← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00031-2012 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección II · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección II · 2012
OutcomeResultado
The Tribunal annuls the lower court's judgment and orders a new decision after procedural cleansing.El Tribunal anula la sentencia de primera instancia y ordena dictar nueva resolución, saneando el proceso previamente.
SummaryResumen
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal annuls a lower court ruling that awarded moral damages but rejected material damages in the enforcement of Constitutional Chamber amparo 2003-03277, which protected the rights to health, petition, and a healthy environment against noise pollution from a karaoke bar. The Tribunal finds the first-instance judgment incongruent and unmotivated: it failed to address all claimed injuries, ignored expert evidence, admitted improper confessionary evidence from non-parties, and did not verify standing. Although the judge acknowledged the plaintiffs had to leave their home, the global dismissal of material damages lacked the required individual analysis. The contested judgment is voided and remanded for a new decision after procedural cleansing.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección II conoce la apelación contra la sentencia que condenó a la Municipalidad de Flores por daño moral y rechazó los daños emergentes, en la ejecución del amparo 2003-03277 que protegió los derechos a la salud, petición y ambiente sano frente a la contaminación sónica de un karaoke. El Tribunal detecta vicios graves: el juez de instancia no se pronunció sobre todos los hechos y daños reclamados, omitió el informe pericial, valoró prueba confesional de terceros no demandados y no verificó la legitimación activa. La sentencia es incongruente y carece de motivación suficiente, pues desestimó de manera global los perjuicios materiales sin análisis individual, pese a reconocer que los afectados debieron abandonar su vivienda. Se anula la resolución y se ordena dictar nueva sentencia conforme a derecho, saneando previamente el proceso.
Key excerptExtracto clave
From the reading of the appealed decision, it is clear that the first-instance judge omitted to analyze or rule on the credibility, among other elements, of the expert report, each supporting document of the very different claimed consequential damages, as well as to infer them as required by the syllogism to determine the action's admissibility, in line with the complexity of the matter given the variety of violated fundamental rights, by addressing the enforcement mainly and limited to the noise pollution issue, avoiding any congruent pronouncement related to the omissions conduct, the right of petition and prompt resolution, and consequently the facts of the claim, which includes the Health Ministry's participation apart from the Municipality of Flores, the evidence, and the plaintiffs' claims. Judgments must address all points expressly required by law; failure to do so results in an irreparable procedural flaw that violates the rights of defense in court, because the parties must be certain about which facts are deemed proved in order to examine the logical path the judge follows in assessing the facts and weighing the evidence, which is also crucial for establishing the limits of res judicata and thereby clarifying which damages and why they were not proven as the basis for the denial. Thus, that duty—to clearly establish the facts, weigh all admitted evidence, and be precise in the operative part, being formal and essential requirements of any judgment—carries nullity as the sanction.De la lectura de la resolución recurrida, se desprende que efectivamente el juzgador de primera instancia omitió analizar, o bien de pronunciarse, en cuanto al contenido de su credibilidad, entre otros elementos de juicio, del informe pericial, de cada documento de respaldo de los muy distintos daños emergentes pretendidos, como también de inferirlos como consecuentes que requiere el silogismo, para la determinación de la procedencia de la acción, en correspondencia con la complejidad del asunto ante la variedad de derechos fundamentales conculcados, al tratar mayor y limitadamente la ejecución circunscrita a la problemática relacionada con la contaminación sónica, obviando todo pronunciamiento congruente y relacionado con los temas de la conducta omisiva, el derecho de petición y pronta resolución y consecuentemente con los hechos de la demanda, que incorpora participación del Ministerio de Salud aparte de la Municipalidad de Flores, la prueba y las pretensiones de los actores. Las sentencias deben pronunciarse sobre todos los puntos que expresamente se previeron por el legislador, y si no se hace, el vicio procedimental es insubsanable, y violatorio de los derechos de defensa en juicio, pues las partes deben tener la certeza de cuáles son los hechos que se tienen por acreditados a fin de examinar el íter lógico que sigue el juzgador en la estimación de los hechos y consecuente valoración de las pruebas, lo que también es de gran importancia a los efectos de establecer los límites de la cosa juzgada y, con ello, la claridad en la determinación de qué daños y por qué no fueron acreditados como sustento de la denegatoria. Ahora bien, ese mandato, de fijar con claridad los hechos, de valorar toda la prueba recibida, y de ser preciso en la parte dispositiva, siendo requisitos formales y esenciales de toda sentencia, tienen como sanción la nulidad.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"Las sentencias deben pronunciarse sobre todos los puntos que expresamente se previeron por el legislador, y si no se hace, el vicio procedimental es insubsanable, y violatorio de los derechos de defensa en juicio."
"Judgments must address all points expressly required by law; failure to do so results in an irreparable procedural flaw that violates the rights of defense in court."
Considerando III
"Las sentencias deben pronunciarse sobre todos los puntos que expresamente se previeron por el legislador, y si no se hace, el vicio procedimental es insubsanable, y violatorio de los derechos de defensa en juicio."
Considerando III
"Ese mandato, de fijar con claridad los hechos, de valorar toda la prueba recibida, y de ser preciso en la parte dispositiva, siendo requisitos formales y esenciales de toda sentencia, tienen como sanción la nulidad."
"That duty—to clearly establish the facts, weigh all admitted evidence, and be precise in the operative part, being formal and essential requirements of any judgment—carries nullity as the sanction."
Considerando III
"Ese mandato, de fijar con claridad los hechos, de valorar toda la prueba recibida, y de ser preciso en la parte dispositiva, siendo requisitos formales y esenciales de toda sentencia, tienen como sanción la nulidad."
Considerando III
"La vigilancia municipal por supuesto debe ser permanente y no depender de la denuncia de los afectados."
"Municipal oversight must certainly be permanent and not depend on the complaints of the affected."
Cita del voto de Sala Constitucional 2003-03277
"La vigilancia municipal por supuesto debe ser permanente y no depender de la denuncia de los afectados."
Cita del voto de Sala Constitucional 2003-03277
Full documentDocumento completo
Nº 31-2012-II ADMINISTRATIVE CONTENTIOUS TRIBUNAL. SECOND SECTION. Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Goicoechea, at fourteen hours and thirty minutes on March fifteenth, two thousand twelve.
Appeal in a constitutional amparo sentence enforcement proceeding filed by Nombre5832., […] and Nombre594., […] against the MUNICIPALITY OF FLORES, currently represented by its Mayor, Mr. Gerardo Rojas Barrantes, […].
RESULTANDO
1. Through briefs filed before the Administrative Contentious and Civil Treasury Court, on February 6 (f. 74 to 99), April 26 (f. 103), and June 6, all of 2006 (f. 106), the plaintiffs requested enforcement of the Constitutional Chamber's sentence number 2003-03277, issued at 12:10 hours on April 25, 2003, which ordered (f. 122): “Por tanto: The appeal is granted for the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 27, 21, and 50 of the Political Constitution. The Mayor of the Municipality of Flores is ordered to immediately and effectively guarantee that no activity not authorized by the Municipality in accordance with current regulations is carried out in the B.M. He is also ordered to resolve and report on the request made by the petitioners in the note presented on February 17, 2003, within the three days following the notification of this ruling. The Municipality of Flores is condemned to pay costs, damages (daños y perjuicios), which will be liquidated in the enforcement of the sentence of the administrative contentious jurisdiction...”. Based on this, they present the enforcement, requesting that (f. 106): "1. Let the complaint be modified so that only the Municipality of Flores is considered the defendant, for which I provide the respective writ of execution. 2. Therefore, the claim shall be considered established as follows: a. That the present Sentence Enforcement be granted for the damages (daños y perjuicios) caused by the defendant. b. That the items liquidated for the demonstrated damages (daños y perjuicios) be approved, condemning the defendant to pay them. c. That the defendant be condemned to pay the costs of both proceedings...".
2. The corresponding hearing was granted by ruling at 09:33 hours on June 22, 2006 (f. 125), and the complaint was deemed unanswered by ruling at 08:36 hours on November 17, 2006 (f. 144).
3. By ruling of the Administrative Contentious and Civil Treasury Court, number 1099-2011, at fourteen hours on June sixth, two thousand eleven, it was ordered: “POR TANTO: This sentence enforcement is partially granted, condemning the Municipality of Flores to pay One million colones exactly as moral damages (daño moral) to each of the petitioners, and three hundred thousand colones exactly as personal costs corresponding to the enforcement proceeding. For a total of Two million three hundred thousand colones exactly. The enforcing party's claims are rejected insofar as they are not expressly granted.” 4. The special judicial representative of the plaintiffs, as well as the Mayor of the Municipality of Flores de Heredia, filed an appeal against the aforementioned ruling.
5. Given that the appeals were admitted by the lower court (a quo) and the appeal has been processed accordingly, this sentence is issued within the time frame allowed by the Office's obligations, after prior deliberation, and no defects causing absolute nullity are observed.
Judge Hernández Hernández writes.
CONSIDERANDO
I.- PROVEN AND UNPROVEN FACTS. Due to the manner of resolution, a pronouncement on this is dispensed with.
II.- Regarding the grievances. The enforcing party summarizes the existence of factual errors in the material assessment of the evidence, particularly in demonstrating the consequential damages (daño emergente), by not having addressed each piece of evidence offered to demonstrate the alleged damages. They cite an erroneous assessment of rental expenses since the agreement was verbal, and the omission of analysis of the expert evidence incorporated into the case file. They challenge the sentence for a legal error in the assessment of evidence regarding expenses incurred due to the conduct of the Municipality of Flores, denying it all value and dismissing it without any analysis or reasoning. They also state that the judge limited himself to assessing the damages (daños y perjuicios) based on noise pollution (contaminación sónica), without properly assessing the violation of the right to health and all its implications, and also lacked any consideration of the administrative conduct of the City Council regarding the underlying problem. Regarding the defendant's grievances, it asserts that the court incorrectly handled the sentence enforcement, which seeks to enforce the liability attributed to the Ministry of Health for its failure to act promptly regarding the noise caused by the karaoke activity in the B.M. These aspects were resolved in amparo 1677-03 of February 28, 2003, and if the enforcement of the sentence against the Municipality were intended, it would generate absolute defenselessness, given that the facts of the plaintiff's complaint do not directly stem from its actions. It states that of the 43 facts contained in the sentence enforcement brief, they mainly refer to the Ministry of Health's breaches and the noise and environmental pollution (contaminación sónica y ambiental) problem that afflicted them since they built their dwelling, including problems with water pipes from the bar, water leaks, nauseating odors, rodents, etc., all matters under the jurisdiction of said ministry. It also points out that the object to be enforced and the causal link between the facts and the violated actions should have been weighed by the judge in relation to the Ministry and not against the Municipality, which causes absolute defenselessness and an inconsistency between what was requested and what was granted, as the enforcing party was not required to correct the complaint with the facts and grounds against the Municipality of Flores, nor was a transfer made based on the complaint filed on facts under the Ministry of Health's jurisdiction, much less was confessional evidence taken from Ministry of Health officials, who are not part of the Municipality of Flores. It challenges the amount granted for moral damages (daño moral), considering it unreasonable and disproportionate to what was intended to be claimed. It insists that the rules of due process were not followed, resulting in an error of assessment due to the mishandling of the proceeding. It requests that the challenged sentence be annulled and that the liquidated damages (daños y perjuicios) be denied, consequently archiving the sentence enforcement proceeding.
III.- Regarding the nullity of the challenged sentence. The enforcement is promoted based on Constitutional Chamber vote number 2003-03277 at twelve hours ten minutes on April twenty-fifth, two thousand three, whose content addresses three fundamental rights violated by the facts reported by the appellants and that were promoted and committed by the Municipality of Flores, namely, the violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 21, 27, and 50 of the Political Constitution. That is, the Constitutional Chamber held the municipal entity responsible for omitted administrative conduct, for failing in its duty to respond promptly to the petitioners' requests, and consequently for the impact on the appellants' right to health. This assertion is supported by the appellants' claim, as seen in the vote itself when the Chamber says: "it is directed against the Municipality of Flores, because an activity is carried out in the B.M. that has not been authorized by the Municipality for more than two years – 'karaoke' – that produces noise pollution (contaminación sónica) affecting the appellants, which has even forced them to leave their home and move to live elsewhere. Despite the respondent knowing about the situation for years, as it has been repeatedly reported by those affected, it has not adopted effective measures to stop this situation. The petitioners claim that this omission harms their right to health. They also claim the violation of their right of petition due to the lack of response to the note of February 17, 2002." Subsequently, in Considerando III of the enforced vote, it summarizes by pointing out: "(...) it is evident that the Municipality of Flores has indeed not fully complied with the constitutional and legal obligations that require it to ensure that commercial activities carried out by residents of its jurisdiction comply with current regulations and do not harm fundamental rights of other residents. The fact that on March 11, 2003, the Municipal Council of Flores rejected the petitioner's request to carry out the 'karaoke' activity for not attaching the results of the sound confinement tests, and on that same date ordered the hiring of a legal professional to carry out administrative processes against businesses in the canton that violate current regulations, is not sufficient action. On the contrary, it is proof that the illegal karaoke activity has been tolerated without resorting to municipal powers, for example, the cancellation of the license (patente) following due process for the owner who carries out an unauthorized activity, and the consequent closure of the business. The Chamber notes that for a long time the Municipality has been aware of the situation affecting the petitioners, not only from the complaints filed by them, but also from the intervention of the Ministry of Health, which, on the occasion of the application for a sanitary operating permit for musical, dance, and karaoke activities filed by the owner of Bar María, evaluated the physical conditions of the property to carry out these activities, without it being established that they were approved (...) Municipal oversight must, of course, be permanent and not depend on complaints from those affected, regarding compliance with closing times and the performance of noisy activities, all of which is lacking in this case, where the Municipality, aware of the appellants' problem and the flagrant violation of the Municipal Code and the Karaoke Regulations (Reglamento de Karaokes), has done nothing more than warn the owner of the Bar, warnings that have proven not to be complied with, instead of using the powers that the law grants it to protect the right of neighbors to a healthy, ecologically balanced environment free from noise conditions (condición sónica), and the right to health, which can hardly be maintained without adequate rest (...)." From a reading of the appealed decision, it is clear that the first-instance judge effectively omitted to analyze, or rule on the substance of its credibility, among other elements of judgment, the expert report, each supporting document for the very distinct consequential damages (daños emergentes) claimed, as well as to infer them as consequential elements required by the syllogism to determine the appropriateness of the action. This is in relation to the complexity of the matter given the variety of violated fundamental rights, by addressing the enforcement in a greater and more limited way, circumscribed to the problem related to noise pollution (contaminación sónica), omitting any consistent pronouncement related to the themes of omitted conduct, the right of petition and prompt resolution, and consequently the facts of the complaint, which incorporate the participation of the Ministry of Health apart from the Municipality of Flores, the evidence, and the plaintiffs' claims. Judgments must rule on all points expressly provided for by the legislator, and if this is not done, the procedural defect is incurable and violates the rights of defense in trial, as the parties must be certain of which facts are considered proven in order to examine the logical process (íter lógico) that the judge follows in the estimation of the facts and consequent assessment of the evidence. This is also of great importance for establishing the limits of res judicata (cosa juzgada) and, with it, clarity in determining which damages and why they were not proven as the basis for the denial. In this line of reasoning, the Spanish jurist Leonardo Prieto-Castro y Ferrandiz states that the "judgment, when it must be rendered after a complete process, constitutes the culmination or conclusion of the legal judgment or syllogism that begins with the complaint. The Judge's work in the presence of a completed process is to condense and summarize all its elements (constructing the reasoning of the judgment) and to state the legal conclusion to which they lead (in the operative part). "Firstly, therefore, he must fix the elements of the judgment or syllogism: the major or legal premise, that is, the norm: then delimit the facts that have been submitted to him, and, finally, determine if such facts coincide with those provided for by the former, a task that properly constitutes the subsumption of the facts under the norm." (Derecho Procesal Civil, Volume 1. ° Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, 1978, page 189). It must also be borne in mind that the judgment must not only be consistent but also exhaustive, because the Judge, by his function, is not only obliged to rule in every case but also to rule totally (which is also a norm of consistency), as a duty imposed by the need to uphold the political principle of the sufficiency of the State's legal system, and its fulfillment implies that the judgment contains all the declarations that the complaint and the adverse defense require, and any possible counterclaim thereof. Now, this mandate to clearly establish the facts, to assess all the evidence received, and to be precise in the operative part, being formal and essential requirements of any judgment, has nullity as its sanction. Furthermore, it is apparent from the handling of the material claim that, within the consequential damages (daños emergentes), the plaintiffs list a wide variety of situations they consider derived from the constitutional violations and for which they seek compensation. However, the trial judge rules on these globally, generally, and collectively to deny them without even giving elements of judgment, analysis, and argument regarding that decision and for each one of those damages, according to the specific facts of the complaint. Note that the Judge rules on this by stating: "Regarding the damages claimed and marked as 1, and 4 to 25, they must be rejected outright because they do not refer to what was strictly analyzed by the constitutional court." He also indicates a lack of causal link (nexo causal) and that they exceed the principles of proportionality and reasonableness contained within the scope of the Constitutional Chamber's ruling. However, such abstractions were not instrumentalized or pragmatized in the specific debate and scope of the contradictory process. So, what are the reasons for their rejection, if all the damages claimed are different and individual, and also, what happened with damages numbered 2 and 3, given that there is also no statement from the judge regarding them? Likewise, from the judge's exposition, inconsistency arises in his argumentation when accepting the fact that the plaintiffs had to leave their dwelling house due to the excessive noise from the B.M. and determining that this was directly related to what was addressed in the enforcement, but nevertheless, denies any type of compensation related to consequential damages (daños emergentes), stating that it exceeds the scope of the enforced vote. Ambiguity, contradiction, or inconsistency? Also, procedural actions during the process that also call attention are abundant. In the case file, confessional evidence was taken from deponents who were not even formal parties adverse to the enforcing party's interest. Articles 338 and 343 of the Code of Civil Procedure state that a judicial confession (confesión judicial) constitutes full proof against the person making it, regarding personal, not institutional, facts, and for there to be a confession, the statement must concern personal facts contrary to the interests of the deponent and favorable to the adversary. This must inevitably come from the opposing party brought to trial, that is, in this case, having the status of defendant, and not from third persons who are not procedural parties. Therefore, when admitting it, the judge must order the appearance of the parties for its taking, warning that absence may lead to being deemed confessed (tenido por confeso), and this categorization and sanction can only apply to the opposing confessing party. Those who confessed were Dr. Nombre594., Nombre317., and Nombre5836. For it to have evidentiary standing, it must be rendered through the testimonial method, an aspect that the lower court's processing did not oversee, yet the judge assessed it within his sentence for the purpose of estimating moral damages (daño moral); that is, he assessed evidence improperly admitted into the case file. Given these actions, it would seem that the enforcement proceeding is against the Ministry of Health and not against the municipal entity, given the Court's omission in admitting this type of evidence. It is not superfluous to bear in mind vote 165-2011-I of this Tribunal, issued at eight hours fifteen minutes on March thirtieth, two thousand eleven, when it expressly demands from the lower court (a quo) that, at the moment of issuing the judgment, the judge has the duty to verify ex officio the indispensable formal and substantive prerequisites, including active standing (legitimación activa), and consequently, being obligated to previously assess the procedural position in which each of the enforcing parties intervened; which continues to be omitted, regardless of the implicit rejection of any granting that may have occurred in the case file. As a conclusion of the foregoing, the challenged ruling is null. Let the lower court (a quo) proceed according to law, clean up the proceeding (sanear el proceso), and legally adjudicate the substance (quid) of the present matter.
POR TANTO:
The appealed judgment is annulled. Let a new one be issued according to law.
Ronaldo Hernández Hernández Siria Carmona Castro Bernardo Rodríguez Villalobos Enforcement of Sentence G. and another against Municipality of Flores The claims of the enforcing party shall be deemed rejected to the extent they are not expressly granted.</span><span style=\"font-style:italic\">”</span><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:29pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">4.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span>The special judicial representative of the plaintiffs, as well as the Mayor of the Municipalidad de Flores de Heredia, filed an appeal (recurso de apelación) against the above-cited decision.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-left:29pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-18pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">5.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:7pt\"> </span><span> </span><span>By virtue of the appeals having been admitted by the lower court (a quo) and the appeal having been given its proper procedural course, this judgment is rendered within the period permitted by the workload of the Court, after prior deliberation, and no defects generating absolute nullity are observed.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">Drafted by Judge Hernández Hernández.</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">CONSIDERANDO</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">I.- PROVEN AND UNPROVEN FACTS.- </span><span>Given the manner in which this matter is resolved, a ruling on these is dispensed with. </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">II.- Regarding the grievances (agravios). </span><span>The enforcing party, in summary, alleges the existence of errors of fact in the material assessment of the evidence, particularly in the demonstration of consequential damages (daño emergente), by failing to address individually each and every piece of evidence offered for the purpose of demonstrating the alleged damages.</span><span> </span><span> Erroneous valuation of expenses for rent, given that it was agreed upon verbally, and the omission of analysis of the expert evidence (prueba pericial) incorporated into the record.</span><span> </span><span> It challenges the judgment for the existence of an error of law in the assessment of the evidence regarding the expenses incurred on the occasion of the conduct of the Municipalidad de Flores, denying it any value and dismissing it without any analysis or basis. It also states that the lower court judge limited himself to assessing the damages based on noise pollution, without making a correct assessment of the violation of the right to health and all its implications, as well as the lack of any consideration regarding the administrative conduct of the municipality with respect to the underlying problem. As for the grievances of the defendant, it asserts that the trial court incorrectly processed the execution of judgment, which attempts to enforce</span><span> </span><span> the liability attributed to the Ministry of Health for the lack of timely action by said entity regarding the noises caused by the karaoke activity carried out at the B.M., aspects that were resolved in amparo 1677-03 of February 28, 2003, and that if an attempt is made to enforce the judgment against the Municipality, it would generate absolute defenselessness (indefensión)</span><span> </span><span>, given that the facts of the plaintiff's lawsuit do not directly result from its actions. It states that of the 43 facts contained in the enforcement writ, they mainly refer to the breaches of the Ministry of Health and the problem of noise and environmental pollution that afflicted them since they built their dwelling house, among them, problems of water pipes coming out of the bar, water leaks, nauseating odors, rodents, etc., all matters falling within the competence of said ministry. It further points out that the subject to be executed and the causal link (nexo causal) of the facts with the violated actions should have been weighed by the judge in relation to the Ministry and not against the Municipality, thereby causing absolute defenselessness and a lack of congruence between what was requested and what was granted, as the enforcing party was not required to correct the lawsuit with the proper facts and grounds against the Municipalidad de Flores, and no transfer was given on the basis of the lawsuit filed regarding matters within the competence of the Ministry of Health, much less was witness testimony (prueba confesional) taken from officials of the Ministry of Health, who are not part of the Municipalidad de Flores. It challenges the amount granted for non-material damages (daño moral), considering it unreasonable and disproportionate to what was intended to be claimed. It insists, pointing out that the rules of due process were not followed and, as a consequence, an error of assessment resulting from the improper handling of the proceeding. It requests that the challenged judgment be annulled and that the liquidated damages be denied, consequently archiving the enforcement proceeding.</span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">III.- Regarding the nullity of the challenged judgment. </span><span>The enforcement is brought based on ruling (voto) number 2003-03277 of twelve hours ten minutes on the twenty-fifth of April, two thousand three, of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional), the content of which addresses three fundamental rights violated, by the facts that the claimants reported and that were caused</span><span> </span><span> and committed by the Municipalidad de Flores, namely, </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">the infringement of the rights enshrined in articles 21, 27 and 50 of the Political Constitution.</span><span> That is, the Constitutional Chamber held the municipal entity liable for an omissive administrative conduct, for failing in the duty to respond promptly to the petitions of the amparo claimants and consequently for the affectation of the claimants' right to health. This predicate is based on the </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">claim of the claimants and this is observed from the ruling itself when the Chamber states: \"is directed against the Municipalidad de Flores, as in the B.M. an activity is carried out that has not been authorized by the Municipality for more than two years –“karaoke”– which produces noise pollution that affects the claimants, which has even motivated them to have to leave their house and move to live elsewhere. Despite the respondent knowing the situation for years, as it has been repeatedly denounced by the affected parties, it has not adopted effective measures to stop such situation. The amparo claimants allege that such omission injures their right to health. They also allege the infringement of their right of petition for the lack of response to the note of February 17, 2002.\" Subsequently, in considering III of the executed ruling, it summarizes by stating: \"(...) it is clear that the Municipalidad de Flores has effectively not fully complied with the constitutional and legal obligations that require it to ensure that commercial activities carried out by the residents of its jurisdiction conform to current regulations and do not injure fundamental rights of other residents. The fact that on March 11, 2003, the Municipal Council of Flores rejected the request of the amparo claimant to carry out the “karaoke” activity for not attaching the results of the noise containment tests and on that same date ordered the contracting of the services of a legal professional to carry out administrative proceedings against businesses in the canton that infringe current regulations, is not sufficient action. On the contrary, it is proof that the illegal karaoke activity has been tolerated without resorting to municipal powers, for example, the cancellation of the business license (patente) after due process to the holder, who exercises an unauthorized activity, and the consequent closure of the business. The Chamber notes that the Municipality has been aware of the situation that affects the amparo claimants for a long time, not only because of the complaints filed by them, but also because of the intervention of the Ministry of Health, which, on the occasion of the request for a health operating permit for musical, dance, and karaoke activities presented by the owner of Bar María, evaluated the physical conditions of the property to carry out those activities, without it being established that it approved them (...) Municipal vigilance, of course, must be permanent and not dependent on complaints from affected parties, regarding compliance with closing hours and the execution of noisy activities, all of which is lacking in the present case, in which the Municipality, aware of the claimants' problem and the flagrant infringement of the Municipal Code and the Karaoke Regulation (Reglamento de Karaokes), has done no more than warn the owner of the Bar, warnings that have been shown not to have been complied with, instead of using the powers that the law confers upon it to protect the right of residents to a healthy environment, ecologically balanced and free from noise conditions, and the right to health, which can hardly be maintained without adequate rest (...).\"</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span>From the reading of the appealed decision, it is clear that the first instance judge effectively omitted to analyze, or to rule on, regarding the content of its credibility, among other elements of judgment, the expert report (informe pericial), each supporting document for the very diverse alleged consequential damages (daños emergentes), as well as to infer them as consequent outcomes required by the syllogism, for the determination of the admissibility of the action, in correspondence with the complexity of the matter given the variety of fundamental rights violated, by treating the enforcement more broadly and limitedly, circumscribed to the problem related to noise pollution, obviating any congruent pronouncement related to the issues of omissive conduct, the right of petition and prompt resolution, and consequently with the facts of the lawsuit, which incorporates participation of the Ministry of Health apart from the Municipalidad de Flores, the evidence, and the claims of the plaintiffs.</span><span> </span><span> Judgments must rule on all points expressly provided for by the legislator, and if this is not done, the procedural defect is irreparable, and violates the rights of defense in trial, since the parties must have certainty as to which facts are deemed proven in order to examine the logical path followed by the judge in the estimation of the facts and the consequent assessment of the evidence, which is also of great importance for the purpose of establishing the limits of res judicata (cosa juzgada) and, thereby, clarity in determining which damages and why they were not proven as a basis for the denial. In this vein, the Spanish legal scholar Leonardo Prieto-Castro y Ferrandiz, expounds that the \"judgment, when it must be rendered after a completed process, constitutes the culmination or conclusion of the legal judgment or syllogism, which begins with the complaint. The Judge's task in the presence of a completed process is to condense and summarize all its elements (constructing the reasoning of the judgment) and to establish the legal conclusion to which they lead (in the operative part). \"First of all, therefore, he must fix the elements of the judgment or syllogism: the major or legal premise, that is, the rule: then delimit the facts that have been submitted to him, and, finally, determine whether such facts coincide with those provided for by the former, a task that properly constitutes the subsumption of the facts under the rule.\" (Derecho Procesal Civil, Volume 1. ° Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, 1978, page 189). It must also be kept in mind that the judgment must not only be congruent but also exhaustive, since the Judge, by his function, is not only obliged to resolve in every case, but also to rule completely (which is also a rule of congruence), as a duty imposed by the need to sustain the political principle of the sufficiency of the State's legal system and whose fulfillment implies that the judgment contains all the declarations that the complaint and the adverse defense require, and the possible counterclaim of the latter.</span><span> </span><span> Now, this mandate, to clearly establish the facts, to assess all the evidence received, and to be precise in the operative part, being formal and essential requirements of every judgment, carries nullity as a sanction. Furthermore, it is observed from the handling of the material claim, that within the consequential damages (daños emergentes), the plaintiffs list a wide variety of situations that they consider derived from the constitutional infringements and for which they seek to be compensated; however, the lower court judge rules on these in a global, general, and collective manner to deny them without even giving elements of judgment, analysis, and argument on that decision and for each one of those damages, according to the specific facts of the lawsuit. Note that the lower court Judge, in this regard, rules by stating: \"</span><span style=\"font-style:italic\">In relation to the damages claimed and marked as 1, and 4 through 25, they must be rejected outright because they do not refer to what was strictly analyzed by the constitutional court.\" </span><span>It also indicates lack of causal link (nexo causal) and for exceeding the principles of proportionality</span><span> </span><span> and reasonableness contained in the scope of the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber</span><span style=\"font-style:italic\">. </span><span>However, such abstractions were not instrumentalized or pragmatized into the very debate and scope of the limit of the adversarial process (contradictorio).</span><span style=\"font-style:italic\"> </span><span> Then, what are the reasons for its rejection, if all the damages claimed are different and individual, and furthermore, what happened with damages numbered 2 and 3, given that there is also no manifestation from the judge regarding them.</span><span> </span><span> Likewise, from the judge's exposition, an inconsistency arises in his argumentation by accepting the fact that the plaintiffs had to leave their dwelling house due to the excessive noise from the B.M.</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> and determining that this did have a direct relationship with what was addressed in the enforcement, but nonetheless, denying any type of compensation related to consequential damages (daños emergentes), by pointing out that it exceeds the scope of the executed ruling. Ambiguity, contradiction, or lack of congruence? Also abounding are procedural actions within the process that in parallel call attention.</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> In the record, witness testimony (prueba confesional) was taken from deponents who were not even formal adverse parties to the interest of the enforcing party. Articles 338 and 343 of the Civil Procedure Code state that judicial confession (confesión judicial) provides full evidence against the person making it, regarding personal facts, not institutional ones, and for a confession to exist, the statement must concern personal facts contrary to the interests of the deponent and favorable to the adversary, and this, inescapably, must come from the opposing party brought to trial, that is, having in this case the status of defendant and not from third persons who are not parties to the proceedings, for this reason, the judge, when admitting it, will summon the appearance of the parties for its taking, under warning of absence of being held as confessed (tenerlo por confeso),</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> and this categorization and sanction can only apply to the opposing deponent party. Those who confessed were Dr. Nombre594., Nombre317. and Nombre5836. For it to have evidentiary suitability, it must be rendered through the witness means, an aspect that the lower court's processing did not supervise, yet the judge assessed it within his judgment for the purpose of estimating the non-material damages (daño moral), that is, he assessed evidence improperly admitted into the record. It would appear, given these actions, that the processing of the enforcement is against the Ministry of Health and not against the municipal entity, given the omission by the Court regarding the admission of this type of evidence. It is not out of place to bear in mind ruling (voto) 165-2011-I of this Tribunal, issued at eight hours fifteen minutes on the thirtieth of March, two thousand eleven, when it expressly demands of the lower court (a quo), that at the moment of rendering judgment, the judge is under the duty to verify ex officio the indispensable formal and substantive prerequisites, among them active legal standing (legitimación activa), and consequently, being obligated to previously assess the procedural position in which each of the enforcing parties intervened; which continues to be omitted, regardless of the implicit rejection of any granting that may have been made in the record. As a corollary of the above, the nullity of the challenged decision. The lower court (a quo) shall proceed in accordance with the law, to remedy the proceeding and legally determine the crux of the present matter.</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">POR TANTO: </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span>The appealed judgment is annulled. A new judgment shall be rendered in accordance with the law.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">Ronaldo Hernández Hernández</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">Siria Carmona Castro</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">Bernardo Rodríguez Villalobos</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">Exp. 06-000120-0163-CA</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">Ejecución de sentencia</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">G. y otro</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">contra Municipalidad de Flores</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\"> </span></p></div></body></html> 122): **"Por tanto: The appeal is granted for the violation of the rights enshrined in articles 27, 21, and 50 of the Political Constitution. The Mayor of the Municipality of Flores is ordered to immediately and effectively guarantee that no activity whatsoever is carried out in the B.M.. that is not authorized by the Municipality in accordance with current regulations. Likewise, it is ordered to resolve and report on what was requested by the amparados in the note filed on February 17, 2003, within three days following the notification of this resolution. The Municipality of Flores is ordered to pay costs, damages, and losses, which shall be liquidated in the execution of the judgment of the contentious-administrative proceeding...".** **Based on this, it files an execution, requesting that (f. 106):** **"1. Modify the claim to the effect that only the Municipality of Flores be held as defendant, for which I provide the respective executory order. 2. Therefore, the claim shall be established as follows: a. That the present Execution of Judgment be granted for the damages and losses caused by the defendant. b. That the liquidated items for the demonstrated damages and losses be approved, ordering the -sic- defendant to pay them. c. That the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of the proceeding...".** **2.** Upon granting the hearing for this purpose by resolution at 09:33 hours on June 22, 2006 (f. 125), the claim was deemed not answered by resolution at 08:36 hours on November 17, 2006 (f. 144).
**3.** By resolution of the Court of Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Matters number 1099-2011 at fourteen hours on June six, two thousand eleven, it was ordered: **"POR TANTO:** The present execution of judgment is partially granted, ordering the Municipality of Flores to pay One million colones without céntimos for moral damages in favor of each of the amparados and three hundred thousand colones without céntimos for personal costs corresponding to the execution proceeding. All for a total of Two million three hundred thousand colones without céntimos. The claims of the executing party are rejected insofar as they are not expressly granted. **”** **4.** The special judicial representative of the plaintiffs, as well as the Mayor of the Municipality of Flores de Heredia, filed an appeal against the aforementioned resolution.
**5.** By virtue of the appeals having been admitted by the a quo court and the appeal having been given its proper processing, this judgment is issued within the term permitted by the obligations of the Office, after deliberation, and defects generating absolute nullity are observed.
***Judge Hernández Hernández writes.*** ***CONSIDERANDO*** **I.- PROVEN AND UNPROVEN FACTS .-** Due to the manner in which it is resolved, a pronouncement on this is dispensed with.
**II.- Regarding the grievances.** The executing party, in summary, sets forth the existence of factual errors in the material assessment of the evidence, particularly in the demonstration of the actual damages (daño emergente), this by not having addressed, one by one, each piece of evidence offered for the purposes of demonstrating the stated damages. Erroneous assessment of rental expenses since this occurred verbally, and the omission of analysis of the expert evidence incorporated into the case file. It challenges the judgment due to an error of law in the assessment of the evidence regarding the expenses incurred on occasion of the conduct of the Municipality of Flores, denying it all value and dismissing it without any analysis or basis. It also states that the judge limited himself to assessing the damages and losses based on the sonic contamination, without making a correct assessment of the violation of the right to health and all its implications, as well as the lack of any consideration regarding the administrative conduct of the municipality with respect to the underlying issue. With respect to the defendant's grievances, it states that the court incorrectly processed the execution of judgment, which seeks to execute the responsibility attributed to the Ministry of Health for the lack of timely action by said entity regarding the noise caused by the Karaoke activity carried out in the B.M., aspects that were resolved in the amparo 1677-03 of February 28, 2003, and that attempting to execute the judgment against the Municipality would generate absolute defenselessness, given that the facts of the plaintiff's claim do not directly derive from its actions. It states that of the 43 facts contained in the writ of execution of judgment, they refer mainly to the Ministry of Health's non-compliance and the sonic and environmental contamination problem that afflicted them since they built their dwelling house, among them, problems with water pipes coming out of the bar, water leaks, nauseating odors, rodents, etc., all matters proper to the competence of said ministry. It further points out that the subject matter to be executed and the causal link of the facts with the violated proceedings should have been weighed by the judge in relation to the Ministry and not against the Municipality, thereby causing absolute defenselessness and incongruence between what was requested and what was granted, due to the failure to require the executing party to redirect the claim with the proper facts and grounds against the Municipality of Flores and to provide a transfer based on the claim filed on facts of competence of the Ministry of Health, much less to have taken confessional evidence with Ministry of Health officials, who are not part of the Municipality of Flores. It challenges the amount granted for moral damages (daño moral) considering it unreasonable and disproportionate to what was intended to be invoked. It insists, noting that the rules of due process were not followed and, as a consequence thereof, an error of assessment resulting from the poor processing of the proceeding. It requests that the challenged judgment be annulled and that the liquidated damages and losses be denied, consequently archiving the execution of judgment proceeding.
**III.- Regarding the nullity of the challenged judgment.** The execution is promoted based on vote number 2003-03277 at twelve hours ten minutes on April twenty-five, two thousand three of the Constitutional Chamber, whose content addresses three fundamental rights violated by the facts that the appellants reported and that were caused and committed by the Municipality of Flores, namely, for the violation of the rights enshrined in articles 21, 27, and 50 of the Political Constitution. That is, the Constitutional Chamber held the municipal entity responsible for an omitted administrative conduct, for failing in its duty to respond promptly to the requests of the amparados and consequently for the affectation of the appellants' right to health. This predicate is supported by the claim of the appellants and this is evident from the same vote when the Chamber states: "is directed against the Municipality of Flores, since in the B.M. an activity is carried out that has not been authorized by the Municipality for more than two years –“karaoke”- that produces sonic contamination affecting the appellants, which has motivated them even to leave their home and move to live elsewhere. Although the respondent has been aware of the situation for years, as it has been repeatedly reported by those affected, it has not adopted effective measures to stop such a situation. The amparados allege that such omission injures their right to health. They also allege the violation of their right to petition due to the lack of response to the note of February 17, 2002". Subsequently, in Considerando III of the executed vote, it outlines by stating: "(...) it is evident that the Municipality of Flores has effectively not fully complied with the constitutional and legal obligations that mandate it to ensure that commercial activities carried out by residents of its jurisdiction comply with current regulations and do not harm the fundamental rights of other residents. The fact that on March 11, 2003, the Municipal Council of Flores rejected the protected appellant's request to carry out the “karaoke” activity for not attaching the results of the noise confinement tests, and on that same date ordered the hiring of the services of a legal professional to carry out administrative proceedings against businesses in the canton that infringe current regulations, is not sufficient action. On the contrary, it is proof that the illegal karaoke activity has been tolerated without resorting to municipal powers, for example, the cancellation of the permit (patente) following due process of the holder, against whoever carries out an unauthorized activity and the consequent closure of the business. The Chamber notes that the Municipality has long been aware of the situation affecting the amparados, not only from the complaints filed by them, but from the intervention of the Ministry of Health, which, on the occasion of the request for a sanitary operating permit for musical, dance, and karaoke activities presented by the owner of Bar María, evaluated the physical conditions of the premises to carry out those activities, without it being recorded that it approved them (...) The municipal oversight must of course be permanent and not depend on complaints from those affected, regarding compliance with closing hours and the execution of noisy activities, all of which is missed in the present case, in which the Municipality, aware of the appellants' problem and the flagrant violation of the Código Municipal and the Karaoke Regulation, has done nothing more than admonish the owner of the Bar, warnings that have demonstrably not been heeded, instead of using the powers that the law confers on it to protect the right of residents to a healthy, ecologically balanced environment free of sonic conditions, and the right to health, which can hardly be maintained without adequate rest (...)." From a reading of the appealed resolution, it is evident that the judge of first instance effectively omitted to analyze, or to rule on, regarding the content of its credibility, among other elements of judgment, the expert report, each supporting document for the very different claimed actual damages (daños emergentes), as well as to infer them as the consequential elements required by the syllogism, for determining the appropriateness of the action, in accordance with the complexity of the matter given the variety of fundamental rights violated, by treating the execution predominantly and restrictively circumscribed to the issues related to sonic contamination, obviating any congruent and related pronouncement on the topics of omitted conduct, the right to petition and prompt resolution, and consequently with the facts of the claim, which incorporate participation of the Ministry of Health apart from the Municipality of Flores, the evidence, and the plaintiffs' claims. Judgments must rule on all points expressly provided for by the legislator, and if this is not done, the procedural defect is irremediable, and violates the rights of defense in trial, since the parties must have the certainty of which facts are deemed accredited in order to examine the logical path that the judge follows in the estimation of the facts and consequent assessment of the evidence, which is also of great importance for the purposes of establishing the limits of res judicata (cosa juzgada) and, thereby, clarity in determining which damages and why they were not accredited as the basis for the denial. In this vein, the Spanish legal scholar Leonardo Prieto-Castro y Ferrandiz states that the "judgment, when it must be handed down after a completed proceeding, constitutes the culmination or conclusion of the legal judgment or syllogism, which begins with the claim. The Judge's task in the presence of a completed proceeding is to condense and summarize all its elements (constructing the reasoning of the judgment) and to establish the legal conclusion to which they lead (in the operative part). "First of all, therefore, he must set the elements of the judgment or syllogism: the major or legal premise, that is, the rule: then delimit the facts that have been submitted to him, and, finally, determine whether such facts coincide with those provided for by that rule, a task that properly constitutes the subsumption of the facts under the rule." (Derecho Procesal Civil, Volumen 1. ° Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, 1978, página 189). It must also be kept in mind that the judgment must not only be congruent but exhaustive, since the Judge, by his function, is not only obliged to rule in every case, but also to adjudicate in a total manner (which is also a rule of congruence), as a duty imposed by the need to sustain the political principle of the sufficiency of the State's legal system, and whose fulfillment implies that the judgment contain all the declarations that the claim and the adverse defense require, and the possible counterclaim thereof. Now, this mandate, to clearly establish the facts, to assess all the evidence received, and to be precise in the operative part, being formal and essential requirements of every judgment, have nullity as their sanction. Furthermore, it is evident from the handling of the material claim, that within the actual damages (daños emergentes), the plaintiffs list a great variety of situations they consider derived from the constitutional violations and for which they seek compensation; however, regarding these, the trial judge pronounces in a global, general, and collective manner to deny them without even providing elements of judgment, analysis, and argument on said decision and for each one of those damages, according to the specific facts of the claim. Note that the Judge pronounces on this point by stating: "In relation to the damages claimed and marked as 1, and 4 to 25, these must be rejected outright because they do not refer to what was strictly analyzed by the constitutional court." It further indicates a lack of causal link and that they exceed the principles of proportionality and reasonableness contained in the scope of the Constitutional Chamber's ruling. However, such abstractions were not instrumentalized or pragmatized into the actual debate proper to the scope of the limits of the adversarial proceedings. So, what are the reasons for their rejection, if all the damages alleged are different and individual, and also, what happened with damages numbered 2 and 3, given that regarding these there is also no statement from the judge? Similarly, from the judge's exposition, incongruence arises in his argumentation by accepting the fact that the plaintiffs had to leave their dwelling house due to the excessive noise from the B.M. and determining that this indeed had a direct relationship with what was addressed in the execution, but nonetheless, denying any type of compensation related to actual damages (daños emergentes), by stating that this exceeds the scope of the executed vote. Ambiguity, contradiction, or incongruence? Also, procedural actions inter-process simultaneously draw attention. In the case file, confessional evidence was taken with confessants who were not even formal parties adverse to the interest of the executing party. Numerals 338 and 343 of the Código Procesal Civil state that judicial confession provides full proof against the party making it, about personal, not institutional, facts, and for there to be a confession, it is necessary that the declaration relates to personal facts contrary to the confessant's interests and favorable to the adversary, and this, unavoidably, must come from the counterparty brought to trial, that is, to have in this case the status of defendant and not of third persons who are not a procedural party; therefore, the judge, upon admitting it, shall order the appearance of the parties for its taking, under warning of absence of being held confessed, and this categorization and sanction can only be applied to the confessing counterparty. Those who confessed were Dr. Nombre594., Nombre317., and Nombre5836. For it to have evidentiary aptitude, it must be rendered through the testimonial means, an aspect that the instance processing did not control, notwithstanding the judge assessed it within his judgment for the purposes of estimating moral damages (daño moral), that is, he assessed evidence improperly admitted into the case file. Given these actions, it would seem that the processing of the execution is against the Ministry of Health and not against the municipal entity, given the omission of the Court on the admission of this type of evidence. It is not superfluous to bear in mind vote 165-2011-I of this Tribunal, issued at eight hours fifteen minutes on March thirtieth, two thousand eleven, when it expressly demands from the a quo court that, at the moment of issuing judgment, the judge has the duty to verify ex officio the indispensable formal and substantive prerequisites, among them active standing (legitimación activa), and consequently, being under the obligation to previously assess the procedural position in which each of the executing parties intervened; which remains omitted, independently of the implicit rejection of any granting that may have been made in the case file. As a corollary of the foregoing, the nullity of what was challenged. Proceed the a quo court in accordance with law, sanitize the proceeding, and legally rule on the quid of the present matter.
**POR TANTO:** The appealed judgment is annulled.
Issue a new ruling in accordance with the law.
***Ronaldo Hernández Hernández*** ***Siria Carmona Castro*** ***Bernardo Rodríguez Villalobos*** **Exp. 06-000120-0163-CA** **Enforcement of judgment** **G. and another** **against Municipalidad de Flores**
Nº 31-2012-II TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN SEGUNDA. Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, Goicoechea, a las catorce horas treinta minutos del quince de marzo de dos mil doce.
Recurso de apelación en proceso de ejecución de sentencia constitucional de amparo interpuesto por Nombre5832., […] y Nombre594., […] contra la MUNICIPALIDAD DE FLORES, representada actualmente por su Alcalde señor Gerardo Rojas Barrantes, […].
RESULTANDO
1. Mediante escritos presentados ante el Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, los días 06 de Febrero (f. 74 a 99), 26 de Abril (f. 103) y 06 de Junio, todos de 2006 (f. 106), los actores solicitaron la ejecución de la sentencia de la Sala Constitucional número 2003-03277 de las 12:10 horas del 25 de abril de 2003 que dispuso (f. 122): “Por tanto: Se declara con lugar el recurso por la infracción a los derechos consagrados en los artículos 27, 21 y 50 de la Constitución Política. Se ordena al Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Flores, garantizar de forma inmediata y efectiva que no se realice en el B.M.., actividad alguna que no esté autorizada por la Municipalidad de acuerdo con la normativa vigente. Asimismo se ordena resolver e informar sobre lo pedido por los amparados en la nota presentada el 17 de febrero del 2003 dentro de los tres días siguientes a la comunicación de esta resolución. Se condena a la Municipalidad de Flores al pago de las costas, daños y perjuicios, los que se liquidarán en ejecución de sentencia de lo contencioso administrativo...". Con base en ello presenta ejecución, solicitando que (f. 106): "1. Modifíquese la demanda en el sentido de que se tenga por demandado únicamente a la Municipalidad de Flores, para lo cual aporto la respectiva ejecutoria. 2. Por lo tanto, la pretensión se tendrá por establecida de la siguiente forma: a. Que se declare con lugar la presente Ejecución de Sentencia por los daños y perjuicios ocasionados por la demandada. b. Que se apruebe las partidas liquidadas por los daños y perjuicios demostrados, condenando al pago de los mismos a la -sic- demandad. c. Que se condene a la demandada al pago de ambas costas del proceso...".
2. Conferida la audiencia al efecto por medio de resolución de las 09:33 horas del 22 de junio de 2006 (f. 125), se tuvo por no contestada la demanda mediante resolución de las 08:36 horas del 17 de noviembre de 2006 (f. 144).
3. Por resolución del Juzgado de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda número 1099-2011 de las catorce horas del seis de junio de dos mil once, se dispuso “POR TANTO: Se declara parcialmente con lugar la presente ejecución de sentencia, condenándose a la Municipalidad de Flores al pago de Un millón de colones sin céntimos en concepto de daño moral y en favor de cada uno de los amparados y a trescientos mil colones sin céntimos en concepto de costas personales correspondientes al proceso de ejecución. Todo para un total de Dos millones trescientos mil colones sin céntimos. Ténganse por rechazadas las pretensiones del ejecutante en lo que no se conceda expresamente.” 4. El apoderado especial judicial de los actores como también el Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Flores de Heredia, interpusieron recurso de apelación contra la resolución supra citada.
5. En virtud de que los recursos se tuvieron por admitidos por parte del a quo y al recurso se le ha dado el trámite que le es propio, esta sentencia se dicta dentro del plazo que permiten las obligaciones del Despacho, previa deliberación, y se observan vicios generadores de nulidad absoluta.
Redacta el Juez Hernández Hernández.
CONSIDERANDO
I.- HECHOS PROBADOS Y NO PROBADOS .- Por la manera en que se resuelve, se prescinde sobre su pronunciamiento.
II.- De los agravios. El ejecutante en síntesis expone la existencia de errores de hecho en la apreciación material de la prueba, particularmente en la demostración del daño emergente, esto al no haber abordado una a una cada prueba de todas las ofrecidas para tales efectos de demostración de los daños expuestos. Valoración errónea de los gastos por concepto de alquileres al producirse este de manera verbal y la omisión de análisis de la prueba pericial incorporada a los autos. Acusa la sentencia por existencia de error de derecho en la apreciación de la prueba en cuanto a los gastos incurridos con ocasión de la conducta de la Municipalidad de Flores, negándole todo valor y desestimándola sin ningún análisis o fundamento. Dice además que el juzgador se limitó a valorar los daños y perjuicios a partir de la contaminación sónica, sin hacer valoración correcta de la violación al derecho a la salud y todas sus implicaciones, como además la falta de toda consideración acerca de la conducta administrativa del ayuntamiento con respecto a la problemática de fondo. Con respecto a los agravios de la demandada, esta afirma que incorrectamente el juzgado dio trámite a la ejecución de sentencia, cual pretende ejecutar la responsabilidad que se le imputó al Ministerio de Salud por la falta de actuación oportuna de dicha entidad ante los ruidos causados por la actividad de Karaoke que se realiza en el B.M., aspectos que fueron resueltos en el amparo 1677-03 del 28 de febrero de 2003 y que de pretenderse ejecutar la sentencia contra la Municipalidad generaría una indefensión absoluta, dado que los hechos de la demanda de la actora no obedecen directamente a las actuaciones de ésta. Dice que de los 43 hechos que el escrito de ejecución de sentencia contiene, refieren principalmente a los incumplimientos del Ministerio de Salud y el problema de contaminación sónica y ambiental que los aquejaba desde que construyeron su casa de habitación, entre ellos, problemas de ductos de agua que salían del bar, filtraciones de agua, olores nauseabundos, roederos, etc., todos asuntos propios de la competencia de dicho ministerio. Señala además que el objeto a ejecutoriarse y el nexo de causal de los hechos con las actuaciones violentadas debieron ser ponderadas por el juez en relación al Ministerio y no contra la Municipalidad con lo cual provoca una indefensión absoluta e incongruencia entre lo pedido y lo otorgado al no haberse requerido al ejecutante en el sentido de enderezar la demanda con los hechos y fundamentos propios en contra de la Municipalidad de Flores y no haber dado traslado sobre la base de la demanda entablada sobre hechos competenciales del Ministerio de Salud, mucho menos haber evacuado prueba confesional con funcionarios del Ministerio de Salud, que no forman parte de la Municipalidad de Flores. Impugna el monto otorgado por concepto de daño moral por considerar que es irrazonable y desproporcionada con lo que se pretendió invocar. Insiste señalando que no se dieron las reglas del debido proceso y como consecuencia de ello un error de apreciación producto del mal trámite del proceso. Solicita sea anulada la sentencia impugnada y que se denieguen los daños y perjuicios liquidados, archivándose consecuentemente el proceso de ejecución de sentencia.
III.- De la nulidad de la sentencia impugnada. La ejecución se promueve con base en el voto número 2003-03277 de las doce horas diez minutos del veinticinco de abril de dos mil tres de la Sala Constitucional, cuyo contenido aborda tres derechos fundamentales conculcados, por los hechos que los recurrentes denunciaron y que fueron propiciados y cometidos por la Municipalidad de Flores, a saber, por la infracción a los derechos consagrados en los artículos 21, 27 y 50 de la Constitución Política. Esto es, la Sala Constitucional responsabilizó a la entidad municipal por conducta administrativa omisa, por faltar al deber de responder con pronto despacho ante las peticiones de los amparados y consecuentemente por la afectación al derecho a la salud de los recurrentes. Este predicado se sustenta en el reclamo de lo recurrentes y ello se aprecia del mismo voto cuando la Sala dice: "se dirige contra la Municipalidad de Flores, pues en el B.M. se realiza una actividad que no ha sido autorizada por la Municipalidad desde hace más de dos años –“karaoke”- que produce contaminación sónica que afecta a los recurrentes lo que ha motivado incluso que deban dejar su casa y trasladarse a vivir a otro sitio. Pese a que la recurrida conoce la situación desde hace años, pues ha sido denunciada reiteradamente por los afectados, no ha adoptado medidas efectivas para detener tal situación. Los amparados acusan que dicha omisión lesiona su derecho a la salud. Acusan también la infracción de su derecho de petición por la falta de respuesta a la nota del 17 de febrero del 2002". Posteriormente, en el considerando III del voto ejecutado, reseña señalando: "(...) se desprende que la Municipalidad de Flores efectivamente no ha cumplido a cabalidad las obligaciones constitucionales y legales que le imponen velar porque las actividades comerciales desarrolladas por los vecinos de su jurisdicción se ajusten a la normativa vigente y no lesionen derechos fundamentales de otros vecinos. El hecho de que el 11 de marzo del 2003 el Concejo Municipal de Flores haya rechazado la solicitud de la amparada para realizar la actividad de “karaoke” por no adjuntar los resultados de las pruebas de confinamiento de ruido y en esa misma fecha haya dispuesto contratar los servicios de un profesional en derecho para llevar a cabo procesos administrativos en contra de negocios del cantón que infrinjan la normativa vigente no es una actuación suficiente. Por lo contrario es la prueba de que se ha tolerado la actividad ilegal de karaoke sin acudir a las atribuciones municipales, por ejemplo, la cancelación de patente previo cumplimiento del debido proceso del titular, a quien ejerza una actividad no autorizada y la consecuente clausura del negocio. La Sala aprecia que desde hace mucho tiempo la Municipalidad tiene conocimiento de la situación que afecta a los amparados, no solo por las denuncias por ellos interpuestas, sino por la intervención del Ministerio de Salud, que con ocasión de la solicitud de permiso sanitario de funcionamiento para actividades musicales, bailables y karaoke presentada por la dueña del Bar María, evaluó las condiciones físicas del inmueble para realizar esas actividades, sin que conste que las haya aprobado (...) La vigilancia municipal por supuesto debe ser permanente y no depender de la denuncia de los afectados, en cuanto el cumplimiento de horarios de cierre y de ejecución de actividades ruidosas, todo lo cual se echa de menos en el presente caso, en el que la Municipalidad conocedora del problema de los recurrentes y de la flagrante infracción del Código Municipal y el Reglamento de Karaokes, no ha hecho más que apercibir a la dueña del –Bar, advertencias que está demostrado no han sido cumplidas, en vez de utilizar las atribuciones que la ley le confiere para tutelar el derecho de los vecinos a un medio ambiente sano, ecológicamente equilibrado y libre de condición sónica, y el derecho a la salud, que difícilmente puede mantenerse sin el adecuado descanso (...)." De la lectura de la resolución recurrida, se desprende que efectivamente el juzgador de primera instancia omitió analizar, o bien de pronunciarse, en cuanto al contenido de su credibilidad, entre otros elementos de juicio, del informe pericial, de cada documento de respaldo de los muy distintos daños emergentes pretendidos, como también de inferirlos como consecuentes que requiere el silogismo, para la determinación de la procedencia de la acción, en correspondencia con la complejidad del asunto ante la variedad de derechos fundamentales conculcados, al tratar mayor y limitadamente la ejecución circunscrita a la problemática relacionada con la contaminación sónica, obviando todo pronunciamiento congruente y relacionado con los temas de la conducta omisiva, el derecho de petición y pronta resolución y consecuentemente con los hechos de la demanda, que incorpora participación del Ministerio de Salud aparte de la Municipalidad de Flores, la prueba y las pretensiones de los actores. Las sentencias deben pronunciarse sobre todos los puntos que expresamente se previeron por el legislador, y si no se hace, el vicio procedimental es insubsanable, y violatorio de los derechos de defensa en juicio, pues las partes deben tener la certeza de cuáles son los hechos que se tienen por acreditados a fin de examinar el íter lógico que sigue el juzgador en la estimación de los hechos y consecuente valoración de las pruebas, lo que también es de gran importancia a los efectos de establecer los límites de la cosa juzgada y, con ello, la claridad en la determinación de qué daños y por qué no fueron acreditados como sustento de la denegatoria. En este orden de ideas, el tratadista español Leonardo Prieto-Castro y Ferrandiz, expone que la "sentencia, cuando haya de recaer después de un proceso agotado, constituye la culminación o conclusión del juicio o silogismo jurídico, que comienza con la demanda. El trabajo del Juez en presencia de un proceso acabado es condensar y resumir todos sus elementos (construyendo la motivación de la sentencia) y sentar la conclusión jurídica a que los mismos conducen (en la parte dispositiva). "En primer lugar, pues, tiene que fijar los elementos del juicio o silogismo: la premisa mayor o jurídica, esto es, la norma: después delimitar los hechos que le han sido sometidos, y, por último, determinar si tales hechos coinciden con los previstos por aquélla, labor que constituye propiamente la subsunción de los hechos bajo la norma." (Derecho Procesal Civil, Volumen 1. ° Editorial Tecnos, Madrid, 1978, página 189). Debe tenerse presente, también, que la sentencia no sólo debe ser congruente sino exhaustiva, pues el Juez, por su función, no sólo está obligado a resolver en todo caso, sino asimismo a fallar de manera total (lo que también es una norma de congruencia), como deber impuesto por la necesidad de sostener el principio político de la suficiencia del ordenamiento jurídico del Estado y cuyo cumplimiento implica que la sentencia contenga todas las declaraciones que la demanda y la defensa adversa exijan, y la posible reconvención de ésta. Ahora bien, ese mandato, de fijar con claridad los hechos, de valorar toda la prueba recibida, y de ser preciso en la parte dispositiva, siendo requisitos formales y esenciales de toda sentencia, tienen como sanción la nulidad. Además, se aprecia del manejo de la pretensión material, que dentro de los daños emergentes, los actores enlistan una gran variedad de situaciones que consideran derivadas de las infracciones constitucionales y que pretenden sean indemnizadas, sin embargo, sobre estas el juez de instancia se pronuncia de manera global, general y colectiva para denegarlas sin dar ni siquiera elementos de juicio, análisis y argumento sobre dicha decisión y por cada uno de esos daños, según los hechos propios de la demanda. Nótese que el Juez al respecto se pronuncia señalando: "En relación con los daños reclamados y marcados como 1, y 4 a 25, los mismos deben rechazarse de plano por cuanto no se refieren a lo analizado estrictamente por el tribunal constitucional." Indica además, falta de nexo causal y por sobrepasar los principios de proporcionalidad y razonabilidad contenidos en los alcances del fallo de la Sala Constitucional. Sin embargo, tales abstracciones no fueron instrumentalizadas o bien pragmatizadas al debate mismo y propio del alcance del límite del contradictorio. Entonces, cuáles son la razones de su rechazo, si todos los daños que acusa son diferentes e individuales, y además, qué ocurrió con los daños numerados 2 y 3, dado que con respecto a ellos tampoco hay manifestación del juez. De igual manera, surge de la exposición del juez, incongruencia en su argumentación al aceptar el hecho de que los actores debieron salir de su casa de habitación por el exceso de ruido del B.M. y determinar que ello si guardaba relación directa con lo tratado en la ejecución, pero sin embargo, deniega cualquier tipo de indemnización relacionados con lo daños emergentes, al señalar que ello excede el alcance del voto ejecutado. Ambigüedad, contradicción o incongruencia? Abunda también, actuaciones procesales inter proceso que llaman paralelamente la atención. En lo autos se evacuó prueba confesional con confesantes que ni siquiera eran partes formales contrarias al interés del ejecutante. Señala el numeral 338 y 343 del Código Procesal Civil, que la confesión judicial prueba plenamente contra quien la hace, sobre hechos personales, no institucionales y para que haya confesión, es necesario que la declaración verse sobre hechos personales contrarios a los intereses del confesante y favorables al adversario, y ello, ineludiblemente, debe provenir de la contraparte traída a juicio, es decir, tener en este caso la calidad de demandado y no de terceras personas que no son parte procesal, por esto, el juez al admitirla prevendrá la comparecencia de las partes para la evacuación de la misma, bajo advertencia de ausencia de tenerlo por confeso, y esta categorización y sanción solo la puede tener la contraparte confesante. Los que confesaron fueron el Dr. Nombre594., Nombre317. y Nombre5836. Para que tenga aptitud de prueba, debe rendirse a través del medio testimonial, aspecto que no fiscalizó la tramitación de instancia, no obstante el juez la valoró dentro de su sentencia para los efectos de estimar el daño moral, esto es, valoró prueba indebidamente admitida en los autos. Pareciera, ante estas actuaciones, que la tramitación de la ejecución es en contra del Ministerio de Salud y no en contra del ente municipal, ante el actuar omiso del Despacho sobre la admisión de este tipo de prueba. No está demás, tener presente el voto 165-2011-I de este Tribunal, dictado a las ocho horas quince minutos del treinta de marzo de dos mil once, cuando expresamente demanda del a quo, que al momento de dictar la sentencia, el juez está en el deber de verificar de oficio los presupuestos formales y de fondo indispensables, entre ellos la legitimación activa, y por consiguiente, estando en la obligación de valorar de previo la posición procesal en que intervinieron cada uno de los ejecutantes; lo cual sigue omitiéndose, independientemente del rechazo implícito de cualquier otorgamiento que se haya dado en los autos. Colofón de lo anterior, la nulidad de lo impugnado. Proceda el a quo conforme a derecho, sanear el proceso y dictaminar legalmente el quid del presente asunto.
POR TANTO:
Se anula la sentencia apelada. Díctese de nuevo conforme a derecho.
Ronaldo Hernández Hernández Siria Carmona Castro Bernardo Rodríguez Villalobos Ejecución de sentencia G. y otro contra Municipalidad de Flores
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.