only of the equipment or constant as in this specific case, but the adjustment of the difference, whether in favor of the provider or in favor of the consumer (when overcharged), from the billing of the last installed meter. According to the proven facts, and as accepted by the parties (uncontested), the last meter was installed on November 7, 2016. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, in accordance with the legal maxim “*in lex claris, no interpretatio*” (when the law is clear, no interpretation is needed), there is no alternative but to indicate that it is from that date that the defendant can charge the unbilled difference. It cannot charge beyond that point by legal imperative from when said specific event occurs; that is, the period charged from August 2009 until November 7, 2016, is inadmissible, and ICE must adjust the claimed amounts by excluding the indicated period from that sum. This Court does not fail to note that there is no doubt between the parties that the plaintiff company has consumed the amount of energy measured, as the equipment has not failed, but that there has been an error in the billing equation (constant) that resulted in ICE charging a lower value than the real one. In principle, according to the contract, ICE would be entitled to this remuneration for the service provided. However, it is also clear that even though we are in a commercial consumer relationship, as indicated *ut supra* (above), ICE continues to be subject to public law in its organization and activity, in accordance with the provisions of subsection 1) of Article 3 of the General Public Administration Act. Consequently, it could not act contrary to what an express regulation provides (such as the one relevant to this specific case), under penalty of violating the Principle of Legality. **B)** Regarding the nullity alleged by the plaintiff concerning the challenged official letters, it indicated that there is a substantial and temporal defect concerning the subjective element of competence of the act for being contrary to what is provided in Article 51 of the referenced technical standard by charging for periods that are not authorized. Well, this grievance must be rejected because, according to doctrine and jurisprudence, the defect in the subjective element of the act relates to reasons of the existence of the entity and its capacity, to the existence of the body and its competence. In this case, there is no doubt that ICE not only has the capacity but also the competence to charge for the difference in unbilled energy, based not only on the regulations already indicated but also on the contract signed by both parties. The issue here arises from an erroneous interpretation made by ICE of that standard, which leads it to provide in the challenged act a different sum for an unauthorized period. Consequently, what would indeed be flawed is the element called “content,” according to the provisions of subsection 2) of Article 132 of the General Public Administration Act, which must be proportional to the legal purpose and correspond to the motive (motivo). In the *sub examine* (case under review), the motive element (legal antecedent), as already indicated, expressly authorizes charging the difference but with a temporal limit. Now, given that according to Article 49 of the Constitution, which grants this jurisdiction the power to review the administrative function of the State and its institutions, in relation to Article 1 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, this Chamber proceeds to review the pathology of the challenged act. In this sense, it is determined by what has been stated thus far that there is indeed a defect of absolute nullity in it, but not in its subjective element as alleged by the aggrieved party, but in the objective element called “content.” This, in accordance with the provisions of Article 167 of the LGAP which states: “*Habrá nulidad relativa del acto cuando sea imperfecto uno de sus elementos constitutivos, salvo que la imperfección impida la realización del fin, en cuyo caso será absoluta*” (There shall be relative nullity of the act when one of its constituent elements is imperfect, unless the imperfection prevents the achievement of the purpose, in which case it shall be absolute) (underlining not in the original), must be declared *ex officio* (of its own motion), as is indeed done at this moment. Now, in accordance with the provisions of Article 122 of the Code of Procedure, the declaration of nullity just decreed is dimensioned in the following sense: the administration must proceed to perform the respective calculations of the energy delivered and not billed from the date on which the last meter was installed, that is, from November 7, 2017, until the date on which the correction was made and the plaintiff company began paying the correct amount with the constant of 122.4. **C)** Finally, regarding the alleged damages and losses, these must be rejected for the following considerations. As already determined *ut supra* (above), in this specific case, there exists a commercial consumer relationship. Therefore, the fundamental rights of consumers must be applied, which are established in Article 46, fifth paragraph, of the Political Constitution, as well as developed in the cited Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer. These are summarized in that the consumer has the right to the following: **1.** Protection of their health; **2.** Protection of their environment; **3.** Protection of their safety; **4.** Protection of their economic interests; **5.** Right to receive adequate and truthful information about the services or goods they acquire; **6.** Freedom of choice of the goods and services they wish to acquire or use; **7.** Equitable treatment, meaning that the merchant or provider must treat the consumer in an equitable and respectful manner regarding their simple claims, or in the protection of their rights, both in administrative and judicial venues. Now, these fundamental consumer rights must be interpreted within the legal nature of commercial consumer relationships, which protect the weaker party in that relationship. Precisely, this has been clearly explained by our Constitutional Court in vote 8587-02, as well as in other binding precedents of that jurisdictional body, by pointing out that in a commercial consumer relationship between the merchant or provider and the consumer, there is a natural inequality between both due to the dynamics of commerce, and the consumer is the weaker party in this relationship. Therefore, our Political Constitution comes to balance this consumer relationship by granting the consumer a series of fundamental rights that protect them from their natural inequality with the merchant and provider. Furthermore, our constitutional text imposes on the State the obligation to support the rights that defend the consumer. This means that in processes where a conflict arising from a commercial consumer relationship must be resolved, as in the present matter, the interpretation and application of the rules, in case of doubt, must favor the weaker party, that is, the consumer. Precisely, in the matter of consumer protection, something similar occurs to what happens in the labor venue with the principle of *indubio pro operario* (doubt favors the worker) and in the criminal process itself with the principle of *indubio pro reo* (doubt favors the defendant). In general, these are protectionist norms that defend the weaker party in a relationship. Therefore, in the event of a conflict, the judge must interpret and apply the legal norm always bearing in mind that the consumer has a series of fundamental rights. Consequently, procedurally speaking, the merchant or provider has the obligation to demonstrate that they have fulfilled their obligations in the consumer relationship and that they have respected the fundamental rights of the consumer. That is, they have the burden of proof, which is a fundamental rule in the matter of consumer protection. In consequence, if a violation of the constitutional and legal rights of the consumer occurs on the part of the merchant or provider, the latter must repair the harmful effect caused to the consumer, under the strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva) regime established in Article 35 of the Law for the Promotion of Competition and Effective Defense of the Consumer, which provides: “*Régimen de responsabilidad. El productor, el proveedor y el comerciante deben responder concurrente e independientemente de la existencia de culpa, si el consumidor resulta perjudicado por razón del bien o el servicio, de informaciones inadecuadas o insuficientes sobre ellos o de su utilización y riesgos. Sólo se libera quien demuestre que ha sido ajeno al daño. Los representantes legales de los establecimientos mercantiles o, en su caso, los encargados del negocio son responsables por los actos o los hechos propios o por los de sus dependientes o auxiliares. Los técnicos, los encargados de la elaboración y el control responden solidariamente, cuando así corresponda, por las violaciones a esta Ley en perjuicio del consumidor.*” (Liability Regime. The producer, the provider, and the merchant must respond concurrently and independently of the existence of fault, if the consumer is harmed by reason of the good or service, of inadequate or insufficient information about them, or of their use and risks. Only he who demonstrates that he was unconnected to the damage is released. The legal representatives of commercial establishments or, where appropriate, the managers of the business are responsible for their own acts or deeds or for those of their dependents or auxiliaries. The technicians and those in charge of elaboration and control are jointly and severally liable, when applicable, for violations of this Law to the detriment of the consumer.)

From the examination of this mandate, the following rules for the application of this type of liability are reached: **1-** It is a strict liability (responsabilidad objetiva), in which it is not necessary to demonstrate the intent (dolo) or fault (culpa) of the author of the damage; rather, what is important is the imputation of the damage. **2-** There must be harmful conduct, active or omissive; this means that a violation, active or passive, of the consumer's fundamental rights must occur on the part of the merchant or provider. **3-** Damage must be produced, which means an injury to the protected legal interest, which in this case would be consumer protection, as the consumer is the weaker party in the commercial consumer relationship. **4-** A causal link (nexo de causalidad) that connects the harmful conduct and the damage produced. **5-** This causal link can only be broken if the party to whom the damage is imputed, the merchant or provider, demonstrates “*que ha sido ajeno al daño*” (that he was unconnected to the damage); that is, he has the burden of proof in a jurisdictional process. The foregoing is because we are in the presence of a strict liability, which is related to the purpose of the constitutional and legal norms to protect the consumer as the weaker party within the commercial consumer relationship, and therefore it falls to the merchant or provider, to exonerate themselves from liability, to prove that they fulfilled their obligations to the consumer, as well as that they were totally and undoubtedly unconnected to any damage produced to the latter. In the *sub examine* (case under review), although it was determined that there was conduct contrary to law for which the nullity was declared, it is also true, and in that sense it has not been proven by the plaintiff, that the conduct deployed by ICE—specifically charging the sum owed—caused them any damage or loss. This is determined because, even once the administrative charge was notified on July 17, 2018, the legal representative of Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A., on July 23, 2018, filed a pre-action interim measure (medida cautelar antecausam) with this Office, requesting the suspension of the effects of official letter No. 1612-485-2018. An extremely urgent interim measure was granted by resolution at 14:40 hrs. on July 26, 2018, which was resolved on the merits by judgment No. 522-2018 at 09:40 hrs. on September 14, 2018, and confirmed by the Court of Appeals by vote No. 409-2008-I at 11:04 hrs. on November 12, 2018. Up to today, the effects of the challenged administrative act, which has been annulled here, remain suspended. In conclusion, no damage has been caused to the party, and as a corollary, its rejection is warranted.

**VIII.- ON THE EXCEPTIONS AND CLAIMS OF THE PROCESS.** **A)** When answering the complaint, ICE’s representation did not expressly raise any of the preliminary or substantive exceptions regulated in the Code in question. However, it is the judge's obligation to analyze the substantive prerequisites called lack of standing (legitimación), lack of interest, and lack of right. In this vein, it is verified, as indicated in the preceding lines, that there is passive and active standing of the parties in conflict, as well as a current interest in the claims. However, there is partially a lack of right on the part of the plaintiff in their claim, and what is not expressly granted is denied in that regard, as indicated below. **B)** Regarding the claims set by the plaintiff in the preliminary hearing and ratified in the oral and public trial, based on the evidence and arguments previously put forth by this Court, and in accordance with the provisions of Articles 119, 120, and 121 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, the lack of right raised by ICE’s representation must be partially upheld, solely regarding the amount charged for the period from November 7, 2016, to May 2018. Due to the foregoing, the plaintiff's claim is partially upheld regarding the nullity of the charge made by ICE to its represented party for the period from August 2009 to November 6, 2016. **C)** In relation to the claimed damages and losses (daños y perjuicios), as no damage was caused—because, as indicated in the preceding lines, the execution of the acts aimed at collection was suspended by the interim measure (medida cautelar), they were not executed, and consequently there is no damage to repair. It is therefore rejected, as indicated in recital VIII.

**IX.- ON COSTS.** In accordance with Article 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, personal and procedural costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party for the fact of losing, and their dispensation only proceeds when, in the Court’s opinion, there was sufficient cause to litigate, or when the judgment is issued by virtue of evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the case under study, as there is a reciprocal defeat, the exemption from costs proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Article 73.2.3 of the Civil Procedure Code, applicable supplementarily by remission of Article 220 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, which provides: *Exención (…) “Haya vencimiento recíproco trascendente sobre pretensiones, defensas o excepciones”* (Exemption (…) “There be a significant reciprocal defeat regarding claims, defenses, or exceptions”).

**Por Tanto** The exception of Prescription is rejected. In accordance with Article 51 of the Technical Standard for the Supervision of the Commercialization of the Electrical Supply in Low and Medium Voltage AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014, Article 35 of Law N° 7274, Article 167 of the General Public Administration Act, and Articles 119 and 122 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, the complaint is partially granted, with everything not expressly granted understood to be denied. Official letter number 1612-485-2018, of June 27, 2018, adopted by the Brunca Region Agency of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, is annulled solely regarding the period from August 2009 to November 6, 2016, the date on which the billing was duly adjusted. Official letters No. 1612-2018 of June 27, 2018, and No. 0510-00688-18 of September 18, 2018, are annulled by connection. This declaration of nullity is dimensioned in that the administrative file is returned so that the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad may proceed to perform the respective calculations for the charge of the unbilled electricity service from November 7, 2016, the date the last meter was installed, until May 29, 2018, the date on which the correction of the metering constant was made. No special order as to costs.

Notifíquese.

Nombre155265 Alexandra Zúñiga Mora Lindsay Rodríguez Cubero ????????????????

ELEUTERIO Nombre155265 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Goicoechea, Dirección01 , 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Dirección02 . Teléfonos: 2545-0107 (EXT 01-2707) ó 2545-0099 (EXT 01-2599). Fax: 2241-5664 y 2545-0006. Correo electrónico: ...01

Documento PJEDITOR ????????????????

CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR/A:

GRUPO AGROINDUSTRIAL TRES JOTAS DEMANDADO/A:

INSITITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD Nº CED123694 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. SECCIÓN PRIMERA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A. Goicoechea, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del nueve de agosto del dos mil veintidós.- Proceso de conocimiento de juicio oral y público, interpuesto por Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota Sociedad Anónima, cédula jurídica número CED123695, representada por su Apoderado Especial Judicial, Lic. Juan Carlos Castro Loría, mayor, abogado, carnet de colegiado número CED123696, contra el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, representado por la Licda. Marcela Segura Salazar, mayor, abogada, carnet de colegiado número CED87784, en su calidad de Apoderada Especial Judicial.

CONSIDERANDO

I.- ASPECTOS PRELIMINARES. Como parte del iter procesal se tiene lo siguiente:

1.- La parte actora solicita que en sentencia se declare con lugar lo presente demanda en todos sus extremos, ordenándose la nulidad absoluta del oficio número CED123697, del 27 de junio de 2018 adoptado por la Agencia de la Región Brunca del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, así como lo nulidad absoluta del documento identificado con el número CED123693 , del 7 de agosto del año en curso, dictado por la Dirección Regional Brunca del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad Agencia San Isidro. En idéntico sentido, por conexidad que se declare la nulidad de cualquier ulterior acto que fuese derivación o consecuencia de los oficios indicados. 2.- Se condene al Instituto accionado al pago de los daños y perjuicios que eventualmente pueden ser consecuencia de los actos anteriormente indicados, y que, por las circunstancias propias de su no ejecución producto de la medida cautelar ordenada por el Tribunal, han de ser fijados como de cuantía inestimable. 3.- Se condene a la parte accionada al pago de las costas causadas. B. SUBSIDIARIAS. 1. Se declare la prescripción de las suma cuyo cobro pretende el Instituto demandado. 2. Se condene al Instituto accionado al pago de los daños y perjuicios que eventualmente puedan ser consecuencia de los actos anteriormente indicados y que, por las circunstancias propias de su no ejecución, producto de la medida cautelar ordenada por el Tribunal han de ser fijados como de cuantía Inestimable. 3. Se condene a la parte accionada al pago de las costas causadas. (Imágenes 126-171, expediente electrónico).

• 2)Por escrito del 18 de octubre de 2018 el representante legal del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad se apersona al proceso, oponiéndose a la demanda y solicitando se declare sin lugar el proceso (imágenes 134 -138, expediente electrónico).
• 3)Que el 08 de agosto de 2019 se realizó la audiencia preliminar en el cual se saneó el proceso, y se aceptaron los hechos nuevos presentados en el escrito del 24 de noviembre de 2020, y las pretensiones quedaron fijadas según el escrito de demanda original y con la siguiente Ampliación: Nulidad del oficio número 0510-00688-18 del 18 de septiembre de 2018 (imágenes 105-107, expediente electrónico).
• 4)EL 27 de julio de 2022 se llevó a cabo el juicio oral y público. Se evacuó la prueba testimonial ofrecida por las partes, y durante las conclusiones las partes reiteraron lo indicado en la fase procesal de trámite. (Escuchar soporte digital).

En los procedimientos se han observado los términos y prescripciones de ley, y no se notan vicios u omisiones susceptibles de producir nulidad o indefensión a las partes. Se emite este fallo dentro del plazo legal, previa deliberación, por unanimidad, y de manera escrita por el juez ponente Nombre155265 , con el voto afirmativo de las juezas Alexandra Zúñiga Mora y Lindsay Rodríguez Cubero.

II.- HECHOS PROBADOS: De importancia para la resolución de este asunto se tienen como de esta naturaleza los siguientes:

• 1)Que en fecha 21 de mayo de 2009 la empresa Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. solicitó al ICE un servicio eléctrico en el cual se aplique la tarifa de media tensión (MT) para su planta de procesamiento cárnicos Cf. 1, expediente administrativo).
• 2)Que en fecha 22 de mayo de 2009 la empresa actora y el ICE firmaron adenda al contrato original para el suministro de energía eléctrica tipo: abonados de baja, media y alta tensión (f. 15, expediente electrónico).
• 3)Que el 27 de mayo de 2009 se realizó el servicio eléctrico solicitado por la empresa Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jotas, cuya localización le fue asignado el número de referencia 635590009454, en cual se instaló el medidor con las siguientes características: “Placa32095° , Marca Itron, Tipo SS4A2T, Tipo de Registro FM 10 A, Case 20, Elementos 3, Fases 3, Hilos 4, Kh 1.8, voltios 120/480, Esc. KW Electrónico. Tres Transformador de corriente marca ABB 600/5 c/u, con una constante de energía de 122.40 (f. 17-18, expediente administrativo).
• 4)Que en fecha 31 de agosto de 2009 se cambia el medidor instalado (hecho probado 3) por motivos que el mismo no tiene perfil de carga y se ocupa con perfil de carga, con una constante de facturación de 61.2 (f. 20-22, expediente administrativo).
• 5)Que en fecha 7 de noviembre de 2016 se realizó cambio de medidor con número 1341360 por razones de mantenimiento con una constante de facturación de 61.2 (f. 34, expediente administrativo).
• 6)Que en fecha 09 de noviembre de 2016 el ICE elaboró la boleta de Registro de Inspección y Prueba de Sistemas de Medición en el medidor número 1341360 con una constante de medición 61.20 (Imágenes 36, expediente administrativo).
• 7)Por nota del 30 de mayo de 2017 el Gerente General de Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A., solicita el traslado del banco de transformadores (f. 37, expediente administrativo).
• 8)Que en fecha 29 de mayo de 2018 se confecciona la boleta por el funcionario Nombre155266 , y sin número denominada “Movimientos en Mediciones Máximas Demanda” en la cual se indica: “Cambiar constante de 61.2 a 122.4” Lectura remota, favor aplicar en la facturación a partir del mes 6/18” (f. 45, expediente administrativo).
• 9)Mediante nota del 29 de mayo de 2018, el Lic. José Antonio Rivera Fuentes, Ejecutivo Servicio al Cliente, le comunica al Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. que existe una errónea aplicación en la constate del sistema de medición del medidor número 1341360, y que posteriormente se le estará haciendo llegar los montos a pagar por la diferencia según la normativa técnica (f. 46, expediente administrativo).
• 10)Por oficio número 1612-485-2018 del 2 de junio de 2018, suscrito por la Licda. Nombre155267 se le comunica a la empresa Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. la gestión de cobro administrativo de energía consumida y no facturada del período que va de agosto de 2009 a mayo de 2018, por un monto de de Quinientos Once Millones Trescientos Cincuenta y Seis Quinientos Dieciocho colones. Oficio debidamente notificado el 17 de julio de 2018 (f. 55-57, expediente administrativo).
• 11)Mediante nota recibida el 20 de julio de 2018 en la Agencia de San Isidro Norte de Pérez Zeledón, el señor Nombre155268 , en su calidad de Gerente General de Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. se opone al cobro realizado por el ICE (hecho probado 10) y solicita un nuevo estudio, pero que en caso de no acceder a dicha petición interpone recurso de revocatoria con apelación (f. 62, expediente administrativo).

III.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS. De relevancia para el presente asunto se tienen como hechos no probados los siguientes: 1) Que la diferencia en la lectura de la energía suministrada y cobrada por el ICE sea responsabilidad de la empresa actora (los autos). 2) Los daños y perjuicios causados a la empresa actora (ayuno de pruebas).

IV.- ARGUMENTOS DE LA EMPRESA ACTORA: A manera de síntesis y sin perjuicio de la lectura integral que realiza el Tribunal del escrito de demanda, la parte actora indica los siguientes agravios: Que su representada solicitó un servicio de energía eléctrica instalándole en fecha 27 de mayo de 2009 el medidor número Placa32096 con una constante de 122.4 (f.18), posteriormente en fecha 21 de agosto de 2009 se cambia medidor con número Placa32097 y se le pone una constante de 61.2 (f. 22-23). Que en fecha 7 de noviembre de 2016 por razones de mantenimiento se realiza un nuevo cambio de medidor con el número 1341360 arrastrando el mismo error de constante de 61.2, siendo que es hasta el 29 de mayo de 2018 que la Administración se percata del error y ordena el cambio de constante. Que de lo ocurrido se derivan dos efectos, primero que los errores en que incurrió la administración accionada fueron originados en comportamientos administrativos que evidencian desatención de su parte, y que de modo alguno se le puede endilgar a su representada, y segundo, que el error persistió por muchísimos años pese a las frecuentes inspecciones que llevaron a cabo funcionarios del ICE. Que de acuerdo con el artículo 51 de la norma técnica (AR-NT-SUCOM) existe un límite temporal que imposibilita cobros más allá de ese evento histórico, sea desde el último medidor instalado por el ICE. Que siendo que la norma técnica dictada por el órgano regulador es de acatamiento obligatorio y enerva cualquier pretensión de ir más de lo fijado por la ARESEP, hace que los actos impugnados tengan un vicio sustancial y temporal sobre el elemento subjetivo de competencia del acto, lo cual solicita se declare. Que aunado a lo anterior de acuerdo al criterio esbozado por la Procuraduría, la normativa aplicable a los cobros derivados de la prestación de servicios es la regulada en el Código de Comercio (4 años) y no la decenal del Código Civil; por lo que solicita se declare la prescripción de las sumas cuyo cobro pretende el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad.

V.- ARGUMENTOS DEL INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD. La representación legal del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad al contestar la demanda se opuso, y manifestó de forma resumida, y sin perjuicio de la lectura integral de sus alegatos, lo siguiente: Que el ICE desde su creación se le endilgó como parte de sus finalidades hacer de sus procedimientos técnicos, administrativos y financieros, modelos de eficiencia que no solo garanticen el buen funcionamiento del Instituto, sino que puedan servir de norma a otras actividades de los costarricenses, debiendo usar todos lo medios a su disposición para incrementar la producción de energía eléctrica, de ahí la importancia de los ingresos percibidos pues los mismos serán reinvertidos en un constante desarrollo para el beneficio del país. Que sus representado en condición de ente público sometido al principio de legalidad, realiza en las agencias de servicios del sector electricidad inspecciones periódicas en los servicios instalados, en el cual se verifica la operación del sistema de medición y el uso que se le está brindando al mismo con el fin de determinar si los consumos registrados son los correctos. Por tal razón no lleva razón la parte actora en la causa que atribuye como fundamento del cobro, pues en realidad, el error acaecido fue producto de una aplicación equivocada de constante empleada en el sistema de facturación del ICE, lo cual es un error aritmético y no un error de medición en el sistema propiamente como tal. Que en fecha 29 de mayo de 2018 personeros del ICE realizaron una inspección técnica en el medidor número 1341360 y en ese momento detectaron una irregularidad en la traducción de la información recabado por el técnico respecto de la constante empleada en el proceso de facturación. Esa inconsistencia provocó que la energía eléctrica que se consumía en realidad no se registraba como tal en la facturación, ya que ese estaba registrando y facturando con una constante de 61.2 cuando en realidad se debía utilizar la constante 122.4. El procedimiento para la corrección de los errores de facturación es un mecanismo reconocido y avalado por la normativa que regula la operación de las empresas prestadoras de los servicios eléctricos, por lo que dentro de dicho procedimiento se determinó que la energía eléctrica consumida y no facturada a la actora entre agosto de 2009 y mayo de 2018 fue brindada por su representado.

VI- DE LA PRESCRIPCIÓN ALEGADA. Aun y cuando la excepción de prescripción interpuesta por la parte actora es invocada como una pretensión subsidiaria, siendo la misma una excepción privilegiada, la cual si se llegara a declarar con lugar podría influir en conocer el fondo del asunto, considera este Tribunal que debe pronunciarse de previo sobre dicha figura. En síntesis, manifiesta la parte actora para fundamentar dicha excepción que de acuerdo con el criterio de la Procuraduría en su dictamen número C-082-92, la prescripción de las facturas por concepto de prestación de servicios públicos de electricidad se le debe aplicar el plazo cuatrienal dispuesto en el artículo 984 del Código de Comercio, y no el regulado en el artículo 868 del Código Civil que sostiene la Administración. Criterio del Tribunal. De previo a resolver la prescripción alegada, importante definir de forma sucinta y grosso modo la naturaleza jurídica del ICE en relación con la venta del servicio eléctrico. Por medio del Decreto Ley N° 449 del 8 de abril de 1949 se crea el ICE y se le atribuye como competencia fundamental el dotar de energía eléctrica al país. Así, el artículo 1 del Decreto le encomienda el “desarrollo racional de las fuentes productoras de energía física que la Nación posee, en especial los recursos hidráulicos”. Obligación de encauzar el aprovechamiento de la energía hidroeléctrica en el fortalecimiento de la economía nacional y del bienestar de nuestros habitantes. Estas competencias fueron ampliadas en la Ley Nº 3226 de 28 de octubre de 1963 a los servicios de comunicaciones telefónicas, telegráficas, radiotelegráficas y radiotelefónicas; competencias que fueron ampliadas aun más al aprobarse la Ley que aprueba el Tratado Marco del Mercado Eléctrico de América Central, Ley N. 7848 de 20 de noviembre de 1998. Ahora bien, el ámbito de estas competencias es reiteradas en la Ley de Fortalecimiento y Modernización de las Entidades Públicas del Sector Telecomunicaciones, N° 8660 de 8 de agosto de 2008. En el marco de fortalecimiento y modernización del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, esta Ley tiene como objetivos en su artículo segundo, los siguientes: “Objetivos de la Ley. a) Fortalecer, modernizar y dotar al Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE), a sus empresas y a sus órganos adscritos, de la legislación que le permita adaptarse a todos los cambios en el régimen legal de generación y prestación de los servicios de electricidad, así como de las telecomunicaciones, infocomunicaciones, productos y servicios de información y demás servicios en convergencia. b) Complementar el Decreto-Ley N.° 449, de 8 de abril de 1949, Reglamento para la creación del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, y sus reformas, para dotar al ICE de las condiciones jurídicas, financieras y administrativas necesarias para que continúe con la prestación y comercialización de productos y servicios de electricidad y telecomunicaciones, dentro del territorio nacional y fuera de él (….)”. Objetivos que deben alcanzarse con el desarrollo y ejecución de la competencia asignada en el artículo 6 de la misma Ley que reza: “Competencias del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad y sus empresas. El ICE y sus empresas, dentro del territorio nacional y fuera de él, serán competentes para lo siguiente: a) Generar, instalar y operar redes, prestar, adquirir y comercializar productos y servicios de electricidad, telecomunicaciones e infocomunicaciones, así como otros productos y servicios de información y otros en convergencia, de manera directa o mediante acuerdos, convenios de cooperación, asociaciones, alianzas estratégicas o cualquier otra forma de asociación con otros entes nacionales o extranjeros, públicos o privados. b) Ser agentes del mercado eléctrico en los demás países que se adhieran al Tratado marco del mercado eléctrico de América Central, aprobado mediante la Ley N.° 7848, de 20 de noviembre de 1998, o a cualquier otro instrumento que en el futuro se suscriba y ratifique”. Generación, instalación y operación de redes de electricidad y telecomunicaciones, prestación de servicios de electricidad, de telecomunicaciones e infocomunicaciones y otros servicios en convergencia. Para el cumplimiento de estas competencias se le autoriza a suscribir asociaciones empresariales, así como a vender servicios a terceros.” Con el anterior trasfondo, considera este órgano colegiado que el servicio prestado por el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad en sus diferentes ámbitos señalados, se enmarca dentro de la industria y el comercio remunerado, eso si, mediante de un precio público, que debe entenderse como aquellas contraprestaciones satisfechas por la utilización privativa o el aprovechamiento especial del domino público, así como la prestación de servicios o realización de actividades administrativas cuando no es obligatoria su solicitud ni su recepción, o cuando sean susceptibles de prestarse por el sector privado, al no implicar ejercicio de autoridad. Sobre el particular, el artículo 3 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, prevé esta situación y establece: " 1- El derecho público regulará la organización y actividad de los entes públicos, salvo norma expresa en contrario. 2- El derecho privado regulará la actividad de los entes que por su régimen de conjunto y los requerimientos de su giro puedan estimarse como empresas industriales o mercantiles comunes". Es así que se puede afirmar al tenor de dicho ordinal, que la distribución de electricidad brindado en este caso por una entidad pública (ICE) es de naturaleza comercial, que si bien el ente está sujeto a una doble regulación en cuanto a su organización y control, sometiéndose en su conjunto a los principios fundamentales del servicio público, para asegurar su continuidad, su eficiencia y adaptabilidad, ha de entenderse que las relaciones que resulten de la prestación del servicio (considerando su también su naturaleza) estarían sometidas al régimen del Derecho Privado, a menos que estemos en presencia del ejercicio de una potestad de imperio, lo que no sucede en el sub examine. Lo indicado tiene importancia, por cuanto al darse la comercialización de un servicio, entre el titular y el administrado quien paga por el disfrute de este, tal relación y sus derivaciones quedan sujetas al ámbito del derecho privado, concretamente al derecho comercial. Ahora bien, en lo que se refiere a la prescripción de la facturación por el pago del servicio brindado, independientemente que dicho servicio público sea prestado por una entidad estatal o por un particular, deben aplicársele las normas del Código de Comercios y no la contenida en el Código Civil, ello como se reitera, por estar frente a una relación (contrato de servicio) de naturaleza comercial y no civil. En este orden de ideas el artículo 968 del Código de Comercio en lo que interesa dispone: “Las acciones que se deriven de actos y contratos comerciales, prescriben con arreglo a las disposiciones de este capítulo. La prescripción se opera por el no ejercicio del derecho respectivo dentro del plazo legalmente indicado". Por su parte, el artículo 984 del Código de Comercio, establece:" Salvo lo expresamente dispuesto en otros capítulos de este Código, todo derecho y su correspondiente acción prescriben en cuatro años, con las siguientes salvedades que prescriben en un año. (...) ". Sobre el tema, la Sección V de este Tribunal en la resolución que fue referida por la representación del ICE dentro de sus alegatos de conclusiones y que consta dentro del expediente N° 16-09528-1027-CA, al dictarse la sentencia N° 57-2018-V de las 14:20 hrs. del 23 de julio de 2018, y en lo que interesa indicó: "Para ello es menester precisar que en el caso bajo examen nos encontramos ante un precio público, figura que opera cuando nos encontramos ante el aprovechamiento de un bien de dominio público, o bien ante la prestación de un servicio público como el de agua potable, el telefónico o el de suministro de energía. Los precios públicos no son fijados con fundamento en el poder de imperio, sino en atención a criterios de índole económica e incluso política. Este precio público derivado de la prestación de un servicio también público, en el caso bajo examen surge a partir de una relación de naturaleza comercial, y a pesar de que no se obvia que la actividad se encuentra sujeta a una doble regulación -de derecho privado y de derecho público-, lo cierto es que las reglas aplicables al aspecto de la comercialización del servicio son las propias del derecho privado, y en el caso concreto, las dispuestas en el Código de Comercio. En este sentido, la norma que corresponde aplicar es la dispuesta en el artículo 984 de dicho cuerpo legal que dispone un plazo de prescripción de cuatro años". En conclusión de lo hasta aquí indicado esta Cámara considera que el término de prescripción de las facturas por concepto de servicio de electricidad es la contenida en el Código de Comercio, sea de 4 años. Término que debe de ser computado a partir de la fecha de la facturación del último medidor instalado. Por último y para efectos de conocimiento de las partes se ha de indicar que esta postura también es sostenida por los Tribunales Civiles al resolver procesos de cobros de servicios públicos cambiando de criterio en cuanto a la aplicación de la prescripción decenal contenida en el Código Civil y que aquí fue alegada, así; el Tribunal Primero de Apelaciones Civil de San José en resolución N° 0067-2020 de las 2:50 p.m. del 21 de febrero de 2020 en lo que interesa indicó: “Esta Cámara desde vieja fecha ha referido que la prescripción en este tipo de asuntos es la fijada en Código de Comercio. Así se ha indicado: “… En la prestación del servicio público de electricidad, alumbrado público y telecomunicaciones, el Instituto accionante actúa en el ejercicio de una empresa mercantil. Por supuesto que se está en presencia de servicios prestados por una empresa pública. Sobre esta base y de conformidad con lo que prescribe el artículo 3 inciso 2) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, trátase de una prestación regulada por el derecho mercantil en su relación con el usuario o beneficiario. Así las cosas, tal y como lo dice el impugnante, aplica en la especie la prescripción ordinaria cuatrianual preceptuada en el artículo 984 del Código de Comercio y no la decenal del Código Civil, erróneamente aplicada por el señor Juez de primera instancia...” (Tribunal Primero Civil Voto 649-1C de las 9:05 del 14 de agosto de 2015)”. Resuelto el tema sobre la normativa aplicar en lo relativo a la prescripción, en el sub examine se tiene que el ICE luego de percatarse que existían un error en el cobro del servicio de electricidad prestado a la empresa actora, abre el procedimiento administrativo de cobro con el expediente número ENF-1612-001-2018, y mediante oficio N° 1612-845-2018 del 27 de junio de 2018, debidamente notificada el 17 de julio de 2018 (fecha en que se interrumpiría la prescripción) le comunica a la empresa Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. el cobro administrativo de energía consumida y no facturada por el período comprendido entre agosto de 2009 y mayo de 2018 por un monto de quinientos once millones trescientos cincuenta y seis mil quinientos dieciocho colones exactos. Ahora bien, para resolver este caso específico, siendo que existe norma expresa de cómo debe ser cobrado la diferencia que existan entre la energía otorgada y la facturada, se hace imprescindible traer a colación lo dispuesto por la Junta Directiva de la Autoridad Reguladora de los Servicios Públicos al aprobar la norma técnica regulatoria denominada "Supervisión de la comercialización del suministro eléctrico en baja y media tensión" AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014” que en su ordinal 51 en lo que interesa a este tema específico de la prescripción dispone: "Si la empresa eléctrica determina fallas en el sistema de medición, incluyendo la constante de medición, que provocaron una facturación menor de lo realmente consumido (energía) y demandado (potencia) por el abonado o usuario, deberá hacer el ajuste correspondiente desde la facturación del último medidor instalado". En esta inteligencia el cambio de medidor se da en fecha 7 de noviembre de 2016 (sobre este tema específico, sea el resto del período cobrado, será abordado por esta Cámara posteriormente) por lo que sería la fecha en que el ICE está legitimado para cobrar y comenzaría a correr el inicio para el término de la prescripción. Ahora, siendo que el ICE se da cuenta con el reporte hecho por el funcionario Nombre155266 en 19 de mayo de 2018 en el cual indica “cambiar constante de 61.2 a 122.4” (hecho probado 8) y la generación de la factura corregida es a partir del mes de mayo de 2018 y el cobro administrativo por la diferencia no facturada fue debidamente notificada el 17 de julio de 2018, plazo en que se interrumpe la prescripción. Ahora, de una simple operación aritmética, en aplicación del artículo 984 el Código de Comercio lo cuatro años dispuestos en dicho ordinal la deuda por monto no facturado sería a partir del 7 de noviembre de 2016, en aplicación del ordinal 51 del plexo normativo citado, por lo que no estaría prescrita la deuda, debiendo en ese tanto rechazarse la excepción de prescripción.

VII.- SOBRE EL FONDO DEL ASUNTO. Indicado lo anterior entra esta Cámara a conocer por el fondo los argumentos de las partes. Del marco de las pretensiones planteadas por la parte, tanto en su libelo de demanda y como quedaron ajustadas en la audiencia preliminar, en lo medular, se solicita la nulidad de los oficios número 1612-485-2018 del 27 de junio de 2018, 1612-522-20188 del 7 de agosto de 2018, 0510-00688-18 del 18 de septiembre de 2018, así como los daños y perjuicios causados. Para fundamentar sus pretensiones la representación de la empresa actora manifestó que de los hechos ocurridos y que constan en el expediente se puede derivar que los errores en que incurrió la administración accionada fueron originados en comportamientos administrativos que evidencian desatención de su parte, y que de modo alguno se le puede endilgar a su representada, además que el error persistió por muchísimos años pese a las frecuentes inspecciones que llevaron a cabo funcionarios del ICE. Que de acuerdo con el artículo 51 de la norma técnica (AR-NT-SUCOM) existe un límite temporal que imposibilita cobros más allá de ese evento histórico, sea desde el último medidor instalado por el ICE. Que siendo que la norma técnica dictada por el órgano regulador es de acatamiento obligatorio y enerva cualquier pretensión de ir más de lo fijado por la ARESEP, hace que los actos impugnados tengan un vicio sustancial y temporal sobre el elemento subjetivo de competencia del acto administrativo impugnado y de los que de él se dependen. Criterio del Tribunal. A) Del cuadro fáctico se puede extraer que no existe controversia alguna en cuanto a la energía consumida por la parte actora y que no fue facturada en su momento por el ICE, el tema a resolver va dirigido si el ICE tiene o no derecho a cobrar la energía consumida no facturada por la actora y hasta que fecha. Se ha de partir, conforme a lo indicado en el considerando anterior, que la relación existente entre la empresa demandante y el ICE deviene del contrato del servicio de energía eléctrica que existe entre ambos, en donde por las particularidades del servicio público, éste se encuentra regulado por ley, en cuanto sus tarifas y condiciones, pero por el contrato suscrito entre ambos, conforme lo dispone el ordinal 411 del Código de Comercio, “las partes quedarán obligadas de manera y en los términos que aparezca quisieron obligarse”, norma que es efectivamente un reflejo del artículo 1022 del Código Civil que dispone “Los contratos son ley entre las partes”. Debido a ello, en tesis de principio al haber el ICE acreditado y desprenderse así de la prueba documental y que constituye un hecho no controvertido por las partes, que efectivamente el ICE le suministró la energía eléctrica a la empresa demandante, pero le facturó a ésta una cantidad menor debido a un error en la constante de medición realizada por los funcionarios del ICE, luego de corregido el aspecto técnico, es obligación de la empresa cancelar la electricidad consumida. Ahora bien, dicho tema las partes tiene claro que se encuentra debidamente regulado en los artículos 51 y 52 de la Resolución N° RJD-072-2015 “Supervisión de la comercialización del suministro eléctrico en baja y media tensión" AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014” pero que es sometido a este Tribunal para la correcta interpretación y aplicación de dichas normas para este caso específico. En este orden de ideas disponen los ordinales del plexo normativo citado: "Artículo 51. Errores de facturación por problemas en el sistema de medición. Si la empresa eléctrica determina fallas en el sistema de medición, incluyendo la constante de medición, que provocaron una facturación menor de lo realmente consumido (energía) y demandado (potencia) por el abonado o usuario, deberá hacer el ajuste correspondiente desde la facturación del último medidor instalado. Para tal efecto, la empresa eléctrica, debe notificar al abonado o usuario y el cobro debe realizarse en una facturación separada, salvo que el abonado o usuario autorice la inclusión de dicho rubro en la factura correspondiente, mediante convenio al respecto. Si por el contrario, la empresa eléctrica detecta que fallas en el sistema de medición, incluyendo la constante de medición, están provocando una facturación mayor de lo realmente consumido y demandado por el abonado o usuario, deberá reintegrar todo lo cobrado de más, según el procedimiento establecido por la empresa para las devoluciones. En cualquiera de los dos casos, se estimará la energía y demanda consumida con base en lo indicado en el artículo 52. Artículo 52. Procedimiento de cobro de la energía y potencia consumida y no facturada. Cuando el prestador del servicio demuestre que, en un servicio, se consumió energía eléctrica y se demandó potencia que no fue cobrada en su totalidad, o se cobró más energía de la consumida o se cobró más potencia de la demandada, podrá estimar la energía consumida y la potencia demandada. Para calcular el monto a cobrar de la energía consumida y no facturada y de la potencia demandada y no facturada, la empresa eléctrica utilizará como base tres lecturas reales posteriores a la corrección de la causa que dio origen al error o, en aquellos servicios en los que existe una carga del tipo estacional (por ejemplo: ingenios, beneficios de café o clientes con tarifa horario/estacional), se comparará el mes en que se produjo la falla con su promedio de estacionalidad del año anterior. En caso de cobros de más potencia y energía, deberá devolver la totalidad de lo cobrado en exceso, con base a los registros de la empresa o de las pruebas que el abonado o usuario aporte. En ninguna circunstancia podrá la empresa eléctrica suspender el servicio si el abonado o usuario está al día en el pago de la factura por energía eléctrica del último período de consumo puesto al cobro". De una lectura atenta de ambos artículos no encuentra este Tribunal los supuestos de discusión que tiene a las partes en conflicto, específicamente, que el ordinal 52 regule los casos cuando se trate de errores humanos como el sucedido en el sub judice, siendo claro que el primero tipifica la situación jurídica que se generaría cuando existe un error en el sistema de medición y el segundo de forma sucinta el procedimiento a seguir para cobrar la energía y potencia consumida y no facturada, esta interpretación es reforzada por lo dispuesto por el mismo ordinal 51 en el párrafo in fine que reza: “En cualquiera de los dos casos, se estimará la energía y demanda consumida con base en lo indicado en el artículo 52”, es claro entonces, que no hay margen para otra interpretación. En esta inteligencia, y sin perjuicio de lo indicado, aun y cuando se aceptara la hipótesis que del artículo 52 se podría extraer que la voluntad del legislador reglamentario fue regular aquellos supuestos de error humano no achacable al consumidor sino al prestador del servicio y que no tuviera relación con los sistemas de medición incluyendo la constante, como lo alega la representación del demando, tampoco podría aplicarse dicha norma pues a criterio de esta Cámara la controversia entre las partes sometida a este Tribunal se resuelve con lo dispuesto en el artículo 51 como a continuación se indicará. En esta inteligencia, dispone dicha norma que “si la empresa eléctrica determina fallas en el sistema de medición, incluyendo la constante de medición, que provocaron una facturación menor de lo realmente consumido (energía) y demandado (potencia) por el abonado o usuario, deberá hacer el ajuste correspondiente desde la facturación del último medidor instalado”; véase que la norma es muy clara que el fallo puede darse tanto en “el sistema de medición” como en “la constante de medición” o incluso ambos a la vez, por lo que para saber cuándo estamos en el primer supuesto (fallo en el sistema de medición) el artículo tres de dicha norma en lo referido a las definiciones, indica que se debe entender como sistema de medición lo siguiente: “Sistema de medición: es el conjunto de equipos y materiales (contadores de energía, alambrado, dispositivo de comunicación, transformadores de potencial y corriente) que se utiliza para la medición y registro de la energía y potencia requerida en un servicio eléctrico”; es decir; cuando existe una facturación menor o mayor de la energía por causa del sistema de medición es porque ha fallado algunos del conjunto de equipo o material que la prestadora del servicio utiliza para medir la energía suministrada, ahora; para el segundo supuesto denominado “constante de medición”, dicha norma no la define, sin embargo el testigo-perito Nombre155269 , experto en la materia y ofrecido por el ICE, aclaró dicho término técnico indicando: “La constante es una relación entre lo que está registrando el medidor y lo que realmente se le está entregando al cliente. Esa constante de medición se debe de trasladar al sistema de información que permite hacer la facturación del servicio eléctrico para cuando le lleguen los datos de la lectura puedan ser escalado al valor real a lo que se tenga que facturar”; de todo lo dicho por el experto se puede afirmar que la constante de medición es un valor aritmético (fórmula) que se utiliza para determinar el valor real de la energía entregada y consumida, en virtud como lo expresó el testigo experto Mora Zúñiga, así mismo la testigo Nombre155267 se manifestó en el mismo sentido confirmando tal situación, sea que los equipos instalados no miden o marcan directamente dicho valor como sucede en los medidores normales que se instalan en las casas, por estar en presencia de energía de alta tensión, debiendo entonces en ese sentido, apuntar la lectura de los datos que registran los sistemas de medición (se reitera equipo o contador) y posteriormente aplicar la constante de medición correspondiente (fórmula aritmética) para tener el valor exacto (que en este caso debió ser 122.4 y no 61.2) y proceder con la facturación correcta. En este orden de ideas, de la documentación aportada y de lo dicho por las mismas partes es claro que el error se dio en la constante de medición, en ese tanto la norma regula expresamente dicha situación (supuesto de hecho) y no hace ninguna diferenciación como lo han querido hacer ver las partes (base del conflicto) si es un error aritmético o un error humano, negligencia o impericia, simplemente indica “incluyendo la constate” no admitiendo en ese tanto otra interpretación. Es claro para este Tribunal con la explicación dada por el experto en cuanto a lo que se debe entender como contante de medición, que dicho factor, jamás puede ser ingresada al sistema o medida por instrumento, pues es un factor aritmético que el encargo consigna en la boleta dependiendo el sistema de medición utilizado (art 3 de la Norma Técnica), por lo que resulta inocuo determinar si es o no un error humano, siendo que ello fue tomado en cuenta por el legislador reglamentario en la norma al incluir expresamente dentro del error de medición dicho elemento y no solo las fallas en los instrumentos; siendo que estamos en presencia de una responsabilidad objetiva del prestador del servicio en una relación de consumo al tenor de los dispuesto en el ordinal 35 de la Ley N° 7472, liberándose, si solo si, es ajeno al daño. Aunado a lo anterior, no existe duda alguna que el error fue realizado por el mismo demando (hecho no controvertido y aceptado por el ICE), en ese sentido tanto el señor Nombre155269 y la señora Nombre155267 , fueron unísonos en indicar que el funcionario a cargo de realizar la medición en un principio se equivocó en consignar la constante; al respecto y sobre este tema específico el señor Nombre155269 ante la pregunta de la representación del ICE indicó: “El error humano que se cometió fue que el técnico consignó que los transformadores eran 300 a 5 y no 600 a 5 como realmente son, al variar esto, vario la constante real de 61.2 a 122.4, por lo que el sistema de medición no tuvo ningún problema, sino que registró lo que tenía que registrar, el problema se dio por un error humano en el sistema de facturación que es un sistema aparte, es decir, se toma la lectura en el sistema de medición y trasladadas a otro sistema que es el de facturación. En el sistema de facturación hubo un error aritmético, hay un valor, una constante que se ingresó de manera inadecuada”. Ahora bien, de una revisión minuciosa del expediente administrativo se desprende que cuando se realiza la boleta en fecha 27 de mayo de 2009 denominada “Movimiento en Mediciones de Máxima Demanda” para la instalación del servicio nuevo se consignó en la casilla de Transformador de Corriente tres transformadores “Marca: ABB, Relación 600/5” correspondiente al medidor N° 1055582, con una constante de 122.4, instalado por el funcionario Nombre155266 (f. 18-19, expediente administrativo), posteriormente en fecha 31 de agosto de 2009, el mismo funcionario realiza la boleta con la cual se realiza el servicio de cambio de medidor y se consigna la nota “se cambia ya que el medidor que tiene no tiene perfil de carga y se ocupa con perfil de carga”, consignando en el casilla de Transformador de Corriente, 3 transformadores marca ABB, con una relación de 300/5, y además que no hay cambio de transformador de corriente ni tiene cambios de transformador de potencial (f. 22, expediente administrativo). Es a partir de este punto (confección de la boleta) en que se arrastra el error de la constante y que fue detectada al realizarse el cambio de medidor N° 1341360, en la cual se consigna nuevamente la relación de los transformadores 600/5 y se indica en observaciones que se debe de cambiar la constante de 61.2 a 122.4 para su aplicación en la facturación del mes 6/18 (f. 45). Ahora, llama la atención a este Tribunal, aunque no es tema de discusión ni influye en la resolución del asunto, que las boletas aquí reseñadas en la línea del tiempo y que claramente hicieron incurrir en error a la hora de facturación de la energía dada por el ICE y consumida por el abonado, fueron realizadas por el mismo funcionario a la hora de realizar los servicios de cambio o mantenimiento, por lo que no se entiende ni existe prueba traída al caso en relación a ello, de por qué dicho funcionario cambió el valor de los transformadores que vinieron a redundar en el cambio de la constante a utilizar, sea de 61.2 a 112.4. Reseñado lo anterior, y teniendo claro que la norma (art. 51) no realiza ninguna diferenciación si la falla en la constante es un error humano o aritmético, y al tenor de lo dispuesto por el artículo 35 de la Ley N° 7274 que solo existiría liberación de responsabilidad cuando se demuestre que el comerciante (en este caso prestador del servicio) es ajeno al daño, lo que no ha sucedido aquí (pues la misma representación del ICE acepta el hecho); queda nada más por revisar si el período puesto al cobro por concepto de energía entregada y no facturada, a la cual efectivamente tiene derecho el ICE, se encuentra ajustado a derecho o no. En este orden de ideas, el artículo 51 dispone que una vez detectada la falla la prestadora del servicio “deberá hacer el ajuste correspondiente desde la facturación del último medidor instalado”, entendiéndose no solo de los equipos o constante como en este caso específico, sino el ajuste de la diferencia sea a favor del prestatario o a favor del consumidor (cuando se le cobró en demasía) desde la facturación del último medidor instalado; conforme a los hechos probados y así aceptado por las partes (no controvertido) el último medidor instalado fue en fecha 7 de noviembre de 2016 por lo que a criterio de este Tribunal, atendiendo al brocardo jurídico “in lex claris, no interpretatio”, no queda más remedio que indicar que es a partir de dicha fecha en que el demandado puede cobrar la diferencia no facturada no pudiendo cobrar más allá por imperio legal de cuando suceda dicho evento específico, sea del período cobrado desde agosto del 2009 y hasta el 07 de noviembre de 2016 es improcedente, debiendo el ICE ajustar los montos reclamados excluyendo de dicha suma el período indicado. No omite indicar este Tribunal que no existe ninguna duda entre las partes que la empresa actora ha consumido la cantidad energía medida pues los equipos no han fallado, pero que ha habido un error en la ecuación de facturación (constante) que influyó en que el ICE cobrara un valor menor de lo real lo que en tesis de principio de acuerdo al contrato tendría derecho a dicha remuneración por el servicio prestado; sin embargo, también es claro que aun y cuando estamos en una relación comercial de consumo, de acuerdo a como se indicó ut supra, el ICE sigue estando en su organización y actividad sujeta al derecho público al tenor de lo dispuesto en el inciso 1) del artículo 3 de la Ley General de Administración Pública, en consecuencia no podría ir contrario a lo que una norma expresa dispone (como la atinente a este caso específico), so pena de violentar el Principio de Legalidad. B) En cuanto a la nulidad alegada por la parte actora de los oficios impugnado, indicó que existe un vicio sustancial y temporal sobre el elemento subjetivo de competencia del acto por ser contrario a lo dispuesto en el artículo 51 de la norma técnica referenciada cobrando períodos que no se le autorizan. Pues bien, dicho agravio debe ser rechazado en virtud que de acuerdo con la doctrina y jurisprudencia el vicio en el elemento subjetivo del acto obedece a razones de existencia del ente y su capacidad, a la existencia del órgano y su competencia, y en este caso no existe duda que el ICE no solo tiene la capacidad sino también la competencia para poner a cobro la diferencia de energía no facturada con fundamento no solo en la norma ya indicadas sino en el contrato suscrito por ambas partes. El tema aquí se da en una interpretación errónea que realiza el ICE de dicha norma que lo lleva disponer en el acto impugnado un suma diferente por un plazo no autorizado, por consiguiente lo que sí estaría viciado sería el elemento denominado “contenido” conforme a lo dispuesto en el inciso 2) del artículo 132 de la Ley General de Administración Pública el cual debe de ser proporcionado al fin legal y correspondiente al motivo, y en el sub examine el elemento motivo (antecedente jurídico) como ya se indicó expresamente la norma autoriza a cobrar la diferencia pero con un límite temporal. Ahora bien, siendo que de acuerdo con el artículo 49 Constitucional que otorga a esta jurisdicción la potestad para revisar la función administrativa del Estado y sus instituciones, en relación con el artículo 1 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, entra Cámara a revisar la patología del acto impugnado, determinando en ese sentido por lo hasta aquí dicho, que efectivamente existe un vicio de nulidad absoluta en el mismo, pero no en su elemento subjetivo como lo alega la agraviada, sino en el elemento objetivo denominado “contenido” el cual al tenor de lo dispuesto en el ordinal 167 de LGAP que reza: “Habrá nulidad relativa del acto cuando sea imperfecto uno de sus elementos constitutivos, salvo que la imperfección impida la realización del fin, en cuyo caso será absoluta” (subrayado no es del original) debe ser declarada de oficio, como en efecto en este momento se hace. Ahora bien, al tenor de lo dispuesto en el artículo 122 del Código de Rito, se dimensiona la declaratoria de nulidad que se acaba de decretar, en el siguiente sentido: debe proceder la administración a realizar los cálculos respectivos de la energía entregada y no facturada a partir de la fecha en que se instaló el último medidor, sea el 7 de noviembre de 2017 y hasta la fecha en que se realizó la corrección y la empresa actora comenzó a cancelar el monto correcto con la constante 122.4. C) Por último en cuanto a los daños y perjuicios alegados, los mismos deben de ser rechazados por las siguientes consideraciones. Como ya se determinó ut supra en este caso concreto existe una relación comercial de consumo, por lo que se deben aplicar los derechos fundamentales de los consumidores, los cuales vienen establecidos en el artículo 46, párrafo quinto, de la Constitución Política, así como desarrollados en la citada Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y de Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor. Los mismos se resumen en que el consumidor tiene derecho a lo siguiente: 1. Protección de su salud; 2. Protección de su ambiente; 3. Protección de su seguridad; 4. Protección de sus intereses económicos; 5. Derecho a recibir información adecuada y veraz de los servicios o bienes que adquiera; 6. A la libertad de elección de los bienes y servicios que desea adquirir o utilizar; 7. Un trato equitativo, entiéndase, que el comerciante o proveedor, deben tratar al consumidor de manera equitativa y respetuosa frente a sus simples reclamos, o en la tutela de sus derechos tanto en sede administrativa como en la judicial. Ahora, estos derechos fundamentales del consumidor, hay que interpretarlos dentro de la naturaleza jurídica que tienen las relaciones comerciales de consumo, que protegen al sujeto más débil de esa relación. Precisamente, esto lo ha explicado claramente nuestro Tribunal Constitucional en el voto 8587-02, así como en otros precedentes vinculantes de ese órgano jurisdiccional, al señalar que la relación comercial de consumo entre el comerciante o proveedor y el consumidor, existe por la dinámica natural del comercio, una desigualdad entre ambos, y el consumidor en esta relación es la parte más débil, por lo que nuestra Constitución Política, viene a equilibrar esa relación de consumo, otorgándole al consumidor una serie de derechos fundamentales que lo protegen de su desigualdad natural con el comerciante y proveedor. Además, nuestro texto constitucional le impone al Estado, la obligación de apoyar los derechos que defiendan al consumidor, esto significa que en los procesos en los que se debe resolver un conflicto producido dentro de una relación comercial de consumo, como en el presente asunto, la interpretación y la aplicación de las normas, en caso de duda, deben favorecer al más débil, es decir, al consumidor. Precisamente, en materia de protección al consumidor, sucede algo similar a lo que ocurre en la sede laboral con el indubio pro operario y en el mismo proceso penal con el indubio pro reo. En general, son normas proteccionistas, que defienden a la parte más débil de una relación, por lo que, en caso de conflicto, el juez, debe interpretar y aplicar la norma jurídica teniendo siempre en cuenta que el consumidor tiene una serie de derechos fundamentales, por lo que procesalmente hablando, el comerciante o proveedor, tienen la obligación de demostrar que han cumplido con sus obligaciones en la relación de consumo y que han respetado los derechos fundamentales del consumidor. Es decir, tienen la carga de la prueba, lo que es una regla fundamental en materia de protección al consumidor. En consecuencia, si acontece una violación a los derechos constitucionales y legales del consumidor, por parte del comerciante o proveedor, éste debe reparar el efecto dañoso que se le haya causado al consumidor, bajo el régimen de responsabilidad objetiva que se encuentra establecido en el artículo 35 de la Ley de Promoción de la Competencia y Defensa Efectiva del Consumidor, que dispone: “Régimen de responsabilidad. El productor, el proveedor y el comerciante deben responder concurrente e independientemente de la existencia de culpa, si el consumidor resulta perjudicado por razón del bien o el servicio, de informaciones inadecuadas o insuficientes sobre ellos o de su utilización y riesgos. Sólo se libera quien demuestre que ha sido ajeno al daño. Los representantes legales de los establecimientos mercantiles o, en su caso, los encargados del negocio son responsables por los actos o los hechos propios o por los de sus dependientes o auxiliares. Los técnicos, los encargados de la elaboración y el control responden solidariamente, cuando así corresponda, por las violaciones a esta Ley en perjuicio del consumidor. Del examen de dicho mandato, se llega a las siguientes reglas para la aplicación de este tipo de responsabilidad: 1- Es una responsabilidad objetiva, en la cual no es necesario la demostración del dolo o culpa del autor del daño, sino que lo importante es la imputación del daño; 2- Debe existir una conducta lesiva, activa o omisiva, esto significa que debe presentarse por parte del comerciante o proveedor una violación activa o pasiva de los derechos fundamentales del consumidor; 3- Se debe producir un daño que significa una lesión al bien jurídico tutelado, que en este caso sería la protección al consumidor al ser éste el sujeto más débil de la relación comercial de consumo; 4- Nexo de causalidad que vincule la conducta lesiva y el daño producido; 5- Este nexo de causalidad puede ser roto, únicamente, si la parte a la que se le imputa el daño, comerciante o proveedor, demuestra "que ha sido ajeno al daño", es decir, tiene la carga de la prueba en un proceso jurisdiccional. Lo anterior se debe a que estamos en presencia de una responsabilidad objetiva, que está relacionada a la finalidad que tienen las normas constitucionales y legales de proteger al consumidor como el sujeto más débil dentro de la relación comercial de consumo, por lo que le corresponde al comerciante o proveedor, para exonerarse de responsabilidad, probar que cumplió con sus obligaciones ante el consumidor, así como que fue ajeno totalmente y sin ninguna duda de cualquier daño producido a este último. En el sub examine si bien como se determinó existe una conducta contraria a derecho por la cual se declaró la nulidad, también es cierto y en ese sentido no se encuentra demostrado por parte de la actora que con la conducta desplegada por el ICE, específicamente poner al cobro la suma que se le adeuda, se le causara algún daño o perjuicio, ello se determina porque incluso una vez notificado el cobro administrativo en fecha 17 julio de 2018, el representante legal de Grupo Agroindustrial Tres Jota S.A. el 23 de julio de 2018 presentó ante este Despacho medida cautelar antecausam solicitando la suspensión de los efectos del oficio N° 1612-485-2018, otorgándose por resolución de las 14:40 hrs. del 26 de julio de 2018 la medida cautelar provisionalísima, la cual fue resuelta por el fondo mediante sentencia N° 522-2018 de las 09:40 hrs. 14 de setiembre de 2018, y confirmada por el Tribunal de Apelaciones mediante voto N° 409-2008-I de las 11:04 hrs. 12 de noviembre de 2018, estando hasta el día de hoy suspendido los efectos del acto administrativo impugnado y que aquí se anuló. En conclusión, no existe ningún daño que se le haya causado a la parte, y como corolario de ello se impone su rechazo.

VIII.- SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES Y PRETENSIONES DEL PROCESO.

• A)Al contestar la demanda la representación del ICE no interpuso expresamente ninguna de las excepciones previa o de fondo reguladas en el Código de marras, sin embargo, es obligación del juzgador analizar los presupuestos de fondo denominados falta de legitimación, falta de interés y falta de derecho. En este orden de ideas se constata por lo indicado líneas atrás que existe una legitimación pasiva y activa de las partes en conflicto, así como un interés actual en las pretensiones. Sin embargo, existe parcialmente una falta de derecho de la actora en su reclamo denegándose en ese tanto lo no expresamente concedido como a continuación se indica.
• B)Con respecto a las pretensiones fijadas por el actor en la audiencia preliminar y ratificadas en el juicio oral y públicos, siendo que con base en las pruebas y argumentos esgrimidos anteriormente por parte de este Tribunal al tenor de lo dispuesto por los artículos 119, 120 y 121 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo se debe acoger parcialmente la falta de derecho interpuesta por la representación del ICE únicamente en cuanto el monto cobrado por el período del 07 de noviembre de 2016 a mayo de 2018. Debido a lo anterior se acoge parcialmente la pretensión del actor en cuanto la nulidad del cobro realizado por el ICE a su representada por el período que va de agosto de 2009 al 06 de noviembre de 2016.
• C)En relación con los daños y perjuicios reclamados al no existir ningún daño causado pues como se indicó líneas atrás la ejecución de los actos tendientes al cobro fueron suspendidos por la medida cautelar, los mismos no fueron ejecutados y por consiguiente no hay daño que reparar por lo que se rechaza según lo indicado en el considerando VIII.

IX.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS. Conforme a lo regulado en el artículo 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, las costas personales y procesales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo y sólo procede su dispensa cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar, o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En el caso de estudio, al existir un vencimiento recíproco procede la exención de costa conforme a lo dispuesto por el artículo 73.2.3 del Código Procesal Civil de aplicación supletoria por remisión del 220 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y que dispone: Exención (…) “Haya vencimiento recíproco trascendente sobre pretensiones, defensas o excepciones”.

Por Tanto

Se rechaza la excepción de Prescripción. De conformidad con el artículo 51 de la Norma Técnica de Supervisión de la Comercialización del Suministro Eléctrico en baja y media tensión AR-NT-SUCOM, OT-0300-2014, artículo 35 de la Ley N° 7274, 167 de la Ley General de Administración Pública, artículos 119, 122 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda entendiéndose por denegado en lo no expresamente concedido. Se anula el oficio número 1612-485-2018, del 27 de junio de 2018 adoptado por lo Agencia de lo Región Brunca del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad únicamente en cuanto al período que va de agosto de 2009 a 06 de noviembre de 2016, fecha en que fue debidamente ajustada la facturación. Se anula por conexidad los oficios N° 1612-2018 del 27 de junio de 2018 y N° 0510-00688-18 del 18 de setiembre de 2018. Se dimensiona la presente declaratoria de nulidad en en cuanto a que se devuelve el expediente administrativo para que proceda el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad a realizar los cálculos respectivos para el cobro del servicio de electricidad no facturada a partir del 07 de noviembre de 2016, fecha en que se instaló el último medidor y hasta el 29 de mayo de 2018, fecha en que se realizó la corrección de la constante de medición. Sin especial condena en costas. Notifíquese.

Nombre155265 Alexandra Zúñiga Mora Lindsay Rodríguez Cubero ????????????????

ELEUTERIO Nombre155265 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Goicoechea, Dirección01 , 50 metros oeste del BNCR, frente a Dirección02 . Teléfonos: 2545-0107 (EXT 01-2707) ó 2545-0099 (EXT 01-2599). Fax: 2241-5664 y 2545-0006. Correo electrónico: ...01