← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 03007-2025 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo · 27/03/2025
OutcomeResultado
The lawsuit is partially granted: indemnity claims are dismissed due to insufficient proof, but the defendant public entities are ordered to jointly carry out actions and works to prevent, avoid and reduce the negative impacts of flooding in San Pancracio.Se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda: se rechazan las pretensiones indemnizatorias por falta de prueba, pero se ordena a las entidades públicas demandadas realizar coordinadamente acciones y obras para prevenir, evitar y reducir los impactos negativos de las inundaciones en San Pancracio.
SummaryResumen
The Administrative Court resolved a lawsuit by residents of the San Pancracio Settlement in Siquirres against two banana companies, the State, the Municipality of Siquirres and the CNE, for recurrent flooding. Claimants sought damages and mitigation works, arguing that unpermitted dikes and earthworks worsened flooding and that public entities failed to supervise and prevent it. The prior judgment was annulled by the First Chamber for lack of clarity regarding facts attributed to Chiquita Brands. In this new ruling, the Court analyzes extensive expert and witness evidence from both sides, as well as a prior Constitutional Chamber decision (2004-04944) that had ordered technical studies. After assessing defenses like force majeure, victim's fault and lack of standing, the Court dismisses indemnity claims due to insufficient proof of damages and causation. However, it orders public entities to jointly carry out actions and works to prevent and reduce flood impacts, reflecting a solution focused on future prevention rather than retroactive compensation.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo resolvió una demanda de vecinos del Asentamiento San Pancracio de Siquirres contra dos compañías bananeras, el Estado, la Municipalidad de Siquirres y la CNE, por inundaciones recurrentes. Los actores reclamaban daños y perjuicios y la realización de obras paliativas, alegando que diques y movimientos de tierra sin permisos agravaban las inundaciones y que las entidades públicas omitieron fiscalizar y prevenir. La sentencia anterior fue anulada por la Sala Primera por falta de claridad en los hechos atribuidos a Chiquita Brands. En esta nueva sentencia, el Tribunal analiza la abundante prueba pericial y testimonial de ambas partes, así como un voto previo de la Sala Constitucional (2004-04944) que ya había ordenado estudios técnicos. Tras valorar defensas como fuerza mayor, culpa de la víctima y falta de legitimación, el Tribunal rechaza las pretensiones indemnizatorias por falta de prueba suficiente sobre los daños y el nexo causal. Sin embargo, ordena a las entidades públicas realizar coordinadamente acciones y obras para prevenir y reducir los impactos de las inundaciones, reflejando una solución centrada en la prevención futura más que en la reparación retroactiva.
Key excerptExtracto clave
For the above reasons, claims 2), 3) and 7) must be upheld, declaring that the two defendant companies were responsible for carrying out, without the permits required by law, the constructions concerning the dikes, earthworks in rivers and canals, in the area of San Pancracio de Siquirres, both those companies and the State (for the omissions of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and the Water Directorate, both agencies of the Ministry of Environment and Energy), the Municipality and the CNE being responsible for omitting to perform the studies necessary to prevent flooding in that place. The aforementioned public entities must carry out the necessary actions and works in a coordinated manner and within their scope of competence to prevent, avoid and reduce the negative impacts of flooding, to the detriment of the plaintiffs and the inhabitants of San Pancracio and neighboring places.En razón de lo anterior, se deben acoger los extremos petitorios 2), 3) y 7) antecitados, declarando que las dos sociedades demandadas fueron responsables de realizar sin los permisos exigidos por la ley, las construcciones referentes a los diques, movimientos de tierras en los ríos y canales, en la zona de San Pancracio de Siquirres, siendo responsables tanto dichas compañías, el Estado (por las omisiones dichas de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y la Dirección de Aguas, ambas dependencias del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía), la Municipalidad y la CNE, de omitir la realización de los estudios necesarios para prevenir las inundaciones en dicho lugar. Dichos entes públicos deberán realizar las acciones y obras necesarias de forma coordinada y dentro del ámbito sus competencias, para prevenir, evitar y reducir los impactos negativos de las inundaciones, en perjuicio de los aquí actores y los habitantes de San Pancracio y lugares vecinos.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"se deben acoger los extremos petitorios 2), 3) y 7) antecitados, declarando que las dos sociedades demandadas fueron responsables de realizar sin los permisos exigidos por la ley, las construcciones referentes a los diques, movimientos de tierras en los ríos y canales, en la zona de San Pancracio de Siquirres, siendo responsables tanto dichas compañías, el Estado (por las omisiones dichas de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y la Dirección de Aguas, ambas dependencias del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía), la Municipalidad y la CNE, de omitir la realización de los estudios necesarios para prevenir las inundaciones en dicho lugar."
"claims 2), 3) and 7) must be upheld, declaring that the two defendant companies were responsible for carrying out, without the permits required by law, the constructions concerning the dikes, earthworks in rivers and canals, in the area of San Pancracio de Siquirres, both those companies and the State (for the omissions of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat and the Water Directorate, both agencies of the Ministry of Environment and Energy), the Municipality and the CNE being responsible for omitting to perform the studies necessary to prevent flooding in that place."
Considerando IX
"se deben acoger los extremos petitorios 2), 3) y 7) antecitados, declarando que las dos sociedades demandadas fueron responsables de realizar sin los permisos exigidos por la ley, las construcciones referentes a los diques, movimientos de tierras en los ríos y canales, en la zona de San Pancracio de Siquirres, siendo responsables tanto dichas compañías, el Estado (por las omisiones dichas de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y la Dirección de Aguas, ambas dependencias del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía), la Municipalidad y la CNE, de omitir la realización de los estudios necesarios para prevenir las inundaciones en dicho lugar."
Considerando IX
"Dichos entes públicos deberán realizar las acciones y obras necesarias de forma coordinada y dentro del ámbito sus competencias, para prevenir, evitar y reducir los impactos negativos de las inundaciones, en perjuicio de los aquí actores y los habitantes de San Pancracio y lugares vecinos."
"The aforementioned public entities must carry out the necessary actions and works in a coordinated manner and within their scope of competence to prevent, avoid and reduce the negative impacts of flooding, to the detriment of the plaintiffs and the inhabitants of San Pancracio and neighboring places."
Considerando IX
"Dichos entes públicos deberán realizar las acciones y obras necesarias de forma coordinada y dentro del ámbito sus competencias, para prevenir, evitar y reducir los impactos negativos de las inundaciones, en perjuicio de los aquí actores y los habitantes de San Pancracio y lugares vecinos."
Considerando IX
"La fuerza mayor quedó demostrada con el informe y testimonio del Ing. Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega, específicamente en el folio 117 físico en donde nos mostró una gráfica de lluvias que fueron registradas en la Estación Fluviográfica Pascua de las lluvias que se produjeron el 30 de noviembre de 2002 en la zona en la que se encuentra el Asentamiento. En su presentación nos explicó que una lluvia normal en la zona de Siquirres es de entre 700 a 800 metros cúbicos por segundo. Superados esos 800 metros cúbicos por segundo, el evento puede ser considerado de extraordinario. Para el 30 de noviembre de 2002 en la zona donde se ubica el Asentamiento San Pancracio se produjo un total de 3.659 metros cúbicos por segundo, con lo cual queda demostrado que lo que produjo las inundaciones y los consecuentes daños, no fue la construcción y reparación de diques y canales, sino un evento extraordinario de lluvias, esto es, un evento de la naturaleza, sea, un caso de fuerza mayor."
"Force majeure was demonstrated by the report and testimony of Engineer Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega, specifically at physical folio 117 where he showed a graph of rainfall recorded at the Pascua Fluvigraphic Station for the rains that occurred on November 30, 2002 in the area where the Settlement is located. In his presentation he explained that normal rainfall in the Siquirres area is between 700 and 800 cubic meters per second. Above those 800 cubic meters per second, the event can be considered extraordinary. On November 30, 2002, in the area where the San Pancracio Settlement is located, a total of 3,659 cubic meters per second was produced, thereby demonstrating that what caused the flooding and the consequent damage was not the construction and repair of dikes and canals, but an extraordinary rainfall event, i.e., an event of nature, namely, a case of force majeure."
Conclusiones de la representación estatal
"La fuerza mayor quedó demostrada con el informe y testimonio del Ing. Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega, específicamente en el folio 117 físico en donde nos mostró una gráfica de lluvias que fueron registradas en la Estación Fluviográfica Pascua de las lluvias que se produjeron el 30 de noviembre de 2002 en la zona en la que se encuentra el Asentamiento. En su presentación nos explicó que una lluvia normal en la zona de Siquirres es de entre 700 a 800 metros cúbicos por segundo. Superados esos 800 metros cúbicos por segundo, el evento puede ser considerado de extraordinario. Para el 30 de noviembre de 2002 en la zona donde se ubica el Asentamiento San Pancracio se produjo un total de 3.659 metros cúbicos por segundo, con lo cual queda demostrado que lo que produjo las inundaciones y los consecuentes daños, no fue la construcción y reparación de diques y canales, sino un evento extraordinario de lluvias, esto es, un evento de la naturaleza, sea, un caso de fuerza mayor."
Conclusiones de la representación estatal
Full documentDocumento completo
BEFORE THE CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, at nine forty-seven hours on the twenty-seventh of March of two thousand twenty-five.- Case No. 11-1169-1027-CA By order of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, a judgment is re-issued in the ordinary proceeding involving the following persons:
1. [Name 001], [...]; 2. [Name 002], [...]; 3. [Name 003], [...]; 4. [Name 004] [...]; 5. [Name 005], [...]; 6. [Name 006], [...]; 7. [Name 007], [...]; 8. [Name 008], [...]; 9. [Name 009], [...]; 10. [Name 010], [...]; 11. [Name 011], [...]; 12. Estate of the late [Name 012], [...], represented by the provisional executor, [Name 013], [...] (registered in the Registry of Legal Entities, at entry [Value 001]); 13. [Name 014], [...]; 14. [Name 015], [...]; 15. [Name 016], [...]; 16. [Name 017], [...]; 17. [Name 018], [...]; 18. [Name 019], [...]; 19. [Name 020], [...]; · 20. [Name 021], [...]; 21. [Name 022], [...]; 22. [Name 023], [...]; 23. [Name 024], [...]; 24. [Name 025], [...]; 25. [Name 026], [...]; 26. [Name 027], [...]; 27. [Name 028], [...], all represented by Mariela Martínez Gómez, ID No. 20792, Roger Guevara Vega, ID No. 10097, and John Brenes Rodríguez, ID No. 27072 (special judicial representatives); against:
1. Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte, Sociedad Anónima (hereinafter, "Bandeco"), represented by Álvaro Meza Lázarus, ID No. 2502, and Jimmy Meza Lázarus, ID No. 5938 (special judicial representatives); 2. Chiquita Brands Costa Rica Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada (formerly named Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada, "COBAL"), hereinafter, "CB," represented by Aldo Milano Sánchez, ID No. 4730, and María Lourdes Echandi Gurdián, ID No. 4932 (special judicial representatives); 3. The State, represented by Bernardo Lara Flores, ID No. 8009 (Deputy State Attorney); 4. The Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, hereinafter, "the CNE," represented by Arianna Jiménez Espinoza, ID No. 12211, and José Fernando Rodríguez Paniagua, ID No. 12301 (special judicial representatives); and 5. The Municipalidad de Siquirres, hereinafter, "the Municipality" or "the local government," represented by José Alonso Valverde Fonseca, ID No. 11209 (special judicial representative).- Appearing as an interested third party is the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (initially named the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario), hereinafter, "the INDER," represented by Natanael Barrantes Azofeifa, ID No. 19857 (special judicial representative). All the aforementioned persons are of legal age and the representatives are attorneys.-
Considering:
a- The CNE answered on June 9, 2011. It did not present any preliminary objections (1287-1296); b- The State answered on June 9, 2011. It raises the preliminary objections of statute of limitations, lack of standing to sue and be sued, and lack of right. It requests that the action be dismissed, condemning the opposing party to pay both sets of costs, with interest (1297-1324); c- Bandeco answered on June 23, 2011. It raises the preliminary objections of defective representation, lack of capacity of those filing the lawsuit; lack of standing; lack of right. It requests that the action be dismissed, condemning the opposing party to pay both sets of costs, with interest (1326-1529); d- CB answered on June 23, 2011. It raises the preliminary objections of lack of standing to sue and lack of right. It requests that the action be dismissed, condemning the opposing party to pay both sets of costs (1659-1686); e- The Municipalidad de Siquirres answered on June 24, 2011.
It raises the preliminary objections of failure to exhaust administrative remedies, failure to join a necessary party, and lack of right. It requests that the action be dismissed, condemning the opposing party to pay both sets of costs (1689-1712); The Tribunal, by resolution at thirteen hours and eleven minutes on September twenty-first, two thousand eleven, deemed the action answered in a timely and proper manner (1817-1818).-
a- CNE, on November 8, 2012 (2053-2055); b- Bandeco, on November 12, 2012 (2056-2066); c- CB, on November 13, 2012 (2072); e- the State, on December 4, 2012 (2089-2091); 8) That the preliminary hearing was conducted by Judge Godelieve López Salas and was held on April 12, 2013. On that occasion: the claims were established; the preliminary defense of defective lawsuit filed by CB was upheld. The plaintiff party is instructed to make the following corrections: 1-Establish clear, precise, and detailed facts, which must be pure and simple; 2- Indicate the active and omissive conduct imputed to each of the defendants (the minutes are shown at pages 2139-2144); 9) That the ordered reformulation of the lawsuit was filed on April 19, 2013 (2145-2236); 10) That the reformulation was answered by the co-defendants, on that occasion:
a- Bandeco, July 1, 2013 (2388-2393); b- COBAL, July 3, 2013 (2394-2396); the same COBAL on July 8, 2013 (2398-2408); c- the CNE, July 8, 2013 (2428-2440); d- the State, July 12, 2013 (2448-2472); e- Bandeco, on August 28, 2013 (2476-2531); f- the Municipality, on August 30, 2013 (2544);
An eleven-foot refrigerator 158,000.00 A six-piece living room set 118,000.00 A wooden wardrobe 62,000.00 Three single beds 318,000.00 Paint damage to a small house 250,000.00
Two thousand six hundred meters of barbed wire fence 1,3000,000.00 (sic)
Eight culvert passages 240,000.00 Four thousand board-feet of lumber 320,000.00 Forty hectares of pasture 5,923,620.00 A water pump 25,000.00 Repair of a scale for weighing cattle 10,000.00 Repair of a cattle press 30,000.00 Fifteen sacks of salt for cattle 60,000.00 Eight sacks of fertilizer 40,000.00 Four drowned calves 600,000.00 Three drowned pigs of 30 kilos each 90,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 9,544,620 b) MORAL DAMAGE: Corresponds to the anguish suffered by Mr. [Name 001], upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised his life, family economy, health, patrimony, and tranquility, in addition to the obstruction of his life plan and seeing his work and personal expectations altered.
The moral damage is estimated at the sum of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 69,544,620.00.
An ATLAS brand electric stove 133,377.15 Two wardrobes 24,000.00 A three-piece living room set 118,000.00 An eleven-piece refrigerator 158,000.00 A four-piece dining room set 130,915.04 Four complete single beds 204,000.00 A kitchen cabinet 58,000.00 A fourteen-pound washing machine 78,000.00 A 42m2 wooden house 1,000,000.00 Four hectares of pasture 592,362.00 Half a hectare of plantain 262,928.04 Eight hundred meters of fence 400,000.00 Six drowned pigs of twenty kilos each 240,000.00 Twenty chickens 80,000.00 Two sacks of fertilizer 10,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 3,589,579.23 b) MORAL DAMAGE: Corresponds to the anguish suffered by Mr. [Name 002], upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised his life, that of his family members, family economy, health, patrimony, and tranquility, in addition to the obstruction of his life plan and seeing his work and personal expectations altered. Additionally, being completely abandoned institutionally and by the state, despite being a victim of a situation that has endangered his life and that of close family members, for a period of approximately 8 years. The moral damage is estimated at the sum of 10,000,000.00.
For concept of losses due to the loss of plantain plantation, the sum of 1,377,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 24,966,579.23.
The origin of the damages is the same as for Mr. [Name 001] a) DAMAGES:
A 48 m2 mixed-construction house 8,000,000.00 Four sacks of compost 20,000.00 A cow 150,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 8,170,000.00 b) Moral damage: the same reason and amount as Mr. [Name 002].- c) LOSSES: The plot is uninhabitable and the viability for its rehabilitation to develop agricultural and livestock activities is limited by the high risk and the refusal of banking entities to grant credits and leverage for such activities, therefore the caused loss is estimated at the sum of 12,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 30,170,000.00 4) [Name 004]:
The origin of the damages is the same as for Mr. [Name 001].
The damages and losses consist of the following:
An ATLAS brand refrigerator 118,000.00 An electric stove 133,377.15 A wardrobe 62,000.00 A freezer 450,000.00 A living room set 118,000.00 A dining room set 130,915.04 Ten sacks of salt 50,000.00 Two sacks of chicken feed concentrate 10,000.00 Five pigs of approximately thirty kilos 300,000.00 Thirty chickens 60,000.00 Twenty-five broiler chickens 25,000.00 Ten hectares of pasture 1,539,696.90 A 64m2 wooden house 2,000,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 4,996,989.09 b) Moral damage: the same reason and amount as Mr. [Name 002].- c) LOSSES: The plot is uninhabitable and the viability for its rehabilitation to develop agricultural and livestock activities is limited by the high risk and the refusal of banking entities to grant credits and leverage for such activities, therefore the caused loss is estimated at the sum of 20,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 23,996,989.09.
A nine-foot ATLAS refrigerator 158,000.00 A twenty-inch PANASONIC color television 139,000.00 A SONY brand sound system 215,000.00 An OSTER brand blender 22,000.00 A coffee maker 12,000.00 A fan 18,000.00 A rice cooker 15,618.57 An All Star washing machine 150,000.00 A living room set 180,000.00 A double mattress 57,315.60 A single mattress 52,859.50 TOTAL DAMAGES 1,019,793.67 b) Moral damage: the same reason and amount as Mr. [Name 002].- c) LOSSES: The plot is uninhabitable and the viability for its rehabilitation to develop agricultural and livestock activities is limited by the high risk and the refusal of banking entities to grant credits and leverage for such activities, therefore the caused loss is estimated at the sum of 20,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 31,019,793.67.
The damages and losses consist of the following:
An ATLAS brand electric stove 133,377.15 A wardrobe 62,000.00 A three-piece living room set 118,000.00 A twenty-one inch PANASONIC television 139,000.00 A twelve-foot ATLAS brand refrigerator 203,000.00 A four-piece dining room set 130,915.64 A double bed 140,000.00 A crib 51,000.00 A kitchen cabinet 58,000.00 A dresser 80,000.00 A PANASONIC sound system 158,000.00 A twelve-pound washing machine 82,000.00 A fan 18,000.00 A 42m2 wooden house 1,600,000.00 Three pigs of forty kilos 240,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 3,213,292.79 c) Moral damage: the same reason and amount as Mr. [Name 002].- d) LOSSES: He has had to leave the San Pancracio Settlement due to the damages suffered to his patrimony and the devastating consequences of the first floods. The plot is uninhabitable and the viability for its rehabilitation to develop agricultural and livestock activities is limited by the high risk and the refusal of banking entities to grant credits and leverage for such activities, therefore the caused loss is estimated at the sum of 8,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 21,213,292.10.
The damages and losses consist of the following:
An electric stove 133,377.15 Two wardrobes 124,000.00 A three-piece living room set 118,000.00 A refrigerator 203,000.00 A 21-inch SONY television 278,000.00 A four-piece dining room set 130,975.04 A double bed 140,000.00 A kitchen cabinet 58,000.00 A dresser 80,000.00 A SANKEY sound system 103,000.00 A SAMSUNG washing machine 82,000.00 A 56 m2 mixed-construction house 1,500,000.00 Two pigs of thirty kilos 180,000.00 Ten chickens 20,000.00 Two sacks of concentrate 10,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 3,160,352.10 Moral damage: the same reason and amount as Mr. [Name 002].- b) LOSSES: The 800 m2 plot is uninhabitable, so he had to leave the San Pancracio Settlement to find another place to live and start his life and that of his family from scratch; furthermore, the viability for its rehabilitation to develop agricultural and livestock activities is limited by the high risk and the refusal of banking entities to grant credits and leverage for such activities, therefore the caused loss is estimated at the sum of 11,000,000.00 .
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 24,160,352.10.
The origin of the damages is the same as for Mr. [Name 001].
The damages and losses consist of the following:
A gas stove 84,588.00 A living room set 180,000.00 A dining room set 130,915.04 A kitchen cabinet 58,000.00 A wardrobe 62,000.00 A gas cylinder 12,000.00 Two double beds 280,000.00 A single bed 106,000.00 A 63m2 wooden house 950,000.00 Fifty chickens 100,000.00 Four sacks of concentrate 20,000.00 One thousand meters of fence 500,000.00 Half a hectare of plantain 262,928.04 Half a hectare of beans 88,301.72 Half a hectare of rice 117,408.00 Two hectares of pasture 296,181.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 3,248,322.20 Moral damage: the same reason and amount as Mr. [Name 002].- b) LOSSES: The plot is uninhabitable and the viability for its rehabilitation to develop agricultural and livestock activities is limited by the high risk and the refusal of banking entities to grant credits and leverage for such activities, therefore the caused loss is estimated at the sum of 9,000,000.00 .
Losses caused by the loss of the plantain plantation the sum of 1,377,000.00.
Losses caused by the loss of the rice plantation the sum of 150,000.00.
Losses caused by the loss of the bean plantation the sum of 100,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 23,875,322.00.
The same as for Mr. [Name 001].
The damages and losses consist of the following:
A gas stove ~130,900.00 A living room set 118,000.00 A dining room set 130,915.04 A kitchen cabinet 58,000.00 A wardrobe 62,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 Three single beds 318,000.00 A refrigerator 158,000.00 A wooden house 2,000,000.00 Twenty-five chickens 50,000.00 Two sacks of concentrate 10,000.00 Two sacks of salt for cattle 10,000.00 Two pigs of thirty kilos 120,000.00 Seven hundred meters of fence 350,000.00 A sewing machine 95,717.52 Two thousand meters of fence 1,000,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 4,751,532.50 b) MORAL DAMAGE: Corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, patrimony, and tranquility, in addition to the obstruction of the life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damage is estimated at the sum of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 23,751,532.50 10) [Name 008] The same as for Mr. [Name 001] The damages and losses consist of the following:
A gas stove 84,588.00 A living room set 118,833.00 A dining room set 130,915.04 A kitchen cabinet 58,000.00 A double mattress 57,315.66 A single mattress 17,619.83 A 42 m2 wooden house 950,000.00 A 56 m2 mixed-construction house 1,200,000.00 Twenty chickens 40,000.00 Two sacks of concentrate 10,000.00 Two pigs of thirty kilos 120,000.00 Six hundred meters of fence 300,000.00 Half a hectare of plantain 262,928.04 TOTAL DAMAGES 3,051,199.50 d) Corresponds to the anguish suffered (...) upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, family economy, health, patrimony, and tranquility, in addition to the obstruction of the life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damage is estimated at the sum of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 18,428,199.50 11) [Name 027]:
The damages and losses consist of the following:
An electric stove 113,377.15 A living room set 180,000.00 A dining room set 130,915.04 A kitchen cabinet 58,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 A single bed 106,000.00 A 99 m2 wooden house 6,000,000.00 A washing machine 128,000.00 A refrigerator 158,000.00 A SONY sound system 220,000.00 A twenty-one inch HITACHI television 139,000.00 An electric planer 56,000.00 A coffee maker 10,000.00 A wardrobe 62,000.00 Total loss of kitchen utensils 450,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 7,971,292.10 b) MORAL DAMAGE: Corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, patrimony, and tranquility, in addition to the obstruction of the life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damage is estimated at the sum of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 19,471,292.10 12) [Name 009]: The same as for Mr. [Name 001].
The damages and losses consist of the following:
A three-piece living room set 118,000.00 An eleven-foot refrigerator 158,000.00 A twenty-one inch TOSHIBA television 139,000.00 A four-piece dining room set 130,915.04 A double bed 140,000.00 A dresser 80,000.00 An orthopedic mattress 57,315.66 A 60 m2 concrete house 4,500,000.00 One and a half hectares of pasture 222,135.75 Half a hectare of plantain 262,928.04 Two hundred meters of fence 100,000.00 Two drowned pigs of thirty kilos each 120,000.00 Thirty chickens 60,000.00 Two sacks of concentrate 10,000.00 Two five-month-old calves 160,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 6,258,293.00 b) MORAL DAMAGE: Corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, patrimony, and tranquility, in addition to the obstruction of the life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damage is estimated at the sum of 10,000,000.00.
Losses caused by the loss of the plantain plantation the sum of 1,377,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 31,635,293.00.
The same as for Mr. [Name 001].
The damages and losses consist of the following:
. a) DAMAGES:
A three-burner gas stove 84,588.00 A wardrobe 62,000.00 A four-piece living room set 180,000.00 A SAMSUNG brand television 139,000.00 A twelve-foot ATLAS brand refrigerator 203,000.00 A six-piece dining room set 130,915.00 A medium fan 12,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 A single bed 106,000.00 A kitchen cabinet 58,000.00 A dresser 80,000.00 A five-CD PANASONIC sound system 158,000.00 A sack of food items 40,000.00 A twelve-pound washing machine 78,000.00 A 30 m2 wooden house 350,000.00 A 70m2 wooden house 1,500,000.00 Two hectares of pasture 296,181.00 One hectare of plantain 525,856.09 Half a hectare of corn 98,757.15 One thousand eight hundred meters of fence 900,000.00 Six pigs of fifty kilos 600,000.00 Fifty chickens 100,000.00 Fifty broiler chickens at four weeks 150,000.00 Six sacks of fertilizer 30,000.00 Two sacks of salt for cattle 1,000.00 Two sacks of concentrate 2,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 5,952,297.10 b) MORAL DAMAGE: Corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, patrimony, and tranquility, in addition to the obstruction of the life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damage is estimated at the sum of 10,000,000.00.
Losses caused by loss of the plantain plantation in the sum of 2,754,000.00.
Losses caused by loss of the bean plantation in the sum of 138,757.15.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 27,845,054.25.
A 56m2 wooden house 3,360,000.00 A living room set 118,000.00 A dining room set 130,915.04 A kitchen cabinet 58,000.00 A wardrobe 62,000.00 Two single beds 212,000.00 A 21-inch color television 139,000.00 A fan 12,000.00 An electric stove 133,377.15 A sack of food items 40,000.00 A manual typewriter 95,717.15 A sewing machine 30,000.00 A radio-cassette recorder 95,000.00 A 90m2 dwelling house 5,400,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 9,886,009.20 b) MORAL DAMAGE: Corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, patrimony, and tranquility, in addition to the obstruction of the life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damage is estimated at the sum of 10,000,000.00.
The damages and losses consist of the following:
A dwelling house 3,500,000.00 A 20-inch L.G. television 139,000.00 A 10-foot Atlas refrigerator 158,000.00 A Panasonic brand sound system 215,000.00 An 18-liter Daewoo washing machine 128,000.00 A living room set 118,000.00 A wardrobe 62,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 A single bed 106,000.00 A dining room set for four people 130,915.04 A gas cooktop 48,000.00 A 6-drawer dresser 80,000.00 A rice cooker 15,618.57 A blender ... 12,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 4,852,533.50 b) MORAL DAMAGE: Corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, patrimony, and tranquility, in addition to the obstruction of the life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered.
The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 23,852,533.50.
An Atlas brand electric stove with four burners 133,377.15 A three-burner gas stove 84,588.00 Two wardrobes 124,000.00 A 3-piece living room set 118,000.00 A Hitachi brand 21-inch television 139,000.00 An Atlas brand 12-cubic-foot refrigerator 203,000.00 A 6-piece dining room set 130,915.04 Two medium fans 24,000.00 An electric iron 12,000.00 An Oster blender 22,000.00 A Panasonic brand VHS player 56,000.00 An Atlas brand microwave 35,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 Three single beds 318,000.00 A storage cabinet 58,000.00 Four hectares of pasture 444,271.50 Half a hectare of plantain 262,928.04 One thousand five hundred meters of fence 750,000.00 Three sacks of fertilizer 15,000.00 Two sacks of salt for cattle 10,000.00 One hundred four-week-old broiler chickens 100,000.00 Fifty hens 100,000.00 A mixed-construction house of 30 m2 and a wooden house of 48 m2 4,225,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 7,505,079.60 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
Losses caused by the loss of the plantain plantation: 1,377,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 27,882,079.60 17) [Name 015] The origin of the damages is the same as indicated for Mr. [Name 001] The damages and losses consist of the following:
A two-burner gas stove 84,588.00 A 3-piece living room set 118,000.00 A fourteen-inch television 55,501.75 A four-piece dining room set 130,915.00 A double bed 140,000.00 A single bed 51,000.00 A storage cabinet 58,000.00 A chest of drawers 80,000.00 A mixed-construction house of 30m2 950,000.00 Two pigs weighing thirty kilos 240,000.00 Ten hens 20,000.00 Two sacks of concentrate feed 10,000.00 Eight hundred meters of fence 400,000.00 One hectare of plantain 525,856.09 A quarter hectare of corn 98,757.00 One and a quarter hectares of rice 293,521.48 Seventy-five teak trees 3,750,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 6,926,139.10 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
Losses caused by the loss of the plantain plantation: 2,754,000.00.
Losses caused by the loss of the rice plantation: 880,564.44.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 29,560,713.54.
An electric stove 133,377.15 A Hitachi sound system 158,000.00 A wardrobe 62,000.00 A 3-piece living room set 118,000.00 A 14-inch television 55,501.75 A 12-pound washing machine 78,000.00 A refrigerator 203,000.00 A 4-piece dining room set 130,915.00 A double mattress 57,315.66 Two single mattresses 35,239.80 A chest of drawers 80,000.00 A mixed-construction house of 50m2 4,000,000.00 Twelve quintals of paddy rice 1,324,800.00 One young bull and two Brahma cows of approximately 400 kg 3,000,000.00 One thousand meters of fence 500,000.00 Half a hectare of plantain 242,407.40 Half a hectare of rice 224,520.59 TOTAL DAMAGES 10,403,076.00 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
Losses caused as a result of the plantain plantation losses: 1,377,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 38,780,076.00.
A concrete house of 126 m2, ceramic floor, two bedrooms, living room, dining room, kitchen, and a commercial space used as a beauty salon 15,000,000.00 A wooden house of 36 m2 1,000,000.00 Two wardrobes 144,000.00 Two chests of drawers 160,000.00 An Atlas brand 15-cubic-foot refrigerator 203,000.00 An 18-pound washing machine 128,000.00 A four-burner electric stove 133,377.15 An All Star sound system 158,000.00 A kitchen cabinet and utensils 220,000.00 Clothing and footwear 300,000.00 A blender 22,000.00 A living room set 118,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 Two single beds 124,000.00 A Singer sewing machine 95,717.75 Two hair clippers 50,000.00 Two hair dryers 50,000.00 Four pigs of approximately 60 kg each 480,000.00 Twenty hens 42,000.00 Seventy 1x5 wooden boards and 50 4x4 manú wooden posts 100,000.00 One hectare of pasture 148,090.50 Three head of cattle 500,000.00 A cattle corral 400,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 19,716,184.00 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 32,176,184.00.
A prefabricated house of 42m2 4,000,000.00 A two-story wooden house made of wood and fibrolite 7,000,000.00 A cattle corral 500,000.00 Two living room sets 236,000.00 A dining room set 130,915.04 A wardrobe 62,000.00 A storage cabinet 58,000.00 An Atlas brand 11-cubic-foot refrigerator 158,000.00 A washing machine 82,000.00 Ten sheets of fibrolite 60,000.00 A gas stove 84,588.00 Three single beds 318,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 A television stand 48,000.00 A pigsty 50,000.00 Ten hens 20,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 15,467,503.00 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 29,967,503.00.
The damages and losses consist of the following:
A wooden house of 96m2 5,760,000.00 A living room set 118,000.00 A dining room set for six people 130,915.04 A storage cabinet 58,000.00 Two wardrobes 124,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 Two single beds 212,000.00 A four-burner electric stove 133,377.15 A two-lid freezer 350,000.00 Two Atlas two-door refrigerators 316,000.00 A commercial space used as a small grocery store (pulpería), as well as its inventory 2,000,000.00 Fifteen head of cattle 1,875,000.00 Twenty-five pigs 3,000,000.00 Thirty hens 60,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 14,277,292.00 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
The losses caused by the loss of a commercial space used as a small grocery store (pulpería) with average monthly profits of 145,833.33 are determined in the amount of 3,500,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 29,777,292.00 22) [Name 020] The origin of the damages is the same as indicated for Mr. [Name 001] The damages and losses consist of the following:
A living room set 180,000.00 A dining room set for four people 180,915.00 A storage cabinet 80,000.00 A wardrobe 62,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 A single bed 106,000.00 A gas stove 133,377.15 Kitchen utensils and clothing 450,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 1,332,922.15 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 15,332,922.15.
An Atlas brand 4-burner electric stove 133,377.15 Two wardrobes 124,000.00 A three-piece living room set 118,000.00 A Panasonic brand 21-inch television 139,000.00 An Atlas two-door refrigerator 203,000.00 A 6-piece dining room set 130,915.04 Three double beds 420,000.00 A storage cabinet 58,000.00 A chest of drawers 80,000.00 An LG five-CD sound system 158,000.00 An LG brand twelve-pound washing machine 128,000.00 A medium microwave 35,000.00 A mixed-construction house of 80m2 2,000,000.00 A wooden house of 48 m2 1,500,000.00 One hectare of pasture 148,090.50 Half a hectare of plantain 262,928.04 Four hundred meters of fence 200,000.00 Six pigs of 30 kg 360,000.00 Twenty hens 80,000.00 Two sacks of fertilizer 10,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 6,282,310.70 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 24,659,310.70.
A wooden house of 56m2 3,360,000.00 A living room set 118,000.00 A dining room set 130,915.04 An Atlas brand 11-cubic-foot refrigerator 158,000.00 A washing machine 128,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 Two single beds 212,000.00 A storage cabinet 58,000.00 A wardrobe 62,000.00 An electric stove 133,377.15 A rice cooker 15,618.57 Three mattresses 103,000.00 A sound system 103,000.00 A 21-inch color television 139,000.00 Eleven pigs of 40 kg 640,000.00 Fifteen hens 30,000.00 Two sacks of fertilizer 10,000.00 Three sacks of concentrate feed 15,000.00 A water pump 25,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 5,349,901.60 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 24,349,901.60.
A three-burner electric stove 133,377.15 A wardrobe 62,000.00 A 3-piece living room set 118,000.00 A television cabinet 28,000.00 An eleven-cubic-foot refrigerator 158,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 A storage cabinet 58,000.00 A mixed-construction house of 60m2 with three rooms, living room, kitchen, washroom, polished floor, etc. 5,000,000.00 Two thousand four hundred meters of fence 1,200,000.00 Six sacks of fertilizer 30,000.00 Four hectares of pasture 592,362.00 A kitchen cabinet 60,000.00 A chest of drawers 80,000.00 A quarter hectare of plantain 131,464.02 TOTAL DAMAGES 7,851,203.17 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
The losses caused by the loss of the plantain plantation are estimated in the amount of 688,500.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 28,539,703.17.
A two-story wooden house of 190m2 11,522,000.00 A living room set 118,000.00 A dining room set 130,915.04 A storage cabinet 58,000.00 Two single beds 212,000.00 A double bed 140,000.00 A 21-inch color television 139,000.00 An electric stove 133,377.00 A Mabe brand 13-cubic-foot refrigerator 158,000.00 A 4-lid freezer 200,000.00 Inventory of the small grocery store (pulpería) 800,000.00 Four pigs of 30 kg 240,000.00 Twenty hens 40,000.00 Six sacks of fertilizer 30,000.00 Three sacks of concentrate feed 15,000.00 Four sacks of salt for cattle 20,000.00 One hundred coconut trees 1,000,000.00 Two hectares of plantain 1,051,712.29 TOTAL DAMAGES 16,008,004.29 b) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
Losses caused by the loss of the plantain plantation are estimated in the amount of 5,508,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 41,516,004.29.
Thirty-five hectares of pasture 5,183,167.50 Two wooden houses 3,000,000.00 A corral measuring 25x15 500,000.00 Five thousand board inches of lumber 400,000.00 Four thousand meters of fence 2,000,000.00 A well with five culverts 150,000.00 A pigsty with six pigs of 60 kg each 720,000.00 A water pump 25,000.00 Three cattle crossing bridges 50,000.00 An Atlas two-door refrigerator 158,000.00 A living room set 118,000.00 A dining room set 130,915.04 A gas stove 84,588.00 A washing machine 82,000.00 TOTAL DAMAGES 12,601,670.54 a) MORAL DAMAGE: This corresponds to the anguish suffered by the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, upon being exposed to a situation where the defendants compromised life, health, property, and tranquility, in addition to obstructing their life plan and seeing their work and personal expectations altered. The moral damages are estimated in the amount of 10,000,000.00.
TOTAL DAMAGES AND LOSSES: 57,601,670.54.
Despite the fact that both Chiquita Brands and BANDECO attempted, through expert witnesses Allan Astorga Gattgens and John Matheis Urbina, to make the Court believe that the San Pancracio Settlement should never have existed, much less been inhabited by the plaintiffs, it is clear that their exculpatory evidence was not conclusive for their defense and, on the contrary, rather serves as the foundation for this lawsuit. None of the witnesses stated that the existing dikes on the properties of the Imperio I, Doble Alianza, and Gigante farms have the benefit of protecting the plantations and San Pancracio; on the contrary, it was demonstrated that the only benefit they have is that of protecting solely the properties and plantations of the banana companies. None of the witnesses refuted that these dikes and drainages serve that purpose, because even what they came to say is that since the banana companies have been established in Siquirres since practically the 1960s with almost no towns around them, they have the right to do whatever they want without the respective permits, that is, OUTSIDE THE LAW.
A defense that we believe does not refute the case theory of the plaintiff party, since there is abundant evidence of what is being claimed here. It is very important for this representation to highlight the testimony of Mr. Allan Astorga Gattgens regarding the flood vulnerability in the middle sector of the Pacuare River channel, the object of whose study was: “to generate a hazard map for flooding and the condition of vulnerability to riverine flooding of the Gigante and Doble Alianza farms and their area of direct and indirect influence, including the towns located within it, in order to determine the comprehensive condition of the study area, taking into account the canal infrastructure and possible solutions to the identified problems,” since although the witness was very skillful in manipulating his report, which could even be said to be very theoretical and academic with very general conclusions, he did not lie, as he effectively stated, and it was shown, that San Pancracio is outside the high-risk flood zone.
To verify this, it suffices to compare images 13 and 14 of his report and the answers given to this representation at the hearing held on May 12: (...) Based on the foregoing, we can conclude that all the conclusions indicated by Allan Astorga in his report cannot be considered for the San Pancracio Settlement, specifically when he speaks of inhabitants and human activities that take place on the VERY HIGH RISK floodplain, because Astorga confirmed that it is outside that zone; that is, the report does not detract from the fact that the dikes, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and canals (with their modifications) are solely to protect the banana plantations of the defendant companies and not to protect the rest of the populations; therefore, it is clear that the mitigation plan must be implemented to prevent the impact experienced by the families living in the community of San Pancracio for the past twenty years.
Clearly, a conclusion we can reach is that we are facing a scenario of “Bananas first, families second.” For his part, Mr. Allan Astorga clearly did not analyze whether he reviewed the technical studies carried out by SENARA and the IDA that supported the granting of these lands to the parcel holders to continue their agricultural activities, given their agricultural and productive vocation. He simply did not consider them relevant for the preparation of his report, which is clearly misguided because, considering images he obtained from the IGN, he intends to say that the land where the plaintiffs' parcels are located is not suitable for living. The co-defendant BANDECO attempted to divert attention from the severity of the floods that caused the inundations on the plaintiffs' parcels in the years 2002 and 2003 by having their witnesses talk about the severity of the floods suffered in the area in 1970 and 1996; however, neither Donald Murray nor John Matheis were in the area.
They subsequently describe floods in other hamlets, and the second underlined paragraph on page 9 of the report is highlighted: “Therefore, it is clear that the dikes built on the banks of the Reventazón and Pacuare Rivers, far from being a cause of flooding, are necessary structures to mitigate the effects of large runoffs resulting from extraordinary meteorological conditions.” In this regard, it is clear that dikes on both sides of the banks of a watercourse protect against flooding, but if they are built on only one side, they protect the properties corresponding to the bank on which the dikes are located, but magnify the harm on the bank that has no dikes, so that if one or more flood, then they all flood. - This representation, nor the plaintiff residents in this proceeding, have denied that the San Pancracio Settlement is currently located in a condition of vulnerability to flood risk due to the occurrence of extraordinary hydrometeorological events.
But this condition of vulnerability was constructed by the fact of having dikes on only one bank of the Chiquerón Canal, generating an indisputable harm to the San Pancracio Settlement. (...) 3. Presumption of truth of the facts of the lawsuit// It cannot be overlooked that what was resolved by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in relation to the amparo appeal filed by the plaintiffs has proven factual events that cannot be ignored by the parties or by the honorable Court. In addition to the evidence offered in the lawsuit by this representation, the State offered as evidence the complete copy of the case file of the amparo appeal that was processed in the Constitutional Chamber under file 03-009991-00007-CO, which is admitted evidence and forms part of the body of evidence available to the Court for issuing the judgment. (...) The foregoing demonstrates that there are sufficient elements to deem proven the construction and reconstruction of the two dikes by Chiquita Brands on the La Mona Stream (Quebrada La Mona), which crosses the Doble Alianza and Gigante farms, and the dike that borders the Chiquerón Canal and the Imperio I Farm by BANDECO, as well as the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and the creation of the internal canals by both companies, due to the existing presumption of truth.
It is demonstrated that these actions were carried out outside the law, in violation of Articles 2, 17, and 18 of the Organic Environmental Law (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente), Articles 92, 93, and 94 of the Biodiversity Law (Ley de Biodiversidad), and Article 89 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), and other environmental legislation. The foregoing, with the absolute complacency and omission of MINAET." Furthermore, as elements supporting the presumption of truth, in addition to the content of the Constitutional Chamber's ruling, the following must be considered: the technical studies provided, the certifications of absence of permit applications from the competent Public Authorities, and BANDECO's acknowledgment of having “reconstructed” dikes (without processing permits, environmental impact assessments (evaluaciones de impacto ambiental), social studies, environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) studies, among others), as well as the official communications issued by the defendant institutions at the time the amparo appeal was filed and the Constitutional Chamber's ruling was issued, which are summarized below: (...) By means of a clarifying brief dated February 7, 2005, to which a two-page report entitled “Informe sobre la inspección en los diques construidos sobre Quebrada Mona entre las comunidades de La Lucha y San Pancracio” was attached, addressed by the acting mayor of the Municipality of Siquirres to the Constitutional Chamber to refer to the “alleged disobedience to authority,” [EVIDENCE NUMBER FORTY-THREE], the Municipality of Siquirres argued a lack of resources to comply with its constitutional and legal obligation, by stating that:// a. The causal link between the actions and omissions of the defendants and the damages caused to the residents of the San Pancracio settlement// Always seeking to adhere to Costa Rican legislation and jurisprudence, and duly informed by classical and contemporary doctrine, the actions and omissions carried out by the Companies, the Municipality, and the other public institutions meet the necessary requirements established for objective, extracontractual civil liability (responsabilidad civil extracontractual y objetiva), namely: Not only because of the extra-legal actions with which the Companies have operated for several years, added to the inactivity of the public administration, despite knowing of the recurrent existence of serious material damages, the permanent risk to human life, and the moral, psychological, and health-related effects in general.
But also because Article 1045 of the Civil Code provides: “…anyone who, by fraud, fault, negligence, or recklessness, causes damage to another, is obliged to repair it along with the consequential damages…”, it has been affirmed that the preceding provision is the general principle of extracontractual civil liability, as stated by Mr. Alberto Brenes Córdoba in the Tratado de las Obligaciones y Contratos, coupled with what is established in Article 35 of Law No. 7472. The damage always appears at first glance, but it is preceded by human conduct or activity; consequently, the damage must always be attributed to human activity, and this human activity affects relevant legal interests. Especially if we consider that there is an economic benefit for the individual or legal entity carrying out the harmful human activity. Analyzing the foregoing, jurisprudence has established a general principle, which is, to do no harm to anyone; from this arises extracontractual civil liability, which may consist of active conduct or omissive conduct, and even lawful or unlawful conduct.
In summary, the coincidence of actions by Bandeco and Chiquita Brands and the omissions of the Municipality of Siquirres, the Ministries of Health and MINAE, as well as the National Emergency Commission (Comisión Nacional de Emergencias), which resulted in damages for the plaintiffs.// b. Objective civil liability in national jurisprudence// The duty of compensation in subjective civil liability derives from the culpable breach of the general principle of "do not cause harm to others." For liability to exist, the damage must have been caused with fault (negligence, recklessness, or lack of skill), or fraud of the agent. The burden of proof then falls on the creditor, that is, on the victim requesting compensation. However, in light of what has been indicated and established by our jurisprudence from the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, regarding objective extracontractual liability, it has resolved, in summary, that: “The law obliges whoever entrusts another with the performance of a specific task to choose someone suitable and to supervise the execution of the assignment.
If the assignee, in execution of the assignment and within the scope of trust granted by the principal, causes damages to third parties, these third parties are empowered to take legal action directly against the person who made the assignment. Indirect liability, in the case of the assignee who causes damage to a third party, is assumed by the principal based on one event: that the damage emerges from a fraudulent or culpable action. Given this, that indirect liability arises, since fault in choosing or in supervising on the part of the principal is presumed. The presumption is therefore directed, not at the action of the assignee, but at the action of the principal, who could only excuse himself from it if he proves that, even having exercised all possible foresight in supervision, the event would still have occurred. The culpable action of the direct perpetrator is not presumed in matters of extracontractual liability; what is presumed is fault in the act of supervision or choice, on the part of the principal.” Based on the provisions of the previous judgment, the objective liability regime transcends the contractual or extracontractual sphere in which the legal relationship between the parties originated.
The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice has also concluded that, The liability of the merchant under Law 7472 and according to the criterion of the First Chamber, is an objective liability, which as such does not require the existence of fault, as expressly stated in Article 35 of this Law, when it says that “the producer, the supplier, and the merchant must respond concurrently and independently of the existence of fault.” It is our opinion that, based on this regulation and on Article 190 of the General Law of Public Administration, an objective liability is derived for the defendant Companies and the public, state, and local entities also sued. (iii) THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NON-PECUNIARY OR EXTRA-PATRIMONIAL DAMAGE SUFFERED BY THE RESIDENTS OF THE SAN PANCACIO SETTLEMENT a. The configuration of pecuniary and extra-patrimonial damage due to the actions and omissions of the defendants and the verification of the causal relationship// The events derived from the harmful actions of the Companies, as well as from the inactivity of the public entities co-defendant here, caused different damages of a moral and extra-patrimonial nature.
Coincidentally, the author Pacchioni indicates that when an individual organizes their own economic activity for profit, they must, certainly, suffer the disadvantages of their actions and compensate for the damages caused to third parties, even when they were not at fault. Adhering to the idea of non-pecuniary or moral damage, our legislation, jurisprudence, and doctrine understand this to be damage that does not directly or indirectly produce an alteration in assets, but rather causes unjust disturbances in a person's state of mind (moral pain and physical pain). In this same sense, we can expand with Fernández Sessarego, who understands moral damage as that referring to the pain, suffering, and affliction of a person. That is, alluding to emotional or sentimental damage of a psychological nature. It can even be understood through the case that some jurists define as “damage to life project.” Attending to this concept, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of San José, Costa Rica, has considered compensation for the “damage to life project” that a person might suffer.
Thus, alongside the traditional compensation for material damage (lost profits and actual losses), compensation for moral or extra-patrimonial damage has been considered. In this sense, we must relate extra-patrimonial or moral damage to the case at hand, due to the violation of the Right to health and a healthy environment. Cases of non-pecuniary damages frequently arise in situations of health effects, both physical and psychological, produced as a consequence of environmental deterioration; a clear example is the constant contamination of the sources of potable water in the San Pancracio Settlement. Nineteen declarants came to the hearing who were offered as witnesses and had the particularity of being plaintiffs at the same time, a situation difficult for the special judicial representatives of the defendants to understand, who opposed their testimony for the mere sake of opposition.
We cannot overlook that in this case, no one other than the plaintiffs themselves are suitable to come and relate what happened in the floods that occurred in the years 2002 and 2003, which, by the way, have not ceased (the most recent being recent, from the past 15th of April), in which all the residents of the community of San Pancracio relive over and over what happened, the moment they lost the little they had to start over from scratch, because the parcels on which they live, besides giving them a roof, give them their livelihood, as they are parcels with agricultural vocation. It was regrettable to see how in the hearing the opposing lawyers based their defense on discrediting the feelings of the plaintiff-witnesses with questions regarding whether or not they were invaders or squatters (precaristas) of the lands. Here, there has never been fault on the part of the victim; it is simply a group of humble people, lacking resources, who, although they have taken possession of a land settlement, IDA processed what was necessary and they are in a legal position as a result of being beneficiaries and grantees of their parcels or for having bought their land privately; this does not make them criminals, especially considering that with this lawsuit the plaintiffs do not intend to become millionaires; they simply want to recover what they lost but, above all, manage to mitigate and solve the issue of the impact of the floods once and for all in a comprehensive way, since although they have managed to adapt over the years, every time a flood comes they lose the little they have.
It cannot be the fault of the victim because they accessed, through the appropriate means (IDA), a better life; otherwise, it would be punishing the poor. The reality is that the companies have profited, they have carried out earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and the construction of canals, and to this day they continue to fail to comply because they continue to act outside the law in plain sight and with the patience of the defendant institutions.// b. The loss of opportunity for the residents of the San Pancracio settlement and its direct impact on the “life plan.” It is important to first clarify, adhering to the analysis and conclusions of Professors Víctor Pérez and Federico Torrealba, in support of national jurisprudence in judicial and arbitral venues, that the compensability of the loss of a chance as damage, when the plaintiff requests compensation for damages, the judge does not incur any vice of extra petita by granting the loss of opportunity, since this is included within the sphere of possible meanings of the term damage.
The concept of lost profits requires a causal relationship between the harmful event and the frustration of a profit. The harmful result is evident with the evidence we provide in this lawsuit, and the causal link derived from the mentioned evidence is clear when the actions and omissions of the defendants are verified, which directly and indirectly produced the harmful consequences. The parcels granted at some point to the plaintiffs, given their agricultural vocation, have seen their nature considerably diminished since 2003 to date, and have lost the potential development they had in those years as a result of erosion, loss of nutrients, and the constant floods caused by the reported and claimed actions, which transformed the community's routine and made it impossible to use it as an asset to generate credits, other inputs, and added value for each one of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, it has been the line of our courts – informed by national and comparative doctrine and jurisprudence – that to demonstrate the loss of a chance, the plaintiff must prove two orders of facts: On one hand, the circumstances that pre-existed the harmful event.
On the other, the circumstances resulting from the action or omission of the responsible party. In the present case, attempts have been made to distort the expert reports of Mr. Luis Rodríguez Astúa (actuarial mathematician) and Mr. Fernando Quintanilla Bonilla (surveyor/topógrafo) on the grounds that they are based on assumptions and that the object of their report is not within their expertise. Leaving aside that a mathematical expert can also establish variables, it is therefore false that he works with pre-established variables because he can propose his own variables. Regarding the surveyor, he not only measures land or makes contour lines but also has other functions; by way of example, there is not a single SETENA report on environmental viability that does not originate from a surveyor; the surveyor starts from another analysis of the land, thus he can see land conditions, gradients, etc. The other objections start from the causal link of proving the damage; when a valuation is requested, it starts from the premise that the damage exists, and there can be no discussion about that.
In this case, Mr. Rodríguez Astúa's expert report is based on the Surveyor's Report, which determined the value of the lands considering two factors: (i) the land-use capability factor; and (ii) the factor of loss of water quality and its effects on people's health, as it is a factor that affects quality of life. As seen in the attached table, Mr. Quintanilla subtracted 25% of the value from the properties, while the expert Mr. Rodríguez Astúa removed 75% (being conservative) (...) Regarding the household goods, crops, plantings, animals, and livestock lost by the plaintiffs in the floods, the defendant party has attempted to discredit the value determined by the expert Rodríguez Astúa because he did not have receipts or invoices to identify that the goods said to be lost are those that were effectively lost. Clearly, it is impossible to require and expect the plaintiffs to hold such documentation if, due to the floods, the water level that entered their homes was up to 2 meters, making it impossible for them to have such documentation; just as they lost their goods, they lost that documentation, and as has been said, everything that has been requested has been done conservatively, not intending to profit from this process, but rather to solve and mitigate the problems and consequences they have suffered since 2002 as a result of the defendants' actions and omissions.
Last, but not least, the important work carried out by geologist Gabriela Calvo should not be overlooked. As indicated, she fulfilled the object of her work, which was to determine all the corrective, palliative, and necessary civil actions and works to avoid the pernicious effects that floods cause year after year in the San Pancracio Settlement, with the objective that the defendant Companies, jointly with the defendant public state and local institutions, carry out these works. It is on record that Mrs. Calvo's actions were always those of a professional who, being also an environmental consultant geologist, presented a duly detailed report on the defendants' actions that she observed from the year 2003 through the years 2016 and 2017 when she conducted inspections in the settlement and its surroundings. It is clear that there are many actions pending resolution by all the defendants, each from their share of participation.
In her report, the geologist determined that a comprehensive solution must be provided; although families have been adapting, it was confirmed that some of them had to leave the community because they lost everything. The photographic record provided by Mrs. Calvo in her report is the clear example of what the plaintiffs experience.// c. Possible major defense of the defendants// The defendants have focused their strategy on the defenses of external cause, such as force majeure, the fault of the victim, and even the act of a third party. These types of defenses seek to question the existence of a causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and the alleged damage. Moreover, as the First Chamber has rightly stated: “whoever alleges the defense of external cause must prove it,” which implies proving its existence and the incidence of such cause in the legal relationship subject to the litigation.
Before developing the topic, we must be clear that what is being reproached are the defendants' own conducts that generated and continue to generate damages to the plaintiffs. In particular: 1) the conduct of the Banana Companies of a) constructing and exploiting works that influence and affect the floods and b) the omission of taking the necessary measures to minimize the harmful effect of these on third parties; as well as 2) the omission of the public authorities to a) supervise the works that have been built, b) take the necessary measures to solve the problems caused by the floods and guarantee the right of the plaintiff individuals to live in a healthy and balanced environment, to personal integrity, to property, and even to life. In this case, the defendants have been unable to particularize and concretize the existence of facts that could be considered interruptors of causality or exonerations from liability.
This we will analyze below: - Force majeure// The main defense line of the defendants rests on force majeure by highlighting that the farms are located in what they have called a “flood zone” because it is a place located between two important rivers, the Reventazón and the Pacuare. In general terms, the defendants have been unable to refer to a specific natural event that influences as an external cause; rather, they have limited themselves to proposing evidence that speaks of general facts, that it rains a lot in the area, and that it is normal for rivers to overflow from time to time. However, the defense of force majeure requires that a subject is prevented from fulfilling an obligation by virtue of an external and inevitable event, according to jurisprudence, it is that “event inevitable even when due diligence had been employed.” That is, an insurmountable impediment that makes the cause of the damages unrelated to the active or omissive conduct of the subject invoking the cause.
In this case, what is being claimed is the defendants' conduct that has caused the floods to affect the plaintiffs in such a severe and recurrent manner. This implies the magnification of the impact through their active or omissive conduct, as the case may be. The construction of civil works that increase the impact, as well as the omission of exercising the necessary actions to avoid or at least reasonably mitigate the impact produced by the floods, are sufficient grounds to consider that none of the defendants are unrelated to the impacts, and therefore they must offer a solution to the underlying situation (mitigating the effects of the floods) and compensate the losses suffered by the plaintiffs. On this particular matter, it is important to make a series of specific observations: a) The Banana Companies have concurrent responsibility for the impact produced:// The State has recognized the incidence of the civil works exploited by the Banana Companies on the floods that affect the plaintiffs: Now, the direct incidence of the impact on the part of the banana companies is that, by constructing the dikes that protect the banana companies' infrastructure and plantations, the flood storage area for the waters coming from the overflows of the Reventazón and Pacuare rivers is reduced, which results in an increase in the water level, partially affecting said community.
The State has also recognized the insufficiency of the civil works exploited by the Banana Companies to avoid affecting third parties; in particular, it was indicated that: To the above, we add that the hydraulic capacity of the Chiquerón Canal bed is very insufficient to drain these flows, as indicated by its hydraulic analysis, because it was designed to drain the drainage and runoff waters from the basins that make up the different banana plantations that drain into the bed of said canal, and not for the flows contributed by the Reventazón and Pacuare rivers when extraordinary floods occur. This is aggravated when considering, as was maintained by different witnesses, that both the Chiquerón Canal and the Quebrada la Mona, which are bodies of water exploited by the banana companies for profit, only have dikes on one of their banks: the one that protects the companies' infrastructure, leaving the people who live on the other side of the bank unprotected.
In fact, the change in attitude of the Banana Companies and the State itself is powerfully strange, when in official documents issued by the Department of Waters of MINAE (on the occasion of the constitutional amparo process in which the defendants here were ordered to solve the flood problem), it is recorded that both the State and the Companies recognized the flood problem, the impact of the banana companies' actions, and expressed their interest in providing a coordinated solution. In this regard, the then representatives of Del Monte and Chiquita stated: Subsequently, Mr. Steinvorth proceeded to take the floor to make his statements on the situation, also indicating that the company DEL MONTE is in the best disposition to collaborate in coordination with the State institutions (Department of Waters, CNE, Municipality), the communities, and the company COBAL, in the search to reduce the impacts that the actions carried out by his represented company may cause, on the understanding that to minimize the impacts caused by the floods of the Pacuare and Reventazón rivers, and the Chiquerón canal, a comprehensive solution is required, as indicated by the different reports prepared by the Department of Waters.
Subsequently, Mrs. Diana Guzmán, representative of the company COBAL, made her statements and agreed with Mr. Steinvorth, indicating that her represented company is also in the best disposition to find a solution to the situation. In summary, the Banana Companies are co-responsible for recurrently and exceptionally intensely affecting the plaintiffs, their families, and their property. Therefore, they must be ordered to exercise the necessary measures to mitigate the impact on the communities, and they must respond, under the principle of non-gradation of civil fault, to compensate for the damages and losses suffered by the plaintiffs. b) The floods do NOT depend exclusively on the overflow of the Reventazón and Pacuare rivers. In addition to the fact that the overflow of the rivers does not exclude the defendants' liability, it must be taken into account that the floods in San Pancracio are not caused solely by such overflows.
As much as the legal representations of the defendants argue that we are facing a force majeure case, the evidence shows that it is incorrect to attribute the cause of the floods exclusively to the overflow of the rivers. The Department of Waters itself refers that it is a complex problem, not attributable to a single subject, and in which natural and anthropic causes converge, that is, works made by human beings. Finally, it can be concluded that the problem of the impacts caused by floods in this region and/or other areas cannot be blamed on one or another company, but is the cause of a series of accumulated natural and anthropic factors and actions, among those mentioned previously; rather, what is required is a comprehensive intervention of the State, Local Governments, and Civil Society, in order to help development and the environment walk hand in hand for the benefit of the community and reduce the impact of disasters, also establishing measures for adaptation to floods and other phenomena.
Engineer Rafael Oreamuno accepted that floods can be caused by reasons other than the overflow of the rivers, since the water level of Quebrada la Mona and the Chiquerón Canal can produce overflows during normal events like downpours. This is linked to the multiple MINAE documents that refer that the Chiquerón Canal bed receives a flow nine times greater than its capacity, and to the multiple witness statements about the existence of a dike on only one bank of the canal. To validate this hypothesis, it suffices to resort to Del Monte's exculpatory evidence. Note that Del Monte's declarants, John Matheis and Donald Murray, refer to floods on Finca Imperio during the beginning of 1996; in fact, Matheis specifically mentions the months of January and February 1996, adding that the flood was the event “that received him” and by which he suffered damage to his property. Assuming that these declarants are telling the truth, we would have to conclude that this event was NOT caused by the Reventazón River, since in the entire year of 1996, the maximum flow of the Reventazón was 534 m3/s (reported on January 11, 1996); this is more than 200 m3/s below the maximum natural capacity of the narrowest part of the Reventazón – and without considering any dike.
This conclusion is drawn from Del Monte's own specialist, Rafael Oreamuno, who maintained that the Reventazón River, in its narrowest part and without considering the role of dikes, overflows when its maximum flow is between 750-800 m3/s, which is why it cannot be maintained that said river overflowed during the year 1996. c) The effects of the floods can be mitigated through civil works. Engineer Rafael Oreamuno correctly indicated that river floods are measurable events, for which there is sufficient historical information thanks to the measurement stations of the Costa Rican Electricity Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad), which is why the companies even build their dikes using this data. In other words, even the overflow of rivers is reasonably foreseeable. Using this data —just as the defendant companies do— it is possible to build civil works that allow combating or at least reasonably mitigating the effect of the floods on the multiple families living in the settlement.
Consequently, it is incorrect to consider that the effects of the floods are inevitable. The testimonial evidence, including the expert witnesses Allan Astorga and Rafael Oreamuno, indicated that it is totally viable to carry out works that allow mitigation of the effects of the floods on the lands located along the width and breadth of the floodplain located between the mentioned rivers. Engineer Oreamuno, offered by Del Monte, was clear that the correct way to adapt the terrain was the construction of civil works such as: • Drainages • Dikes • Reservoirs// d) The companies and the State must carry out such adaptation. The defendants must assume responsibility for carrying out the necessary adaptations to control the impact of the floods on the plaintiffs' property, as well as for compensating the damages and losses generated. The Banana Companies have modified the environment through the construction and maintenance of an extensive network of dikes, canals, and drainages.
This infrastructure protects the Banana Companies' infrastructure from the force of nature and, in fact, according to different expert witnesses —like Allan Astorga— it is what has allowed these companies to establish themselves in the area. But beyond that, the companies benefit from the condition of the floodplain, to the point that engineer Oreamuno, Del Monte's witness, affirmed that: “Precisely, the zone is prosperous because it is very fertile because the river overflows.” That is, the floods generate a positive impact for the banana companies insofar as the flooding of the land is part of a soil renewal process that allows the soils to remain fertile (...) Under this view and attending to the theory of created risk, developed by the jurisprudence of the First Chamber: “whoever creates, exercises, or takes advantage of a lawful lucrative activity that presents potentially dangerous elements for others, must also bear its inconveniences.” In other words: if the Banana Companies benefit from the floods and if they have built, modified, maintained, and in general used infrastructure to control the flow of water —pluvial or from river floods— that affects their plantations, it is the duty of these Companies i) to ensure that the use of such infrastructure does not affect third parties, and ii) to bear the responsibility of compensating for the damages caused as a result of such infrastructure.
On the other hand, the State, the CNE, and the Municipality are called upon to find a definitive solution to reasonably mitigate the risk of the floods affecting the residents of San Pancracio. This follows from Articles 50 of the Constitution, 89 of the Water Law, 1, 2, 26, 27, and 30 of the Organic Law of the Environment, 4 subsections c and h of the Municipal Code, and 14 subsections d, e, f, h of the National Emergency Law.
As well as from constitutional judgment number 4944-2004 of fifteen hours and eleven minutes on May sixth, two thousand four. Finally, the State itself has recognized that the action to be taken must incorporate the State and the local government, who have stood out for their inaction. In this regard, the Water Department indicated in official communication IMN-DA-0246: …what is required is a comprehensive intervention by the State, Local Governments, and Civil Society, in order to help development and the environment walk hand in hand for the good of the community and reduce the impact of disasters, likewise establishing adaptation measures for floods and other phenomena. Engineer Oreamuno held the same opinion, who highlighted i) the technical feasibility of carrying out civil works and an operational plan to deal with the floods and ii) the need for this to be addressed by different public and private entities. e) Regarding the time of the constructions.
It is important to reiterate that the pre-existence of the infrastructure is not an excuse for the Banana Companies not to adopt the necessary measures so that the exploitation of such infrastructure ceases to affect third parties. Regardless of who built the works and when they did so, the evidence produced allows the conclusion that the Companies have exploited and maintained the dikes, canals, and drains that protect their farms. That is to say, the Companies benefit from this infrastructure, so it is their obligation to guarantee that their productive and commercial operation does not negatively affect third parties. Likewise, absolute respect for the legislation must be demanded, which was expressly warned to the Banana Companies by the Constitutional Chamber, in the context of the floods in San Pancracio. In this regard, the high Chamber said in 2004, referring to the facts at hand here: “(…) the absence of technical environmental impact studies prevents determining if the effects of such floods were increased and magnified by the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and construction of dikes that, as indicated in previous lines, were carried out by the cited banana companies.
It is also understandable that these companies carry out actions to protect their assets and the agricultural activity to which they are dedicated; however, to do so they must ensure an effective implementation of the concept of sustainable development, and respect the ecosystem; therefore, it is absolutely unacceptable that they act by omitting the procedures provided by law, endangering the environment, as well as the health and lives of the local residents, by altering natural resources in such a way. Note that today, fifteen years after that vote, the Banana Companies have been unable to deliver an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) like the one the Chamber demanded. On the other hand, the defendant public entities cannot allege the non-existence of regulations at the time of the construction of the dikes for two fundamental reasons:
1 provided by Chiquita Brands Costa Rica SRL with the statement of defense, manual folio 1180). We make this differentiation because the cause of action (causa petendi) of the damages claim is based on the alleged fact that all the plaintiffs were residents of the San Pancracio Settlement (Asentamiento San Pancracio), which was proven not to be true during the evidentiary proceedings. Therefore, the characterization of the land where the affected parcels are located, the alleged influence of the Chiquerón Canal on those lands, and the canals on lands adjacent to the San Pancracio Settlement, upon which the damages claim is based, cannot be extended to those who possess lands outside said settlement in other communities, such as those existing on the other side of the Imperio straight line. For that reason, a differentiated examination will be made of the damages sought in the case of those who are indeed residents of San Pancracio —or were at the time of the events— and of those who are not or were not.
To this end, the aforementioned jurisprudential parameter will be considered: to be compensable, the damage “A) Must be certain; real and effective, and not merely eventual or hypothetical; it cannot be based on supposed or conjectural occurrences.” Furthermore, “C) Must be caused by a third party, and subsistent, that is, if it has already been repaired by the responsible party or a third party (insurer), it is non-subsistent. D) There must be a causal relationship between the unlawful act and the damage…” a.- Damages alleged by residents of the San Pancracio Settlement To prove the claimed damages, the plaintiffs offered: testimonial evidence to demonstrate that these were certain, real, and effective damages. To demonstrate their amount, they offered expert evidence, i.e., to estimate the value of the personal property they claim to have lost during the floods and to demonstrate the depreciation in the value of the lands acquired through the IDA program, today INDER, which gave rise to the San Pancracio Settlement.
The truth, however, is that it was not possible to prove that these were certain, real, and effective damages, first, because the means of proof chosen for this was testimonial evidence, which is inconducive for that purpose. As became evident during the course of the numerous witness statements taken for that purpose for the different plaintiffs, the statements about the supposed existence of the damages were mere conjecture, assumptions, or generic affirmations without the detail required to subsequently quantify the damages. In short, the chosen means of proof was inconducive, since it is not possible through testimonial evidence to specify, in detail, what personal property the plaintiffs lost due to the floods of late 2002 and early 2003. The vague, imprecise answers regarding the quantity, quality, and condition of the goods, livestock (semovientes), or crops supposedly lost, are not evidence with sufficient probative efficacy.
If, as has been seen, for a damage to be compensable it must be certain, real, and effective and not based on supposed or conjectural occurrences, it is clear that in the specific case it is not possible to order compensation for the claimed damages, since an unsuccessful attempt has been made to prove their existence through witness statements that were imprecise, conjectural, and vague, so that it was not possible to demonstrate that the detail of damages claimed by each of the plaintiffs was known to the respective witness offered. To this must be added, for the purpose of evaluating such statements, that for the most part, the witnesses offered are themselves plaintiffs, so their credibility is compromised, since they have a clear interest in the outcome of the process. As an example that serves as a parameter for the rest of the statements, let us examine what was sought in the case of Mr. [Name 002], ID [Value 004], Parcel No. 11, awarded as of October 10, 2005, whose claim for damages was stated in these terms (...) To prove such damages, the testimony of Mr. [Name 017] was offered, who was not a resident of the San Pancracio Settlement at the time of the events.
In his statement, he declared: “He always had little animals, pigs, chickens. They were lost in a flood. He planted plantain, corn, bananas. He had damages in the house…” As can be seen, the witness did not mention a large part of the personal property that the plaintiff, Mr. [Name 002], claims to have lost, so the damages suffered by Mr. [Name 002] were not proven with the corresponding detail and precision, and it is therefore not possible to order his compensation, as sought. Meanwhile, regarding the expert evidence for the quantification of damages, the evidence offered was expert evidence, although the expert Luis RODRÍGUEZ, who testified about the expert report he prepared, admitted the following during his cross-examination: "Each one of the affected persons made a list of the losses they had had…" "I made an individual valuation of what each one told me." "It is in good faith." "There is no way to prove whether that existed or did not exist." "Documentation zero.
There were no invoices, receipts, none of that." "Zero documentation." As can be seen, the expert's task did not consist of verifying the existence of the damages, but rather in collecting lists of damages that the plaintiffs themselves provided to him and making an estimate of their values, without there being any way to prove "...whether that existed or did not exist." On the other hand, regarding the valuation of damages, it is worth noting that the expert stated that he did not present pro-forma invoices; it was an "investigation" he carried out to determine values. He also indicated that "in the case of household goods, I carried out value investigations and entered them. I did not create a worksheet. I did not do that." Thus, there is no trace whatsoever of the investigation carried out, so his report has no probative value, being merely speculative, not only in the determination of the damages but also in the quantification he made of them.
To conclude, the expert himself noted that: "They told me that in that area there were no such kinds of floods. Under that assumption, the report is made, that those works could cause those flooding. If it is technically demonstrated that those works have had no influence whatsoever, this expertise makes no sense. The loss of value is for that reason." That is, his expert work was based on the unproven premise that the floods that caused the damages were caused by works carried out by third parties, which he does not know to be true. In turn, the expert Topographer Engineer Fernando QUINTANILLA MOLINA, who estimated the supposed loss in property value for the plaintiffs, admitted in his statement that he also started from the premise that the devaluation of the lands claimed by the plaintiffs was the product of an increased flood risk derived from works attributed to the co-defendants. However, the move from class 4 to class 5, due to finding that they subsequently have a very severe flood risk, is not based on an objective and documented evaluation.
As has been seen, the lands have always been subject to high flood vulnerability, so it is not a supervening condition that can be linked to any action by third parties. Therefore, the alleged loss of value due to the supposed increase in flood risk is unacceptable because it starts from a premise that was not proven to be true during the process, much less in the expert study under comment. On the other hand, as was verified during the cross-examination, the accuracy of the mathematical calculation made by the expert to estimate the loss of value is not recorded in any worksheets attached to his study, so, in this case as well, his expert opinion has no probative value whatsoever, either because it started from a false premise (loss of value due to a supervening increase in flood risk) or because there is no transparency in the mathematical calculations to verify their accuracy. In sum, neither the nature of the damages and their real existence nor their value have been proven.
The evidence does not allow accrediting either one or the other, as required in this type of damages recovery process. // b.- Damages alleged by residents of other communities // In the case of the plaintiffs who were shown not to live in San Pancracio or not to have lived in that settlement at the time of the events, it must be added to what was stated in the previous section that it is not known what, according to their thesis, originated the damages being claimed. As stated in the operative facts of the lawsuit (causa petendi), the allegations in this regard are based on the thesis of the settlement’s location in relation to canals, dikes (diques), and the plantations of the co-defendants engaged in that activity. Thus, the lawsuit lacks factual basis regarding the demonstration of the origin of the damages claimed by the plaintiffs who did not live in the referenced settlement. For that reason, as an additional argument to prove that these are non-compensable damages, it is added that not only was their existence and amount unproven, but furthermore, the thesis of their origin was not even alleged. // C.- EXEMPTIONS FROM LIABILITY // Finally, it is necessary to examine, in the highly hypothetical event that the substantive prerequisites for extracontractual civil liability were considered to exist in the specific case, that irresistible and unforeseeable forces of Nature intervened in this case.
Indeed, it has been demonstrated that, on the dates of the events, torrential rains were recorded in the Atlantic Zone that on November 30, 2002, caused an instantaneous maximum flow value to be recorded at fluviographic station 73.0912, Pascua, of 3569 m³/second (document dated June 21, 2011, signed by Engineer Rafael OREAMUNO V, provided by DEL MONTE; testimonial-expert statement of Mr. Rafael OREAMUNO), a record that clearly demonstrates the causal relationship between that extraordinary meteorological event and the floods that the plaintiffs allege caused the damages for which they seek compensation. Moreover, through Executive Decree No. 30866-MP, published in the Official Gazette La Gaceta on Friday, December 6, 2002, a State of Emergency was declared for various cantons, among them, Siquirres. As a result of that declaration, a Regulatory Plan for Emergency Response due to Atlantic Watershed Flooding was adopted, from which it is worth extracting the following information: “Between November 21 and December 1, two very severe storms occurred in the province of Limón (with effects that extended until December 15), categorized as the most intense in the last 50 years.
The first was recorded between the 22nd and 24th of November and the second between November 29th and December 1st. The first was caused by the effects of cold fronts, which, in the particular case of this year, were accompanied by a high-pressure system in the Gulf of Mexico” - see manual folio 863 document submitted on June 9, 2011, by the CNE - “The accumulated rainfall (mm) in the city of Limón during both storms was extraordinarily high: 490.8, between November 21 and 24, and 298.0, between November 29 and December 1. Such rainy conditions in Limón during November establish that this month of 2002 is the rainiest in the last 50 years, with a new precipitation record…” see manual folio 864 document submitted on June 9, 2011, by the CNE -. Therefore, this involves an extraordinary force majeure event, with rainfall records not seen in the 50 years prior to that date, a circumstance under which it is obvious that no liability can be attributed to our represented party.
As is clear, this evidence allows us to indicate that the damage claimed by the plaintiffs is not compensable since it is not attributable to Chiquita Brands Costa Rica SRL, but to extraordinary events of Nature that, including, also caused material damages of a very high amount to our represented party, and which are not thereby compensable, but rather had to be assumed as part of the business risk of locating plantations in an area with flood vulnerability, but which presents soils and conditions suitable for banana production (...) As can be seen, both in 2002 and in 2003, extraordinary events of Nature occurred that exempt our represented party from all liability, given that even its plantations and canals were affected by the flooding of the Pacuare and Reventazón Rivers, flooding that exceeded the protection of the dikes built in the area, which demonstrates the magnitude of both events and their extraordinary condition, outside normal ranges."- The State's representation stated in its conclusions: "1.
That before 1992, the site where the San Pancracio Settlement is located was forest land (See testimonies of Eng. Allan Astorga Gatgens and José Luis Gómez Solana). // 2. The plaintiffs, among a group of neighboring families from Imperio and surrounding areas, invaded in 1994 the property known as San Pancracio, owned by [Name 038], who proceeded to negotiate the purchase of said property with the IDA authorities. Faced with pressure from the invading group, on March 20, 1998, the IDA Board of Directors agreement was published, Article IX of session 019-98 of March 10, 1998, through which the purchase is approved. See plaintiff's evidence No. 46, and testimony of [Name 014] given on May 12, 2021. 3. That the San Pancracio property is located on the alluvial or flood plain of the Pacuare River, and therefore possesses soils of alluvial origin, with very high water tables, which fall within hydrological group III, that is, of low permeability, meaning the corresponding drainage infrastructure must be developed so that said soils can be useful for agriculture.
See Proven Fact g of Ruling (Voto) 4944-2004 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), SENARA Report running from physical folio 118 onwards entitled Analysis of Drainage Water Discharge from the San Pancracio Property, Expert report and testimony of Eng. Fernando Quintanilla, expert report rendered by Eng. Gabriela Calvo Vargas (2003 and 2017), Expert report of Eng. Allan Astorga Gatgens, testimony of Eng. José Miguel Zeledón Calderón of MINAE, Testimony of Roney Paniagua, Ministry of Health, Report from the Department of Waters of MINAET IMN-DA-244-2004 (plaintiffs' evidence 29), Report and declaration of Eng. John Matheis Urbina, Official Letter IMN-DA-1797-2004. // 4. The region's climate is characteristic of the Atlantic Zone, with rainfall exceeding 120 mm in 24 hours. The months with the highest rainfall records correspond to November and December, with values close to 400 mm.
The annual average is close to 4000 mm. This intensity of rainfall, coupled with the soil characteristics and the topographic and hydraulic conditions of the zone, is a clear indicator of the need to have drainage systems for crop development, livestock, and the development of communities with good living conditions. See Proven Fact g of Ruling 4944-2004 of the Constitutional Chamber, SENARA Report running from physical folio 118 onwards entitled Analysis of Drainage Water Discharge from the San Pancracio Property, Expert report and testimony of Eng. Fernando Quintanilla, expert report rendered by Eng. Gabriela Calvo Vargas (2003 and 2017), Expert report of Eng. Allan Astorga Gatgens, testimony of Eng. José Miguel Zeledón Calderón of MINAE, Testimony of Roney Paniagua, Ministry of Health, Report from the Department of Waters of MINAET IMN-DA-244-2004 (plaintiffs' evidence 29), Report and declaration of Eng.
John Matheis Urbina, Official Letter IMN-DA-1797-2004. // 5. That since 1952, the site where the Settlement is located has been an active flood zone and that the flood risk was never considered when communities were established there (Testimony of Eng. Allan Astorga Gatgens). // 6. That at the time of purchasing said property, the IDA did not conduct soil studies, but a FODA inspection of the land. Subsequently, it conducted the study called Land-Family Relationship, in which the observations section states that it was the members of San Pancracio who proposed using 60% of the property for the production of plantain and cassava. Likewise, in its conclusions title, section 7.2 suggested "it is necessary that each of the beneficiaries of the parcels create the canals needed to evacuate the water ponding that might eventually exist, likewise the property's drainage was categorized as imperfect." See San Pancracio Settlement Development Plan prepared in February 2000, Land-Family Relationship report prepared in August 1999 by the IDA. // 7.
That the land use that should have been given was for forest cover (bosque), but it was changed, although that is also not certain if an extraordinary event occurs (Testimony of Eng. Allan Astorga Gatgens). // 8. That the party primarily responsible for what happened is the Municipality of Siquirres for granting land permits (Testimony of Eng. Allan Astorga Gatgens). // 9. That the beneficiaries are affiliated with the San Pancracio Association, and the majority dedicate said lands to crops and the raising of a few animals, the latter activity not being catalogued in the aforementioned studies due to the land's low water absorption. We insist that it was the members of San Pancracio who proposed using 60% of the property for the production of plantain and cassava. // 10. That the settlement borders to the east and south banana properties owned by the co-defendants herein, Chiquita Brands and Corporación Del Monte. // 11.
That in the area where the Settlement is located, rainfall can be considered normal between 750 and 800 cubic meters, an amount the existing canals on the rivers could withstand. Rainfall exceeding that amount must be considered an extraordinary event (See declarations and report of Eng. Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega and testimony and report of Eng. Allan Astorga Gatgens). // 12. That in 2002, a severe flood occurred in the San Pancracio Settlement as a consequence of the intense rains occurring in the Atlantic Zone. On November 30 of that year 2002, precipitation was so high that 3,569.0 cubic meters per second flowed through the Reventazón River, causing severe flooding in the Siquirres Plain and consequently in the San Pancracio Settlement (See declarations and report of Eng. Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega, physical folio 1175 and testimony of Donald Murray Unwin). // 13. That the floods are not exclusive to the Settlement, given that from 1996 to 2008, eight emergency decrees were issued.
For the 2002 emergency, the storms that occurred in the area were categorized as the most intense in the last 50 years, as three cold fronts occurred in the month of November as a product of the El Niño phenomenon, which caused heavy rainfall and river overflows, mainly in the area where the Settlement is located (Expert report and testimony of Eng. John Matheis Urbina). // 14. These settlements are affected by an average of three significant floods per year. In 2003, for the third consecutive time, an emergency was declared in the area due to a low atmospheric pressure system that caused a strong rise in the rivers. (See testimony of Ronney Pérez Paniagua from the Ministry of Health). // 15. That the floods suffered by the Settlement were foreseeable because since 1861 there existed studies on floods occurring in that area which destroyed the Railroad bridge (See declarations and report of Eng.
Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega) // 16. That the properties owned by Corporación Del Monte and Chiquita Brands are located in the surroundings of the Settlement, and consequently are also within the flood plain of the Pacuare River. // 17. That the Chiquerón Canal is within the Imperio Property and discharges into the lagoons of the Pacuare River (See testimony of Donald Murray Unwin) // 18. That the dikes were built to protect the Imperio property 30 years before the San Pancracio Settlement was established, dikes that already existed for the 1970 flood (testimonies of Eng. John Matheis Urbina and Donald Murray Unwin). // 19. That if the dikes on the banks of the Reventazón and Pacuare Rivers did not exist, 75% or 80% of the rivers' flow would shift towards the plain where the San Pancracio Settlement is located (See declarations and report of Eng. Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega). // 20. That the dikes are no guarantee that floods will not occur (See declarations and report of Eng.
Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega and Eng. Allan Astorga Gatgens). // 21. The dikes built on the riverbanks contain the water within the channel, they do not redirect it towards another sector (Testimony and report of Eng. Allan Astorga Gatgens) // 22. That both the construction and repair of canals do not require permits from MINAE nor from the Ministry of Public Health, in accordance with Article 89 of the Water Law No. 76 (Testimonies of Engineer José Miguel Zeledón Calderón, Head of the Department of Waters of MINAE and Lic. Roney Pérez Paniagua from the Ministry of Public Health) // 23. That it is not possible to attribute the flooding of the Settlement to the construction and repair of canals. In an extraordinary event, water flows across the plains and that would cause the floods (See declarations and report of Eng. Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega). // 24. As a result of the problems presented by the floods, the residents of San Pancracio filed an amparo appeal before the Constitutional Chamber, which was processed under case file number 03-009991-0007-CO and was decided by Ruling Number 2004-04944 at 3:11 p.m. on May 6, 2004 (Plaintiffs' Evidence No. 23) // 25.
In said Ruling, the Constitutional Chamber ordered, among other things, the following: "Likewise, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and the Municipality of Siquirres are ordered to carry out the necessary technical studies to reliably determine the incidence of the dikes, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and water diversions carried out by the respondent banana companies on the environment, of which they must inform this Chamber within the non-extendable period of two months from the notification of this judgment." // 26. That in this process, the State was sued in representation of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Environment and Energy, without the plaintiffs, both in the presentation of the statement of claim and in the oral trial hearing, managing to specify what omissions were incurred by those Ministries, nor did they specify what administrative acts were issued that harmed the parcel holders of the San Pancracio Settlement.
It was not demonstrated that: // 1. The river overflows were caused by the construction of dikes and canals on the banana plantations. // 2. The Ministry of Health had incurred any omission in the functions granted by Law or that it issued an administrative act to the detriment of the plaintiffs, before, during, and after the floods. // 3. The Ministry of Environment and Energy had not complied with what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber through Ruling Number 2004-04944, besides not having issued any administrative act to the detriment of the claimants before, during, and after the floods. // Regarding the actions of the Ministry of Health // By reason of the filing of the amparo appeal, Lic. Roney Pérez Paniagua, from the Department of Occupational Health of the Ministry of Health, rendered a report via official letter UPAH/RPP-001-2004 dated January 14, 2003, addressed to Licda. Olga Magdalena Carrillo Bianchi, Lawyer of the Directorate of Legal Affairs of that same Ministry, in which he indicates that in the vicinity of the San Pancracio Settlement there are no dikes, but rather several kilometers before and after.
He adds that there is a canal (the Chiquerón) that passes through the Settlement and collects water from the properties of the co-defendant Banana Companies. The works referred to as done by the co-defendants are indicated to have been on the border between those two Rivers and their properties. He states that the floods that affected them in recent years and in December 2003 as well, also affected a large part of the Canton of Siquirres. The Official Letter under comment adds DASS-008-2004 and DASS-009-2004 (folios 295-296 of amparo file 03-9991-0007-CO). The first informs that no complaints indicating sanitary problems have been received in that Health Area and that the co-defendant Banana Companies have the sanitary permits. The second indicates that the co-defendant Banana Companies have not submitted requests for earthworks (movimientos de tierra) or dikes in that Health Area. It clarifies that the San Pancracio Settlement borders only the banana property Carmen 2b (formerly Carmen 3) of COBAL, which has the sanitary permit for banana production.
Finally, the Official Letter cited in this fact attaches the IC-SI099-03 from Engineering of the Municipal Technical Assistance Unit of the Atlantic. This reported the reconstruction of dikes on the La Mona Stream between the Communities of San Pancracio and La Lucha. It is indicated therein that since San Pancracio is located behind the COBAL plantation, the dike that was built also prevents the passage of water to said Settlement. Furthermore, it was stated that the defendant Companies herein, COBAL and BANDECO, carried out earthworks (movimientos de tierra), reconstructed existing dikes, and built new dikes, on the Gigante and Doble Alianza properties of COBAL and Imperio I of BANDECO. The works were carried out in risk zones for flooding of the Pacuare River (left bank) and the Reventazón River (right bank). The Ministry of Health, through this inspection, also verified that the works were carried out by the Companies COBAL and BANDECO without having the technical environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) studies.
As consequences of the floods occurring in that sector, the Ministry carried out corrective and preventive actions, in the cleaning of 69 artisanal water wells between the months of February and March of that year, for the prevention of diseases and to thereby avoid an increase in cases of Dengue and Malaria. In his appearance on May 18, 2021, Lic. Roney Pérez Paniagua indicated that, in the case of floods, the Ministry acted when the emergency committee was activated, having supervision functions over shelters, review of people's health, and also intervened in the cleaning of wells. The Ministry only granted operating permits to commercial establishments and, in the case of the banana companies, only granted construction permits for the packing plant, warehouses, and offices, as well as sanitary operating permits for said companies. At the date of the events in San Pancracio, environmental impact assessment studies did not exist, and he is unaware if they were mandatory at that date.
Although in his reports Lic. Roney Pérez Paniagua recommended the construction of dikes, those were functions that by law were not granted to the Ministry of Health. In addition to the foregoing, none of the witnesses, nor experts, argued, nor even mentioned the existence of any irresponsible or omissive interference on the part of the Ministry of Health before, during, and after the floods. With the foregoing, the Ministry of Public Health, through the previously cited official letters, clearly established that the functions granted by Law are not the supervision or construction of dikes or drainage or runoff canals on private properties, whether these are banana or agricultural/livestock use, thus clarifying the reckless statements of the plaintiffs in stating that this Ministry has not issued orders to the banana companies to refrain from carrying out earthworks, accusing the existence of omissions on the part of the Ministry of Health, omissions which, we insist, do not exist because they are not the competence or functions of the Ministry of Health. // Regarding the actions of the Ministry of Environment and Energy // In response to what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber through Ruling Number 2004-04944 at 3:11 p.m. on May 6, 2004, the Department of Waters comprehensively addressed the flooding situation occurring in the Reventazón, Pacuare, and Siquirres rivers, preparing (among other reports and official letters) the referenced official report letter IMN-DA-244-2004 of January 13, 2004, describing the condition of flood vulnerability, and which, as indicated, constitutes a comprehensive action for its mitigation. That Department of Waters proposed what works should be carried out to mitigate flood risks on the Reventazón River and the La Mona Stream.
Subsequently, by resolution of the Minister of Environment R-566-2005-MINAE issued at 8 a.m. on November 16, 2005, the order of the Department of Waters, resolution IMN-DA-2459-2005, was annulled, ordering that the works first be submitted to the National Environmental Technical Secretariat so that the environmental assessment process (proceso de evaluación ambiental) be completed prior to proceeding with the order to carry them out. It is important to highlight that, in the file of the Department of Waters, number 213-Q, there is no complaint that brought to light the works supposedly to be carried out in the month of July 2006; the truth is that, if these were being carried out, they would be outside the scope of what was ordered by the Department of Waters and by MINAE, because the SETENA resolution granting environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental) has not yet been communicated to that Department.
In his appearance as a witness for the party (the State), Engineer José Miguel Zeledón Calderón, Head of the Department of Waters of MINAE, stated that in accordance with Article 89 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), the construction of dikes does not require a permit because they are civil works located on private land. If any permit were required, the issuance of such permits and the supervision of the completion of said works would correspond to the Municipality of the place and the National Emergency Commission. In this specific case, MINAE only performs oversight and management functions for works, not the granting of permits for the construction of new dikes, much less for the repair of existing ones, since what falls within its competence and functions is to carry out administrative, technical, and legal work, with the reports being forwarded to other institutions for the execution of those reports.
As ordered by the Constitutional Chamber, all efforts were made in their entirety, conducting visits and reports and providing four options for solving the problem, which were rejected by the residents, which led to the revocation of resolution IMN-DA-244-2004 of January 13, 2004, by the Minister of Environment.// By reason of the foregoing, it is demonstrated that the Ministry of Environment complied fully and completely with what was ordered by the Constitutional Chamber and, more recently, provided assistance to the residents through SENARA so that the waters of the Settlement drain correctly, but even so the residents divert them to another location (Testimony of [Name 010]).// In addition to the above, none of the witnesses or experts argued, or even mentioned, the existence of any irresponsible or negligent interference (injerencia) by the Ministry of Environment and Energy before, during, or after the floods.
With all the foregoing, it was clearly established that MINAE's functions in these cases are limited to management and oversight tasks, thus rejecting the reckless statements of the plaintiffs in stating that this Ministry has not issued orders to the banana companies to refrain from carrying out earthworks (movimientos de tierra), accusing the existence of omissions by MINAE, omissions that, we insist, do not exist because they are not the competence or functions of the latter.// In relation to the expert report rendered by GEODESA// Regarding the expert report rendered by Geologist Engineer Gabriela Calvo Vargas of Geodesarrollos Ambientales de América, S.A. (GEODESA), we must make it clear that it was a rather confusing and imprecise report, with information presented on cartographic sheets in which, among other things, places were mislocated, topographic states of the farms were invented, and the Chiquerón Canal was mislocated.
In her oral appearances on May 11 and 18, 2021, she showed uncertainty regarding the information presented in her written opinion, using the phrases "it could be, it seems, maybe, it would seem" several times. That uncertainty was subsequently confirmed by the other experts provided by the banana companies, as well as by the lawyers of the Chiquita Brands Company during the examination of said professional. All of this confirmed that what was presented to the Court, both in the expert report and in her oral appearance, is contrary to the reality of the sector, which makes said report unreliable for the purposes pursued in this proceeding. Added to the large number of errors, both graphic and written, Engineer Calvo Vargas, in response to a question from the defendants, concluded that the problem is the volume of water that flows into the canal, but she does not know what that volume is. Nor does she know the capacity of the canal to receive water.
According to the words of Engineer Calvo, a large part of the information rendered in the opinion was provided by the residents. Likewise, and as part of that great accumulation of errors, she divided the San Pancracio settlement into two sections, separated by the road known as the straight to Imperio, whereas the settlement is only one. See testimonies of [Name 014], [Name 017], [Name 023], [Name 015], Engineer John Matheis Urbina. Her examination concluded by indicating what we already know: that the area where the San Pancracio Settlement is located is a very large, wide, and flat alluvial plain, which means that when the river carries a lot of water, it overflows. This statement is contrary to what was stated in her report when she said that the problem causing the floods is the construction of dikes and drainage canals.// In relation to the expert report rendered by Engineer Fernando Quintanilla.// In his opinion, Engineer Quintanilla made a very personal and subjective decision: he changed the land use (uso del suelo) and the hydrological factor of the Settlement without relying on technical or market studies of the farms. // Likewise, in his report he omitted to carry out an individual study of each of the parcels.
This is of vital importance in valuation matters, since each of the lands has different topographic characteristics. In other words, no two farms are identical anywhere in the world. On the other hand, according to the Technical Standardization Body of the Ministry of Finance, the hydrological factor of the settlement is factor 3, and the expert subjectively changed it to 4 without technically substantiating the aspects for which he proceeded to make said change. Let us remember that Engineer Quintanilla is a surveyor by profession, and the change in the hydrological factor of the Settlement is a topic that must be addressed by an expert in hydrology who works for an official State entity. Finally, he did not present the spreadsheets (an indispensable task in these cases) with which he could substantiate the setting of the values per square meter for each of the parcels, an indispensable requirement according to court jurisprudence.
For the reasons stated, I request that said expert report be dismissed.// In relation to the expert report rendered by Lic. Luis A. Rodríguez Astúa.// This report was based on the report provided by Engineer Fernando Quintanilla.// It is an expert calculation of damages that did not provide documents to support the supposed damages suffered by the plaintiffs in the year 2003. His report was based on the statements of the supposed affected parties. The calculation of values for the belongings and animals did not have the necessary documentary support or backing in these cases. That is, a study (or pro forma invoices) that would allow us to have at least an approximate value for each of the articles that the supposed affected parties said they lost in the flood. In addition to the chain of errors already indicated, we must add another: he did not carry out a market study to conclude that the lands lost 75% of their value; that is, a subjective statement that does not have the indispensable documentary support in these matters.
He did not provide the spreadsheets with which he could have demonstrated to us that his report is accurate and reliable. All of the foregoing means that the expert report, lacking technical and documentary support in general, should not be considered suitable because it fails to comply with the purposes required here.// In relation to the report presented by Engineer Allan Astorga Gatgens (Geologist)// An extremely technical report due to his professional training as a geologist, in addition to the postgraduate studies completed by Engineer Astorga. During his oral appearance and based on his professional report and with reliable data, Engineer Astorga indicated to us that the Costa Rican Caribbean zone is one of the rainiest zones in the world. As a consequence of this, floods are very frequent. // Furthermore, he explained the fact that the flood valley is a very frequent natural phenomenon in the Caribbean (See images 26 and Figure 12 of his report) (...) EXCEPTIONS// Statute of Limitations// According to the facts of the lawsuit, the floods occurred in November 2002, and the lawsuit was filed on February 25, 2011, that is, 8 years and 4 months after the events occurred.
Therefore, based on the foregoing and in accordance with Article 198 of the General Law of Public Administration, if damage attributable to the Public Administration had occurred, the period to claim damages would be four years counted from when the lawsuit is declared without merit in all its aspects and the plaintiffs are ordered to pay both costs and their interest until effective payment. Act of a Third Party// Both in the oral hearing and with the documentary evidence provided to the case file, it became clear that after the farm was invaded, INDER proceeded to carry out unserious studies of the soils of the San Pancracio Settlement. Said studies did not verify that the lands invaded by the plaintiffs formed part of the flood plain (llanura de inundación) of the Reventazón and Pacuare Rivers, which infrequently produced floods in the plains of that sector of Siquirres, but which, after a certain time and upon the occurrence of extraordinary events, flooded those farms.
It was demonstrated that since 1861, floods were already occurring throughout the canton of Siquirres that caused damage to the farms located there. However, due to the lack of studies, INDER allocated farms to families in the area. From what has been narrated, the intervention of INDER as a third party that caused the alleged damages to the plaintiffs can be clearly seen. Lack of Right// It was not proven that the alleged damages caused to the plaintiffs were a consequence of administrative acts issued by the Administration or as a consequence of inaction on its part. On the contrary, it was demonstrated that the consequences of the floods were caused by an extraordinary rainfall event that occurred on November 30, 2002, a date on which, according to records from the Pascua Fluviographic Station (physical folio 1175), a total of 3,659 cubic meters per second of water descended through the Reventazón River in the area where the Settlement is located, with which it is demonstrated that such events are the product of an act of nature, for which reason the accusations (though imprecise) against the State are unacceptable, which is why the defense of lack of right should be accepted and the plaintiffs ordered to pay both costs and their interest until effective payment.// Force Majeure// The case of force majeure, as we know, is an event caused by nature that, although foreseeable, is inevitable.
Force majeure was demonstrated with the report and testimony of Engineer Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega, specifically in physical folio 117, where he showed us a rainfall graph recorded at the Pascua Fluviographic Station of the rains that occurred on November 30, 2002, in the area where the Settlement is located. In his presentation, he explained to us that normal rainfall in the Siquirres area is between 700 and 800 cubic meters per second. Exceeding those 800 cubic meters per second, the event can be considered extraordinary. On November 30, 2002, a total of 3,659 cubic meters per second occurred in the area where the San Pancracio Settlement is located, which demonstrates that what caused the floods and the consequent damages was not the construction and repair of dikes and canals, but rather an extraordinary rainfall event, that is, an event of nature, in other words, a case of force majeure.
For the reasons stated, I request that the lawsuit be declared without merit in all its aspects and that the plaintiffs be ordered to pay both costs of the proceeding and their interest until effective payment. // Lack of Active Standing// During the proceeding, we were able to observe that some of the plaintiffs do not reside in the San Pancracio Settlement, which means they lack active standing (legitimación activa) to come to this proceeding seeking compensation for themselves that they are not entitled to. // Lack of Passive Standing// Although without specifying the facts attributable to the Administration, the plaintiffs proceeded to file a complaint against the State and other defendants.// Through both the documentary evidence offered and the testimonies of the officials from the Ministry of Environment and Energy and Public Health, it was demonstrated that in the present case, both institutions complied with their respective legal and functional competencies, which results in a lack of passive standing (legitimación pasiva), which is why the lawsuit against my represented parties should be declared without merit and the plaintiffs ordered to pay both costs of the proceeding and their respective interest until effective payment." The representation of the CNE stated in its conclusions that in ruling 2004-4944 of the Constitutional Chamber, "(...) the petition of the residents of the San Pancracio settlement, at that time grouped under the Association for the Administration of Agricultural Production and Institutional Coordination of the San Pancracio Settlement, was partially upheld, and where the 'CNE' WAS NOT SENTENCED TO ANY ACTION TO DO, FOR OMISSION, OR TO REFRAIN FROM DOING, NOR TO ANY COORDINATION WORK WITH THE INDICATED INSTITUTIONS; that is, from the most important background of this lawsuit, our represented party was not singled out by the Constitutional Court, nor did it establish any ordinance regarding the 'CNE,' since we had no interference (injerencia) whatsoever in the violations of constitutional protections accredited there, which were directed at other government institutions and banana corporations.
Furthermore, at the request of the Ombudsman's Office due to our competence in prevention matters within the scope of risk management, the CNE prepared the requested reports, which were followed up on, and the issuance of the recommendations accredited in the judicial file, where the Ombudsman's Office itself, in its recommendations report, implies that the 'CNE' had no interference (injerencia) whatsoever in the reported case. In this sense, the 'CNE,' within the duality of its competencies framed in numerals 14 (ordinary and prevention competencies) and 15 (attention to risk prevention and emergency attention situations) in the actions specific to the case at hand, has been consistent with the administrative contentious jurisdiction as guarantor of legality in our country, having ensured the timely, coordinated, and efficient management of its technical, administrative, and economic resources, specifically regarding the executive decrees and the actions accredited in the general emergency plans, and the emergency decrees promulgated by the Executive Branch in the zone for the historical moment in which the plaintiffs were affected.
That is, despite the fact that Constitutional Chamber Ruling No. 4944-2004 did not establish that the CNE had to take any measure, actions have always materialized within the framework of our competencies, as shown in the General Emergency Plans decreed by the Executive Branch. On this, we refer to the documentary evidence provided by the 'CNE' and the State. Regarding the plaintiff's point about the Interinstitutional Committee for River Management, the CNE, for that historical moment, always carried out specific actions in execution of the General Emergency Plans of the decrees in force for those dates, executions carried out through institutional personnel, the Emergency Committees, today by the technical-operative instances and the advisory committees coordinated with the different institutions (Art. 10.b National Law of Emergencies and Risk Prevention No. 8488). On this, we refer to the documentary evidence provided by the 'CNE' and the State.
Likewise, it should be noted that in attending to emergency situations such as the one that occurred in 2002 in the zone, from which Executive Decree No. 30866-MP of 2002 and Executive Decree No. 31540-MP of 2003 arose, where the 'CNE' carried out so-called first-impact actions as established in Article 15, last paragraph of the National Law of Emergencies and Risk Prevention No. 8488, actions accredited in documentary evidence, and given the situation of necessity and urgency, necessary measures were taken to safeguard the most important legal right to be protected, which is human life, the physical integrity of the citizens of the area, and public infrastructure. Proof of this is the evidence provided in the case file regarding the damage and impact report carried out by public institutions that was recorded in the General Emergency Plan of the indicated decrees. Ergo, our actions were always in accordance with our principle of legality and urgency and public calamity.
(...) More abundantly, the following duties and obligations correspond, among others, to the Municipalities and other government entities:// It corresponds to the Municipality to administer cantonal interests and services, agree on budgets, and execute them as established in Articles 3 and 4 of the Municipal Code.// Prevention is a state responsibility, and therefore all state institutions are obliged to consider the concepts of risk and disaster in their programs and include the ordinary management measures that are proper and timely for them (Article 25, Law 8488). // The advice that the 'CNE' provides to institutions is oriented towards an effective policy of land use and territorial planning and must contribute to the adoption of control measures aimed at reducing the vulnerability of people, considering that, at the municipal level, the responsibility for addressing this issue lies in the first instance.
(Article 14, Law No. 8488, subsection h).// All works in a watercourse must be processed before the Department of Waters of MINAE, since the administration of public domain watercourses rests with this entity, in accordance with article eighty-nine (89) of the "Water Law" No. 276 and its amendments, of August twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and forty-two, and its respective modifications.// Furthermore, as is known, maintenance works in watercourses and investment in public infrastructure must be executed by other government entities, whether the Municipalities or the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, since maintenance, as ordinary public works, cannot be provided by the 'CNE' because, as indicated (...) Within this same line of reasoning, in this proceeding, it was not possible to point out or prove the inexorable causal link between the conduct of my represented party and the alleged damages.
There is an absolute lack of suitable evidentiary means in the case file on the essential issue of the lawsuit against the CNE. That is, THERE IS NO LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY IF THERE IS NO DAMAGE to generate responsibility, it being necessary that an unlawful act has occurred that can be attributed to my represented party, either on the basis of fault (in the broad sense - intent or negligence) or another objective attribution factor (risk, legal guarantee obligation, etc.) with an adequate causal relationship between the imputable act – attributed – and the damage. Thus, at least two basic requirements are needed to award damages in this type of proceeding: accreditation of the causal link and proof through suitable evidence of the damages claimed, and where the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, and in our case, the lawsuit and the evidence presented in court is completely devoid of this.
Regarding the need to prove the causal link between the conduct generating the damage as such, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, through ruling 46-2013, of eleven hours forty minutes on May 9, 2013, resolved the following: 'To resolve the present case, in accordance with the applicable law and therefore justice, it is essential to determine if there is a causal link between the damages set forth by the plaintiff and the administrative conduct, which consists of the passage of the train. The causal relationship produces a link, which allows us to glimpse the origin of the impairment alleged. Regarding the causal link, the jurist Eduardo García De Enterría points out that "for an event to deserve to be considered as the cause of the damage, it must itself be suitable for producing it according to common experience, that is, it must have a special aptitude for producing the injurious effect.
Only in these cases (adequate causality) can it be said, rigorously, that the activity taken into consideration...". Based on the foregoing, it is clear and evident that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any type of compensation, since they have not demonstrated what active or negligent conduct of the CNE (based on the competencies set forth in Law No. 8488) caused the alleged damages claimed by the plaintiffs. Furthermore, it cannot be deduced how the damages itemized in the lawsuit were quantified, which in all respects appear unfounded and contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality (...) Likewise, and of no less importance, it is necessary to point out that the evidence provided in the case file shows that the place where the San Pancracio settlement is located is an area of HIGH FLOOD RISK, where there is a great probability that all or a large part of the alleged damages are the product of events caused by nature, without direct or indirect intermediation by our representation or even by other institutions; and as it is a matter of force majeure, this very concept holds singular importance in the field of extracontractual civil liability, constituting a legal cause for exclusion and exoneration from it, and which is identified as those events or acts of nature that could not have been foreseen or that, if foreseen, were inevitable and external to the sphere of control of the Administration, provided that the damages caused by nature could not have been avoided through the timely deployment of the administrative entity's own activities.
In this sense, article one hundred ninety (190) of the General Law of Public Administration, which has its reason in that premise, provides: 'The Administration shall be liable for all damages caused by its legitimate, illegitimate, or abnormal functioning, except for force majeure, fault of the victim, or act of a third party…' (...) That the expert report rendered by Mr. Fernando Quintanilla Molina, surveyor engineer, proves to be contradictory in that the expert concludes his study through the economic determination of the impacts suffered on each parcel; however, in point number 1 of his conclusions, he states that it is not possible to quantitatively establish the damages since the initial state of the parcels is unknown. It is thus denoted that the supposed initial basis for achieving the accreditation of the indicated amounts, in a relationship between the prior state of the lands and their current state, is non-existent, thus performing a calculation without a real difference.
Likewise, the expert report lacks material verification for the purpose of accrediting the damages that the plaintiffs allegedly suffered; under no aspect of the methodology used by the expert or of the report is the performance of technical tests demonstrated that would enable him to quantitatively determine possible deterioration on the properties of the plaintiffs. Consequently, it is proven that the conclusions reached in the expert opinion lack technical support, as well as validity, thus discrediting the economic differences determined as impacts. Similarly, the input of information taken is the same as that of the other expert reports, that is, the information from the plaintiffs, which is clearly inappropriate and breaks the principle of evidentiary objectivity. Regarding the expansion of his expert report, it is maintained that the supposed initial basis for achieving the accreditation of the indicated amounts, in a relationship between the prior state of the lands and their current state, is non-existent, thus performing a calculation without a real reference.
Likewise, the expert report lacks material verification for the purpose of accrediting the damages that the plaintiffs allegedly suffered; under no aspect of the methodology used by the expert is the performance of technical tests demonstrated that would enable him to determine quantitatively possible deterioration on the properties of the plaintiffs. It is of utmost importance to consider the evidence provided by the State's representation, official letter DVAT-263-2017 of November 29, 2017, from the General Directorate of Taxation, through which it is made clear that the reports of expert Quintanilla Molina have a series of technical deficiencies that affect their reliability, and where he did not apply a valuation method that demonstrates the real market value and did not use the variables of hydrology and land use capacity. In this sense, he fails to accredit a reference to the characteristics that identify each of the parcels, as well as the omission of the market and the characteristics thereof with which to compare their value; that is, he not only failed to perform an individual and comparative valuation but also omitted useful tests in the valuation.
(...) That from the expert report rendered by Ms. Gabriela Calvo Vargas, it is clear that it consists of repeated subjective criteria and is not based on technical-scientific criteria, as expected of an expert report. Furthermore, the expert accepts as certain the historical data regarding the increase or difference in water levels in the zone, without having reliable proof such as HYDROLOGICAL STUDIES of the micro-basin, the maximum height of the water column, and the potential flooding zone, which would determine the veracity of that data on the floods, effective precipitation volume, water distribution over the plain, speed distribution, and how the flood distributes with and without infrastructure, but rather relies solely on the statements of the residents of the area, plaintiffs in the present case, which causes the expert report to lose credibility. That is, the principle of objectivity is broken, as indicated above.
Similarly, in her geological study, she should have presented a historical record of channel variations in the fluvial valley through aerial or historical photographs verifying that said zone was not of potential flooding before the construction of the dikes, a deficiency in her expert report. Furthermore, the report includes information from the residents about repairs made to houses, for which they present neither invoices nor any other element that would demonstrate that the repairs were made due to the supposed situation the residents are experiencing today. The analysis report refers to health problems of the residents without the corresponding medical discharge summaries or medical opinions that would allow verification of those conditions. That the report rendered by expert Allan Astorga Gattgens, with the scientific support of Mr. Andreas Mende, which this representation considers extremely important to clarify the real truth of the facts, given its technical-scientific content and having taken for his investigation essential elements regarding historical antecedents of the area, bibliographical notes, and the interpretation of official aerial photographs records from the IGN, where land use (uso del suelo) within the active flood plain (llanura de inundación) is shown, and where it proves to be conclusive in taking as certain facts that, as a consequence of the proximity of the San Pancracio Settlement to the alluvial plain of the fluvial systems of the Reventazón and Pacuare Rivers, said settlement is located on a flood plain (llanura de inundación) and evidently presents a condition of VERY HIGH flood threat.
Likewise, it accredits that after the 1960s, there were already vestiges of dike construction in the zone to try to reduce the intensity of the floods, and the construction of these significantly reduced the flood threat, which made the development of new banana plantations possible. This decrease not only helped the banana farms but the entire extension of the flood plain (llanura de inundación).
It also certifies that the VERY HIGH RISK situation that exists for the localities within the flood zone, including San Pancracio, means there is a high probability that the containment works, in the face of a maximum flood event due to an extraordinary situation, or even an ordinary one, will not be able to retain the force of the water, which could produce a catastrophic event for the floodplain area. To all this must be added the climate change condition, which is causing increasingly frequent extreme events of high rainfall and even droughts. In response to a question from one of the members of the tribunal regarding the situation of the dikes in the area in relation to the location of the settlements on the floodplain, he stated emphatically that the containment works, far from being a cause of the floods, are anthropic works that help the floods recede in the area and are not the cause of them, which he attributes to conditions inherent to nature and the area, as well as to inadequate land use and a lack of urban planning.
(...) As a corollary, CNE rejects the present claim in its entirety, confirming through the documentary evidence in the case file and what was seen and discussed at the trial hearing, that we have been included in a lawsuit where we should never have been, based on simple subjective statements without any evidentiary support, requiring us to take valuable resources of our time and resources from the Public Treasury, which could have been channeled into the work that CNE performs in its ordinary and extraordinary competencies. Thus, this representation requests that the exceptions of lack of right and lack of passive standing be granted. Likewise, it requests that the present claim be declared without merit and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both costs with interest until their effective payment." The INDER representation indicated in its conclusions that, having been joined to the proceeding as an interested third party without any claims against it, no condemnation can be made against it, it being rather clear that the entity has provided permanent collaboration to the co-plaintiffs.
It invokes Constitutional Chamber ruling 2004-4944, which ordered that the defendant private companies must not build dikes, perform earthworks (movimientos de tierra), or divert water until they have the corresponding permits. It points out that the former Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, IDA) conducted the Land and Family Relationship Study for Finca San Pancracio in 1999, which was made clear by the testimony of all the witnesses. It affirms that it was proven that the dikes built alongside the banana farms of the defendant companies near the San Pancracio Settlement are located on the side of those farms and not on the Settlement side, and that in 2003, earthworks (movimientos de tierra) were carried out for the construction and reconstruction of dikes. It considers that there is shared liability of the defendants because no studies exist that determine the correct viability and functionality of the built and reconstructed dikes for the purpose of preventing possible floods.
It emphasizes that according to the statement of José Miguel Zeledón Calderón (Director of Water Resources of MINAE), the dikes are not what cause the floods, but they do increase the risk for the Settlement, and that that Water Resources Directorate processed with SETENA that the corresponding studies be carried out, but there has been no response in that regard. It questions the expert opinion of Dr. Allan Astorga because it is not impartial, having been contracted by one of the parties. It requests that since INDER is merely an interested third party and there is no claim against it, it should be exempted from the payment of personal and procedural costs.
The Municipality's representation reiterates the terms of its answer to the claim filed in due course, in the sense that the municipality's competencies are of a marginal nature in matters of emergency, with the main competencies belonging to CNE and the State. It states that the maintenance of the dikes (which date back many years) is performed by shovel-wielding laborers, and if no report is made, it is impossible to carry out any control. It reiterates that judgment 2004-4944 does not demonstrate a causal link between the floods and the alleged earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and dike construction. It invokes as an exemption from non-contractual civil liability in this case the existence of the victim's own fault, given that the plaintiffs settled in that location, and the act of a third party, the entity that allocated the lands to them, INDER, meaning that under these conditions, holding the municipality liable is to take advantage of one's own wrongdoing.
It points out that based on the testimony of witnesses and experts in this proceeding (Fernando Quintanilla Molina, surveyor; Allan Astorga Gatgens, geologist; Gabriela Calvo Vargas, geologist; Rafael Oreamuno Vega, civil engineer), all experts and professionals in their respective fields, a peasant settlement should never have been established in the place occupied by San Pancracio, due to the potential overflow of the Pacuare and Reventazón river channels, and this situation should be taken into account for the resolution of the case. It explains that in any event, the municipality bears no responsibility, because the plaintiffs never formalized any complaint or request for specific intervention regarding the case. It invokes Article 89 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas), which establishes the possibility for property owners to build "defense works" without the need for permits, emphasizing that the flood issue is not due to a dike problem, but rather because the community is located in a flood-prone area. It reiterates its request that the claim against the municipality be dismissed and that the plaintiffs be ordered to pay both costs.
| Name of the plaintiff | Legal situation on the site |
|---|---|
| 1. [Name 001] | Co-owner (with [Name 037]) of registered farm [Value 031] (images 646-647) |
| 2. [Name 002] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 3. [Name 003] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 4. [Name 004] | Squatter (precarista) in the San Pancracio area (has no registered title, nor a transfer deed for unregistered land). Regarding possessory facts, hear the statement of [Name 022] in the oral trial |
| 5. [Name 005] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 6. [Name 006] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 7. [Name 007] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 8. [Name 008] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, IDA Board of Directors, agreement VIII, session 91-01 of 3/12/2001 (image 481) |
| 9. [Name 009] | Transfer of land located in Laguna de Imperio de Siquirres, by deed of July 12, 1991, executed by the IDA (images 676-679) |
| 10. [Name 010] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 11. [Name 011] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 12. Estate of the late [Name 012] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 13. [Name 014] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 14. [Name 015] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 15. [Name 016] | Co-owner of land transferred by the IDA, located in Asentamiento Imperio, according to deed of February 26, 1993; farm No. [Value 033] (images 692-698) |
| 16. [Name 017] | Owner of farm transferred by [Name 025], located in Imperio de Siquirres, farm No. [Value 032], on March 10, 2006 (images 699-703) |
| 17. [Name 018] | Squatter (precarista) in the San Pancracio area (has no registered title, nor a transfer deed for unregistered land). Regarding possessory facts, hear the statement of [Name 010] in the oral trial |
| 18. [Name 019] | Squatter (precarista) in the San Pancracio area (has no registered title, nor a transfer deed for unregistered land). Regarding possessory facts, hear the statement of [Name 028] in the oral trial |
| 19. [Name 020] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 20. [Name 021] | Squatter (precarista) in the San Pancracio area (has no registered title, nor a transfer deed for unregistered land). Regarding possessory facts, hear the statements of [Name 015] and [Name 027] in the oral trial |
| 21. [Name 022] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 22. [Name 023] | Allottee, Proyecto San Pancracio, Official letter ORS-370-2011 of May 25, 2011, from the Siquirres Subregional Office of the IDA (images 1563-1565) |
| 23. [Name 024] | Allottee, Proyecto Maryland. IDA Board of Directors, agreement III of session 90-87 of November 24, 1987 (image 587) |
| 24. [Name 025] | Owner of farm No. [Value 034], purchased on January 25, 2005, from Carlos Quinto Cerdas Solano (images 718-720) |
| 25. [Name 026] | Squatter (precarista) in the San Pancracio area (has no registered title, nor a transfer deed for unregistered land). Regarding possessory facts, hear the statement of [Name 007] |
| 26. [Name 027] | Squatter (precarista) in the San Pancracio area (has no registered title, nor transfer deed for unregistered land). Regarding possessory facts, hear the statement of [Name 015] |
| 27. [Name 028] | Squatter (precarista) in the San Pancracio area (has no registered title, nor a transfer deed for unregistered land). Regarding possessory facts, hear the statement of [Name 019] in the oral trial |
It is observed in the case file that in official letter DASS-009-2004 of January 13, 2004, from the Human Environment Protection Unit of the Siquirres Health Area, it states that neither Bandeco nor COBAL has submitted any application for earthworks (movimiento de tierras) or dike construction (folio 281). In said case file, judgment 2004-4944 was issued at three hours eleven minutes on May six, two thousand four (folios 353-362), in which the following were deemed proven facts:
"I.- (...) De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque el recurrido haya omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
"VIII.- In the case at hand, from the report rendered by the defendant public officials, the representatives of the defendant banana companies, and the evidence in the case file, it is accredited that Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL) carried out reconstruction and strengthening works on an already existing dike, whose function is to prevent the passage of water toward the banana plantations during river flood events, specifically at the La Mona stream, whose outlet is blocked by the Siquirres River, and this in turn by the Pacuare River, which receive waters from the Reventazón River. Furthermore, regarding the latter river, the existence of a complex of dikes on its right bank, built on the initiative of the Municipality of Siquirres and various governmental institutions over approximately the last 30 years, is accredited. After the floods that occurred during the months of November and December 2002, several sections of those dikes were damaged, so it is observed that both COBAL and Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte S.A. sought the respective permits from the local municipal body to carry out the necessary repairs (folio 169 and attached document #13).
However, the head of the Ministry of Environment and Energy points out that none of the defendant banana corporations has submitted dike projects on the Reventazón or Pacuare rivers for environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental). Likewise, although it is true – as previously stated – that applications for permits were filed with the Municipal Council of Siquirres – which in turn were processed through the Directorate General of Geology and Mines – it is noted that the repairs were carried out, including the earthworks (movimientos de tierras), without the proper authorization of the competent officials. Even more worrying to the Chamber is the report rendered by the Director of the Human Environment Unit of the Siquirres Health Area – on the occasion of an inspection of the site – who points out that the defendant companies not only reconstructed existing dikes, but also raised new dikes in the risk areas of overflow of the Pacuare and Reventazón rivers, without the corresponding permits, nor the technical environmental impact studies (folio 282).
IX.Therefore, it is evident that the actions of the defendant banana companies are not only contrary to the legal order, but also constitute an injury to the right to health and a healthy environment, enshrined in Articles 21 and 50 of the Political Constitution. The foregoing, not only for having built dikes without authorization from both the state regulatory body in environmental matters and the local government, but also because without environmental impact studies it is impossible to be clear about the repercussions that such a structure has on the river's behavior, there being the possibility that it increases the hydraulic capacity of the channel, thus facilitating conditions for floods to occur in adjacent areas. This Chamber is not unaware that Asentamiento San Pancracio – where the petitioner lives – as well as some farms of the defendant companies – such as Finca Gigante – are located within the floodplain (llanura de inundación) of the Pacuare and Reventazón Rivers, and that this, combined with the high rainfall that characterizes the area, facilitates floods due to the overflow of said rivers.
However, precisely the absence of technical environmental impact studies prevents determining whether the effects of such floods were increased and magnified by the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and dike construction that, as stated above, were carried out by the aforementioned banana companies. Likewise, it is understandable that these companies carry out actions to protect their assets and the agricultural activity they are engaged in; nevertheless, for this they must ensure an effective implementation of the concept of sustainable development and respect the ecosystem; therefore, it is absolutely unacceptable for them to act, omitting the procedures provided by law, endangering the environment, as well as the health and lives of the local residents, by altering natural resources in such a way.
X.On the other hand, the Chamber concludes that in the case under analysis, the infringement of the right to health and to an ecologically balanced environment is also attributable to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and the Municipality of Siquirres, resulting from the negligence or omission in exercising the oversight powers demanded by constitutional and ordinary statutory law, in terms of ensuring the proper disposition of natural resources, as they are obligated to verify not only whether or not the construction of a structure in that location proceeds, through the corresponding environmental impact studies, but also that said structure meets all the necessary technical and legal requirements, prior to its construction. However, the defendant municipal entity and the heads of the aforementioned ministerial departments limit themselves to stating that they had no knowledge of the situation raised by the petitioner until the notification of this appeal.
Analyzing similar matters, the Chamber has stated that it cannot be accepted that human beings are denied the right to a healthy environment, the right to health, and consequently the essential right to life, due to the inability of public authorities to effectively exercise the oversight powers granted by law, as well as the instruments that the legal system grants them, in order to control the actions of third parties that directly threaten such an important fundamental right. By virtue of the foregoing, this appeal must be granted against the Ministry of Environment and Energy, the Ministry of Health, and the Municipality of Siquirres"
In the operative part of the judgment, it was established: "The appeal is granted. Consequently, Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL) and Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte S.A. are ordered to refrain from building dikes, carrying out earthworks (movimientos de tierras), and diverting water on the banks of the Reventazón and Pacuare rivers, until they have the corresponding permits from the competent authorities. Likewise, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and the Municipality of Siquirres are ordered to carry out the necessary technical studies to reliably determine the incidence of the dikes, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and water diversions carried out by the defendant banana companies on the environment, of which they must inform the Chamber within the non-extendable period of two months counted from the notification of this judgment." The Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL), the Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte S.A., the State, and the Municipality of Siquirres are ordered to pay the costs, damages, and losses caused by the acts on which this declaration is based, which shall be liquidated during the execution of the civil and administrative contentious judgments, respectively" (emphasis added; see the certified judicial record of the amparo action and virtual address: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-286491, where the cited judgment can be seen); 6) That in the cited judicial record, a motion for disobedience was filed by the appellant Association, which was resolved by resolution No. 2008-007190 of 2:00 p.m. on April 25, 2008. On that occasion, it was considered:
"I.- The purpose of this judgment is to determine compliance with the order issued by this Court in judgment number 2004-004944 of fifteen hours and eleven minutes on May sixth, two thousand four, in which the Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte S.A. was ordered to refrain from building dikes, carrying out earthworks (movimientos de tierras), and diverting water on the banks of the Reventazón and Pacuare rivers, until they have the corresponding permits from the competent authorities. Likewise, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and Energy, and the Municipality of Siquirres were ordered to carry out the necessary technical studies to conclusively determine the impact of the dikes, earthworks, and water diversions carried out by the banana companies on the environment, of which they were to inform the Chamber.
II.Regarding the technical studies presented by the respondent authorities. In the first instance, José Miguel Zeledón Calderón, in his capacity as Head of the Water Department of the Ministry of Environment and Energy, submitted a report under official communication number OMN-DA-1851-04 of July twenty-first, two thousand four, in which he concluded that the works of the dike built by the respondent companies constitute palliative measures against the overflowing and flooding expected in extreme events; however, he highlighted that on their own, this type of dike is not the cause of the flooding phenomenon, since even without it, it is always expected that the civilian area will be affected. For its part, the Municipality of Siquirres submitted report number IC-SI019-05 of February seventh, two thousand five, in which it informed that it was verified that there are no recent earthworks or containment works in the area subject to this amparo action.
Likewise, it agrees with the respondent authorities that in order to solve the current problem, comprehensive attention must be provided, that is, involving different institutions (sic). From the foregoing, it is inferred not only that the authorities complied with the order to submit the report, but also that from these reports, it can be concluded that the dikes built by the sued banana companies are not, on their own, the cause of the environmental contamination.
III.In the judgment in question, the Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL) and the Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola S.A. were also ordered to refrain from building dikes, carrying out earthworks, and diverting water on the banks of the Reventazón and Pacuare rivers, until they obtain the corresponding permits. Regarding this matter, the representatives of the respondents inform that, as of June two thousand four, said companies had not rebuilt any dike on the banks of the Reventazón or Pacuare rivers, nor in existing internal natural streams. These assertions are supported by the Municipality of Siquirres, by informing this Chamber that in the inspection carried out, it was determined that there are no recent earthworks or containment works in the area in question. The respondent Municipality further adds that the dikes and the weirs or spillways did not suffer variations due to the effects of the floods; additionally, vehicles can travel on the dike itself, and moreover, no damage from the recent floods was evident. Therefore, this Court considers it proven that the respondent banana companies have fully complied with what was ordered in judgment 2004-04944, by refraining from carrying out further actions in the vicinity of the Reventazón and Pacuare rivers.
IV.On the other hand, Marco Machore Levi, in the month of December two thousand six, appeared before this Chamber to denounce once again disobedience to what was ordered by this Chamber in judgment number 2004-004944 of fifteen hours and eleven minutes on May sixth, two thousand four, due to the fact that between the tenth and fourteenth of July two thousand six, on the Finca Gigante owned by the Compañía Bananera Atlántica, illegal works were carried out aimed at the reconstruction of a dike on the Quebrada La Mona. Regarding this matter, the Manager of the Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada informs that in week number twenty-six of the year two thousand six, heavy rains and floods occurred in the Siquirres area, which caused the dike located on the Quebrada La Mona to be damaged, and for this reason, between the tenth and fourteenth of July two thousand six, the reconstruction of the floodgate located on one side of the dike was initiated, emphasizing that what was done was not a construction per se, but an emergency reconstruction of an already existing dike.
In relation to these facts, the Municipality of Siquirres informs that it closed down the repair works being carried out by the Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada, by means of official communication AMS-159-06, against which an appeal for revocation was filed, which was rejected by resolution at ten o'clock on September twenty-second, two thousand six, and as a consequence, on July twentieth, two thousand six, the works were closed. In view of the foregoing, the Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada, due to the respondent Municipality's refusal to endorse the dike's reconstruction, proceeded only to block the damaged floodgate with tires. In addition to this, the Minister of Environment and Energy, as well as the Executive Director of the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias (CNE), highlight what they had already indicated previously, in the sense that the problem of the impacts caused by the floods cannot be attributed solely to one company or another, but is the cause of a series of accumulated natural and anthropic factors and actions, for which a comprehensive intervention by the State, Local Governments, and Civil Society is required.
From the foregoing, this Chamber concludes that the Public Administration has diligently fulfilled its duty of vigilance, preventing constructions or reconstructions from being carried out on the dike of the Quebrada La Mona without the respective permits, and therefore, the motion for disobedience must be dismissed.
V.Conclusion.- By virtue of what has been stated, the presented motion for disobedience must be rejected, as is hereby ordered" (emphasis added; see the certified judicial record of the amparo action and virtual address: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-423896, where the cited judgment can be seen);
It should be noted that to properly resolve the case, it must first be determined whether the facts analyzed in this action (comprised between the years 2002 and 2018, due to the expansions of facts in the complaint made in this file) are covered by res judicata (cosa juzgada), derived from the resolutions of the Constitutional Chamber, numbers 2004-04944 of fifteen hours and eleven minutes on May sixth, two thousand four, and No. 2008-007190 of 2:00 p.m. on April 25, 2008 (which respectively resolved the amparo action filed by [Name 010], in his capacity as President of the Asociación Administradora de la Producción Agrícola y Coordinación Institucional del Asentamiento San Pancracio, and the disobedience motion filed by the appellant regarding what was resolved by the Constitutional Court).- Then, it must be determined whether the actions of the private parties and the omissions of the public institutions (not covered by the material res judicata from the amparo action or by the statute of limitations), caused the damages and losses claimed by the plaintiffs, determining first which of the plaintiffs are owners or possessors of unregistered land in the area of San Pancracio de Siquirres and then, whether the floods alleged in the complaint and the successive expansions of the action were indeed due to the alleged actions and omissions, or were due to a force majeure event (fuerza mayor) or an act of a third party, which under the criteria of the Civil Code (for the private defendants) and the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública) (for the sued public entities), are criteria for exoneration from economic liability.- Once the foregoing is determined, the remaining claims, those of an indemnification nature, must be analyzed.- VII) Relationship of this case with the judgments of the Constitutional Chamber from 2004 and 2008: If one observes the list of facts in the complaint (the reformulation of facts for the action, received on April 19, 2013, at images 2145-2236) and its subsequent expansions of facts, through written submissions dated: September 17, 2012, discussing events from July and August of that year (images 2026-2030); August 31, 2018, referring to events from the month of July of that year (images 3571-3597), the claim for the floods begins with the events that occurred in the years 2002 and 2003 and culminates with the events of August 2018.- Thus, in the reformulation of the complaint received on April 19, 2013, it is stated: Regarding the origin of the Settlement and the situation of the plaintiffs herein, it is said that the Asentamiento San Pancracio was created on the property registered under real folio number [Value 002], located in the Siquirres District, Siquirres Canton, of the Limón Province, which was owned by Mr. [Name 038], who sold the property to the IDA (current INDER) by public deed granted at 3:00 p.m. on March 26, 1998.
It is indicated that the IDA conducted preliminary agrological studies prior to the purchase of the property, which determined the suitability of the property for the development of agricultural and livestock activities. It points out that the entity carried out, prior to granting ownership of the parcels, studies of the lands comprising the Asentamiento San Pancracio and determined that the parcels are suitable for the establishment of annual and permanent crops, among which can be cited basic grains, tubers, musaceae, and fruit trees. It explains that in the aforementioned IDA agreement number IV of session 091-01, held on December 3, 2001, the following were declared beneficiaries of the Settlement, to be issued the corresponding title in fee simple (título supletorio de dominio) to the plaintiffs: [Name 010], who was granted Parcel number 5 (referring to Properties of the Partido de Limón, real folio numbers [Value 036] and [Value 037]); [Name 014], who was granted Parcel number 7 (referring to Properties of the Partido de Limón, real folio numbers [Value 038] and [Value 039]); [Name 023], who was granted Parcel number 9 (referring to Properties of the Partido de Limón, real folio numbers [Value 040] and [Value 041]); and [Name 022], who was granted Parcel number 8 (referring to Properties of the Partido de Limón, real folio numbers [Value 042] and [Value 043]).
In the same manner, by agreement taken by the Board of Directors of the IDA, in article VIII of session No. 093-01 held on December 10, 2001, the plaintiff [Name 008] was declared a beneficiary of the Settlement, to be issued the corresponding title in fee simple, who was granted Parcel number 4 (referring to Properties of the Partido de Limón, real folio numbers [Value 044] and [Value 045]).
It mentions that in an agreement taken by the Board of Directors of the IDA, in session No. 014-03 held on March 17, 2003, the plaintiff [Name 011] was declared a beneficiary of the Settlement, so that the corresponding supplemental title of ownership be issued to them, to whom Parcel number 2 was granted (which refers to the Farm of the Partido de Limón, real folio registration number [Value 046]). By means of an agreement taken by the Board of Directors of the IDA, in session No. 060-00 held on August 21, 2000, the following were declared beneficiaries of the Settlement, so that the corresponding supplemental title of ownership be issued to the plaintiffs: [Name 002], to whom Parcel number 11 was granted (which refers to cadastral plans number [Value 047] and [Value 048]), [Name 039], to whom Parcel number 21 was granted (which refers to cadastral plan [Value 049]); and [Name 003], to whom Parcel number 10 was granted.
By means of an agreement taken by the Board of Directors of the IDA in session No. 042-2004, held on November 15, 2004, the following were declared beneficiaries of the Settlement, so that the corresponding supplemental title of ownership be issued to the plaintiffs: [Name 006], to whom Parcel number 15 was granted, [Name 007], to whom Parcel number 13-1 was granted, [Name 015]; to whom farm number A-3 was granted; and [Name 020], to whom Parcel number 14 was granted. It argues that in the case of the plaintiffs [Name 001], [Name 007], [Name 008], [Name 009], [Name 010], [Name 011], [Name 012], [Name 014], [Name 016], [Name 017], [Name 018], [Name 022], [Name 023], [Name 024], [Name 025], and [Name 004], in addition to having the adjudication agreements from the IDA, they have the transfer deeds for their parcels issued by the IDA or else private sale and purchase deeds signed with private former owners or possessors, and that as for the plaintiffs [Name 005], [Name 026], [Name 017], [Name 019], [Name 021], [Name 028], they are possessors of their parcels that form part of the Asentamiento San Pancracio since its origin in 1997 and since then have exercised acts of possession in a peaceful, public, and notorious manner and have also carried out agricultural and livestock exploitation since then; this will be accredited through offered testimonial evidence.
Origin of the damages to the detriment of the defendant companies: Empresa Cobal: Both Companies COBAL and BANDECO appear nationally and internationally as exporting companies environmentally committed to development and with "serious policies" of Corporate Social Responsibility, the Settlement being located in a position that borders the defendant banana companies as follows: (i) With BANDECO: it borders on the east with the farm known as Finca Imperio I. (ii) With COBAL: on the south with the farms known as Doble Alianza and Gigante. It outlines that the company COBAL is the owner of the banana farms of the Partido de Limón, real folio registration numbers [Value 050] and [Value 051] which correspond to Finca Gigante and Doble Alianza. For its part, the company BANDECO is the owner of the banana farm of the Partido de Limón, real folio registration number [Value 052], which corresponds to Finca Imperio I. In the year 2002 and mainly in the year 2003, the Company COBAL built, without municipal permits, without environmental studies, two dikes, one on each side of the Quebrada La Mona, which cross the banana farms Doble Alianza and Gigante, with an extension of two thousand three hundred meters on the north side and one thousand eight hundred meters on the south side of the Quebrada La Mona, in order to drain the waters from the internal canals existing in the banana farms Doble Alianza and Gigante into the Canal Chiquerón, and to prevent the waters that cause the overflow of the Río Pacuare from flooding its plantations and properties and to divert them completely to the Canal Chiquerón.
The defendant COBAL, in addition to the construction of the two dikes indicated in the previous fact, has built on its properties, without municipal permits and without environmental studies, secondary and tertiary canals that collect the rainwater from its banana farms Gigante and Doble Alianza, and direct them as part of the drainage system to the Quebrada La Mona and to a peripheral canal known as Canal Chiquerón. They also built, in the year 2003, a floodgate that prevents water access from the Quebrada La Mona towards their plantations. Empresa Bandeco: In the same years 2002 and 2003, BANDECO built and rebuilt, without municipal permits and without environmental studies, a dike that borders the entire Canal Chiquerón between the geographical coordinates [Value 053]; [Value 054]; [Value 054]; and [Value 055], which in turn borders the banana farm Imperio I. This dike is segmented into several parts as indicated below: a. The dike begins at the geographical coordinate [Value 056], with a direction of 277° 13', with a distance of 239 meters; b. It continues with the direction 280° 30', with a distance of 215 meters; c. It reaches a curve of 19 meters radius and a distance of 32 meters, with the direction 185°36', with a distance of 1580 meters; d. It reaches another curve that has a radius of 29 meters and a distance of 39 meters, following a direction 87° 06'; with a distance of 440 meters; and e. The dike ends at coordinates [Value 057], [Value 058].
BANDECO built this dike without permits with the intention of preventing, when extraordinary events generated mainly by the overflow of the Río Reventazón and the rise in the level of rainwater and overflows of the Río Pacuare occur, the plantations of Finca Imperio I from being flooded, which causes this dike to divert the waters that overflow towards the Asentamiento San Pancracio. It explains that the companies COBAL and BANDECO, in the year 2002 and the year 2003, carried out earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and compaction material work, for the construction of the dikes and the internal water channeling canals in the farms Gigante and Doble Alianza, and Imperio I, respectively, indicated in facts eighteen, nineteen, and twenty, without having the geological studies, environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental) from SETENA, and municipal, environmental, and urban planning permits that they should have obtained, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 17 and 18 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, and municipal legislation.
Construction without permits: The Company BANDECO never processed the necessary applications and requirements for the granting of mining concessions for the construction of the dikes, according to the records of the Dirección de Geología y Minas nor before the Departamentos de Aguas, both Departments of MINAET. Likewise, the Company COBAL never processed the necessary applications and requirements for the granting of mining concessions for the construction of the dikes, according to the records of the Dirección de Geología y Minas, it also being affirmed that the construction of the two dikes by COBAL on the Quebrada La Mona, which crosses the farms Doble Alianza and Gigante, and the dike that borders the Canal Chiquerón and Finca Imperio 1 of BANDECO, as well as the earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and the creation of stormwater canals by both companies, were carried out without prior permission or authorization, and without any coordination with the CNE, and with the absolute complacency and omission of the CNE.
Damages from the years 2002 and 2003 and their cause (the activities of the defendant companies): The agricultural and livestock vocation of the parcels that make up the Asentamiento San Pancracio, has as its main purpose—if not the only one—a subsistence activity for the inhabitants of the Settlement. This purpose of subsistence was lost after the repeated and devastating floods caused by the overflow of the rivers Pacuare and Reventazón in the months of November and December of the year 2002 and the month of December of the year 2003 and up to the present, by virtue of the construction of the two dikes by COBAL on the Quebrada La Mona, which crosses the farms Doble Alianza and Gigante, and the dike that borders the Canal Chiquerón and Finca Imperio 1 of BANDECO, as well as the earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and construction of the stormwater canals that were carried out with the sole purpose of protecting their proprietary interests.
In the first "floods" of these rivers in the months of November and December of the year 2002 and the month of December of the year 2003, in the community of San Pancracio, heads of cattle, pigs, poultry, fertilizers, seeds, agricultural inputs of different natures, entire plantations were lost, the floodwaters tore homes from their foundations and with them furniture, appliances, clothing, personal objects, and other belongings, as well as the peace of living in the area due to the imminent threat of losing everything in a flood. In the Geological-Environmental Reconnaissance Visit Report of July of the year 2003, prepared by Geologist Gabriela Calvo Vargas, it was concluded, among other things, in points 5 and 6 of conclusions and recommendations that, the management of the internal canal system together with the Quebrada La Mona, could induce the directing of water towards the Asentamiento San Pancracio (referring to the dikes built by COBAL).
This report also concludes that by virtue of the fact that the dikes that border the plantations do not have on their surface vegetation cover (cobertura vegetal) to prevent erosion, when an extraordinary flood event occurs, significant soil erosion of the dikes can be generated, and therefore a significant contribution of sediments in the waters that reach the Settlement, which evidences the consequences suffered by the Settlement. Further on, it is said that currently they are maintained by reconstructions carried out after the year 2003, as is the case of the reconstruction carried out by BANDECO in June 2012. These dikes have drastically and dramatically altered the course of the rainwater and fluvial waters of the Río Pacuare, and have the sole objective of preventing floods in the banana farms and protecting their banana plantations. It then affirms that the Municipality certified in June of the year 2009 that the Companies COBAL and BANDECO do not have and had not processed any building permits or earthworks (movimientos de tierras) during the decade of 2000, except COBAL which processed a permit for a leachate lagoon dated April 14, 2009, the municipal council not carrying out any administrative action aimed at avoiding, preventing, or even requesting the defendant Companies not to carry out the construction of dikes to protect their plantations and properties, which reflects a clear omission of their administrative functions (omissive conduct) and the non-exercise of their legal competencies (administrative power).
Reference to what was raised and resolved by the Sala Constitucional, in the amparo remedy filed by the Asociación de Productores de San Pancracio: through Voto 2004-04944, the Sala Constitucional granted the amparo remedy filed by the Asociación San Pancracio and ordered COBAL and BANDECO to refrain from building dikes, carrying out earthworks (movimientos de tierras), as well as water diversion on the banks of the rivers Reventazón and Pacuare, until they have the corresponding permits from the competent authorities. In this way, the request of the residents of the Asentamiento San Pancracio, at that time grouped in the Association, was granted, and the causal link between the actions of COBAL and BANDECO with the regrettable events that occurred in the floods in the months of November and December 2002 and subsequently in the month of December 2003 is openly demonstrated, a series of palliative measures being ordered in that resolution, among them it ordered the Municipality, the Ministerio de Salud, and MINAE, to carry out the pertinent studies to reliably determine the incidence of the dikes, earthworks (movimientos de tierra), and water diversion carried out by the banana companies COBAL and BANDECO, on the environment, about which the aforementioned Administrative Authorities had to inform the Court within the non-extendable period of two months counted from the notification of the judgment, the defendant companies and the State and public institutions appealed against also being ordered to pay the damages caused.
It questions that despite the foregoing, earthworks (movimientos de tierra) on the dikes and the banks of the rivers Pacuare and Reventazón are currently common, always under the argument of "emergency necessity". The Companies continue carrying out these works in protection of their plantations, such as the raising and repair of the dikes despite the order of the Sala Constitucional, and the appealed public entities, state and local, continue with their omissive conduct, allowing these works to be carried out by the Companies. Therefore, continuously, year after year since 2002, the properties of the plaintiffs, their belongings, and their patrimonial assets continue to be affected, such as, but not limited to: they lose cattle, poultry, fertilizers, crops, and fundamentally the nature of the lands has deteriorated from the time when the IDA segregated and delivered them, as well as soil contamination from the Companies' chemicals and contamination of the drinking water wells, which directly affects health.
On the execution of the amparo: It explains that having granted the amparo remedy filed before the Sala Constitucional, and in response to the provisions of said judgment, the affected residents—grouped in the Asociación San Pancracio—resorted to the civil jurisdiction to enforce the judgment in the Juzgado Civil de Mayor Cuantía del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica, the action being rejected due to a series of technical-procedural errors, for a lack of standing to sue, because the Direct Damages caused to the associates can only be claimed by the directly affected and not by the Asociación San Pancracio, as indicated in the first-instance judgment number 37-2008, and which was confirmed by the Tribunal del Segundo Circuito de la Zona Atlántica, Pococí, through Voto No. 67-2008 of September 12, 2008. What has happened after the processing of the amparo remedy: It is stated that the Companies COBAL and BANDECO have not carried out the necessary steps or studies that would allow adopting modifications to the dikes and canals on their property to correct the harmful actions that caused the floods since the year 2003, by virtue of the works carried out by the Companies in the years 2002, 2003, and subsequent years.
However, they have carried out other earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and constructions, despite the fact that in the Municipality of Siquirres it is on record that they have not processed the corresponding permits, indicating that the flooding problems persist by virtue of the fact that the competent institutions, be it the Municipality, the Ministerio de Salud, CNE, as well as MINAET, have not ordered the Companies to take the pertinent measures or, at the least, to refrain from carrying out more earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and constructions. The omissive conduct of these public entities, national and local, also includes not carrying out themselves or managing the necessary actions to guarantee that the floods that began in the year 2003 do not continue to occur, or that their effects are minimized or reduced. Even the CNE has breached its legal duty and has not exercised its public competence in managing this emergency situation that occurs year after year, nor has it fulfilled its duty to coordinate the Interinstitutional Commission.
The CNE has the duty to carry out comprehensive interinstitutional management, which it has not done, see official letter IMN-DA-0518-2004 dated March 3, 2004, sent by Mr. José Miguel Zeledón Calderón of the Departamento de Aguas, to the president of the CNE. It considers that the CNE is considered and designated by all other State institutions as the "COORDINATOR" of the "Comité Interinstitucional de Gestión de Ríos del País", who also has the competence under a risk management approach that the Law assigns to it, the duty to seek a comprehensive solution to the problems caused by the Companies and the omissive actions of the other public entities. It affirms that since the year 2003, the residents of the Asentamiento San Pancracio (including the plaintiffs), each one in their respective proportion and patrimony, have lost the opportunity to develop and exploit their parcels as indicated by the certifications issued by the IDA.
The agricultural and livestock vocation of the parcels has been diminished and reduced, due to the constant floods and the change in their course since the Companies COBAL and BANDECO built the dikes. It is argued that the representatives of the Asociación de San Pancracio, plaintiffs in the present lawsuit, agreed with the recommendation made by the Departamento de Aguas of MINAE which recommended demolishing the dike of the Canal Chiquerón, according to resolutions IMN-DA-2459-05 at 8:00 a.m. on September 13, 2005, IMN-DA-1671-05 of June 30, 2005, and IMN-DA-1045-05 and IMN-DA-1134-05. It points out that to this day, none of the proposals and recommendations ordered by the Departamento de Aguas of MINAE in the following official letters: (a) IMNDA-2910-2004; (b) IMN-DA-1134-05; (c) IMN-DA-1660-05; (d) IMN-DA-1671-05; (e) IMN-DA-1671-05; (f) IMN-DA-2459-05; (g) IMN-DA-0246-2007, have been executed or carried out in the field.
It says that to this day—considering that the floods began in the year 2003—a considerable number of cattle have died drowned and due to the ingestion of mud and sediments. Likewise, exposure to diseases has increased since the floods began. Not only because of the stagnant waters that serve for the accumulation of diseases such as dengue, mosquitoes, bad odors, among other risks and nuisances; but also because when the parcels flood, the protections of the septic tanks are undermined and lifted, generating a vector of diseases due to the overflow of blackwater. There is, year after year, anguish and social suffering among the residents of the community of the Asentamiento San Pancracio, who are emotionally affected by the floods and must face feelings of frustration, anguish, desperation, uncertainty, fear, and even generalized anxiety. All these feelings arise every time a downpour begins in the area.
The Court considers that the facts of the reformulation of the lawsuit (filed on April 19, 2013), fundamentally correspond to what was raised and resolved in case file of the Sala Constitucional No. 03-9991-0007-CO, in which the Asociación Administradora de la Producción Agrícola y Coordinación Institucional del Asentamiento San Pancracio, representing the collective interests of the community residents in environmental matters, had achieved a declaration that the works on the existing dikes and earthworks (movimientos de tierras) in the canals carried out by the same companies sued here (at that time, COBAL and Bandeco), violated the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, by not having the connivance of the appealed authorities (Ministerios de Salud y Ambiente and Municipalidad de Siquirres), with the corresponding environmental feasibilities, such as required by Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (No. 7554 of October 4, 1995), which states: "Human activities that alter or destroy elements of the environment or generate waste, toxic or hazardous materials, will require an environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) by the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental created in this law.
Its prior approval, by this body, will be an indispensable requirement to initiate the activities, works, or projects. The laws and regulations will indicate which activities, works, or projects will require the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental)." Now then, if the aforementioned Association represented the residents of San Pancracio and it was demonstrated that all the plaintiffs are, or have been in the past, residents of that community and other surrounding populations, all such communities affected by the floods, in application of the provisions of Article 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, this Court of Contentious-Administrative Matters is immutable and cannot question or distort what was analyzed and resolved by the Sala Constitucional, regarding the case: that is, it is taken as proven that the private companies owning the neighboring farms carried out earthworks (movimientos de tierras), as well as made water diversions on the banks of the rivers Reventazón and Pacuare, without having environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental) or the corresponding permits from the competent authorities, violating the constitutional right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, with the connivance of the appealed authorities therein, the Ministerio de Salud and Municipalidad de Siquirres, the plaintiffs herein being benefited as owners and precarious possessors of said neighborhood action, for the purpose not only of protecting said right under Article 50 of the Constitution, but also for the purpose of the corresponding proprietary claim, as interruptive acts of the statute of limitations for claiming property damages (as we will develop further on).
It should be remembered that Article 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional establishes the binding nature of the rulings of the Sala Constitucional, erga omnes (obviously including the jurisdictional bodies of other matters, such as this Court). Thus, by virtue of that rule and of judgment 2004-4944 at fifteen hours and eleven minutes on May six, two thousand four, any civil work carried out by individuals or public institutions in the area must have the corresponding environmental feasibility (viabilidad ambiental), issued by the competent public body established in the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, the Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA), any construction or earthwork (movimiento de tierra) that has been carried out without the approval of said instance also being contrary to law, if carried out after April of the year 2008, when the same Sala Constitucional issued resolution No. 2008-007190 at 14 hours on April 25, 2008, which closed the processing of that amparo remedy, where it was declared that the companies appealed therein (and which were again sued in this proceeding), had not breached the order not to carry out works on the existing dikes and earthworks (movimientos de tierras) in the canals, without having the corresponding permits.
Now then, it is considered that the 2004 judgment of the constitutional jurisdiction maintains its effects, because from what has been proven in this case file, it is evident that the phenomenon of flooding has remained constant since that time until today and also because the Sala Constitucional, having to comply with the duty to have permits to carry out works on the dikes and earthworks (movimientos de tierra) in the agricultural farms neighboring the locality of San Pancracio, which is rooted in the provisions of Article 50 of the Constitution and the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, and given that the constitutional court itself did not limit the effects of what was resolved in time.
As a consequence of what was explained above and of what was resolved by the Sala Constitucional, both the amparo judgment of the year 2004, specifically in proven fact j): "Through official letter UPAH/RPP-001-200 of January 14, 2003 (sic), the Unidad de Protección Humano of the Ministerio de Salud Pública, indicates that during an inspection carried out in the area, it was determined that the sued companies carried out earthworks (movimientos de tierra), rebuilt some existing dikes, and erected new ones. The works were carried out in areas at risk of overflow of the Río Pacuare and the Río Reventazón. Likewise, the works carried out did not have the technical environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) studies (folio 282)"; as well as in the resolution that dismissed the claim of disobedience of what was resolved by that same high court, of the year 2008, as well as from what was proven in proven fact 8 above, it is taken as proven that:
It should be noted that this Chamber does not ignore the content of a legal norm, Article 89 of the Ley de Aguas (No. 276 of August 27, 1942), which establishes that owners of lands that border public watercourses "(...) have the freedom to erect defenses against the waters on their respective banks by means of plantings, stockades, or linings, whenever they deem it convenient" and that also establishes "The administration may, however, after prior proceedings, order such works to be suspended and even restore things to their previous state, when due to the circumstances they threaten to cause damages to navigation or flotation of the rivers, divert the currents from their natural course, or produce floods. The compensation for damages that may be caused shall be borne by the owner who ordered the construction of the defenses," but it must also be taken into account that this legal norm cannot be applied in isolation but in harmony with the enactment of the fundamental right to a healthy and ecologically balanced environment, with the inclusion of a second paragraph to constitutional numeral 50, by Law No. 7412 of June 3, 1994, and with the issuance of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, and it cannot empower the owners of lands bordering rivers to carry out just any activity, without demonstrating that it does not cause damage to the natural environment and neighboring communities.
Bearing in mind that even, in the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) (Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31849 of May 24, 2004), expressly, in the "List of projects, works, and activities obliged according to specific laws to comply with the Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) process or Environmental Impact Study before SETENA," it includes within the activities that obligatorily require an Environmental Impact Assessment (Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental) (which by its nature, can be carried out before and even subsequently, in a case like the present, where there is an urgent situation to protect plantations), works carried out in public domain watercourses, and the modification of watercourses, as occurred in the present case.
In this way, it is verified that the earthworks (movimientos de tierra) and the maintenance of dikes carried out in the months of July and August 2012, by the company Bandeco, directly violated the judgment of the Sala Constitucional of the year 2004, Article 17 of the Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, and the Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, having already violated those last two norms as it had done in the works of the year 2003.
As for Chiquita Brands, the non-observance of those norms only occurred regarding the works carried out in the year 2003.
It informs that in light of the events, a contracting of machinery was carried out to attend to the San Pancracio area, contract No. 2018PI-000249-000650000, with Andremu Sociedad Anónima, with the Technical Unit for Municipal Road Management of Siquirres and Engineer William Solano Ocampo, an official of that municipality, being responsible for the technical direction and supervision of the works.- Now, this Chamber considers that, although the existence of floods for the month of July 2018 is proven to satiety, this situation does not give rise to liability for the defendant companies, nor for the public entities also sued, because it is not demonstrated that these floods, due to acts of nature, were aggravated by the situation of the dikes and channeling, and no type of liability can be generated for that situation.- IX) Analysis of claims 2, 3, 7, and 9 of the complaint: In support of what was stated in the preceding considerando: it was proven that these situations were never foreseen or prevented by the authorities of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, MINAE), specifically by the Water Directorate (Dirección de Aguas) (see the testimony at trial of its Director José Miguel Zeledón Calderón), which has breached its duty to ensure that the defenses that private parties build in public domain watercourses, to protect their properties, may cause damage to third parties (Article 89 of the Water Law (Ley de Aguas)), or by the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, SETENA), which, despite knowing since 2004 that it is responsible for overseeing the environmental impact on nature and the inhabitants of the San Pancracio area due to the situation of the dikes and channeling, has never fulfilled the duties established by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) and the Organic Law of the Environment (Ley Orgánica del Ambiente) and has not required the performance of the environmental studies required for the works carried out by the neighboring agricultural companies.- Furthermore, the Municipality of Siquirres has breached its legal duties, which must ensure, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 169 of the Constitution, 1 of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), and 26 of the Emergency Law (Ley de Emergencias) (No. 7914, which will be explained below), the duty to look after and administer the local interests and those of each of the residents, by not having adopted control measures or carried out works to prevent or lessen the floods in the area (which endanger the life, health, and property of many people, including those of humble condition), and furthermore, it did not prevent the IDA from having, in its time, established a peasant settlement, with a sizable population, in a floodable area, with the inevitable risk for persons and property, even issuing the municipal building permits required by the Construction Law (Ley de Construcciones) for all construction.- In the same way, the CNE, in its capacity as the governing entity in matters of emergency prevention and management, breached the duties provided for in Article 26 of the Emergency Law (Ley de Emergencias), No. 7914 of September 28, 1999, which was in force between that year and the year 2005, said norm providing that: "The Commission shall be obliged to issue resolutions ordering that forestry, mining, river, and other exploitation permits not be granted in places of imminent emergency risk.
It may also issue this type of resolutions based on the threats or risks present in any part of the national territory. Said resolutions shall be binding and, therefore, of obligatory compliance for the institutions responsible for the corresponding sector.// Likewise, the Commission shall prepare an official document, of obligatory and binding compliance, indicating the places and the reasons why no construction, building, expansion, or modification project for human settlements may be authorized, either partially or totally, in areas of previously established imminent emergency risk. This document shall be sent to the following entities: a) To each municipality, with the indication of the geographic risk zones located within its jurisdiction.// b) To the entities responsible for authorizing constructions.// c) To the Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, which shall be obliged to publicize it.// Under no circumstances may the officials competent to issue such authorizations disregard the official document or the particular resolutions on prohibition of specific buildings issued by the Commission, under penalty of loss of office and the corresponding administrative, civil, and criminal liabilities.// Natural or legal persons, public or private, who build in the prohibited zones cited in this article, shall be subject to the obligation to demolish the work in accordance with the second paragraph of Article 11 of this law." Furthermore, the duties provided for in numeral 14, subsections h) and k) of the current Emergency Law (Ley de Emergencias) (No. 8488 of November 22, 2005) are breached: "Article 14.-Ordinary prevention competencies of the commission.
The Commission shall be the governing entity regarding risk prevention and preparations for handling emergency situations. It must fulfill the following competencies: (...) h) Advise municipalities regarding the management of information on the risk conditions that affect them, as is the case of guidance for an effective land use and territorial planning policy. The advice must contribute to the preparation of regulatory plans, the adoption of control measures, and the promotion of organization, aimed at reducing the vulnerability of people, considering that, at the municipal level, the responsibility for facing this problem falls in the first instance. (...) k) Promote the creation and strengthening of regional, municipal, and local capacities for the management of emergency situations.// If necessary, it includes participation in alert, alarm, mobilization, and population assistance actions."- It calls the Tribunal's attention that, despite nearly 19 years having passed since the first analyzed floods and despite the existence of rulings from the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), restoring the residents to the exercise of their fundamental rights due to the actions and omissions of private companies and public authorities, to date, not even the submission and performance of environmental impact studies (estudios de impacto ambiental) on the functioning of the existing dikes and channeling has been achieved, this serious situation needing to be resolved according to law.- By reason of the foregoing, the aforementioned petitionary items 2), 3), and 7) must be granted, declaring that the two defendant companies were responsible for carrying out, without the permits required by law, the constructions relating to the dikes, earthworks (movimientos de tierras) in the rivers and channels, in the San Pancracio de Siquirres area, with said companies, the State (for the stated omissions of the National Environmental Technical Secretariat (SETENA) and the Water Directorate (Dirección de Aguas), both dependencies of the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE)), the Municipality, and the CNE being responsible for omitting to carry out the studies necessary to prevent floods in said place.
Said public entities must carry out the necessary actions and works in a coordinated manner and within the scope of their competencies, to prevent, avoid, and reduce the negative impacts of the floods, to the detriment of the plaintiffs herein and the inhabitants of San Pancracio and neighboring places. All ordered actions must be monitored for compliance at the initiative of the parties, by the Execution Judge of this Tribunal, in exercise of the powers provided for in Article 155 and following of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo). The period of one year from the finality of this judgment is deemed reasonable for the State and the other institutions to carry out said activities and works.- The ninth claim described above, consisting of a declaration that no one has taken the necessary steps to resolve the pressing situation that continues to constantly generate damages to the plaintiffs, both personally and collectively, for damages to the environment and to the ecosystems of the zone, must be rejected, because they are understood to be encompassed in their content within the three previous claims.- X) Analysis of petitionary items 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 of the complaint: Now, the mentioned claims must be rejected in their entirety, for different reasons:
The exceptions of statute of limitations (prescripción) and lack of active and passive standing (legitimación) are rejected. The defense of lack of right is granted regarding the rejected claims, and said exception is rejected regarding the dismissed claims. Consequently, the complaint is partially granted, it being understood as rejected to the extent that any point is not mentioned in this operative part. It is declared that Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte, Sociedad Anónima, and Chiquita Brands Costa Rica, Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada, are responsible for carrying out, without the permits required by law, the constructions relating to the dikes, earthworks (movimientos de tierras) in the rivers and channels, in the area of San Pancracio de Siquirres, with said companies, the State, the Municipality of Siquirres, and the Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias being responsible for omitting to carry out the necessary studies to perform said works.
The defendant public entities are also ordered, within a period of one year from the finality of this judgment, to carry out in a coordinated manner the necessary actions and works, within the scope of their competencies, to prevent, avoid, and reduce the negative impacts of the floods, to the detriment of the plaintiffs herein and the inhabitants of San Pancracio and neighboring places. At a party's initiative, all ordered actions and works must be verified for their compliance in accordance with the law, by the Execution Judge of this Tribunal. This matter is resolved without a special pronouncement on costs for any of the parties and for the interested third party, the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural. Notify.- Jonatán Canales Hernández, Rosa María Cortés Morales, Fabián Núñez Castrillo, Judges.-
Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sentencias del mismo expediente Sentencia con datos protegidos, de conformidad con la normativa vigente Contenido de Interés:
Temas Estrategicos: Derechos Humanos,Ambiental,Der Económicos sociales culturales y ambientales Tipo de contenido: Voto de mayoría Rama del Derecho: Derecho Ambiental Tema: Medio ambiente Subtemas:
Deber de entes públicos de realizar acciones necesarias para prevenir, evitar y reducir inundaciones por construcción de diques y movimientos de tierras en ríos efectuados por sociedades responsables sin los estudios de impacto ambiental. Improcedencia de indemnización ante falta de presupuestos en caso de responsabilidad por inundaciones derivadas de construcciones de diques y movimientos de tierra en ríos sin los permisos de ley.
Tema: Derecho a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado Subtemas:
Deber de entes públicos de realizar acciones necesarias para prevenir, evitar y reducir inundaciones por construcción de diques y movimientos de tierras en ríos efectuados por sociedades responsables sin los estudios de impacto ambiental. Improcedencia de indemnización ante falta de presupuestos en caso de responsabilidad por inundaciones derivadas de construcciones de diques y movimientos de tierra en ríos sin los permisos de ley.
Tema: Estudio de impacto ambiental Subtemas:
Deber de entes públicos de realizar acciones necesarias para prevenir, evitar y reducir inundaciones por construcción de diques y movimientos de tierras en ríos efectuados por sociedades responsables sin los estudios de impacto ambiental.
Tema: Indemnización al administrado Subtemas:
Improcedencia de indemnización ante falta de presupuestos en caso de responsabilidad por inundaciones derivadas de construcciones de diques y movimientos de tierra en ríos sin los permisos de ley.
Tema: Responsabilidad civil de la Administración Subtemas:
Improcedencia de indemnización ante falta de presupuestos en caso de responsabilidad por inundaciones derivadas de construcciones de diques y movimientos de tierra en ríos sin los permisos de ley.
"IX.-[...]En razón de lo anterior, se deben acoger los extremos petitorios 2), 3) y 7) antecitadso, declarando que las dos sociedades demandadas fueron responsables de realizar sin los permisos exigidos por la ley, las construcciones referentes a los diques, movimientos de tierras en los ríos y canales, en la zona de San Pancracio de Siquirres, siendo responsables tanto dichas compañías, el Estado (por las omisiones dichas de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y la Dirección de Aguas, ambas dependencias del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía), la Municipalidad y la CNE, de omitir la realizació n de los estudios necesarios para prevenir las inundaciones en dicho lugar. Dichos entes públicos deberán realizar las acciones y obras necesarias de forma coordinada y dentro del ámbito sus competencias, para prevenir, evitar y reducir los impactos negativos de las inundaciones, en perjuicio de los aquí actores y los habitantes de San Pancracio y lugares vecinos." ... Ver más Citas de Legislación y Doctrina Sentencias Relacionadas EV Generación de Machote: F:\Gestion-Judicial\Servidor de Archivos\Modelos\Contencioso\TCRESOL016.dpj ????????????????
CONOCIMIENTO ACTOR/A:
[Nombre 003] DEMANDADO/A:
ATLANTICA LIMITADA COMPAÑIA BANANERA N° 2025003007 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL, SAN JOSÉ, GOICOECHEA, a las nueve horas con cuarenta y siete minutos del veintisiete de Marzo del dos mil veinticinco.- Por disposición de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, se vuelve a emitir sentencia, en el proceso de conocimiento de las siguientes personas:
l. [Nombre 001], [...]; 2. [Nombre 002], [...]; 3. [Nombre 003], [...]; 4. [Nombre 004] [...]; 5. [Nombre 005], [...]; 6. [Nombre 006], [...]; 7. [Nombre 007], [...]; 8. [Nombre 008], [...]; 9. [Nombre 009], [...]; 10. [Nombre 010], [...]; 11. [Nombre 011], [...]; 12. Sucesión de quien en vida fue [Nombre 012], [...], representada por la albacea provisional, [Nombre 013], [...] (inscrita en el Registro de Personas Jurídicas, en el asiento [Valor 001]); 13. [Nombre 014], [...]; 14. [Nombre 015], [...]; 15. [Nombre 016], [...]; 16. [Nombre 017], [...]; 17. [Nombre 018], [...]; 18. [Nombre 019], [...]; 19. [Nombre 020], [...]; 20. [Nombre 021], [...]; · 21. [Nombre 022], [...]; 22. [Nombre 023], [...]; 23. [Nombre 024], [...]; 24. [Nombre 025], [...]; 25. [Nombre 026], [...].
26. [Nombre 027], [...]; 27. [Nombre 028], [...], todos representados por Mariela Martínez Gómez, carné N° 20792, Roger Guevara Vega, carné N° 10097 y John Brenes Rodríguez, carné N° 27072 (apoderados especiales judiciales); contra:
1. Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte, Sociedad Anónima (en adelante, "Bandeco"), representados por Álvaro Meza Lázarus, carné N° 2502 y Jimmy Meza Lázarus, carné N° 5938 (apoderados especiales judiciales); 2. Chiquita Brands Costa Rica Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada (anteriormente denominada Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada, "COBAL"), en adelante, "CB", representada por Aldo Milano Sánchez, carné N° 4730 y María Lourdes Echandi Gurdián, carné N° 4932 (apoderados especiales judiciales); 3. El Estado, representado por Bernardo Lara Flores, carné N° 8009 (Procurador Adjunto); 4. La Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, en adelante, "la CNE", representada por Arianna Jiménez Espinoza, carné N° 12211 y José Fernando Rodríguez Paniagua, carné 12301 (apoderados especiales judiciales) y; 5. La Municipalidad de Siquirres, en adelante, "la Municipalidad" o "el ayuntamiento", representado por José Alonso Valverde Fonseca, carné N° 11209 (apoderado especial judicial).- Aparece como tercero interesado, el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (inicialmente denominado, Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario), en adelante, "el INDER", representada por Natanael Barrantes Azofeifa, carné N° 19857 (apoderado especial judicial). Todas las personas antes mencionadas son mayores de edad y los representantes son abogados.-
Considerando:
a- La CNE contestó el 9 de junio del 2011. No presentó excepciones (1287-1296); b- El Estado contestó el 9 de junio del 2011. Opone las excepciones de prescripción, falta de legitimación activa y pasiva y falta de derecho. Pide que se declare sin lugar la acción, condenándose a la contraparte al pago de ambas costas, con sus intereses (1297-1324); c- Bandeco contestó el 23 de junio del 2011. Opone las excepciones de defectuosa representación, falta de capacidad de quienes interponen la demanda; falta de legitimación; falta de derecho. Pide que se declare sin lugar la acción, condenándose a la contraparte al pago de ambas costas, con sus intereses (1326-1529); d- CB contestó el 23 de junio del 2011. Opone las excepciones de falta de legitimación activa y falta de derecho. Pide que se declare sin lugar la acción, condenándose al pago de ambas costas (1659-1686) .
e- la Municipalidad de Siquirres contestó el 24 de junio del 2011. Opone las excepciones de falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa, falta de integración de la litis consorcio necesaria y falta de derecho. Pide que se declare sin lugar la acción, condenándose al pago de ambas costas (1689-1712); El Tribunal por resolución de las trece horas y once minutos del veintiuno de setiembre del año dos mil once, dio por contestada la acción en tiempo y forma (1817-1818).-
a- CNE, el 8 de noviembre del 2012 (2053-2055); b- Bandeco, el 12 de noviembre del 2012 (2056-2066); c- CB, el 13 de noviembre del 2012 (2072); e- el Estado, el 4 de diciembre del 2012 (2089-2091); 8) Que la audiencia preliminar fue dirigida por la Jueza Godelieve López Salas y fue celebrada el 12 de abril del 2013. En esa oportunidad: se fijaron las pretensiones; se acogió la defensa previa de demanda defectuosa interpuesta por CB. Se le indica a la parte actora que deben realizar las siguientes correcciones: 1-Establecer hechos claros, precisos y circunstanciados, los cuales deben ser puros y simples; 2- Indicar las conductas activas y omisivas que se imputan a cada uno de los demandados (la minuta se aprecia a imágenes 2139-2144); 9) Que la reformulación de la demanda ordenada, se realizó el 19 de abril del 2013 (2145-2236); 10) Que la reformulación fue contestada por los codemandados, en esa oportunidad:
a- Bandeco 1 de julio del 2013 (2388-2393); b- COBAL 3 de julio del 2013 (2394-2396); la misma COBAL en fecha 8 de julio del 2013 (2398-2408); c- la CNE 8 de julio del 2013 (2428-2440); d- el Estado; 12 de julio del 2013 (2448-2472); e- Bandeco, el 28 de agosto del 2013 (2476-2531); f- la Municipalidad, el 30 de agosto del 2013 (2544);
Una refrigeradora de once pies 158.000,00 Un juego de sala de seis piezas 118.000,00 Un ropero de madera 62.000,00 Tres camas individuales 318.000,00 Daños en pintura de una casa pequeña 250.000,00
Dos· mil seiscientos metros de cerca de 1.3000.000,00 (sic)
alambre de púa Ocho pasos de alcantarilla 240.000,00 Cuatro mil pulgadas de madera 320.000,00 Cuarenta hectáreas de pastos 5.923.620,00 Una bomba de agua 25.000,00 Reparación de romana para pesar ganado 10.000,00 Reparación de una prensa para ganado 30.000,00 Quince sacos de sal para ganado 60.000,00 Ocho sacos de fertilizantes 40.000,00 Cuatro terneros ahogados 600.000,00 Tres cerdos ahogados de 30 kilos cada 90.000,00 uno TOTAL DE DAÑOS 9.544.620 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por el señor [Nombre 001], al verse expuesto a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, la economía familiar, la salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales.
El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 69.544.620,00.
Una cocina eléctrica marca ATLAS 133.377,15 Dos roperos 24.000,00 Un juego de sala de tres piezas 118.000,00 Una refrigeradora de once piezas l58.000,00 Un juego de comedor de cuatro piezas 130.915,04 Cuatro camas individuales completas 204.000,00 Un trastero 58.000,00 Una lavadora de catorce libras 78.000,00 Una casa de madera de 42m2 1.000.000,00 Cuatro hectáreas de pasto 592.362,00 Media hectárea de plátano 262.928,04 Ochocientos metros de cerca 400.000,00 Seis cerdos ahogados de veinte kilos 240.000,00 cada uno Veinte gallinas 80.000,00 Dos sacos de fertilizantes 10.000,00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 3.589.579,23 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por el señor [Nombre 002], al verse expuesto a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, la de sus familiares, la economía familiar, la salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. Adicionalmente, estar totalmente abandonado institucional y estatalmente, a pesar de ser víctima de una situación que ha puesto en peligro su vida y la de familiares cercanos, por un período que alcanza aproximadamente 8 años. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Por concepto de perjuicios por la pérdida de plantación de plátano la suma de 1.377.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 24.966.579,23.
El origen de los daños es el mismo del señor [Nombre 001] a) DAÑOS:
Una casa mixta de 48 m2 8.000.000,00 Cuatro sacos de abono 20.000,00 Una vaca 150.000,00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 8.170.000,00 b) Daño moral: el mismo motivo y monto del señor [Nombre 002].- e) PERJUICIOS: La parcela es inhabitable además de que la viabilidad para su rehabilitación para desarrollar actividades agrícolas y ganaderas está limitada por el alto riesgo y la negativa de los entes bancarios para otorgar créditos y apalancamiento para dichas actividades, por lo que se estima el perjuicio causado en la suma de 12.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 30.170.000,00 4) [Nombre 004]:
El origen de los daños es el mismo del señor [Nombre 001].
Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
Una refrigeradora marca ATLAS 118.000,00 Una cocina eléctrica 133.3 77,15 Un ropero 62.000,00 Un congelador 450.000,00 Un juego de sala 118.000,00 Un juego de comedor 130. 915,04 Diez sacos de sal 50.000,00 Dos sacos de concentrado para gallinas 10.000,00 Cinco cerdos de aproximadamente 300.000,00 treinta kilos Treinta gallinas 60.000,00 Veinticinco pollos de engorde 25.000,00 Diez hectáreas de pasto 1.539.696,90 Una casa de madera de 64m2 2.000.000,00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 4.996.989,09 b) Daño moral: el mismo motivo y monto del señor [Nombre 002].- e) PERJUICIOS: La parcela es inhabitable además de que la viabilidad para su rehabilitación para desarrollar actividades agrícolas y ganaderas está limitada por el alto riesgo y la negativa de los entes bancarios para otorgar créditos y apalancamiento para dichas actividades, por lo que se estima el perjuicio causado en la suma de 20.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS: 23.996.989,09.
Una refrigeradora ATLAS de nueve pies 158.000,00 Un televisor a color de veinte pulgadas PANASONIC 139.000,00 Un equipo de sonido marca SONY 215 .000,00 Una licuadora marca OSTER 22.000,00 Un coffe maker 12.000,00 Un abanico 18.000,00 Una olla arrocera 15.618,57 Una lavadora All Star 150.000,00 Un juego de sala 180.000,00 Un colchón matrimonial 57.315,60 Un colchón individual 52.859,50 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 1.019.793,67 b) Daño moral: el mismo motivo y monto del señor [Nombre 002].- c) PERJUICIOS: La parcela es inhabitable además de que la viabilidad para su rehabilitación para desarrollar actividad,es agrícolas y ganaderas está limitada por el alto riesgo y la negativa de los entes bancarios para otorgar créditos y apalancamiento para dichas actividades, por lo que se estima el perjuicio causado en la suma de 20.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 31.019. 793,67.
Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
Una cocina eléctrica marca ATLAS 133.377,15 Un ropero 62.000,00 Un juego de sala de tres piezas 118.000,00 Un televisor PANASONIC de veintiún pulgadas 139.000,00 Una refrigeradora marca ATLAS de doce pies 203.000,00 Un juego de comedor de cuatro piezas 130.915,64 Una cama matrimonial 140.000,00 Una cuna 51.000,00 Un trastero 58.000,00 Una cómoda 80.000,00 Un equipo de sonido PANASONIC 158.000,00 Una lavadora de doce libras 82.000,00 Un abanico l8.000,00 Una casa de madera de 42m2 l.600.000,00 Tres cerdos de cuarenta kilos 240.000,00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 3.213.292,79 e) Daño moral: el mismo motivo y monto del señor [Nombre 002].- d) PERJUICIOS: Ha tenido que salir del Asentamiento San Pancracio debido a los daños sufridos en su patrimonio y las consecuencias devastadoras de las primeras inundaciones. La parcela es inhabitable además de que la viabilidad para su rehabilitación para desarrollar actividades agrícolas y ganaderas está limitada por el alto riesgo y la negativa de los entes bancarios para otorgar créditos y apalancamiento para dichas actividades, por lo que se estima el perjuicio causado en la suma de 8.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS: 21.213.292,10.
Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
Una cocina eléctrica 133.377,15 Dos roperos 124.000,00 Un juego de sala de tres piezas 118.000,00 Una refrigeradora 203.000,00 Un televisor SONY 21 pulgadas 278.000,00 Un juego de comedor de cuatro piezas 130.975,04 Una cama matrimonial 140.000,00 Un trastero 58.000,00 Una cómoda 80.000,00 Un equipo de sonido SANKEY l03.000,00 Una lavadora SAMSUNG 82.000,00 Una casa mixta de 56 m2 1.500.000,00 Dos cerdos de treinta kilos l80.000,00 Diez gallinas 20.000,00 Dos sacos de concentrado 10.000,00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 3.160.352,10 Daño moral: el mismo motivo y monto del señor [Nombre 002].- b) PERJUICIOS: La parcela de 800 m2 es inhabitable, por lo que tuvo que salir del Asentamiento San Pancracio a buscar otro lugar donde vivir y empezar desde cero su vida y la de su familia; además de que la viabilidad para su rehabilitación para desarrollar actividades agrícolas y ganaderas está limitada por el alto riesgo y la negativa de los entes bancarios para otorgar créditos y apalancamiento para dichas actividades, por lo que se estima el perjuicio causado en la suma de 11.000.000,00 .
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 24.160.352,10.
El origen de los daños es el mismo del señor [Nombre 001].
Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
Una cocina de gas 84.588,00 Un juego de sala 180.000,00 Un juego de comedor 130.915,04 Un trastero 58.000,00 Un ropero 62.000,00 Un cilindro de gas 12.000,00 Dos camas matrimoniales 280 . 000,00 Una cama individual 106.000,00 Una casa de madera de 63m2 950.000,00 Cincuenta gallinas lOO.OOO,OO Cuatro sacos de concentrado 20.000,00 Mil metros de cerca 500.000,00 Media hectárea de plátano 262 . 928,04 Media hectárea de frijoles 88.301,72 Media hectárea de arroz 117.408,00 Dos hectáreas de pasto 296.181,00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 3.248.322,20 Daño moral: el mismo motivo y monto del señor [Nombre 002].- b) PERJUICIOS: La parcela es inhabitable además de que la viabilidad para su rehabilitación para desarrollar actividades agrícolas y ganaderas está limitada por el alto riesgo y la negativa de los entes bancarios para otorgar créditos y apalancamiento para dichas actividades, por lo que se estima el perjuicio causado en la suma de 9.000.000,00 .
Perjuicios ocasionados por la pérdida de la plantación de plátano la suma de 1.377.000,00.
Perjuicios ocasionados por la pérdida de plantación de arroz la suma de 150.000,00.
Perjuicios ocasionados por la pérdida de plantación de frijoles la suma de 100.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 23.875.322,00.
Los mismos del señor [Nombre 001].
Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
Una cocina de gas ~130.900,00 Un juego de sala 118.000,00 Un juego de comedor 130.915,04 Un trastero 58.000,00 Un ropero 62.000,00 Una cama matrimonial l40.000,00 Tres camas individuales 318.000,00 Una refrigeradora 158.000,00 Una casa de madera 2.000.000,00 Veinticinco gallinas 50.000,00 Dos sacos de concentrado 10.000.00 Dos sacos de sal para ganado 10.000.00 Dos cerdos de treinta kilos l20.000,00 Setecientos metros de cerca 350.000,00 Una máquina de coser 95.717,52 Dos mil metros de cerca 1.000.000,00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 4.751.532,50 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS: 23.751.532,50 10) [Nombre 008] Los mismos del señor [Nombre 001] Los daños y pe1juicios consisten en los siguientes:
Una cocina de gas 84.588,00 Un juego de sala 118.833,00 Un juego de comedor 130.915,04 Un trastero 58.000,00 Un colchón matrimonial 57.315,66 Un colchón individual 17.619,83 Una casa de madera de 42 m2 950.000,00 Una casa mixta de 56 m2 1.200 .000,00 Veinte gallinas 40.000,00 Dos sacos de concentrado 10.000,00 Dos cerdos de treinta kilos 120.000,00 Seiscientos metros de cerca 300 .000,00 Media hectárea de plátano 262.928,04 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 3.051.199.50 d) Corresponde a la angustia sufrida (...) al verse expuesto a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, la economía familiar, la salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 18.428.199,50 11) [Nombre 027]:
Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
Una cocina eléctrica 113.377,15 Un juego de sala 180.000,00 Un juego de comedor 130.915,04 Un trastero 58.000,00 Una cama matrimonial 140.000,00 Una cama individual 106 .000,00 Una casa de madera de 99 m2 6.000.000,00 Una lavadora 128.000,00 Una refrigeradora 158.000,00 Un equipo de sonido SONY 220.000,00 Un televisor HITACHI de veintiún pulgadas 139.000,00 Un cepillo eléctrico 56 .000,00 Un coffe maker 10.000,00 Un ropero 62.000,00 Pérdida total de utensilios de cocma 450.000,00 TOTAL DE DANOS 7.971.292,10 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑ0S Y PREJUICIOS: 19.471.292,10 12) [Nombre 009]: Los mismos del señor [Nombre 001].
Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
Un juego de sala de tres piezas 118.000,00 Una refrigeradora de once pies 158.000,00 Un televisor de veintiún pulgadas 139.000,00 TOSHIBA Un juego de comedor de cuatro piezas 130.915,04 Una cama matrimonial 140.000,00 Una cómoda 80.000,00 Un colchón ortopédico 57.315,66 Una casa de cemento de 60 m2 4.500.000,00 Hectarea y media de pasto 222.135,75 Media hectárea de píátano 262.928,04 Doscientos metros de cerca 1OO.OOO,OO Dos cerdos ahogados de treinta kilos cada uno 120.000,00 Treinta gallinas 60.000,00 Dos sacos de concentrado 10.000,00 Dos terneros de cinco meses cada uno 160 .000,00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 6.258.293,00 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Perjuicios ocasionados por la pérdida de la plantación de plátano la suma de 1.377 .000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 31.635.293,00.
Los mismos del señor [Nombre 001].
Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
. a) DAÑOS:
Una cocina de gas de tres quemadores 84.588,00 Un ropero 62 .000,00 Un juego de sala de cuatro piezas l80.000,00 Un televisor marca SAMSUNG 139.000,00 Una refrigeradora marca ATLAS de doce pies 203 .000,00 Un juego de comedor de seis piezas 130.915,00 Un abanico mediano 12.000,00 Una cama matrimonial 140.000,00 Una cama individual 106.000,00 Un trastero 58.000,00 Una cómoda 80.000,00 Un equipo de sonido PANASONIC de cinco CD 158.000,00 Un saco de comestible 40.000,00 Una lavadora de doce libras 78 .000,00 Una casa de madera de 30 m2 350.000 ,00 Una casa de madera de 70m2 1.500.000,00 Dos hectáreas de pasto 296.181,00 Una hectárea de plátano 525.856,09 Media hectárea de maíz 98.757,15 Mil ochocientos metros de cerca 900.000,00 Seis cerdos de cincuenta kilos 600.000,00 Cincuenta gallinas 1OO.OOO,OO Cincuenta pollos de engorde con cuatro semanas 150.000,00 Seis sacos de fertilizantes 30.000,00 Dos sacos de sal para ganado 1.OOO,OO Dos sacos de concentrado 2.OOO,OO TOTAL DE DAÑOS 5.952.297,10 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Perjuicios ocasionados por pérdida de la plantación de plátano en la suma de 2.754.000,00.
Perjuicios ocasionados por pérdida de la plantación de frijoles en la suma de 138.757,15.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS: 27.845.054,25.
Una casa de madera de 56m2 3,360,000.00 Un juego de sala 118,000.00 Un juego de comedor 130,915.04 Un trastero 58,000.00 Un ropero 62,000.00 Dos camas individuales 212,000.00 Un televisor a color de 21 pulgadas 139,000.00 Un abanico 12,000.00 Una cocina eléctrica 133,377.15 Un saco de comestible 40,000.00 Una máquina de escribir manual 95,717.15 Una máquina de coser 30,000.00 Una radio grabadora 95,000.00 Una casa de habitación de 90m2 5,400,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 9,886,009.20 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
Una casa de habitación 3,500,000.00 Un televisor L.G. de 20 pulgadas 139,000.00 Una refrigeradora Atlas de 10 pies 158,000.00 Un equipo de sonido marca Panasonic 215,000.00 Una lavadora Daewoo de 18 litros 128,000.00 Un juego de sala 118,000.00 Un ropero 62,000.00 Una cama matrimonial 140,000.00 Una cama individual 106,000.00 Un juego de comedor para cuatro personas 130,915.04 Una plantilla de gas 48,000.00 Una cómoda de 6 gavetas 80,000.00 Una olla arrocera 15,618.57 Una licuadora ... 12,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 4,852,533.50 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 23.852.533,50.
Una cocina eléctrica marca Atlas de cuatro discos 133,377.15 Una cocina de gas de tres quemadores 84,588.00 Dos roperos 124,000.00 Un juego de sala de 3 piezas 118,000.00 Televisor marca Hitachi de 21 pulgadas 139,000.00 Refrigerador marca Atlas de 12 pies 203,000.00 Un juego de comedor de 6 piezas 130,915.04 Dos abanicos medianos 24,000.00 Una plancha eléctrica 12,000.00 Una licuadora Oster 22,000.00 Un VHS marca Panasonic 56,000.00 Un microondas marca Atlas 35,000.00 Una cama matrimonial 140,000.00 Tres camas individuales 318,000.00 Un trastero 58,000.00 Cuatro hectáreas de pasto 444,271.50 Media hectárea de plátano 262,928.04 Mil quinientos metros de cerca 750,000.00 Tres sacos de fertilizantes 15,000.00 Dos sacos de sal para ganado 10,000.00 Cien pollos de engorde de cuatro semanas 100,000.00 Cincuenta gallinas 100,000.00 Una casa mixta de 30 m2 y una de madera de 48 m2 4,225,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 7,505,079.60 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Perjuicios ocasionados por la pérdida de la plantación de plátano: 1.377.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: f. 27.882.079,60 17) [Nombre 015] El origen de los daños es el mismo indicado para el señor [Nombre 001] Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes a) DAÑOS:
Una cocina de gas de dos quemadores 84,588.00 Un juego de sala de 3 piezas 118,000.00 Un televisor de catorce pulgadas 55,501.75 Un juego de comedor de cuatro piezas 130,915.00 Una cama matrimonial 140,000.00 Una cama individual 51,000.00 Un trastero 58,000.00 Una cómoda 80,000.00 Una casa mixta de 30m2 950,000.00 Dos cerdos de treinta kilos 240,000.00 Diez gallinas 20,000.00 Dos sacos de concentrado 10,000.00 Ochocientos metros de cerca 400,000.00 Una hectárea de plátano 525,856.09 Un cuarto de hectárea de maíz 98,757.00 Hectárea y cuarto de arroz 293,521.48 Setenta y cinco árboles de teca 3,750,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 6,926,139.10 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Perjuicios ocasionados por la pérdida de la plantación de plátano: 2.754.000,00.
Perjuicios ocasionados por la pérdida de la plantación de arroz: 880.564,44 .
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 29.560.713,54.
Una cocina eléctrica 133,377.15 Un equipo de sonido Hitachi 158,000.00 Un ropero 62,000.00 Un juego de sala de 3 piezas 118,000.00 Un televisor de 14 pulgadas 55,501.75 Una lavadora de 12 libras 78,000.00 Una refrigeradora 203,000.00 Un juego de comedor de 4 piezas 130,915.00 Un colchón matrimonial 57,315.66 Dos colchones individuales 35,239.80 Una cómoda 80,000.00 Una casa mixta de 50m2 4,000,000.00 Doce quintales de arroz en granza 1,324,800.00 Un torete y dos vacas raza braham de 400 kg aproximadamente 3,000,000.00 Mil metros de cerca 500,000.00 Media hectárea de plátano 242,407.40 Media hectárea de arroz 224,520.59 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 10,403,076.00 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Perjuicios ocasionados producto de las pérdidas de la plantación de plátano: 1.377.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 38.780.076,00.
Una casa de cemento de 126 m2, piso de cerámica, dos habitaciones, sala, comedor, cocina y un local comercial dedicado a sala de belleza 15,000,000.00 Una casa de madera de 36 m2 1,000,000.00 Dos roperos 144,000.00 Dos cómodas 160,000.00 Una refrigeradora Atlas de 15 pies 203,000.00 Una lavadora de 18 libras 128,000.00 Una cocina eléctrica de cuatro discos 133,377.15 Un equipo de sonido All Star 158,000.00 Un mueble de cocina y utensilios 220,000.00 Vestido y calzado 300,000.00 Una licuadora 22,000.00 Un juego de sala 118,000.00 Una cama matrimonial 140,000.00 Dos camas individuales 124,000.00 Una máquina de coser Singer 95,717,75 Dos máquinas de cortar pelo 50,000.00 Dos secadoras de pelo 50,000.00 Cuatro cerdos de aproximadamente 60 kg cada uno 480,000.00 Veinte gallinas 42,000.00 Setenta reglas de madera de 1x5 y 50 postes de madera manú de 4x4 100,000.00 Una hectárea de pasto 148,090.50 Tres reses 500,000.00 Un corral para ganado 400,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 19,716,184.00 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Una casa prefabricada de 42m2 4,000,000.00 Una casa de madera de dos plantas de madera y fibrolit 7,000,000.00 Un corral para ganado 500,000.00 Dos juegos de sala 236,000.00 Un juego de comedor 130,915.04 Un ropero 62,000.00 Un trastero 58,000.00 Una refrigeradora Atlas de once pies 158,000.00 Una lavadora 82,000.00 Diez láminas de fibrolit 60,000.00 Una cocina de gas 84,588.00 Tres camas individuales 318,000.00 Una cama matrimonial 140,000.00 Un mueble para televisor 48,000.00 Una chanchera 50,000.00 Diez gallinas 20,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 15,467,503.00 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 29.967.503,00.
Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
Una casa de madera de 96m2 5,760,000.00 Un juego de sala 118,000.00 Un juego de comedor para seis personas 130,915,04 Un trastero 58,000.00 Dos roperos 124,000.00 Una cama matrimonial 140,000.00 Dos camas individuales 212,000.00 Una cocina eléctrica de cuatro discos 133,377.15 Un congelador de dos tapas 350,000.00 Dos refrigeradoras Atlas de dos puertas 316,000.00 Un local comercial dedicado a pulpería, así como el inventario de la misma 2,000,000.00 Quince reses 1,875,000.00 Veinticinco cerdos 3,000,000.00 Treinta gallinas 60,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 14,277,292.00 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Los perjuicios ocasionados por la pérdida de un local comercial dedicado a pulpería con un promedio de 145,833.33 de ganancias mensuales, se determinan en la suma de 3.500.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 29.777.292,00 22) [Nombre 020] El origen de los daños es el mismo indicado para el señor [Nombre 001] Los daños y perjuicios consisten en los siguientes:
Un juego de sala 180,000.00 Un juego de comedor para cuatro personas 180,915.00 Un trastero 80,000.00 Un ropero 62,000.00 Una cama matrimonial 140,000.00 Una cama individual 106,000.00 Una cocina de gas 133,377.15 Utensilios de cocina y vestido 450,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 1,332,922.15 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 15.332.922,15.
Una cocina eléctrica marca Atlas de 4 discos 133,377.15 Dos roperos 124,000.00 Un juego de sala de tres piezas 118,000.00 Un televisor marca Panasonic de 21 pulgadas 139,000.00 Una refrigeradora Atlas de dos puertas 203,000.00 Un juego de comedor de 6 piezas 130,915.04 Tres camas matrimoniales 420,000.00 Un trastero 58,000.00 Una cómoda 80,000.00 Un equipo de sonido LG de cinco CD 158,000.00 Una lavadora marca LG de doce libras 128,000.00 Un microondas mediano 35,000.00 Una casa mixta de 80m2 ... 2,000,000.00 Una casa de madera de 48 m2 1,500,000.00 Una hectárea de pasto 148,090.50 Media hectárea de plátano 262,928.04 Cuatrocientos metros de cerca 200,000.00 Seis cerdos de treinta kg 360,000.00 Veinte gallinas 80,000.00 Dos sacos de fertilizantes 10,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 6,282,310.70 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 24.659.310,70.
Una casa de madera de 56m2 3,360,000.00 Un juego de sala 118,000.00 Un juego de comedor 130,915.04 Una refrigeradora marca Atlas de 11 pies 158,000.00 Una lavadora 128,000.00 Una cama matrimonial 140,000.00 Dos camas individuales 212,000.00 •<" Un trastero 58,000.00 Un ropero 62,000.00 Una cocina eléctrica 133,377.15 Una olla arrocera 15,618.57 Tres colchones 103,000.00 Un equipo de sonido 103,000.00 Un televisor a color de 21 pulgadas 139,000.00 Once cerdos de 40 kg 640,000.00 Quince gallinas 30,000.00 Dos sacos de fertilizantes 10,000.00 Tres sacos de concentrado 15,000.00 Una bomba de agua 25,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 5,349,901.60 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 24.349.901,60.
Una cocina eléctrica de tres discos 133,377.15 Un ropero 62,000.00 Un juego de sala de 3 piezas 118,000.00 Un mueble de televisor 28,000.00 U na refrigeradora de once pies 158,000.00 Una cama matrimonial 140,000.00 Un trastero 58,000.00 Una casa mixta de 60m2 de tres cuartos, sala, cocina, cuarto de pilas, piso lujado,etc. 5,000,000.00 Dos mil cuatrocientos metros de cerca 1,200,000.00 Seis sacos de fertilizantes 30,000.00 Cuatro hectáreas de pasto 592,362.00 Un mueble de cocina 60,000.00 Una cómoda 80,000.00 Un cuarto de hectárea de plátano 131,464.02 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 7,851,203.17 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Los perjuicios ocasionados por la pérdida de la plantación de plátano, se estima en la suma de 688.500,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 28.539.703,17.
Una casa de madera de dos plantas de 190m2 11,522,000.00 Un juego de sala 118,000.00 Un juego de comedor 130,915.04 Un trastero 58,000.00 Dos camas individuales 212,000.00 Una cama matrimonial 140,000.00 Un televisor a color de 21 pulgadas 139,000.00 Una cocina eléctrica 133,377.00 Una refrigeradora marca Mabe de 13 pies 158,000.00 Un congelador de 4 tapas 200,000.00 Inve.ntario de la pulpería 800,000.00 Cuatro cerdos de 30 kg 240,000.00 Veinte gallinas 40,000.00 Seis sacos de fertilizantes 30,000.00 Tres sacos de concentrado 15,000.00 Cuatro sacos de sal para ganado 20,000.00 Cien palos de coco 1,000,000.00 Dos hectáreas de plátano 1,051,712.29 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 16,008,004.29 b) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
Perjuicios ocasionados por la pérdida de la plantación de plátano, se estima en la suma de 5.508.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PREJUICIOS: 41.516.004,29.
Treinta y cinco hectáreas de pasto 5,183,167.50 Dos casas de madera 3,000,000.00 Un corral de 25x15 500,000.00 Cinco mil pulgadas de madera 400,000.00 Cuatro mil metros de cerca 2,000,000.00 Un pozo con cinco alcantarillas 150,000.00 Una chanchera con seis chanchos de 60 kg cada uno 720,000.00 Una bomba de agua 25,000.00 Tres puentes de paso de ganado 50,000.00 Una refrigeradora Atlas de dos puertas 158,000.00 Un juego de sala 118,000.00 Un juego de comedor 130,915.04 U na cocina de gas 84,588.00 Una lavadora 82,000.00 TOTAL DE DAÑOS 12,601,670.54 a) DAÑO MORAL: Corresponde a la angustia sufrida por los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio, al verse expuesta a una situación donde los demandados comprometieron la vida, salud, el patrimonio y la tranquilidad, en adición a la obstrucción del plan de vida y ver alteradas sus expectativas laborales y personales. El daño moral se estima en la suma de 10.000.000,00.
TOTAL DE DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS: 57.601.670,54.
En razón de lo anterior y de conformidad con el artículo 198 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, de haberse producido un daño atribuible a la Administración Pública, el plazo para reclamar los daños y perjuicios sería de cuatro años contados a declararse sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos y condenar a los actores al pago de ambas costas y sus intereses hasta su efectivo pago. Hecho de un tercero// Tanto en la audiencia oral, como con la prueba documental aportada a los autos quedó de manifiesto que luego de invadida la finca, el INDER procedió a realizar estudios poco serios de los suelos del Asentamiento San Pancracio. Dichos estudios no verificaron que los terrenos invadidos por los actores formaban parte de la llanura de inundación de los Ríos Reventazón y Pacuare, mismos que con poca frecuencia producían inundaciones en las llanuras y planicies de ese sector de Siquirres, pero que transcurrido cierto tiempo y ante la ocurrencia de eventos extraordinarios, inundaban dichas fincas.
Quedó demostrado que desde 1861 ya se producían inundaciones en todo el cantón de Siquirres que causaban daños en las fincas ahí ubicadas. Sin embargo, ante la falta de estudios, el INDER adjudicó fincas a familias de la zona. Con lo antes narrado, su puede ver con claridad la intervención del INDER como un tercero que provocó los supuestos daños a los actores. Falta de derecho// No se logró demostrar que los supuestos daños ocasionados a los accionantes fueran consecuencia de actos administrativos emitidos por la Administración ni como consecuencia de una inacción por parte de ésta. Al contrario, quedó demostrado que las consecuencias de las inundaciones fueron causadas por un evento extraordinario de lluvias sucedido el 30 de noviembre de 2002, fecha para la cual según registros de la Estación Fluviográfica Pascua (folio 1175 físico), en la zona en la que se encuentra el Asentamiento se produjo un total de 3.659 metros cúbicos por segundo de aguas que descendieron por el Río Reventazón, con lo cual queda demostrado que tales eventos son producto de un hecho de la naturaleza, motivo por el cual no son de recibo las acusaciones (aunque inprecisas) contra el Estado, razón por la cual deberá acogerse la defensa de falta de derecho y condenar a los actores al pago de ambas costas y sus intereses hasta su efectivo pago.// Fuerza mayor// El caso de fuerza mayor, como sabemos, es un hecho producto de la naturaleza, que, aunque pudiera preverse, resulta inevitable.
La fuerza mayor quedó demostrada con el informe y testimonio del Ing. Rafael Alfredo Oreamuno Vega, específicamente en el folio 117 físico en donde nos mostró una gráfica de lluvias que fueron registradas en la Estación Fluviográfica Pascua de las lluvias que se produjeron el 30 de noviembre de 2002 en la zona en la que se encuentra el Asentamiento. En su presentación nos explicó que una lluvia normal en la zona de Siquirres es de entre 700 a 800 metros cúbicos por segundo. Superados esos 800 metros cúbicos por segundo, el evento puede ser considerado de extraordinario. Para el 30 de noviembre de 2002 en la zona donde se ubica el Asentamiento San Pancracio se produjo un total de 3.659 metros cúbicos por segundo, con lo cual queda demostrado que lo que produjo las inundaciones y los consecuentes daños, no fue la construcción y reparación de diques y canales, sino un evento extraordinario de lluvias, esto es, un evento de la naturaleza, sea, un caso de fuerza mayor.
En razón de lo expuesto, solicito se declare sin lugar la demanda en todos sus extremos y se condene a los actores al pago de ambas costas del proceso y sus intereses hasta su efectivo pago. // Falta de legitimación activa// Durante el proceso, pudimos observar que algunos de los demandantes no residen en el Asentamiento San Pancracio, lo cual hace que carezcan de legitimación activa para acudir a este proceso procurando para sí una indemnización que no les corresponde. // Falta de legitimación pasiva// Aunque sin precisar los hechos atribuibles a la Administración, los accionantes procedieron a interponer denuncia contra el Estado y otros demandados.// Tanto con la prueba documental ofrecida, como con los testimonios de los funcionarios del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y Salud Pública, se demostró que para el caso de marras, ambas instituciones cumplieron con sus respectivas competencias legales y funcionales, lo cual deviene en una falta de legitimación pasiva, motivo por el cual deberá declararse sin lugar la demanda en contra de mis representados y condenar a los actores al pago de ambas costas del proceso y sus respectivos intereses hasta su efectivo pago".- La representación de la CNE, manifestó en sus conclusiones que en el voto 2004-4944 de la Sala Constitucional, "(...) se declaró con lugar la solicitud de los vecinos del asentamiento San Pancracio en aquel momento agrupados en la Asociación Administradora de la Producción Agrícola y Coordinación Institucional del Asentamiento San Pancracio y donde la “CNE”, NO FUE CONDENADA A NINGUNA ACCION DE HACER, POR OMISIÓN, O DE ABSTENERSE A NO HACER, NI LABOR DE COORDINACION ALGUNA CON LAS INSTITUCIONES SEÑALADAS, es decir, desde el antecedente más importante de la presente demanda nuestra representada no fue señalada por el Tribunal Constitucional, ni estableció ninguna ordenanza con respecto a la “CNE”, toda vez que no tuvimos injerencia alguna en las violaciones a tutelas constitucionales ahí acreditadas y que fueron direccionadas a otras institucionas de gobierno y a corporaciones bananeras.
Además, ante solicitud de la Defensoría de los Habitantes debido a nuestra competencia en materia de prevención propiamente dentro del ámbito de la gestión del riesgo, la CNE realizó los informes solicitados, mismos a los cuales se les dio seguimiento y la emisión de las recomendaciones que se encuentran acreditadas en el expediente judicial y donde la propia defensoría en su informe de recomendaciones se puede inferir a que la “CNE”, no tenía injerencia alguna en el caso denunciado En este sentido, la “CNE” dentro de la dualidad de sus competencias enmarcadas en los numerales 14 (competencias ordinarias y de prevención) y 15 (de atención de situaciones de prevención de riesgo y atención de emergencias) en las actuaciones propias del caso que nos ocupa ha sido conteste con la jurisdicción contenciosa administrativa como garante de la legalidad en nuestro país, siendo que ha asegurado el manejo oportuno, coordinado y eficiente de sus recursos técnicos, administrativos y económicos propiamente en cuanto a los decretos ejecutivos y las acciones acreditadas en los planes generales de la emergencia, de los decretos por emergencia promulgados por el Poder Ejecutivo en la zona para el momento histórico en que se vieron afectados los actores.
Es decir, pese a que el voto de la Sala Constitucional No.4944-2004 no estableció que la CNE debiera de tomar alguna medida, siempre dentro del marco de nuestras competencias se han materializado actuaciones, como así se desprende de los Planes Generales de las Emergencias decretadas por el Ejecutivo. De esto nos remitimos a la prueba documental aportada por la “CNE” y el Estado. En cuanto al señalamiento de la parte actora sobre el Comité Interinstitucional para la gestión de Ríos, la CNE para ese momento histórico, siempre realizó acciones específicas en ejecución de los Planes Generales de la Emergencia de los decretos vigentes para esas fechas, ejecuciones realizadas a través del personal institucional, de los Comités de Emergencia, hoy por las instancias técnicas-operativas y los comités asesores que se coordinan con las diferentes instituciones (art. 10.b Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo No.8488).
De esto nos remitimos a la prueba documental aportada por la “CNE” y el Estado. Asimismo, cabe indicar que en la atención de situaciones por emergencia como la ocurrida en el año 2002 en la zona, de donde se gestó el Decreto Ejecutivo No.30866-MP del año 2002 y el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 31540- MP del año 2003, donde la “CNE” realizó acciones denominadas de primer impacto conforme lo establecido el artículo 15, párrafo último de la Ley Nacional de Emergencias y Prevención del Riesgo No.8488, acciones acreditadas en prueba documental y ante la situación de necesidad y urgencia se tomaron medidas necesarias en resguardo del bien jurídico más importante a tutelar cual es la vida humana, la integridad física de las y los ciudadanos de la zona y de la infraestructura pública. Muestra de ello es la prueba aportada en autos en cuanto a el reporte de daños y afectaciones realizado por las instituciones públicas que quedó plasmado en el Plan General de la Emergencia de los decretos señalados.
Ergo, nuestras actuaciones siempre estuvieron apegadas a nuestro principio de legalidad y de urgencia y calamidad pública. (...) A mayor abundamiento, corresponden entre otros deberes y obligaciones a las Municipalidades y otras instancias de gobierno lo siguiente:// Le corresponde a la Municipalidad el administrar los intereses y servicios cantonales, acordar los presupuestos y ejecutarlos conforme lo establecen los artículos 3 y 4 del Código Municipal.// La prevención es responsabilidad estatal y por ello todas las instituciones del estado están obligadas a considerar en sus programas los conceptos de riesgo y desastre e incluir las medidas de gestión ordinaria que les son propias y oportunas (Artículo 25, Ley 8488). // La asesoría que la “CNE” brinda a las instituciones está orientada a una política efectiva de uso de la tierra y del ordenamiento territorial y deberá contribuir con la adopción de medidas de control tendientes a reducir la vulnerabilidad de las personas, considerando que, en el ámbito municipal, recae en primera instancia la responsabilidad de enfrentar esta problemática.
(Artículo 14 Ley No.8488, inciso h).// Todas las obras en cauce deben de ser tramitadas ante el Departamento de Aguas del MINAE, pues en este ente recae la administración de los cauces de dominio público, lo anterior de conformidad con el artículo ochenta y nueve (89) de la “Ley de Aguas” No.276 y sus reformas, de veintisiete de agosto de mil novecientos cuarenta y dos y sus respectivas modificaciones.// Además, como es conocido, las labores de mantenimiento en cauces e inversión en infraestructura pública corresponde ejecutarlas a otras instancias de gobierno, sea las Municipalidades o el Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Transportes, ya que el mantenimiento, como obra pública ordinaria, no puede ser brindado por la “CNE” en razón de que, como se indicado (...) Dentro de este mismo orden de ideas, en el presente proceso no se logró señalar ni probar el inexorable vínculo de causalidad, entre la conducta de mi representada y los daños alegados.
Hay una carencia absoluta de medios probatorios idóneos en los autos sobre el tema esencial de la demanda contra la CNE. Es decir, NO HAY RESPONSABILIDAD JURIDICA SINO HAY DAÑO para generar responsabilidad, siendo necesario haberse producido un acto antijurídico que pueda ser atribuido a mi representada sea a título de culpa (en sentido lato-dolo o culpa) u otro factor de atribución objetivo (riesgo, obligación legal de garantía, etc.) mediando una relación de causalidad adecuada en el acto imputable – atribuido – y el daño. Así las cosas, se requieren al menos dos requisitos básicos para conceder daños y perjuicios en este tipo de procesos, sea la acreditación del nexo causal y la demostración mediante prueba idónea de los daños y perjuicios solicitados, y donde corresponde a la parte actora su acreditación, siendo que en nuestro caso la demanda y la prueba evacuada en estrados es totalmente ayuna de ello.
Sobre la necesidad de demostrar el nexo causal entre la conducta generadora del daño como tal, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, mediante el voto 46-2013, de las once horas cuarenta minutos del 9 de mayo del 2013, resolvió lo siguiente: “Para resolver el presenta caso, ajustados al derecho aplicable y por ende a la justicia, es de rigor, determinar si existe un nexo causal entre los daños expuestos por la parte actora y la conducta administrativa, que consiste en el paso del tren. La relación causal produce un lazo, que permite vislumbrar el origen del menoscabo que se alega. En lo que respecta al nexo causal, el tratadista Eduardo García De Enterría, apunta que “para que un hecho merezca ser considerado como causa del daño es preciso sea en sí mismo idóneo para producirlo según la experiencia común, es decir, que tenga una especial aptitud parta producir el efecto lesivo.
Solo en estos casos (causalidad adecuada) puede decirse, con rigor, que la actividad tomada en consideración". Con base en lo anteriormente expuesto, es claro y evidente, que los actores no les asiste ningún tipo de indemnización, toda vez que no han demostrado cuál es la conducta activa u omisiva de la CNE (con base en las competencias dispuestas en la Ley No. 8488), que ha ocasionado los supuestos daños reclamados por los actores. Además, no se logra desprender como se cuantificaron los daños desglosados en la demanda, los cuales a todas lucen resultan infundados y contrarios a los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad (...) Asimismo y de no menos importancia resulta hacer ver de que la prueba aportada en autos, que el lugar donde se encuentra ubicado el asentamiento San Pancracio, es una zona de ALTO RIESGO DE INUNDACIONES, donde existe una gran probabilidad de que todo o gran parte de los supuestos daños alegados sean producto de hechos provocados por la naturaleza, sin intermediación directa o indirecta de nuestra representación o de otras instituciones inclusive, siendo que al ser un asunto de fuerza mayor, la figura como tal cuenta con una singular importancia en el ámbito de la responsabilidad civil extracontractual, la cual constituye una causa legal de exclusión y exoneración de la misma, y que se identifica como aquellos sucesos o hechos de la naturaleza que no hubieran podido preverse o que previstos fueren inevitables y externos a la esfera de control de la Administración, en tanto los daños producidos por la naturaleza no se hubieren podido evitar mediante el despliegue oportuno de las actividades propias del ente administrativo.
En este sentido, el artículo ciento noventa (190) de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, que tiene su razón de ser en dicha premisa, dispone: “La Administración responderá por todos los daños que cauce su funcionamiento legítimo o ilegítimo o anormal, salvo la fuerza mayor, culpa de la víctima o hecho de un tercero…” (...) Que el informe pericial rendido por el señor Fernando Quintanilla Molina, ingeniero topógrafo, resulta ser contradictorio en el tanto el experto consuma su estudio mediante la determinación económica de las afectaciones sufridas en cada parcela, no obstante, en el punto número 1 de sus conclusiones afirma que no es posible establecer de manera cuantitativa los daños ya que se desconoce el estado inicial de las parcelas. Se denota así que la supuesta base inicial para lograr acreditar los montos indicados, en una relación del estado previo de los terrenos en la actualidad, es inexistente, realizándose así un cálculo sin una diferencia real.
Asimismo, el peritaje carece de una comprobación material a efectos de lograr acreditar los daños que afirma sufrieron los actores, en ninguna condición de la metodología utilizada por el perito ni del informe se demuestra la realización de pruebas técnicas que le posibiliten a éste determinar cuantitativamente eventuales deterioros sobre las propiedades de los accionantes. Consecuentemente, queda comprobado que las conclusiones concertadas en el dictamen pericial carecen de sustento técnico, así como de validez, desacreditándose de esta manera las diferencias económicas determinadas como afectaciones. Así mismo, el insumo de información tomado es el mismo de las otras pericias sea el de la información de los actores lo cual a todas luces es improcedente y rompe con el principio de objetividad probatoria. En cuanto a la ampliación de su pericia, se mantiene que la supuesta base inicial para lograr acreditar los montos indicados, en una relación del estado previo de los terrenos a la actualidad, es inexistente, realizándose así un cálculo sin referencia real.
Asimismo, el peritaje carece de una comprobación material a efectos de lograr acreditar los daños que afirma sufrieron los actores, en ninguna condición de la metodología utilizada por el perito se demuestra la realización de pruebas técnicas que le posibiliten a éste determinar cuantitativamente eventuales deterioros sobre las propiedades de los accionantes. Resulta de suma importancia ver la prueba aportada por la representación del Estado, oficio DVAT-263-2017 de 29 de noviembre de 2017, de la Dirección General de Tributación, mediante la cual se queda claro que los informes del perito Quintanilla Molina, tienen una serie de deficiencias técnicas como para afectar la confiabilidad de esta y donde no aplicó un método de valoración que evidencie el valor real de mercado y no utilizó las variables de hidrología y capacidad de uso de las tierras. En este sentido, no acredita referir las características que identifican cada una de las parcelas, así como la omisión de mercado y las características de este con el cual comparar su valor, siendo que no solo no hizo una valoración individual y comparada, sino que omitió pruebas útiles en la valoración (...) Que del informe pericial rendido por la señora Gabriela Calvo Vargas se desprende que el mismo consiste en reiterados criterios subjetivos y no se sustenta en criterios técnico – científicos, conforme se espera de un informe pericial.
Además, la perito señala como ciertos los datos históricos en relación al aumento o desnivel de las aguas en la zona, sin contar con prueba fehaciente tales como ESTUDIOS HIDROLOGICOS de la micro cuenca, de la altura máxima de la columna de agua y de la zona de anegamiento potencial, que determinen la veracidad de esos datos sobre las inundaciones, volumen de precipitación efectiva, distribución del agua sobre la planicie, distribución de la velocidad y cómo se distribuye la creciente con infraestructura y sin ella, sino que únicamente cuenta con las manifestaciones de los vecinos de la zona, demandantes en el presente caso y que hacen que el informe pericial pierda credibilidad. Es decir, se rompe con el principio de objetividad tal y como se indicó supra. Igualmente, en su estudio geológico debió presentar un registro histórico de las variaciones del cauce en el valle fluvial mediante fotografías aéreas, o históricas que verifiquen que dicha zona no era de potencial inundación antes de la construcción de los diques, lo cual adolece su pericia.
Además, el informe incluye información de los vecinos sobre arreglos realizados en las casas de los cuales no presentan ni facturas ni otro elemento que permita demostrar que los arreglos se realizaron debido a la supuesta situación que viven hoy en día los vecinos. El informe de análisis se refiere a problemas de salud de los vecinos sin contar con las respectivas epicrisis o dictámenes médicos que permitan la comprobación de esas condiciones. Que el informe rendido por el perito experto Allan Astorga Gattgens con el apoyo científico del señor Andreas Mende, el cual considera esta representación de extrema importancia para esclarecer la verdad real de los hechos, dado su contenido técnico - científico y haber tomado para su investigación elementos esenciales en cuanto a antecedentes históricos de la zona, notas bibliográficas y la interpretación de registro de fotografías aéreas oficiales del IGN, donde se muestra el uso del suelo, dentro de la llanura de inundación activa y donde resulta ser contundente en cuanto a tomar como hechos ciertos, que como consecuencia de la cercanía del Asentamiento San Pancracio a la llanura aluvial de los sistemas fluviales del Rio Reventazón y del Pacuare, dicho asentamiento se ubica en una llanura de inundación y presenta evidentemente una condición de MUY ALTA amenaza a las inundaciones.
Asimismo, acredita que posterior a lo década de 1960 ya existían vestigios de la construcción de diques en la zona, para tratar de reducir la intensidad de las inundaciones y donde con la construcción de estos se disminuyó significativamente la amenaza a las inundaciones, con lo que fue posible el desarrollo de nuevas plantaciones bananeras. Esta disminución no solo ayudó a las fincas bananeras, sino a toda la extensión de la llanura de inundación. También acredita que la situación de MUY ALTO RIESGO que se presenta para las localidades dentro de la zona de inundación entre ellas San Pancracio existe la alta probabilidad de que las obras de contención ante un evento de avenida máximo por una situación extraordinaria, incluso ordinaria, no puedan retener la fuerza del agua, con lo que se puede producir un evento catastrófico para la zona de la llanura de inundación. A todo esto, debe de sumarse la condición de cambio climático con el que se desarrolla cada vez más frecuentes eventos extremos de altas precipitaciones e inclusive sequías.
Ante la consulta realizada por uno de los miembros del tribunal en cuanto a la situación de los diques en la zona frente a la ubicación de los asentamientos en la llanura de inundación, manifestó de forma contundente que las obras de contención lejos de ser una causante de las inundaciones son obras antrópicas que contribuyen a que las inundaciones cedan en la zona y no son los causantes de las mismas, las cuales atribuye a situaciones propias de la naturaleza y de la zona, así como a un inadecuado uso de la tierra y de una carencia de planificación urbana. (...) Como colorario, la CNE rechaza en todos sus extremos la presente demanda, ratificando a través de la prueba documental que obra en autos y a lo visto y discutido en la audiencia de juicio, que hemos sido incorporados a una litis donde nunca deberíamos de haber estado, por simples manifestaciones subjetivas sin acervo probatorio alguno, teniéndose que tomar recursos valiosos de nuestro tiempo y recursos de la Hacienda Pública, que pudieron haber sido canalizados en la labor que tiene la CNE en sus competencias ordinarias como nextraordinarias.
Así las cosas, esta representación solicita que se declare con lugar la excepción de falta de derecho y falta de legitimación pasiva. Asimismo, que se declare sin lugar la presente demanda y se condene a la parte demandante al pago de ambas costas con intereses hasta su efectivo pago".- La representación del INDER indicó en sus conclusiones que al haber sido integrado a la institución como tercero interesado y sin pretensiones en su contra, no cabe ninguna condenatoria en su contra, quedando más bien claro que la entidad le ha brindado permanente colaboración a los coaccionantes. Invoca el voto 2004-4944 de la Sala Constitucional, que dispuso que sobre las empresas privadas demandadas, que no debían construir diques, movimientos de tierras y desvíos de aguas, hasta que cuenten con los permisos correspondientes. Señala que el antiguo Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA), realizó en el año 1999, el Estudio de Relación Tierra y Familia para la Finca San Pancracio, quedando claro con la declaración de todos los testigos.
Afirma que quedó por demostrado que los diques construidos al costado de las fincas bananeras de las compañías demandadas cercanas al Asentamiento San Pancracio, se encuentran del lado de dichas fincas y no del lado del Asentamiento, realizándose para el año 2003, movimientos de tierra para la construcción y reconstrucción de diques. Estima que existe responsabilidad compartida de los demandados por no existir estudios que determinen la viabilidad y funcionalidad correcto de los diques construidos y reconstruidos, con el fin de prever posibles inundaciones. Recalca que de acuerdo con la declaración de José Miguel Zeledón Calderón (Director de Aguas del MINAE), los diques no son los que causan las inundaciones, pero estos sí aumentan el riesgo para el Asentamiento y que esa Dirección de Aguas tramitó ante la SETENA, que se realizaran los respectivos estudios, pero no ha habida respuesta al respecto.
Cuestiona el peritaje de parte del Dr. Allan Astorga por cuanto no es imparcial la haber sido contratado por una de las partes. Solicita que en razón que el INDER es solamente un tercero interesado y no existe pretensión alguna contra él, se le debe exonerar del pago de las costas personales y procesales.- La representación de la Municipalidad, reitera lo términos de la contestación de la demanda que realizó en su oportunidad, en el sentido que las competencias del ayuntamiento son de carácter marginal en materia de emergencias, siendo las competencias principales de la CNE y del Estado. Manifiesta que el mantenimiento de los diques (que datan de hace muchos años), se realiza por medio de peones paleros y si no se realiza un reporte, es imposible realizar control alguno. Reitera que la sentencia 2004-4944, no demuestra un nexo causal entre las inundaciones y los presuntos movimientos de tierra y construcción de diques.
Invoca como eximente de responsabilidad civil extracontractual, en el presente caso, la existencia de culpa de la víctima, al haberse asentado los actores en ese sitio y hecho de un tercero del ente que les adjudicó las tierras, el INDER, siendo que en esas condiciones, condenar al ayuntamiento, es aprovecharse de su propio dolo. Señala que a partir de la declaración de testigos y peritos en este proceso (Fernando Quintanilla Molina, topógrafo; Allan Astorga Gatgens, geólogo; Gabriela Calvo Vargas, geóloga; Rafael Oreamuno Vega, ingeniero civil), todos expertos y profesionales en sus respectivos campos, nunca se debió realizar un asentamiento campesino en el lugar que ocupa San Pancracio, por el posible desborde del cauce de los ríos Pacuare y Reventazón, debiendo ser tomada en cuenta esa situación para la resolución de la causa. Explica que en todo caso, al ayuntamiento no le cabe ninguna responsabilidad, porque los actores nunca formalizaron ninguna denuncia o solicitud de intervención específica sobre el caso.
Invoca el artículo 89 de la Ley de Aguas, que establece la posibilidad de que los propietarios puedan construir "obras de defensa" sin necesidad de permisos, recalcando que el tema de las inundaciones, se debe no a un problema de diques, sino a que la comunidad está ubicada en una zona propensa a inundación. Reitera su pedido para que se desestime la demanda en contra del ayuntamiento y se condene al pago de ambas costas.- IV) De importancia para la resolución de este asunto, se tienen como probados los siguientes hechos:
Nombre del accionante Situación jurídica en el sitio l. [Nombre 001] Copropietario (con [Nombre 037]) finca inscrita [Valor 031] (imágenes 646-647) 2. [Nombre 002] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 3. [Nombre 003] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 4. [Nombre 004] Poseedor en precario en la zona de San Pancracio (no tiene título registrado, ni escritura de traspaso de terreno no inscrito). Sobre los hechos posesorios escúchese declaración de [Nombre 022], en el juicio oral 5. [Nombre 005] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 6. [Nombre 006] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 7. [Nombre 007] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 8. [Nombre 008] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Junta Directiva IDA, acuerdo VIII, sesión 91-01 del 3/12/2001 (imagen 481) 9. [Nombre 009] Traspaso de terreno ubicado en Laguna de Imperio de Siquirrres, por escritura del 12 de julio de 1991, realizado por el IDA (imágenes 676-679) 10. [Nombre 010] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 11. [Nombre 011] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 12.
Sucesión de quien en vida fue [Nombre 012] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 13. [Nombre 014] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 14. [Nombre 015] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 15. [Nombre 016] Copropietario de terreno traspasado por el IDA, ubicado en Asentamiento Imperio, según escritura del 26 de febrero de 1993; finca N° [Valor 033] (imágenes 692-698) 16. [Nombre 017] Propietario de finca traspasada por [Nombre 025], ubicado en Imperio de Siquirres, finca N° [Valor 032], en fecha 10 de marzo del 2006 (imágenes 699-703) 17. [Nombre 018] Poseedor en precario en la zona de San Pancracio (no tiene título registrado, ni escritura de traspaso de terreno no inscrito).
Sobre los hechos posesorios escúchese declaración de [Nombre 010], en el juicio oral 18. [Nombre 019] Poseedora en precario en la zona de San Pancracio (no tiene título registrado, ni escritura de traspaso de terreno no inscrito). Sobre los hechos posesorios escúchese declaración de [Nombre 028], en el juicio oral 19. [Nombre 020] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 20. [Nombre 021] Poseedora en precario en la zona de San Pancracio (no tiene título registrado, ni escritura de traspaso de terreno no inscrito). Sobre los hechos posesorios escúchese declaración de [Nombre 015] y [Nombre 027], en el juicio oral 21. [Nombre 022] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 22. [Nombre 023] Adjudicatario Proyecto San Pancracio, Oficio ORS-370-2011 del 25 de mayo del 2011 de Oficina Subregional de Siquirres del IDA (imágenes 1563-1565) 23. [Nombre 024] Adjudicatario Proyecto Maryland.
Junta Directiva del IDA, acuerdo III de la sesión 90-87 del 24 de noviembre de 1987 (imagen 587) 24. [Nombre 025] Propietario de la finca N° [Valor 034], comprada el 25 de enero de 2005 a Carlos Quinto Cerdas Solano (imágenes 718-720) 25. [Nombre 026] Poseedora en precario en la zona de San Pancracio (no tiene título registrado, ni escritura de traspaso de terreno no inscrito). Sobre los hechos posesorios escúchese declaración de [Nombre 007] 26. [Nombre 027] Poseedora en precario en la zona de San Pancracio (no tiene título registrado, ni escritura de traspaso de terreno no inscrito). Sobre los hechos posesorios escúchese declaración de [Nombre 015] 27. [Nombre 028] Poseedor en precario en la zona de San Pancracio (no tiene título registrado, ni escritura de traspaso de terreno no inscrito). Sobre los hechos posesorios escúchese declaración de [Nombre 019], en el juicio oral 5) Que el tema de las inundaciones en la zona de San Pancracio de Siquirres, durante los años 2002 y 2003, fue analizado y resuelto por la Sala Constitucional, en el expediente (N° 03-9991-0007-CO), en que se tramitó del recurso de amparo presentado por la Asociación Administradora de la Producción Agrícola y Coordinación Institucional del Asentamiento San Pancracio, contra la Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL), la Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte S.A., el Ministerio de Salud, el Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y la Municipalidad de Siquirres.
Dicho amparo constitucional por fue admitido por resolución de las 16:30 horas del 1° de octubre del 2003 y en ese acto, como medida cautelar se ordenó a los recurridos: "(...) tomar de inmediato las medidas necesarias para evitar los daños ambientales que se acusan en este amparo, hasta tanto la Sala no resuelva en sentencia el recurso, o no disponga otra cosa (...)" (folios 104-107). Se observa en el expediente, que en oficio DASS-009-2004 del 13 de enero del 2004, de la Unidad de Protección al Ambiente Humano del Área Rectora de Salud de Siquirres, se indica que ni Bandeco ni COBAL han presentado solicitud alguna para el movimiento de tierras ni para construcción de diques (folio 281). En dicho expediente, se emitió la sentencia 2004-4944 de las quince horas con once minutos del seis de mayo del dos mil cuatro (folios 353-362), en que se tuvo como hechos probados:
"I.- (...) De importancia para la decisión de este asunto, se estiman como debidamente demostrados los siguientes hechos, sea porque así han sido acreditados o bien porque el recurrido haya omitido referirse a ellos según lo prevenido en el auto inicial:
"VIII.- En el caso que nos ocupa, del informe rendido por los funcionarios recurridos, los representantes de la compañías bananeras accionadas y la prueba que obra en autos, se tiene por acreditado que la Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL), realizó obras de reconstrucción y fortalecimiento de un dique ya existente, cuya función es impedir el paso de agua hacia las plantaciones de banano en los eventos de crecidas de los ríos, específicamente en la quebrada La Mona, la cual se ve tapada en su salida por el río Siquirres y éste a su vez por el río Pacuare, mismos que reciben aguas del río Reventazón. Asimismo, sobre este último se tiene por acreditada la existencia de un complejo de diques sobre su margen derecha, construidos por iniciativa de la Municipalidad de Siquirres y varias instituciones gubernamentales, durante los últimos 30 años, aproximadamente. Luego de las inundaciones acontecidas durante los meses de noviembre y diciembre de 2002, varias secciones de esos diques se vieron dañadas, por lo que se observa que tanto COBAL como la Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte S.A., solicitaron los permisos respectivos ante el ente municipal local, con el fin de realizar las reparaciones necesarias (folio 169 y documento adjunto #13).
No obstante, el titular del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía señala que ninguna de las corporaciones bananeras accionadas ha presentado proyectos de diques en los Ríos Reventazón o Pacuare, para evaluación de impacto ambiental. De igual modo, si bien es cierto –como se indicó anteriormente- se presentaron solicitudes para obtención de permisos ante el Concejo Municipal de Siquirres –que a su vez fueron tramitadas ante la Dirección General de Geología y Minas-; se aprecia que las reparaciones se realizaron, incluyendo los movimientos de tierras, sin la debida autorización de los funcionarios competentes. Preocupa aún más a la Sala el informe rendido por la Directora de la Unidad de Ambiente Humano del Area Rectora de Salud de Siquirres –con ocasión de una inspección al lugar-, quien señala que las empresas accionadas no solamente reconstruyeron diques existentes, sino también levantaron diques nuevos, en las zonas de riesgo de desbordamiento de los ríos Pacuare, y Reventazón, sin contar con los permisos correspondientes, ni los estudios técnicos de impacto ambiental (folio 282).
IX.Por ello, es evidente que la actuación de la compañías bananeras recurridas, no solo es contraria al ordenamiento jurídico, sino que constituye una lesión al derecho a la salud y un ambiente sano, consagrados en los artículos 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política. Lo anterior, no solamente por haber construido diques sin la autorización tanto del órgano estatal regulador en materia ambiental, como del gobierno local, sino también porque al no contar con estudios de impacto ambiental no es posible tener claro las repercusiones que una estructura de este tipo tiene en el comportamiento del río, existiendo la posibilidad de que aumente la capacidad hidráulica del cauce, y que de esta forma facilite las condiciones para que se produzcan inundaciones en las áreas adyacentes. Esta Sala no desconoce que el Asentamiento San Pancracio –donde habita el recurrente-, así como algunas fincas de las compañías recurridas –tal como Finca Gigante- se localizan dentro de la llanura de inundación de los Ríos Pacuare y Reventazón, y que ello aunado a las altas precipitaciones que caracterizan la zona, facilita inundaciones por el desbordamiento de dichos ríos.
No obstante, precisamente la ausencia de los estudios técnicos de impacto ambiental impiden determinar si los efectos de tales inundaciones fueron acrecentados y magnificados por los movimientos de tierra y construcción de diques que, como se indicó en líneas anteriores realizaron las compañías bananeras citadas. Asimismo, resulta comprensible que estas compañías, realicen actuaciones en protección de su patrimonio, y de la actividad agropecuaria a la que se dedican; sin embargo, para ello deben velar por una efectiva implementación del concepto de desarrollo sostenible, y respetar el ecosistema; por lo que es absolutamente inaceptable que actúen omitiendo los trámites previstos por ley, poniendo en peligro el medio ambiente, así como la salud y la vida de los vecinos del lugar, al alterar de tal manera los recursos naturales.
X.Por otra parte, la Sala concluye que en el caso bajo análisis, la infracción al derecho a la salud y a un ambiente ecológicamente equilibrado, es también imputable al Ministerio de Salud, al Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, y a la Municipalidad de Siquirres, producto de la negligencia u omisión del ejercicio de las facultades de fiscalización exigidas por vía constitucional, y legal ordinaria, en cuanto a velar por la adecuada disposición de los recursos naturales, pues están en la obligación de verificar no sólo si procede o no la construcción de una estructura en ese lugar, a través de los estudios de impacto ambiental que correspondan, sino que dicha estructura, cumpla con todos los requisitos técnicos y legales necesarios, de previo a realizar su edificación. No obstante, la entidad municipal recurrida y los titulares de las carteras ministeriales supra citadas, se limitan a manifestar que no tuvieron conocimiento de la situación planteada por el recurrente, hasta la notificación del presente recurso.
Analizando asuntos similares, la Sala ha dicho que no se puede aceptar que a los seres humanos se les niegue el derecho a un ambiente sano, el derecho a la salud, y como consecuencia el esencial a la vida, en razón de la incapacidad de las autoridades públicas para ejercer efectivamente las potestades de vigilancia otorgadas por ley, así como los instrumentos que el ordenamiento jurídico les otorga, con el fin de controlar las acciones de terceros que atenten directamente contra tan importante derecho fundamental. En virtud de lo anteriormente expuesto, el presente recurso debe ser declarado con lugar en contra del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, del Ministerio de Salud y de la Municipalidad de Siquirres"
En la parte dispositiva de la sentencia, se estableció: "Se declara con lugar el recurso. En consecuencia se ordena a la Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL), a la Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte S.A., que se abstengan de construir diques realizar movimientos de tierras, así como desvío de aguas sobre las márgenes de los ríos Reventazón y Pacuare, hasta tanto cuenten con lo permisos correspondientes de las autoridades competentes. Asimismo, se ordena al Ministerio de Salud, al Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, y a la Municipalidad de Siquirres, que realicen los estudios técnicos necesarios para determinar fehacientemente la incidencia de los diques, movimientos de tierra, y desvío de aguas efectuados por las compañías bananeras recurridas, sobre el medio ambiente, de lo cual deberá informar a la Sala en el improrrogable plazo de dos meses contado a partir de la notificación de la presente sentencia.
Se condena a la Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL), a la Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte S.A., al Estado y a la Municipalidad de Siquirres, al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios causados con los hechos que sirven de base a esta declaratoria, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo civil y de lo contencioso administrativo, respectivamente" (los subrayados son propios; véase el expediente judicial certificado del amparo y dirección virtual: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-286491, en la que se aprecia la sentencia citada); 6) Que en el expediente judicial citado, se planteó gestión de desobediencia por la Asociación recurrente, que fue resuelta por resolución Nº 2008-007190 de las 14 horas del 25 de abril del 2008. En esa oportunidad se consideró:
"I.- El objeto de la presente sentencia es determinar el cumplimiento de la orden emanada de este Tribunal en la sentencia número 2004-004944 de las quince horas once minutos del seis de mayo de dos mil cuatro, en la que se ordenó a la Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte S.A., abstenerse de construir diques, realizar movimientos de tierras así como desvío de aguas sobre los márgenes de los ríos Reventazón y Pacuare, hasta tanto no cuenten con los permisos correspondientes de las autoridades competentes. Asimismo, se ordenó al Ministerio de Salud, al Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía y a la Municipalidad de Siquirres realizar los estudios técnicos necesarios para determinar fehacientemente la incidencia de los diques , movimientos de tierra y desvío de aguas efectuados por las compañías bananeras, sobre el medio ambiente, de lo cual debía informar a la Sala.
II.Sobre los estudios técnicos presentados por las autoridades recurridas. En primera instancia rindió el informe José Miguel Zeledón Calderón, en su condición de Jefe del Departamento de Aguas del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, ello bajo el oficio número OMN- DA-1851-04 del veintiuno de julio de dos mil cuatro, en el que concluyó que las obras del dique realizado por las empresas recurridas corresponden a medidas paliativas contra el desbordamiento e inundaciones esperadas en eventos extremos; sin embargo, resaltó que por sí solos este tipo de diques no son los causantes del fenómeno de inundación, ya que sin este siempre se espera que la parte civil se vea afectada. Por su parte la Municipalidad de Siquirres rindió el informe número IC-SI019-05 del siete de febrero de dos mil cinco, en el que informó que se constató que no existen obras recientes de movimientos de tierra o de contención en el área objeto del presente amparo.
Asimismo, coincide con las autoridades recurridas en que para dar solución a la problemática actual, se debe dar una atención integral, es decir involucrar a diferentes institucional (sic). De lo esbozado anteriormente se colige no solo que las autoridades cumplieron con la orden de rendir el informe, sino también que de los mismos se puede concluir que los diques elaborados por las bananeras accionadas no son los causantes por si solos de la contaminación ambiental.
III.En la sentencia de marras también se le ordenó a la Compañía Bananera del Atlántico Limitada (COBAL) y a la Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola S.A., abstenerse de construir diques, realizar movimientos de tierras, así como el desvío de aguas sobre los márgenes de los ríos Reventazón y Pacuare, hasta tanto no contaran con los permisos correspondientes. Sobre el particular informan los representantes de las accionadas que dichas empresas a junio de dos mil cuatro, no reconstruyeron ningún dique en los márgenes de los ríos Reventazón o del Pacuare, ni en quebradas naturales internas ya existentes. Tales aseveraciones son apoyadas por la Municipalidad de Siquirres, al informarle a esta Sala que en la inspección realizada se determinó que no existen obras recientes de movimientos de tierra o de contención en el área en cuestión. Agrega además la Municipalidad recurrida los diques y los vertederos o aliviaderos no tuvieron variaciones por efectos de las crecidas, además los vehículos pueden transitar por el dique mismo, aunado a ello tampoco se evidenciaron daños por las crecidas recientes. Así las cosas, este Tribunal tiene por probados que las bananeras recurridas han cumplido a cabalidad con lo ordenado en la sentencia 2004-04944, al abstenerse de realizar más acciones en las inmediaciones de los ríos Reventazón y Pacuare.
IV.Por otra parte, Marco Machore Levi, en el mes de diciembre de dos mil seis se apersona a esta Sala a efecto de acusar nuevamente desobediencia a lo ordenado por esta Sala en la sentencia número 2004-004944 de las quince horas once minutos del seis de mayo de dos mil cuatro, lo anterior por cuanto entre los días diez y catorce de julio de dos mil seis en la Finca Gigante propiedad de la Compañía Bananera Atlántica realizaron obras ilegales orientadas a la reconstrucción de un dique en Quebrada La Mona. Sobre el particular, el Gerente de la Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada informa que en la semana número veintiséis del años dos mil seis, se produjeron en el área de Siquirres fuertes aguaceros e inundaciones, que provocaron que el dique ubicado en Quebrada La Mona resultara dañado, razón por la cual entre los días diez y catorce de julio de dos mil seis se inició la reconstrucción de la compuerta ubicada a uno de los costados del dique, resaltando que lo realizado no fue una construcción en si misma, sino una reconstrucción de emergencia en un dique ya existente.
Con relación a tales hechos, la Municipalidad de Siquirres informa que clausuro las obras de reparación que estaba llevando a cabo la Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada, ello mediante oficio AMS-159-06, contra el cual se interpuso un recurso de revocatoria, mismo que fue rechazado por resolución de las diez horas del veintidós de setiembre de dos mil seis, teniéndose que como consecuencia el veinte de julio de dos mil seis se clausuraron las obras. En vista de lo anterior, la Compañía Bananera Atlántica Limitada, por la negativa de la Municipalidad recurrente de avalar la reconstrucción del dique, procedió solamente bloquear la compuerta dañada con llantas. Aunado a ello, el Ministro de Ambiente y Energía, así como el Director Ejecutivo de la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, destacan lo que ya habían indicado con anterioridad en el sentido de que el problema de los impactos causados por las inundaciones, no se le pueden achacar a una u otra empresa, sino que es causa de una serie de factores y acciones naturales y antropicas acumuladas, para las que se requiere una intervención integral del Estado, Gobiernos Locales y Sociedad Civil.
De lo esbozado anteriormente, concluye esta Sala que la Administración Pública ha efectuado su deber de vigilancia de manera diligente, evitando que se produzca en el dique de la Quebrada La Mona construcciones o reconstrucciones que no cuenten con los respectivos permisos, razón por la cual lo procedente es desestimar la gestión de desobediencia.
V.Conclusión.- En mérito de lo expuesto, lo procedente de rechazar la gestión de desobediencia presentada, como en efecto se ordena" ((los subrayados son propios; véase el expediente judicial certificado del amparo y dirección virtual: https://nexuspj.poder-judicial.go.cr/document/sen-1-0007-423896, en la que se aprecia la sentencia citada);
Cabe señalar que para resolver adecuadamente el caso, primero deberá determinarse si a partir de los hechos analizados en esta acción (comprendidos entre los años 2002 y 2018, por las ampliaciones de hechos de la demanda realizados en este expediente), están cubiertos por la cosa juzgada, derivado de las resoluciones de la Sala Constitucional, números 2004-04944 de las quince horas con once minutos del seis de mayo del dos mil cuatro y Nº 2008-007190 de las 14 horas del 25 de abril del 2008 (que resolvieron respectivamente, el amparo presentado por [Nombre 010], en su condición de Presidente de la Asociación Administradora de la Producción Agrícola y Coordinación Institucional del Asentamiento San Pancracio y la gestión de desobediencia presentada por el recurrente sobre lo resuelto por el Tribunal Constitucional).- Luego, se deberá determinar si las acciones de los particulares y las omisiones de las instituciones públicas (que no estén cubiertas por la cosa juzgada material del amparo o por la prescripción), provocaron los daños y perjuicios reclamados en cabeza de los actores, determinándose primero cuáles de los actores, son propietarios o poseedores de terrenos sin inscribir en la zona de San Pancracio de Siquirres y luego, si las inundaciones acusadas en la demanda y las sucesivas ampliaciones de la acción, efectivamente se debieron a las acciones y omisiones acusadas, o se debieron a un hecho de la naturaleza (fuerza mayor) o a un hecho de un tercero, situaciones que bajo los criterios del Código Civil (para los demandados particulares y de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (para los entes públicos accionados), son criterios de exoneración de responsabilidad patrimonial.- Una vez determinado lo anterior, corresponde analizar si el resto de pretensiones, las de carácter indemnizatorio.- VII) Relación de este caso con las sentencias de la Sala Constitucional de los años 2004 y 2008: Si se observan el elenco de hechos de la demanda (escrito de reformulación de hechos de la acción, recibido el 19 de abril del 2013, a imágenes 2145-2236) y sus posteriores ampliaciones de hechos, por medio de escritos de fechas: del 17 de setiembre del 2012, en que se habla de hechos de julio y agosto de ese año (imágenes 2026-2030); del 31 de agosto del 2018, en que se refiere a hechos del mes de julio de ese año (imágenes 3571-3597), el reclamo por las inundaciones se inicia con los eventos ocurridos en los años 2002 y 2003 y culmina con los hechos de agosto del 2018.- Así, en la reformulación de la demanda recibida el 19 de abril del 2013, se plantea: En cuanto al origen del Asentamiento y la situación de los aquí actores, se dice que el Asentamiento San Pancracio, se creó en la finca matrícula de folio real número [Valor 002], ubicada en el Distrito Siquirres, Cantón Siquirres, de la Provincia Limón, que era propiedad del señor [Nombre 038], quien vendió la finca al IDA (actual INDER) mediante escritura otorgada a las 15:00 horas del 26 de marzo de 1998.
Se indica que el IDA realizó estudios agrológicos preliminares previo a la compra de la finca, que determinaron la aptitud de la finca para el desarrollo de actividades agrícolas y ganaderas. Señala que la entidad realizó, previo al otorgamiento de la titularidad de las parcelas, estudios de las tierras que conforman el Asentamiento San Pancracio y determinó que las parcelas son aptas para el establecimiento de cultivos de ciclo anual y permanente, entre los que se puede citar, granos básicos, tubérculos, musáceas, y frutales. Explica que en el acuerdo anteriormente citado del IDA número IV de la sesión 091-01, celebrada el 3 de diciembre del 2001, se declaró como beneficiarios del Asentamiento, para que se les extienda el correspondiente título supletorio de dominio a los actores: [Nombre 010], a quién se le otorgó la Parcela número 5 (que se refiere a las Fincas del Partido de Limón, matrícula de folio real número [Valor 036] y [Valor 037]); [Nombre 014], a quién se le otorgó la Parcela número 7 (que se refiere a las Fincas del Partido de Limón, matrícula de folio real número [Valor 038] y [Valor 039]); [Nombre 023], a quién se le otorgó la Parcela número 9 (que se refiere a las Fincas del Partido de Limón, matrícula de folio real número [Valor 040] y [Valor 041]); y [Nombre 022], a quién se le otorgó la Parcela número 8 (que se refiere a las Fincas del Partido de Limón, matrícula de folio real número [Valor 042] y [Valor 043]).
De la misma forma, mediante acuerdo tomado por la Junta Directiva del IDA, en artículo VIII de la sesión No 093-01 celebrada el 10 de diciembre de 2001, se declaró como beneficiaria del Asentamiento, para que se les extienda el correspondiente título supletorio de dominio a la actora [Nombre 008], a quién se le otorgó la Parcela número 4 (que se refiere a las Fincas del Partido de Limón, matrícula de folio real número [Valor 044] y [Valor 045]). Menciona que en acuerdo tomado por la Junta Directiva del IDA, en la sesión N° 014-03 celebrada el 17 de marzo del 2003, se declaró como beneficiario del Asentamiento, para que se les extienda el correspondiente título supletorio de dominio al actor [Nombre 011], a quien se le otorgó la Parcela número 2 (que se refiere a la Finca del Partido de Limón, matrícula de folio real número [Valor 046]). Por medio de acuerdo tomado por la Junta Directiva del IDA, en la sesión No 060- 00 celebrada el 21 de agosto de 2000, se declaró como beneficiarios del Asentamiento, para que se les extienda el correspondiente título supletorio de dominio a los actores: [Nombre 002], a quién se le otorgó la Parcela número 11 (que se refiere a los planos catastrados número [Valor 047] y [Valor 048]), [Nombre 039], a quién se le otorgó la Parcela número 21 (que se refiere al plano catastrado [Valor 049]); y [Nombre 003], a quien se le otorgó la Parcela número 10.
Por medio de acuerdo tomado por la Junta Directiva del IDA en la sesión N° 042-2004, celebrada el 15 de noviembre del 2004, se declaró como beneficiarios del Asentamiento, para que se les extienda el correspondiente título supletorio de dominio a los actores: [Nombre 006], a quién se le otorgó la Parcela número 15, [Nombre 007], a quién se le otorgó la Parcela número 13-1, [Nombre 015]; a quien se le otorgó la granja número A-3; y [Nombre 020], a quién se le otorgó la Parcela número 14. Aduce que en el caso de los actores [Nombre 001], [Nombre 007], [Nombre 008], [Nombre 009], [Nombre 010], [Nombre 011], [Nombre 012], [Nombre 014], [Nombre 016], [Nombre 017], [Nombre 018], [Nombre 022], [Nombre 023], [Nombre 024], [Nombre 025], y [Nombre 004], además de contar con los acuerdos de adjudicación del IDA, cuentan con las escrituras de traspaso de sus parcelas expedidas por el IDA o bien con escrituras de compraventa privada firmadas con particulares antiguos propietarios o poseedores y que en cuanto a los demandantes [Nombre 005], [Nombre 026], [Nombre 017], [Nombre 019], [Nombre 021], [Nombre 028], son poseedores de sus parcelas que forman parte del Asentamiento San Pancracio desde su origen en 1997 y desde entonces han ejercido actos de posesión en forma pacífica, pública y notoria y además han realizado una explotación agropecuaria desde entonces; eso se acreditará ,mediante prueba testimonial ofrecida.
Origen de los daños en perjuicio de las sociedades demandadas: Empresa Cobal: Ambas Compañías COBAL y BANDECO figuran nacional e internacionalmente como compañías exportadoras ambientalmente comprometidas con el desarrollo y con "políticas serias" de Responsabilidad Social Corporativa, encontrándose el Asentamiento se ubica en una posición que colinda con las empresas bananeras demandadas de la siguiente forma: (i) Con BANDECO: colinda al este con la finca conocida como Finca Imperio I. (ii) Con COBAL: al sur con las fincas conocidas como Doble Alianza· y Gigante. Reseña que la compañía COBAL es propietaria de las fincas bananeras del Partido de Limón, matrículas de folio real número [Valor 050] y [Valor 051] que corresponden a la Finca Gigante y Doble Alianza. Por su parte la compañía BANDECO es propietaria de la finca bananera del Partido de Limón, matrícula de folio real número [Valor 052], que corresponde a la Finca Imperio I. En el año 2002 y principalmente en el año 2003, la Compañía COBAL construyó sin permisos municipales, sin estudios ambientales, dos diques, uno a cada lado de la Quebrada La Mona, que atraviesan las fincas bananeras Doble Alianza y Gigante, con una extensión de dos mil trescientos metros al costado norte y mil ochocientos metros al costado sur de la Quebrada La Mona, con el fin de desaguar las aguas de los canales internos existentes en las fincas bananeras Doble Alianza y Gigante en el Canal Chiquerón, y evitar que las aguas que provocan el desbordamiento del río Pacuare inunde sus plantaciones y propiedades y desviarlas por completo al Canal Chiquerón.
La demandada COBAL, además de la construcción de los dos diques indicados en el hecho anterior, ha construido en sus propiedades, sin permisos municipales y sin estudios ambientes, canales secundarios y terciarios que recolectan las aguas pluviales de sus fincas bananeras Gigante y Doble Alianza, y las direccionan como parte del sistema de drenaje a la Quebrada La Mona y a un canal periférico conocido como Canal Chiquerón. Además construyeron en el año 2003, una compuerta que evita, el acceso del agua a la Quebrada La Mona hacia sus plantaciones. Empresa Bandeco: En los mismos años 2002 y 2003, BANDECO construyó y reconstruyó sin permisos municipales y sin estudios ambientes, un dique que bordea todo el Canal Chiquerón entre las coordenadas geográficas [Valor 053]; [Valor 054]; [Valor 054]; y [Valor 055], que a su vez bordea la finca bananera Imperio l. Este dique se encuentra segmentado en varias partes según se indica a continuación: a. El dique inicia en la coordenada geográfica [Valor 056], con una dirección de 277° 13', con una distancia de 239 metros; b. Continua con la dirección 280° 30', con una distancia de 215 metros; c. Se llega a una curva de 19 metros de radio y una distancia de 32 metros, con la dirección 185°36' , con una distancia de 1580 metros, d. Se llega a otra curva que posee un radio de 29 metros y una distancia de 39 metros, siguiendo una dirección 87° 06'; con la distancia 440 metros; y e. El dique termina en las coordenadas [Valor 057], [Valor 058].
BANDECO construyó sin permisos este dique con la intención de evitar que cuando se presenten eventos extraordinarios generados principalmente por el desbordamiento del río Reventazón y la elevación del nivel de las aguas de lluvias y desbordamientos del río Pacuare no se inunden las plantaciones de la Finca Imperio I, lo que provoca que este dique desvíe las aguas que se desbordan hacia el Asentamiento San Pancracio. Explica que las compañías COBAL y BANDECO en el año 2002 y el año 2003 realizaron movimientos de tierra y material de compactación, para la construcción de los diques y los canales internos de canalización de aguas en las fincas Gigante y Doble Alianza, e Imperio I, respectivamente, indicados en los hechos dieciocho, diecinueve y veinte, sin contar con Jos estudios geológicos, de impacto ambiental de la SETENA, y permisos municipales, ambientales y urbanísticos que debieron haber realizado, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 17 y 18 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, y legislación municipal.
Construcción sin permisos: La Compañía BANDECO nunca gestionó las solicitudes y requisitos necesarios para el otorgamiento de concesiones mineras para la construcción de los diques, de acuerdo con los registros de la Dirección de Geología y Minas ni ante del Departamentos de Aguas, ambos Departamentos del MINAET. Asimismo, la Compañía COBAL nunca gestionó las solicitudes y requisitos necesarios para el otorgamiento de concesiones mineras para la construcción de los diques, de acuerdo con los registros de la Dirección de Geología y Minas, afirmándose también que la construcción de los dos diques por parte de COBAL en la Quebrada La Mona, que atraviesa las fincas Doble Alianza y Gigante, y el dique que bordea el Canal Chiquerón y la Finca Imperio 1 de BANDECO, así como los movimientos de tierra, y la creación de canales pluviales por ambas empresas, fueron realizadas sin el previo permiso o autorización, y sin coordinación alguna con la CNE, y con la absoluta complacencia yomisión de la CNE.
Daños de los años 2002 y 2003 y su causa (las actividades de las empresas demandadas): La vocación agropecuaria de las parcelas que conforman el Asentamiento San Pancracio, tiene como principal fin- sino el único - una actividad de subsistencia de los pobladores del Asentamiento. Esta finalidad de subsistencia se perdió luego de las reiteradas y devastadoras inundaciones provocadas por el desbordamiento de los ríos Pacuare y Reventazón en los meses de noviembre y diciembre del año 2002 y el mes de diciembre del año 2003 y hasta la actualidad, en virtud de la construcción de los dos diques por parte de COBAL en la Quebrada La Mona, que atraviesa las fincas Doble Alianza y Gigante, y el dique que bordea el Canal Chiquerón y la Finca Imperio 1 de BANDECO, así como los movimientos pe tierra, y construcción de los canales pluviales que se realizaron con el único fin de proteger sus intereses patrimoniales.
En las primeras "llenas" de estos ríos en los meses de noviembre y diciembre del año 2002 y el mes de diciembre del año 2003, en la comunidad de San Pancracio, se perdieron cabezas de ganado, cerdos, aves, fertilizantes, semillas, insumos agrícolas de diferente naturaleza, plantaciones enteras, el caudal de las inundaciones arrancó las viviendas desde los cimientos y con ello muebles, electrodomésticos, ropa, objetos personales y demás enseres, así como la tranquilidad de vivir en la zona por la eminente amenaza de perderlo todo con una inundación. En el Informe de Visita de Reconocimiento Geológico -Ambiental de julio del año 2003, elaborado por la Geóloga Gabriela Calvo Vargas, se concluyó entre otras cosas, en el punto 5 y 6 de conclusiones y recomendaciones que, el manejo del sistema de canales internos junto con la Quebrada La Mona, podría inducir el direccionamiento del agua hacia el Asentamiento San Pancracio, (haciendo referencia a los diques construidos por COBAL).
También concluye este informe que en virtud de que los diques que bordean las plantaciones no poseen en su superficie cobertura vegetal que evite la erosión, cuando se da un evento de crecida extraordinaria se puede generar una erosión importante de suelo de los diques, y por ende un aporte importante de sedimentos en las aguas que llegan al .Asentamiento, con lo que se evidencia las consecuencias sufridas por el Asentamiento. Más adelante, se dice que que en la actualidad se mantienen por reconstrucciones realizadas posterior al año 2003, como es el caso de la reconstrucción realizada por parte de BANDECO en junio del 2012. Estos diques han alterado drástica y dramáticamente el curso de las aguas pluviales y fluviales del río Pacuare, y tienen el único objetivo de prevenir inundaciones en las fincas bananeras y proteger sus plantaciones de banano. Afirma luego que la Municipalidad certificó en junio del año 2009 que las Compañías COBAL y BANDECO no tienen ni habían gestionado permisos de construcción o movimientos de tierras alguno durante la década del 2000, salvo COBAL que gestionó un permiso para una laguna de lixiviados con fecha de 14 de abril del 2009, no realizando el ayuntamiento actuación administrativa alguna tendiente a evitar, impedir o bien solicitar a las Compañías demandadas el no realizar la construcción de diques para proteger sus plantaciones y propiedades, lo que refleja una clara omisión de sus funciones administrativas (conducta omisiva) y el no ejercicio de sus competencias legales (potestad administrativa).
Referencia a lo planteado y resuelto por la Sala Constitucional, en el recurso de amparo establecido por la Asociación de Productores de San Pancracio: mediante el Voto 2004-04944, la Sala Constitucional declaró con lugar el recurso de amparo interpuesto por la Asociación San Pancracio y ordenó a COBAL y a BANDECO abstenerse de construir diques realizar movimientos de tierras, así como desvío de aguas sobre las márgenes de los ríos Reventazón y Pacuare, hasta tanto cuenten con los permisos correspondientes de las autoridades competentes. De esta forma, se declaró con lugar la solicitud de los vecinos del Asentamiento San Pancracio, en aquel momento agrupados en la Asociación y se demuestra abiertamente el nexo causal entre las acciones de COBAL y BANDECO con los lamentables acontecimientos ocurridos en las inundaciones en los meses de noviembre y diciembre del 2002 y posteriormente en el mes de diciembre del 2003, ordenándose en esa resolución, una serie de medidas paliativas, entre ellas ordenó tanto a la Municipalidad, como al Ministerio de Salud y al MINAE, realizar los estudios pertinentes para determinar fehacientemente la incidencia de los diques, movimientos de tierra, y desvío de aguas efectuados por las compañías bananeras COBAL y BANDECO, sobre el medio ambiente, de lo cual las Autoridades Administrativas antes mencionaban, debían informar a la Sala en el improrrogable plazo de dos meses contado a partir de la notificación de la sentencia, condenándose además a las empresas demandadas y al Estado e instituciones públicas recurridas, al pago de daños y perjuicios ocasionados.
Cuestiona que a pesar de lo antes dispuesto, en la actualidad son comunes los movimientos de tierra en los diques y los márgenes de los ríos Pacuare y Reventazón, siempre bajo el argumento de "necesidad de emergencia". Las Compañías continúan realizando estas obras en protección de sus plantaciones, como es el levantamiento y reparación de los diques a pesar de la orden de la Sala Constitucional, y las entidades públicas recurridas, estales y locales, siguen con sus conductas omisivas, permitiendo que estos trabajos sean realizados por las Compañías. Por lo que continuamente se sigue afectando, año a año desde el 2002, las propiedades de los actores, sus pertenencias y haber patrimonial, tales como, sin ser limitativos: pierden ganado, aves de corral, fertilizantes, cultivos y fundamentalmente se ha deteriorado la naturaleza de las tierras al momento en que el IDA las segregó y entregó, así como contaminación de los suelos por los químicos de las Compañías y contaminación de los pozos de toma agua potable, lo que afecta directamente a la salud.
Sobre la ejecución del amparo: Explica que habiéndose declarado con lugar el recurso de amparo interpuesto ante la Sala Constitucional, y en atención a lo dispuesto en dicha sentencia, los vecinos damnificados -agrupados en la Asociación San Pancracio- acudieron a la vía civil para ejercer la ejecución de la sentencia en el Juzgado Civil de Mayor Cuantía del Segundo Circuito Judicial de la Zona Atlántica, siendo la acción rechazada por una serie de errores técnico-procesales, por una falta de legitimación activa, debido a que los Daños Directos causados a los asociados, solo pueden ser reclamados por los afectados directos y no por la Asociación San Pancracio, tal y como se indicó en la sentencia de primera instancia número 37-2008, y que fue confirmado por el Tribunal del Segundo Circuito de la Zona Atlántica, Pococí, mediante Voto No 67-2008 del 12 de setiembre del año 2008. Lo que ha sucedido con posterioridad al trámite del recurso de amparo: Se manifiesta que las Compañías COBAL y BANDECO no han realizado las gestiones ni estudios necesarios que permitan adoptar las modificaciones en los diques y canales su propiedad para corregir las acciones dañosas que ocasionaron las inundaciones desde el año 2003, en virtud de los trabajos realizados por las Compañías en los años 2002, 2003 y siguientes.
Sin embargo, sí han realizado otros movimientos de tierra y construcciones, a pesar que en la Municipalidad de Siquirres consta que no han gestionado los permisos correspondientes, indicando que los problemas de inundaciones persisten en virtud que las instituciones competentes, sean estas la Municipalidad, el Ministerio de Salud, CNE, así como el MINAET, no han ordenado a las Compañías tomar las medidas pertinentes o, cuando menos, abstenerse de realizar más movimientos de tierra y construcciones. La conducta omisiva de estas entidades públicas, nacionales y locales, también incluyen el no realizar ellas o gestionar las acciones necesarias para garantizar que las inundaciones que iniciaron en el año 2003 no se continúen dando, o bien, que sus efectos se vean minimizados o reducidos. Incluso la CNE ha incumplido con su deber legal y no ha ejercido su competencia pública en el manejo de esta situación de emergencia que año a año ocurre, ni ha cumplido con su deber de coordinar la Comisión Interinstitucional.
La CNE tiene el deber de realizar una gestión interinstitucional integral, que no lo ha realizado, ver oficio IMN-DA-0518-2004 de fecha 3 de marzo del 2004 remitido por el señor José Miguel Zeledón Calderón del Departamento de Aguas, al presidente de la CNE. Estima que la CNE, es considerada y señalada por todas las demás instituciones del Estado como el "COORDINADOR" del "Comité Interinstitucional de Gestión de Ríos del País", quien además tiene la competencia bajo un enfoque de gestión de riesgo que la Ley le asigna, el deber de buscar una solución integral a la problemática provocadas por las Compañías y las actuaciones omisas de los demás entes públicos. Afirma que desde el año 2003, los vecinos del Asentamiento San Pancracio (incluyendo los actores), cada uno en su respectiva proporción y patrimonio, han perdido la oportunidad de desarrollar y explotar sus parcelas tal y como lo indican las certificaciones emitidas por el IDA.
La vocación agropecuaria de las parcelas se ha visto disminuida y reducida, debido a las constantes inundaciones y el cambio del curso de éstas desde que las Compañías COBAL y BANDECO construyeron los diques.Se aduce que los representantes de la Asociación de San Pancracio, actores de la presente demanda, estuvieron de acuerdo con la recomendación realizada por el Departamento de Aguas del MINAE que recomendaba demoler el dique del Canal Chiquerón, según resoluciones IMN-DA-2459-05 de las 8:00 horas del 13 de setiembre del 2005 IMN-DA-1671-05 del 30 de junio del 2005 y IMN-DA-1045-05 e IMN-DA-1134-05. Señala que hasta el día de hoy, ninguna de las propuestas y recomendaciones ordenadas por el Departamento de Aguas del MINAE en los siguientes oficios: (a) IMNDA- 2910-2004; (b) IMN-DA-1134-05; (c) IMN-DA-1660-05; (d) IMN-DA-1671-05; (e) IMN-DA-1671-05; (f) IMN-DA-2459-05; (g) IMN-DA-0246-2007, han sido ejecutadas o realizadas en el campo.
Dice que al día de hoy - considerando que las inundaciones iniciaron en el año 2003 - un número considerable de ganado ha muerto ahogado y debido a la ingesta de lodo y sedimentos. De igual forma, la exposición a enfermedades se ha visto incrementada desde que iniciaron las inundaciones. No solamente por las aguas estancadas que sirven para la acumulación de enfermedades como el dengue, mosquitos, malos olores, entre otros riesgos y molestias; sino además porque al inundarse las parcelas, se socavan y levantan las protecciones de los tanques sépticos generándose un vector de enfermedades debido al desbordamiento de aguas negras. Existe año con año una angustia y sufrimiento social entre los vecinos de la comunidad del Asentamiento San Pancracio, quienes se ven afectado emocionalmente con las inundaciones y deben hacer frente a sentimientos de frustración, angustia, desesperación, incertidumbre, temor e · incluso ansiedad generalizada.
Todos estos sentimientos surgen cada vez que inicia un aguacero en la zona.- Estima el Tribunal, que los hechos de la reformulación de la demanda (planteada el 19 de abril del 2013), corresponden fundamentalmente con lo planteado y resuelto en el expediente de la Sala Constitucional N° 03-9991-0007-CO, en que la Asociación Administradora de la Producción Agrícola y Coordinación Institucional del Asentamiento San Pancracio, representando los intereses colectivos de los vecinos de la comunidad en materia ambiental, había logrado que se declarara que los trabajos en los diques existentes y movimientos de tierras en los canales realizada por las mismas sociedades aquí demandandas (para entonces, COBAL y Bandeco), violentaban el derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, al no contar con la connivencia de las autoridades recurridas (ministerios de Salud y Ambiente y Municipalidad de Siquirres), con las viabilidades ambientales correspondientes, tales como lo exige el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente (N° 7554 de 4 de octubre de 1995), que dice: "Las actividades humanas que alteren o destruyan elementos del ambiente o generen residuos, materiales tóxicos o peligrosos, requerirán una evaluación de impacto ambiental por parte de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental creada en esta ley.
Su aprobación previa, de parte de este organismo, será requisito indispensable para iniciar las actividades, obras o proyectos. Las leyes y los reglamentos indicarán cuáles actividades, obras o proyectos requerirán la evaluación de impacto ambiental".- Ahora bien, si la Asociación antes mencionada representaba a los vecinos de San Pancracio y se demostró que todos los actores, son o han sido en el pasado, vecinos de esa comunidad y otras poblaciones aledañas, todas dichas comunidades afectadas por las inundaciones, en aplicación de lo dispuesto en el artículo 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, este Tribunal de lo Contencioso Administrativo, es inmutable y no se puede cuestionar ni desvirtuar lo analizado y resuelto por la Sala Constitucional, en cuanto al caso: o sea de tiene por probado que las empresas privadas propietarias de las fincas vecinas, realizaron movimientos de tierras, así como hicieron desvíos de aguas sobre las márgenes de los ríos Reventazón y Pacuare, sin contar con viabilidad ambiental ni los permisos correspondientes de las autoridades competentes, violentando el derecho constitucional a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, contando con la connivencia de las ahí autoridades recurridas, el Ministerio de Salud y Municipalidad de Siquirres, viéndose beneficiados los aquí actores como propietarios y poseedores en precario de dicha acción vecinal, para efecto no solo de proteger dicho derecho del artículo 50 constitucional, sino también para efecto del reclamo patrimonial correspondiente, como actos interruptores de la prescripción de la reclamación de daños patrimoniales (tal como lo desarrollaremos más adelante).- Recuérdese que el artículo 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, se establece la vinculatoriedad de las sentencias de la Sala Constitucional, erga omnes (incluyendo obviamente a los órganos jurisdiccionales de otras materias, como es este Tribunal).
Así, en virtud de esa norma y de la sentencia 2004-4944 de las quince horas con once minutos del seis de mayo del dos mil cuatro, cualquier obra civil realizada por particulares o instituciones públicas en la zona, debe contar con la viabilidad ambiental correspondiente, emitida por el órgano público competente establecido en la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente, la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental (SETENA), siendo contrario a derecho también cualquier construcción o movimiento de tierra que se haya realizado sin contar con la aprobación de dicha instancia, realizada con posterioridad a abril del año 2008, cuando la misma Sala Constitucional emitió la resolución Nº 2008-007190 de las 14 horas del 25 de abril del 2008, que cerró el trámite de ese recurso de amparo, donde se declaró que las empresas ahí recurridas (y que nuevamente fueron demandadas en este proceso), no habían incumplido la orden de no realizar trabajos en los diques existentes y movimientos de tierras en los canales, sin contar con los permisos corespondiente.- Ahora bien, se considera que la sentencia del 2004 de la jurisdicción constitucional, mantiene sus efectos, porque a partir de lo probado en este expediente, se evidencia que el fenómeno de las inundaciones se ha mantenido constante desde esa época hasta hoy y también porque la Sala Constitucional, debiéndose cumplir con el deber de tener permisos para realizar trabajos en los diques y movimientos de tierra en las fincas agrícolas vecinas a la localidad de San Pancracio, que tiene raigambre en lo establecido en el artículo 50 constitucional y la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y habida cuenta que el propio tribunal constitucional, no limitó los efectos de lo resuelto en el tiempo.- Consecuencia de lo antes explicado y de lo resuelto por la Sala Constitucional, tanto la sentencia del amparo del año 2004, específicamente en el hecho probado j): "Mediante oficio UPAH/RPP-001-200 del 14 de enero de 2003 (sic), la Unidad de Protección Humano del Ministerio de Salud Pública, indica que durante una inspección realizada en la zona, se logró determinar que las empresas accionadas realizaron movimientos de tierra, reconstruyeron algunos diques existentes y levantaron nuevos.
Las obras se realizaron en zonas de riesgo de desbordamiento del río Pacuare y el río Reventazón. Asimismo, las obras realizadas no contaron con los estudios técnicos de impacto ambiental (folio 282)"; como en la resolución que desestimó la gestión de desobediencia de lo resuelto por ese mismo alto tribunal, del año 2008, lo mismo que de lo probado en el hecho probado 8 anterior, se tiene que por probado:
La indemnización de los perjuicios que pudieran causarse correrán a cargo del dueño que ordenó la construcción de las defensas", pero también debe tenerse en cuenta que esa norma legal no puede ser aplicada aisladamente sino en armonía con la promulgación del derecho fundamental a un ambiente sano y ecológicamente equilibrado, con la inclusión de un párrafo segundo al numeral 50 constitucional, por Ley N° 7412 de 3 de junio de 1994 y al dictado de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y no puede facultar a los propietarios de tierras colindantes con ríos a realizar cualquier actividad, sin que se demuestre que no le causa daño al ambiente natural y a las comunidades vecinas. Téngase presente que incluso, en el Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (EIA) (Decreto Ejecutivo N° 31849 de 24 de mayo de 2004), a texto expreso, en el "Listado de proyectos, obras y actividades obligados según leyes específicas a cumplir el proceso de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental o de Estudio de Impacto Ambiental ante la SETENA", se incluye dentro de las actividades que obligatoriamente requieren la Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental (que por su naturaleza, puede ser realizada antes e incluso posteriormente, en un caso como el presente, que existe una situación de urgencia para proteger plantaciones), los trabajos realizados en cauces de dominio público, y la modificación de cauces, como se dio en el presente caso.- De esta forma, se constata que los movimientos de tierra y el mantenimiento de diques realizados en los meses de julio y agosto del 2012, por la empresa Bandeco, violentaron directamente la sentencia de la Sala Constitucional del año 2004, el artículo 17 de la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y el Reglamento General sobre los Procedimientos de Evaluación de Impacto Ambiental, habiendo violado ya esas dos últimas normas como había hecho en las obras del año 2003.- En cuanto a Chiquita Brands, la inobservancia de esas normas se dio únicamente en cuanto a las obras realizadas en el año 2003.- VIII) Cabe acotar que en cuanto a la ampliación de la demanda realizada el 31 de agosto del 2018, se dice que el 13 de julio de ese año, se generó un sistema de alta presión que provocó lluvias de alta y mediana cantidad en el Caribe y que resultado de las lluvias acaecidas y de las acciones de las sociedades demandadas y las omisiones de las entidades estatales, en el Asentamiento San Pancracio se presentaron inundaciones, provocándose la pérdida de la producción agrícola existente y daños en las viviendas y propiedades.
La representación del Estado, cuestionó que por medio de videos se pueda probar que las inundaciones hayan efectivamente ocurrido. La representación de la CNE manifiesta que efectivamente se dieron inundaciones en la zona y que es lógico que sucedan ante la ocurrencia de eventos hidrometeorológicos extraordinarios, por ubicarse la comunidad en la llanura de inundación del Río Pacuare. Informa que ante los hechos se realizó una contratación de maquinaria para atender la zona de San Pancracio, la N° 2018PI-000249-000650000, con Andremu Sociedad Anónima, siendo responsabilidad de la dirección técnica y supervisión de los trabajos, la Unidad Técnica de Gestión Vial Municipal de Siquirres y el Ingeniero William Solano Ocampo, funcionario de ese ayuntamiento.- Ahora bien, se estima por esta Cámara, que si bien está probada hasta la saciedad la existencia de inundaciones para el mes de julio del 2018, de esta situación no se deriva responsabilidad para las empresas demandadas, ni para los entes públicos también accionados, porque no se demuestra que esas inundaciones debidas a hechos de la naturaleza, se hayan agravado por la situación de los diques y canalización, no pudiendo generarse responsabilidad de ningún tipo por esa situación.- IX) Análisis sobre las pretensiones 2, 3, 7 y 9 de la demanda: En abono a lo dicho en el considerando trasanterior: quedó probado que esas situaciones nunca fueron previstas o evitadas por las autoridades del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía, específicamente por la Dirección de Aguas (véase la declaración en su juicio de su Director José Miguel Zeledón Calderón), que ha incumplido con su deber de vigilar que las defensas que los particulares hagan en cauces de dominio público, para proteger sus propiedades, puedan causar daños a terceros (artículo 89 de la Ley de Aguas), o de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental, que a pesar que desde el año 2004, sabe que le corresponde velar por el impacto ambiental para la naturaleza y los habitantes de la zona de San Pancracio, por la situación de los diques y las canalizaciones, nunca ha cumplido con los deberes establecidos por la Sala Constitucional y la Ley Orgánica del Ambiente y no ha exigido la realización de los estudios ambientales requeridos para las obras que realizan las empresas agrícolas vecinas.- Además, han incumplido con sus deberes legales, la Municipalidad de Siquirres, que tiene que velar de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 169 constitucional, 1° del Código Municipal y 26 de la Ley de Emergencias (N° 7914 que a continuación se explicará), el deber de velar y administrar por los intereses locales y de cada uno de los munícipes, al no haber adoptado medidas de control o realizado obras, para evitar o aminorar las inundaciones en la zona (que ponen en riesgo la vida, salud y bienes de muchas personas, incluso de condición humilde), además que no evitó que en su momento el IDA haya establecido un asentamiento campesino, con una población apreciable, en una zona inundable, con el riesgo inevitable para personas y bienes, incluso emitiendo los permisos municipales de edificación que exige la Ley de Construcciones, para toda construcción.- De la misma forma, la CNE en su condición de ente rector en materia de prevención y manejo de emergencias, incumplió con los deberes previstos en el artículo 26 de la Ley de Emergencias, N° 7914 de 28 de setiembre de 1999, que estuvo vigente entre ese año y el año 2005, disponiendo dicha norma que: "La Comisión estará obligada a emitir resoluciones, mediante las cuales ordene no otorgar permisos de explotación forestal, minera, de ríos y otros, en lugares de riesgo inminente de emergencia.
También podrá emitir este tipo de resoluciones a partir de las amenazas o los riesgos presentes en cualquier parte del territorio nacional. Dichas resoluciones serán vinculantes y, por ende, de acatamiento obligatorio para las instituciones responsables del sector que corresponda.// Asimismo, la Comisión deberá elaborar un documento oficial, de acatamiento obligatorio y vinculante, que indique los lugares y las razones por las cuales no puede autorizarse ningún proyecto de construcción, edificación, ampliación ni modificación de proyectos de asentamientos humanos, ya sea en forma parcial o total, en zonas de riesgo inminente de emergencia establecidas con anterioridad. Este documento se remitirá a las siguientes entidades: a) A cada municipalidad, con la indicación de las zonas geográficas de riesgo ubicadas dentro de su jurisdicción.// b) A las entidades encargadas de autorizar construcciones.// c) Al Colegio de Ingenieros y Arquitectos de Costa Rica, que estará obligado a darle publicidad.// En ningún caso los funcionarios competentes para emitir dichas autorizaciones podrán desconocer el documento oficial ni las resoluciones particulares sobre prohibición de edificaciones específicas que emita la Comisión, so pena de la pérdida del cargo y las responsabilidades administrativas, civiles y penales que correspondan.// A las personas físicas o jurídicas, públicas o privadas, que edifiquen en las zonas prohibidas citadas en este artículo, se les aplicará la obligación de derribar la obra conforme al segundo párrafo del artículo 11 de esta ley".
Además, se incumple con los deberes previstos en el numeral 14, incisos h) y k) de la vigente Ley de Emergencias (N° 8488 de 22 de noviembre de 2005): "Artículo 14.-Competencias ordinarias de prevención de la comisión. La Comisión será la entidad rectora en lo que se refiera a la prevención de riesgos y a los preparativos para atender situaciones de emergencia. Deberá cumplir las siguientes competencias: (...) h) Asesorar a las municipalidades en cuanto al manejo de la información sobre las condiciones de riesgo que los afecta, como es el caso de la orientación para una política efectiva de uso de la tierra y del ordenamiento territorial. La asesoría deberá contribuir a la elaboración de los planes reguladores, la adopción de medidas de control y el fomento de la organización, tendientes a reducir la vulnerabilidad de las personas, considerando que, en el ámbito municipal, recae en primera instancia la responsabilidad de enfrentar esta problemática.
(...) k) Fomentar la creación y el fortalecimiento de capacidades regionales, municipales y locales para el manejo de situaciones de emergencia.// En caso necesario, incluye la participación en acciones de alerta, alarma, movilización y atención de la población".- Llama la atención al Tribunal que a pesar que han pasado casi 19 años de las primeras inundaciones analizadas y que existen votos de la Sala Constitucional, restableciendo a los vecinos en el ejercicio de sus derechos fundamentales, por las acciones y omisiones de las empresas privadas y las autoridades públicas, no se haya logrado a la fecha, siquiera la presentación y realización de los estudios de impacto ambiental, sobre el funcionamiento de los diques y canalizaciones existentes, debiéndose solucionar conforme a derecho, esa grave situación.- En razón de lo anterior, se deben acoger los extremos petitorios 2), 3) y 7) antecitadso, declarando que las dos sociedades demandadas fueron responsables de realizar sin los permisos exigidos por la ley, las construcciones referentes a los diques, movimientos de tierras en los ríos y canales, en la zona de San Pancracio de Siquirres, siendo responsables tanto dichas compañías, el Estado (por las omisiones dichas de la Secretaría Técnica Nacional Ambiental y la Dirección de Aguas, ambas dependencias del Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía), la Municipalidad y la CNE, de omitir la realización de los estudios necesarios para prevenir las inundaciones en dicho lugar.
Dichos entes públicos deberán realizar las acciones y obras necesarias de forma coordinada y dentro del ámbito sus competencias, para prevenir, evitar y reducir los impactos negativos de las inundaciones, en perjuicio de los aquí actores y los habitantes de San Pancracio y lugares vecinos. Todas las acciones ordenadas deben ser vigiladas por iniciativa de las partes en su cumplimiento, por el Juez o Jueza de Ejecución de este Tribunal, en ejercicio de las atribuciones previstas en los artículos 155 y siguientes del Código Procesal Contencioso-Administrativo. Se estima razonable para que el Estado y las otras instituciones realicen dichas actividades y obras, el plazo de un año a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia.- Hay que rechazar la pretensión novena antes reseñada consistente en la declaratoria de que ninguno ha realizado las gestiones necesarias para resolver la apremiante situación que continúa generando daños constantemente a los actores tanto de forma personal, como colectivamente, por daños al medio ambiente y como a los ecosistemas de la zona, debido a que se entienden contempladas en su contenido en las tres anteriores.- X) Análisis de los extremos petitorios del 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 y 15 de la demanda: Ahora bien, las pretensiones mencionadas, deben ser rechazadas en todos sus extremos, por diferentes razones:
Por tanto:
Se rechazan las excepciones de prescripción y de falta de legitimación activa y pasiva. Se acoge la defensa de falta de derecho, en cuanto a las pretensiones rechazadas y se rechaza dicha excepción, en cuanto a las pretensiones desestimadas. En consecuencia, se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda, entendiéndose por rechazada en el tanto no se mencione algún extremo en esta parte dispositiva. Se declara que Corporación de Desarrollo Agrícola del Monte, Sociedad Anónima y Chiquita Brands Costa Rica, Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada, son responsables de realizar sin los permisos exigidos por la ley, las construcciones referentes a los diques, movimientos de tierras en los ríos y canales, en la zona de San Pancracio de Siquirres, siendo responsables tanto dichas compañías, como el Estado, la Municipalidad de Siquirres y la Comisión Nacional de Prevención de Riesgos y Atención de Emergencias, de omitir la realización de los estudios necesarios para realizar dichas obras.
Se condena además a los entes públicos demandados, en el plazo de un año a partir de la firmeza de esta sentencia, realizar de forma coordinada las acciones y obras necesarias, dentro del ámbito sus competencias, para prevenir, evitar y reducir los impactos negativos de las inundaciones, en perjuicio de los aquí actores y los habitantes de San Pancracio y lugares vecinos. A iniciativa de parte, todas las acciones y obras ordenadas deben ser verificadas en su cumplimiento conforme al ordenamiento, por el juez o jueza de Ejecución de este Tribunal. Se resuelve el presente asunto, sin especial pronunciamiento en costas para ninguna de las partes y para el tercero interesado, el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural. Notifíquese.- Jonatán Canales Hernández, Rosa María Cortés Morales, Fabián Núñez Castrillo, Jueces.- ???????????????
JONATHAN CANALES HERNÁNDEZ - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A ???????????????
ROSA MARÍA CORTES MORALES - JUEZ/A DECISOR/A ????????????????
FABIAN NUÑEZ CASTRILLO - JUEZ/A TRAMITADOR/A Clasificación elaborada por CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIALdel Poder Judicial. Prohibida su reproducción y/o distribución en forma onerosa.
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.