Filing appeal before wrong authority does not cause nullityRecurso ante autoridad incompetente no causa nulidad

Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, II Judicial Circuit of San José, Dirección04, Annex A. Goicoechea, at eight fifty-five hours on January twenty-second, two thousand fifteen.- Appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by ASOCIACIÓN PRO VIVIENDA LOS PINOS, legal identification number CED80795, represented by Nombre104430, identity card number CED80796, in his capacity as Generalísimo Attorney-in-Fact without limit of amount (folio 99 of the file); against resolution AMCENº0243-14 of ten fifteen hours on June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, issued by the MUNICIPAL MAYOR (ALCALDE MUNICIPAL) OF ALAJUELITA.

Drafted by Judge Álvarez Molina, with the affirmative vote of Judge Solano Ulloa and Judge Chaves Torres; and, CONSIDERING (CONSIDERANDO):

Io.- PROVEN FACTS (HECHOS PROBADOS). The following facts, which are relevant to this process, are deemed duly accredited: 1) That the appellant Association is the registered owner of the property described in surveyed plan number Placa18123, registered under real folio registration number Placa18122, located in San Felipe de Alajuelita, Province of San José (folios 34 and 35 of the file); 2) That at fourteen fifteen hours on January twelfth, two thousand nine, the Head of Garbage Collection of the Municipality of Alajuelita issued the certification stating “…the garbage collection trucks of this municipality have never entered to collect garbage at the property Placa18122# owned by the Asociación Vivienda Los Pinos legal identification number CED80797 located 200 meters west of the Tejarcillos School, since this property has no vehicular access for light cars and even less for garbage collection trucks…” (folio 54 of the file); 3) That by official letter number CIGAM0051-2014 of January fourteenth, two thousand fourteen, the Department of Environmental Management of the Municipality of Alajuelita, requested the following from the Municipal Mayor's Office: “… Due to the garbage problems that have been occurring on the Property plan SJ-0861665-1989, belonging to the Asociación Pro Vivienda Los Pinos, legal identification number CED80797, a count of the shacks built on this property was carried out. For this reason (…) it is requested that the necessary procedures (sic) be carried out to initiate the collection of the collection tax…” (folio 33 to 41 of the file); 4) That by email message sent at twelve forty-six hours on February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, the Administrative Manager of the Municipality of Alajuelita, communicated to the Head of the Tax Administration of that same municipal entity, that “…In response to your email sent on Wednesday, February 26th regarding the query about the garbage collection service for registered property #371012-000, I would like to inform you that constant garbage collection service is provided, on the schedule days Monday and Wednesday of each week. With the variables that due to the structure of the streets, the garbage collection trucks, due to their weight and size, cannot enter to carry out house-by-house collection, therefore the neighbors of said property proceed to deposit them in sites called 'open-air dumps' (botaderos a cielo abierto)…” (folios 28 to 32 of the file; the highlighting is not from the original); 5) That by official letter number AD-TRIB-20-2014 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, the Head of the Tax Administration of the Municipality of Alajuelita, communicated to the President of the appellant Association, the charge for 399 garbage collection services on registered property # 371012-000 owned by it, for the period from 01/01/2013 to 31/03/2014, for a total amount with interest as of 28/02/2014 of ¢12,493,227.30 colones, this because, “…for several years the Municipality has provided garbage collection services, without the Association having paid the Municipality for even one collection service…”. Said official letter was notified to the appellant Association, via the fax system, on March third, two thousand fourteen (folios 25 to 27 of the file); 6) That on March sixth, two thousand fourteen, the representative of the aggrieved Association filed “… before the Municipal Mayor and before the Municipal Council…”, an appeal for reversal (recurso de revocatoria) with subsidiary appeal (apelación en subsidio) against official letter number AD-TRIB-20-2014 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Head of the Tax Administration of the Municipality of Alajuelita (folios 22 to 24 of the file); 7) That by resolution AMCENº0243-14 of ten fifteen hours on June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita resolved: “…That for the Institution, and according to the Municipal Code in its article 162, the submitted motion suffers from formalities inherent to admissibility, namely: reversal heard by the person who issued the act (Tax Administration), appeal to the Municipal Mayor's Office (article 162 of the CM) therefore the resolution sought to be appealed became final, ABSOLUTE NULLITY IS DECLARED of the Intended Motion, and consequently, the period indicated in said norm (5 business days) having been exceeded, Resolution AD-TRIB-20-2014, dated March 3rd, 2014, is maintained…”. This because, “…the one who had to answer this challenge is the official who issued it, in this case Lic. Edwin Alemán, according to what article 162 of the Municipal Code indicates, and it was not to be filed before the Mayor's Office or the Council, who cannot exhaust the administrative channel…”; 8) That on June eighteenth, two thousand fourteen, the representative of the aggrieved Association filed an appeal for reversal with subsidiary appeal, against resolution AMCENº0243-14 of ten fifteen hours on June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita (folios 7 to 10 of the file); 9) That by resolution number AMCENº256-2014 of nine fifty hours on June twenty-sixth, two thousand fourteen, the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita rejected the appeal for reversal and admitted the subsidiary appeal before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, summoning the party to appear before this Office to assert its rights. Said pronouncement was notified to the appellant, via the fax system, on July second, two thousand fourteen (folios 2 to 5 of the file).

IIo.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL. The representative of the appellant association considers that: i) “… The resolution appealed here is illegal because it is decreeing a non-existent nullity and moreover by means of a resolution issued outside the term established by Law, the Administration's silence had already occurred (…) In this case, the Mayor kept the file from March seventh to June 11th, 2014, that is more than three months, having to act within eight business days which he did not do, but rather arbitrarily at the end decided not to resolve correctly as the law demands but rather declares a non-existent nullity of the motion…”; ii) Considers that “…he should have immediately transferred it to the corresponding body so that it could resolve the reversal, something that the receiving body of that motion omitted, affecting the administered party and if it has an appeal, that appeal corresponds to be heard by this instance which you are exercising, something that the resolution challenged here is completely disregarding…”; iii) Considers that “…it was appropriate in the event that internally he did not forward it to his subordinate to resolve the reversal, he should then have proceeded to consider the appeal for reversal waived and proceed to hear it as the superior body, the law interprets that the appeal for reversal can be considered waived and the appeal heard…”; iv) Alleges that “….the absolute nullity that the Mayor decrees is not founded, the resolution lacks grounds and needs specific legal grounds…”; v) Finally, points out that “…they insist on illegally charging for garbage that does not correspond to the property, to the Association, that they have not really identified who is the owner that leaves garbage on the street, for what purposes it is done, obviously they are not the correct ones that the law demands, since the property does not even have a boundary with the street where they leave the garbage. We consider, that rather, ex officio, the Administration, in accordance with the law, should have annulled the collection act which was absolutely null, for charging something undue, instead of that, causing harm to the Association whose purposes are of social interest, they continue illegally trying to do so…”.

IIIo.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE. It must be clarified to the appellant, that without prejudice to what will be analyzed in considering IV of this resolution, the fact that the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita ruled on the appeal for reversal with subsidiary appeal filed against the charge for 399 waste collection services –the act that originates the appeal chain–, until June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, despite the fact that the appeal was filed since March sixth, two thousand fourteen, does not have the virtue of causing the absolute nullity of the act challenged for that reason, given that in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3) of article 329 of the General Law of Public Administration, the act issued outside the established period will be valid for all legal purposes, unless otherwise provided by law, a situation not foreseen in article 162 of the Municipal Code. Consequently, the grievance raised in that sense is inadmissible and must be so declared. On the other hand, it is necessary to highlight that in accordance with the provisions of articles 330 of the General Law of Public Administration and 32 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, positive administrative silence (silencio positivo) –when expressly established in the legal system– is not applicable in the appeal phase, as is the case here, but in the constitutive phase of the administrative procedure, that is, in the first instance (see in that sense, resolution number 285-2014 of thirteen fifty-five hours on June twenty-sixth, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Third Section of this Tribunal). In that sense, it is inadmissible to seek the declaration of positive administrative silence in the appeal phase, since it is not applicable according to the legal norms indicated above. At this point, it is necessary to indicate that in accordance with the provisions of articles 31.6 and 32 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, the unjustified delay in resolving the filed appeals by reasoned act could have produced negative administrative silence (silencio negativo), however, the Municipal Mayor expressly ruled on them and it is against that resolution that the appeal that now occupies us was filed. Consequently, said grievance is also inadmissible and must be so declared.

IVo.- Notwithstanding what was indicated in the previous considering, this Tribunal considers that the filed appeal is admissible, for the reasons set forth below: i) In application of the principle of informality (informalismo) (numerals 224 and 348 of the General Law of Public Administration), procedural norms must be interpreted in a manner favorable to the admission and final decision of the petitions of the administered parties; but informality may not serve to remedy absolute nullities. By reason of the above, articles 68 and 69 of the General Law of Public Administration establish that when a petition or request subject to a deadline is raised before an incompetent body, it will not only be considered timely filed, if the authority competent to resolve it belongs to the same entity, but also, the body declining its competence may adopt the urgent measures necessary to avoid serious or irreparable damages to the Administration or to individuals, communicating it to the competent body. In that same line, numeral 260 of the General Law of Public Administration establishes that \"...deadlines shall be interrupted by the filing of the appeals established by law ...\", therefore, \"…It will not matter that the appeal has been filed before an incompetent authority, in the cases provided for by article 68 of this law…\"; ii) While it is true, in the specific case and according to paragraph 1 of numeral 162 of the Municipal Code, the representative of the appellant Association filed the appeal for reversal with subsidiary appeal before an incompetent authority, since in the case of a decision adopted by an official who does not depend directly on the Municipal Council –in this case, the Head of the Tax Administration of the Municipality of Alajuelita–, the reversal should have been filed before the body that issued official letter AD-TRIB20-2014 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen and the appeal before the Municipal Mayor's Office, and not as the aggrieved party erroneously did (folios 22 to 24 of the file); it is also true that, in application of the provisions of numeral 69 of the General Law of Public Administration, the Municipal Mayor should have declined his competence and referred it to the authority that was responsible for resolving the appeal for reversal, according to the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 162 of the Municipal Code and not \"declare it inadmissible due to absolute nullity\"; iii) In that sense and given that the appeals for reversal with subsidiary appeal against the charge for 399 waste collection services contained in official letter AD-TRIB20-2014 were filed within the five-business-day period provided for in numeral 162 of the Municipal Code, as it is deemed accredited that said official letter was notified by fax on March third, and the appeals were filed on March sixth, both of two thousand fourteen (folios 22 to 27 of the file), this Tribunal considers that it is inadmissible for the Municipal Mayor to maintain that “…the resolution sought to be appealed became final, ABSOLUTE NULLITY IS DECLARED of the Intended Motion, and consequently, the period indicated in said norm (5 business days) having been exceeded, Resolution AD-TRIB-20-2014, dated March 3rd, 2014, is maintained…”. This because, even though the appeals were filed before an incompetent authority, they are not only considered timely filed if the competent body belongs to the same entity –in this case, the Head of the Tax Administration of the Municipality of Alajuelita is a body dependent on the Municipal Mayor's Office of that Canton–; but also, the periods will be interrupted by the filing of appeals established by law, as happened in this case, in which the aggrieved Association not only filed the appeals, but also raised them within the period provided for that purpose. Therefore, it is not valid to allege that the five-day period to file said appeals has expired and the challenged act is final; iv) In addition to the above, it must be clarified to the Municipal Mayor that appeals are not susceptible to declarations of nullity, but rather to rejection and archiving, insofar as they suffer from some formal requirement (for example, the lack of signature in accordance with the provisions of article 285 subsection 2 of the General Law of Public Administration) or, due to non-compliance with admissibility requirements (for instance, those provided for in numeral 154 of the Municipal Code). Consequently, the filing of appeals before an incompetent authority does not fit, in this specific case, into a cause that provokes their rejection and archiving for reasons of inadmissibility; v) Finally, it is necessary to clarify to the Municipal Mayor that while it is true that observance of procedural forms guarantees the validity of conducts in that aspect; it is also true that those may not be interpreted in a way that disfavors the admission and final decision of the petitions raised by the administered parties, clearly, as long as it does not involve omissions of substantial formalities that cause absolute nullity. For all the foregoing, the filed appeal is declared with merit and consequently, resolution number AMCENº0243-14 of ten fifteen hours on June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita, is annulled. The file is returned to the respondent Municipality, so that the appeals for reversal with subsidiary appeal, filed against official letter AD-TRIB20-2014 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, are resolved by the competent authorities in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of numeral 162 of the Municipal Code. Due to the manner in which it is resolved, a ruling on the substantive grievance, regarding the appropriateness or not of the charge for 399 waste collection services attributed to the appellant Association, is omitted.

THEREFORE (POR TANTO).

The filed appeal is declared with merit and consequently, resolution number AMCENº0243-14 of ten fifteen hours on June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita, is annulled. The file is returned to the respondent Municipality, so that the appeals for reversal with subsidiary appeal, filed against official letter AD-TRIB20-2014 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, are resolved by the competent authorities in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of numeral 162 of the Municipal Code. - Evelyn Solano Ulloa Marianella Álvarez Molina Francisco José Chaves Torres ASUNTO: APELACIÓN MUNICIPAL RECURRENTE: ASOCIACIÓN PRO VIVIENDA LOS PINOS RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELITA 3 Goicoechea, at eight hours fifty-five minutes on the twenty-second of January of two thousand fifteen.- **Appeal** filed by the **ASOCIACIÓN PRO VIVIENDA LOS PINOS,** legal identification number CED80795, represented by **Nombre104430** **,** identification number CED80796, in his capacity as Generalísimo Attorney-in-Fact without limit of sum *(folio 99 of the file)*; against resolution AMCENº0243-14 of ten hours fifteen minutes on the eleventh of June of two thousand fourteen, issued by the **MUNICIPAL MAYOR OF ALAJUELITA**.

***Judge Álvarez Molina writes, with the affirmative vote of Judge Solano Ulloa and Judge Chaves Torres; and,*** **WHEREAS:** ** Io.- PROVEN FACTS.** The following facts that are relevant to this process are duly accredited: **1)** That the appellant Association is the registered owner of the property described in cadastral map number Placa18123, registered under real folio registration number Placa18122, located in San Felipe de Alajuelita, Province of San José *(folios 34 and 35 of the file);* **2)** That at fourteen hours fifteen minutes on the twelfth of January of two thousand nine, the Head of Garbage Collection of the Municipality of Alajuelita issued the certification stating *“…the garbage collection trucks of this municipality **have never entered** to collect garbage at the farm Placa18122# property of the Asociación Vivienda Los Pinos legal identification CED80797 located 200 meters west of the Tejarcillos School since this farm **has no** vehicular access for light cars and even less for garbage collection trucks…” (folio 54 of the file);* **3)** That by official letter number CIGAM0051-2014 of the fourteenth of January of two thousand fourteen, the Environmental Management Department of the Municipality of Alajuelita, requested the following from the Municipal Mayor’s Office: *“… Due to the garbage problems that have been occurring on the Property map SJ-0861665-1989, belonging to the Asociación Pro Vivienda Los Pinos, legal identification CED80797, a count was made of the shacks built on this property. For this reason (…) requests that the necessary formalities (sic) be undertaken to initiate the collection of the collection tax…” (folio 33 to 41 of the file);* **4)** That by email message sent at twelve hours forty-six minutes on the twenty-eighth of February of two thousand fourteen, the Administrative Manager of the Municipality of Alajuelita, communicated to the Head of the Tax Administration of that same municipal entity, that *“…In reply to your email sent on Wednesday, February 26 regarding the inquiry about the garbage collection service of the registered farm #371012-000, I hereby inform you that **the constant garbage collection service is provided, on the schedule on Mondays and Wednesdays of each week**. With the variables that due to **the structure of the streets the garbage collection trucks, due to their weight and size, cannot enter to collect house by house, therefore the residents of said farm proceed to deposit them in sites called “open-air dumps**”…” (folios 28 to 32 of the file; the highlighting is not from the original);* **5)** That by official letter number AD-TRIB-20-2014 of the twenty-eighth of February of two thousand fourteen, the Head of the Tax Administration of the Municipality of Alajuelita, communicated to the President of the appellant Association, the charge for 399 garbage collection services on the registered farm # 371012-000 your property, for the period comprising 01/01/2013 to 31/03/2014, for a total amount with interest as of 28/02/2014 of ¢12,493,227.30 colones, this because, *“…for several years the Municipality has provided garbage collection services to them, without the Association having paid the Municipality for even one collection service…”.* Said official letter was notified to the appellant Association, via fax system, on the third of March of two thousand fourteen *(folios 25 to 27 of the file);* **6)** That on the sixth of March of two thousand fourteen, the representative of the aggrieved Association filed *“…* ***before the Municipal Mayor and before the Municipal Council*** *…”,* a motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal against official letter number AD-TRIB-20-2014 of the twenty-eighth of February of two thousand fourteen, issued by the Head of the Tax Administration of the Municipality of Alajuelita *(folios 22 to 24 of the file);* **7) That by resolution AMCENº0243-14 of ten hours fifteen minutes on the eleventh of June of two thousand fourteen,** the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita resolved: *“…That for the Institution, and according to the Municipal Code in its article 162, **the filed petition suffers from formalities inherent to admissibility namely: revocation known by whoever issues the act (Tax Administration), appeal to the Municipal Mayor’s Office (article 162 of the MC) therefore the resolution intended to be appealed became final,** **ABSOLUTE NULLITY IS DECLARED** **of the Intended Petition, and consequently, the period indicated in said norm** (5 business days) having been exceeded, the **Resolution AD-TRIB-20-2014** **is upheld**, dated March 03, 2014…”*. This because, *“…who had to respond to this challenge is the official who issued it, in this case Mr. Edwin Alemán, according to what is indicated in article 162 of the Municipal Code, and not be filed before the Mayor’s Office or the Council, who cannot exhaust the administrative channel…”*; **8)** That on the eighteenth of June of two thousand fourteen, the representative of the aggrieved Association filed a motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal, against resolution AMCENº0243-14 of ten hours fifteen minutes on the eleventh of June of two thousand fourteen, issued by the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita *(folios 7 to 10 of the file);* **9)** That by resolution number AMCENº256-2014 of nine hours fifty minutes on the twenty-sixth of June of two thousand fourteen, the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita rejected the motion for revocation and admitted the subsidiary appeal before the Administrative Litigation Tribunal, summoning the party to appear before this Office, to assert their rights. Said pronouncement was notified to the appellant, via fax system, on the second of July of two thousand fourteen *(folios 2 to 5 of the file).* **IIo.- PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL.** The representative of the appellant association considers that: **i)** *“… The resolution appealed here is illegal because it is decreeing a non-existent nullity and moreover by means of a resolution issued outside the legal term, since the Administration’s silence had already occurred (…) In this case, the Mayor kept the file from March seventh to June 11, 2014, that is more than three months, having to act within eight business days which he did not do, but rather arbitrarily in the end decided not to resolve correctly as the law demands but rather declares a non-existent nullity of the petition…”*; **ii)** Considers that *“…he should have transferred it immediately to the corresponding body to resolve the revocation, something that the receiving body of that petition omitted, affecting the administered party and if it has an appeal, that appeal corresponds to this instance to hear it, which the resolution challenged here is completely disregarding…”*; **iii)** Estimates that *“…it was appropriate, in the event that he did not internally refer it to his inferior to resolve the revocation, he should then proceed to consider the motion for revocation as waived and proceed to hear, as the superior body, the appeal as the law interprets that the motion for revocation can be considered waived and the appeal be heard…”*; **iv)** Argues that *“…the absolute nullity decreed by the Mayor is not founded, the resolution lacks reasoning and requires specific legal reasoning…”*; **v)** Finally, points out that *“…they insist on illegally charging a garbage charge that does not correspond to the property, to the Association, that they have not truly identified who is the owner that leaves garbage on the street, for what purposes it is done, obviously they are not the correct ones that the law demands, since the property does not even have a boundary with the street where they leave the garbage. We consider, that rather ex officio the Administration according to the law should have annulled the charging act that was absolutely null, for charging the undue, instead, causing harm to the Association whose purposes are of social interest, they continue illegally attempting it…”*.

**IIIo.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE.** It is necessary to clarify to the appellant, *that without prejudice to what will be analyzed in whereas clause IV of this resolution*, the fact that the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita ruled on the motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal filed against the charge for 399 waste collection services *–the act that originates the chain of appeals-,* **until June eleventh of two thousand fourteen, despite the fact that the appeal was filed on March sixth of two thousand fourteen**, *does not have the virtue of causing the absolute nullity of the challenged act* ***for that reason***, *since in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3) of article 329 of the General Law of Public Administration, the act issued outside the established period, shall be valid for all legal purposes*, **unless otherwise provided by law** *,* *a situation not foreseen in article 162 of the Municipal Code.* Consequently, the grievance raised in that regard is inadmissible and must be so declared. On the other hand, it is necessary to highlight that in accordance with the provisions of articles 330 of the General Law of Public Administration and 32 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Procedure, **the** ***positive silence*** **–when expressly established as such in the legal system- is not applicable in the appeal phase, as occurs in this case, but rather in the constitutive phase of the administrative procedure, that is, in the first instance** *(see in that regard, resolution number 285-2014 of thirteen hours fifty-five minutes on the twenty-sixth of June of two thousand fourteen, issued by the Third Section of this Tribunal)*. In that sense, it is inadmissible to seek a declaration of positive silence in the appeal phase, since it is not applicable according to the aforementioned legal norms. At this point, it is necessary to indicate that in accordance with the provisions of articles 31.6 and 32 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Procedure, the unjustified delay in resolving, by reasoned act, the appeals filed, could have produced negative silence, however, the Municipal Mayor expressly ruled on them and it is against that resolution that the appeal now before us was filed. Consequently, said grievance is also inadmissible and must be so declared.

**IVo.-** Notwithstanding what was indicated in the previous whereas clause, this Tribunal considers that the appeal filed is admissible, for the reasons set forth below: ***i)*** In application of the **principle of informalism** *(numerals 224 and 348 of the General Law of Public Administration)*, *the procedural rules must be interpreted in a manner favorable to the admission and final decision of the petitions of administered parties*; but informalism may not serve to rectify absolute nullities. For this reason, articles 68 and 69 of the General Law of Public Administration establish that when a petition or request subject to a term is filed before an incompetent body, **it will not only be considered filed on time, if the authority competent to resolve it belongs to the same entity,** but also, **the body that declines its competence may adopt the necessary urgency measures to avoid serious or irreparable damages to the Administration or to individuals, communicating it to the competent body**. Along the same lines, numeral 260 of the General Law of Public Administration establishes that *"...terms shall be interrupted by the filing of the appeals established by law..."*, therefore, *“…It will not matter that the appeal was filed before an incompetent authority, in the cases provided for by article 68 of this law…”*; ***ii)*** While it is true, **in the specific case** and according to paragraph 1 of numeral 162 of the Municipal Code, the representative of the appellant Association filed the motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal before an incompetent authority, since it involved a decision adopted by an official who does not depend directly on the Municipal Council *–in this case, the Head of the Tax Administration of the Municipality of Alajuelita-*, the revocation should have been filed before the body that issued official letter AD-TRIB20-2014 of the twenty-eighth of February of two thousand fourteen and the appeal before the Municipal Mayor’s Office, and not as the aggrieved party erroneously did *(folios 22 to 24 of the file)*; it is also true, that **in application of the provisions of numeral 69 of the General Law of Public Administration**, the Municipal Mayor should have declined his competence and referred it to the authority corresponding to resolve the motion for revocation, according to the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 162 of the Municipal Code and not *“declare it inadmissible due to absolute nullity”*; ***iii)*** In that sense and given that the motions for revocation with subsidiary appeal against the charge for 399 waste collection services contained in official letter AD-TRIB20-2014, **were** **filed within the period of five business days provided for in numeral 162 of the Municipal Code**, since it is accredited that said official letter was notified by fax, on March third and the appeals were filed on March sixth, both of two thousand fourteen *(folios 22 to 27 of the file),* this Tribunal considers that it is inadmissible for the Municipal Mayor to maintain that *“…* ***the resolution intended to be appealed became final,*** ***ABSOLUTE NULLITY IS DECLARED*** ***of the Intended Petition, and consequently, the period indicated in said norm*** *(5 business days) having been exceeded, the* ***Resolution AD-TRIB-20-2014*** *is upheld**,* ***dated March 03, 2014…”***. This is because, even though the appeals were filed before an incompetent authority, **they are not only considered filed on time if the competent body belongs to the same entity** *–in this case, the Head of the Tax Administration of the Municipality of Alajuelita, is a body dependent on the Municipal Mayor’s Office of that Canton-;* but also, **the time limits shall be interrupted by the filing of the appeals established by law**, as happened in this instance, in which the aggrieved Association not only filed the appeals, but also, filed them within the period provided for that purpose. Therefore, *it is not valid to argue that the period of five days for filing said appeals is considered expired and the challenged act final;* ***iv)*** In addition to the foregoing, it is necessary to clarify to the Municipal Mayor that *appeals are not susceptible to declarations of nullity, but rather to rejection and archiving, insofar as they suffer from some formal requirement* (for example, the lack of signature in accordance with the provisions of article 285 subsection 2 of the General Law of Public Administration) or else, *due to non-compliance with admissibility requirements* (for example, those provided for in numeral 154 of the Municipal Code). Consequently, **the filing of appeals before an incompetent authority**, *does not fit in this specific case,* into a cause that would lead to its rejection and archiving on grounds of inadmissibility; ***v)*** Finally, it is necessary to clarify to the Municipal Mayor, that while it is true, the observance of procedural forms guarantees the validity of conduct in that aspect; it is also true, that they cannot be interpreted in such a way as to disfavor the admission and final decision of the petitions filed by administered parties, of course, provided that they are not omissions of substantial formalities that cause absolute nullity. For all the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed is granted and consequently, resolution number AMCENº0243-14 of ten hours fifteen minutes on the eleventh of June of two thousand fourteen, issued by the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita, is annulled.

The case file is returned to the respondent Municipality, so that the motions for revocation with subsidiary appeal, filed against official communication AD-TRIB20-2014 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, are resolved by the competent authorities in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of numeral 162 of the Código Municipal. Due to the manner in which this matter is resolved, no ruling is issued on the substantive grievance, regarding the appropriateness or not of the charge for 399 waste collection services attributed to the appellant Association.

**POR TANTO.** The appeal filed is granted and, consequently, resolution number AMCENº0243-14 of ten hours fifteen minutes on June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita, is annulled. The case file is returned to the respondent Municipality, so that the motions for revocation with subsidiary appeal, filed against official communication AD-TRIB20-2014 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, are resolved by the competent authorities in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of numeral 162 of the Código Municipal. - **Evelyn Solano Ulloa** **Marianella Álvarez Molina** **Francisco José Chaves Torres** **EXPEDIENTE: 14-005309-1027-CA** **ASUNTO: APELACIÓN MUNICIPAL** **RECURRENTE: ASOCIACIÓN PRO VIVIENDA LOS PINOS** **RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELITA** 3 Because, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“…the person who had to respond to this challenge is the official who issued it, in this case Licenciado Edwin Alemán, in accordance with what Article 162 of the Código Municipal indicates, and it should not be filed before the Mayor’s Office or the Council, who cannot exhaust the administrative procedure…”; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">8) </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">That on June eighteenth, two thousand fourteen, the representative of the aggrieved Association filed a motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal (recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio), against resolution AMCENº0243-14 of ten hours fifteen minutes on June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(folios 7 to 10 of the file)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">9)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> That by resolution number AMCENº256-2014 of nine hours fifty minutes on June twenty-sixth, two thousand fourteen, the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita rejected the motion for revocation and admitted the subsidiary appeal before the Administrative Litigation Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo), summoning the party to appear before this Office to assert their rights. Said ruling was notified to the appellant, via fax system, on July second, two thousand fourteen </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(folios 2 to 5 of the file)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">.</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </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-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">IIo.- </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">PURPOSE OF THE APPEAL. </span><span>The representative of the appellant association considers that: </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">i)</span><span> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“… The resolution appealed here is illegal because it is decreeing a non-existent nullity and moreover by means of a resolution issued outside the term established by Law, the Administration’s silence had already occurred (…) In this case, the Mayor kept the file from March seventh to June 11, 2014, that is, more than three months, having to act within eight business days, which he did not do, but rather arbitrarily in the end decided not to resolve correctly as the law demands but instead declares a non-existent nullity of the proceeding…”</span><span>; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">ii)</span><span> Considers that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“…he should have immediately transferred it to the corresponding body to resolve the revocation, something the receiving body of that proceeding omitted, affecting the administered party and if it has an (sic) appeal, that appeal falls to this (sic) instance to hear which you are exercising, something the resolution challenged here completely disregards…”</span><span>; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">iii) </span><span>Considers that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“…if he did not internally forward it to his subordinate to resolve the revocation, he should then have proceeded to deem the motion for revocation waived and proceed to hear as the superior body, the law interprets that the motion for revocation can be deemed waived and the appeal heard…”</span><span>; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">iv)</span><span> Alleges that “…</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">.the absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) decreed by the Mayor is unfounded, the resolution lacks reasoning and needs specific legal reasoning…”; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">v) </span><span>Finally, indicates that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">“…they insist on illegally collecting a garbage charge that does not correspond to the property, to the Association, that they have not really identified who is the owner that leaves garbage on the street, for what purposes it is done, obviously they are not the correct ones that the law demands, since the property does not even have contiguity with the street where they leave the garbage. We consider that rather, ex officio, the Administration in accordance with the law should have annulled the collection act that was absolutely null, for collecting what was not due, instead of that, causing harm to the Association whose purposes are of social interest, they continue illegally attempting it…”</span><span>.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold\">IIIo.- ON THE SPECIFIC CASE</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. It is necessary to clarify to the appellant, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">that without prejudice to what will be analyzed in Considerando IV of this resolution</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, the fact that the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita ruled on the motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal filed against the charge for 399 waste collection services </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">– the act that originates the appeal chain –,</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">until June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, even though the appeal was filed since March sixth, two thousand fourteen</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">does not have the virtue of causing the absolute nullity of the challenged act </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">for that reason</span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">, given that in accordance with the provisions of subsection 3) of Article 329 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the act issued outside the established term will be valid for all legal purposes</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">unless provided otherwise by law</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">,</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">a scenario that is not provided for in Article 162 of the Código Municipal</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">Consequently, the grievance raised in that sense is inadmissible and must be declared so. Furthermore, it is necessary to highlight that in accordance with the provisions of Articles 330 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública and 32 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">positive silence </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">(silencio positivo)</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> –when expressly established in the legal system– is not applicable in the appeals phase, as is the case here, but in the constitutive phase of the administrative procedure, that is, in the first instance</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(see in that sense, resolution number 285-2014 of thirteen hours fifty-five minutes on June twenty-sixth, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Third Section of this Tribunal)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. In that sense, it is inadmissible to seek the declaration of positive silence in the appeals phase, given that it is not applicable in accordance with the legal norms indicated above.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\"> </span><span>At this point, it is necessary to indicate that in accordance with the provisions of Articles 31.6 and 32 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, the unjustified delay in resolving by reasoned act the appeals filed could have produced negative silence, however, the Municipal Mayor expressly ruled on them and it is against that resolution that the appeal now before us was filed. Consequently, said grievance is also inadmissible and must be declared so</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">IVo.-</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> Notwithstanding what was indicated in the preceding Considerando, this Tribunal considers that the appeal filed is admissible, for the reasons set forth below: </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">i)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> In application of the </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">principle of informalism (principio de informalismo)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(numeral 224 and 348 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">procedural rules must be interpreted in a manner favorable to the admission and final decision of the petitions of the administered parties</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">; but informalism cannot serve to cure absolute nullities. By reason of the foregoing, Articles 68 and 69 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública establish that when a petition or request subject to a term is filed before an incompetent body, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">it will not only be deemed filed in time, if the authority competent to resolve it belongs to the same entity,</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> but also, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">the body that declines its competence may adopt the necessary urgent measures to avoid serious or irreparable damages to the Administration or to private individuals, communicating it to the competent body</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. In that same line, numeral 260 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública establishes that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“...terms shall be interrupted by the filing of the appeals established by law</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">...”</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, therefore, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“…It shall not matter that the appeal was filed before an incompetent authority, in the cases provided for by Article 68 of this law…”; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">ii)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> Although it is true,</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> in the specific case</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> and according to paragraph 1 of numeral 162 of the Código Municipal, the representative of the appellant Association filed the motion for revocation with subsidiary appeal before an incompetent authority, since being a decision adopted by an official who does not depend directly on the Municipal Council </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">– in this case, the Head of Tax Administration of the Municipality of Alajuelita –, </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">the revocation should have been filed before the body that issued official letter AD-TRIB20-2014 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen and the appeal before the Municipal Mayor’s Office, and not as the aggrieved party erroneously did </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(folios 22 to 24 of the file)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">; it is also true, that </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">in application of the provisions of numeral 69 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, the Municipal Mayor should have declined his competence and forwarded it to the authority that was responsible for resolving the motion for revocation, according to the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 162 of the Código Municipal and not </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“declared it inadmissible due to absolute nullity”</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">iii)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> In that sense and given that the motions for revocation with subsidiary appeal against the charge for 399 waste collection services contained in official letter AD-TRIB20-2014, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">were</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> filed within the term of five business days provided for in numeral 162 of the Código Municipal</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, as it is credited that said official letter was notified by fax, on March third and the appeals were filed on March sixth, both of two thousand fourteen </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(folios 22 to 27 of the file), </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">this Tribunal considers that it is inadmissible for the Municipal Mayor to maintain that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“…</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">the resolution intended to be appealed became final and binding, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">THE ABSOLUTE NULLITY</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\"> of the Intended Proceeding IS DECLARED, and consequently, the term indicated in said norm</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> (5 business days) having elapsed, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">Resolution AD-TRIB-20-2014</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">, dated March 03, 2014, remains…”</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. This is because, even when the appeals were filed before an incompetent authority, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">they are not only deemed filed in time if the competent body belongs to the same entity </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">– in this case, the Head of Tax Administration of the Municipality of Alajuelita, is a body dependent on the Municipal Mayor’s Office of that Canton –; </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">but also, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">the terms will be interrupted by the filing of the appeals established by law</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, as happened in the present case, in which the aggrieved Association not only filed the appeals but also filed them within the term provided for that purpose. Therefore, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">it is not valid to claim that the term of five days to file said appeals has expired and that the questioned act is final and binding</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">iv)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> In addition to the above, it is necessary to clarify to the Municipal Mayor that </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">appeals are not subject to declarations of nullity, but to rejection and archiving, insofar as they suffer from some formal requirement</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> (for example, the lack of signature in accordance with the provisions of Article 285 subsection 2 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública) or </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">for non-compliance with admissibility requirements</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> (for instance, those provided for in numeral 154 of the Código Municipal). Consequently, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">the filing of appeals before an incompetent authority</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">does not amount, in this specific case,</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> to a cause that provokes its rejection and archiving for reasons of inadmissibility; </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">v)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> Finally, it is necessary to clarify to the Municipal Mayor, that although it is true, </span><span style=\"color:#222222\">the observance of procedural forms guarantees the validity of conducts in that aspect; it is also true, that those cannot be interpreted in such a way that they disfavor the admission and final decision of the petitions made by the administered parties, it being understood, provided it does not involve omissions of substantial formalities that cause absolute nullity. For all the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed is granted, and consequently, resolution number </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">AMCENº0243-14 of ten hours fifteen minutes on June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita, is annulled. The file is returned to the respondent Municipality, so that the motions for revocation with subsidiary appeal, filed against official letter AD-TRIB20-2014 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, are resolved by the competent authorities in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of numeral 162 of the Código Municipal. </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">Due to the manner in which it is resolved, a ruling on the substantive grievance, relating to the appropriateness or not of the charge for 399 waste collection services attributed to the appellant Association, is omitted</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36.85pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </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 appeal filed is granted, and consequently, resolution number A</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">MCENº0243-14 of ten hours fifteen minutes on June eleventh, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Municipal Mayor of Alajuelita, is annulled. The file is returned to the respondent Municipality, so that the motions for revocation with subsidiary appeal, filed against official letter AD-TRIB20-2014 of February twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, are resolved by the competent authorities in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of numeral 162 of the Código Municipal</span><span>. </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">- </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">Evelyn Solano Ulloa</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt; text-align:center\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">Marianella Álvarez Molina</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">Francisco José Chaves Torres</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:5.05pt; margin-bottom:5.05pt\"><span> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">EXPEDIENTE: 14-005309-1027-CA</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">ASUNTO: APELACIÓN MUNICIPAL</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">RECURRENTE: ASOCIACIÓN PRO VIVIENDA LOS PINOS</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELITA</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:7pt\"><span style=\"font-family:Arial; color:#010101\">3</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right\"><span> </span></p>

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico ...01 _______________________________________________________________________ ASUNTO: APELACIÓN MUNICIPAL RECURRENTE: ASOCIACIÓN PRO VIVIENDA LOS PINOS RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELITA No. 05-2015 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN TERCERA, ANEXO A DEL II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las ocho horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del veintidós de enero del dos mil quince.- Recurso de apelación interpuesto por la ASOCIACIÓN PRO VIVIENDA LOS PINOS, cédula jurídica número CED80795, representada por Nombre104430 , cédula de identidad número CED80796, en su condición de Apoderado Generalísimo sin límite de suma (folio 99 del expediente); contra la resolución AMCENº0243-14 de las diez horas quince minutos del once de junio del dos mil catorce, dictada por el ALCALDE MUNICIPAL DE ALAJUELITA.

Redacta la jueza Álvarez Molina, con el voto afirmativo de la jueza Solano Ulloa y el juez Chaves Torres; y,

CONSIDERANDO:

Io.- HECHOS PROBADOS. Se tienen como debidamente acreditados los siguientes hechos que resultan relevantes para este proceso: 1) Que la Asociación recurrente es la propietaria registral del inmueble descrito en el plano catastrado número Placa18123, inscrito bajo matrícula de folio real número Placa18122, sito en San Felipe de Alajuelita, Provincia de San José (folios 34 y 35 del expediente); 2) Que a las catorce horas quince minutos del doce de enero del dos mil nueve, el Jefe de Recolección de Basura de la Municipalidad de Alajuelita, emitió la certificación que indica “…los camiones recolectores de basura de esta municipalidad nunca han entrado a recolectar basura a la finca Placa18122# propiedad de la Asociación Vivienda Los Pinos cédula jurídica CED80797 ubicada a 200 metros oeste de la Escuela de Tejarcillos ya que esta finca no tiene acceso vehicular para carros livianos y menos para camiones recolectores de basura…” (folio 54 del expediente); 3) Que por oficio número CIGAM0051-2014 del catorce de enero del dos mil catorce, el Departamento de Gestión Ambiental de la Municipalidad de Alajuelita, solicitó a la Alcaldía Municipal lo siguiente: “… Debido a los problemas de basura que se han venido presentando en la Propiedad plano SJ-0861665-1989, perteneciente a la Asociación Pro Vivienda Los Pinos, cédula jurídica CED80797, se realizó un recuento de los ranchos construidos en esta propiedad. Por esta razón (…) solicita que se haga la tramitología necesario (sic) para iniciar con el cobro del impuesto de recolección…” (folio 33 a 41 del expediente); 4) Que por mensaje de correo electrónico enviado a las doce horas cuarenta y seis minutos del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil catorce, el Encargado Administrativo de la Municipalidad de Alajuelita, comunicó al Jefe de la Administración Tributaria de ese mismo ente municipal, que “…En contestación a su correo enviado el miércoles 26 de febrero en cuanto a la consulta de el servicio de recolección de basura de la finca registral #371012-000, me permito indicarles que si se le brinda el servicio de recolección de basura constante, en el cronograma los días lunes y miércoles de cada semana. Con las variables de que por la estructura de las calles los camiones recolectores de basura por su peso y tamaño no pueden ingresar a realizar la recolección casa por casa, por ende los vecinos de dicha finca proceden a depositarlos en sitios denominados “botaderos a cielo abierto”…” (folios 28 a 32 del expediente; el resaltado no es del original); 5) Que por oficio número AD-TRIB-20-2014 del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil catorce, el Jefe de la Administración Tributaria de la Municipalidad de Alajuelita, comunicó al Presidente de la Asociación recurrente, el cobro de 399 servicios de recolección de basura en la finca registral # 371012-000 su propiedad, por período que comprende del 01/01/2013 al 31/03/2014, por un monto total con intereses al 28/02/2014 de ¢12.493.227.30 colones, ello por cuanto, “…durante varios años la Municipalidad les ha brindado los servicios de recolección de basura, sin que la Asociación haya pagado al Municipio ni un servicio de recolección…”. Dicho oficio fue notificado a la Asociación apelante, por medio del sistema de fax, el tres de marzo del dos mil catorce (folios 25 a 27 del expediente); 6) Que el seis de marzo del dos mil catorce, el representante de la Asociación agraviada interpuso “… ante Alcalde Municipal y ante el Concejo Municipal…”, recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio contra el oficio número AD-TRIB-20-2014 del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil catorce, dictado por el Jefe de la Administración Tributaria de la Municipalidad de Alajuelita (folios 22 a 24 del expediente); 7) Que por resolución AMCENº0243-14 de las diez horas quince minutos del once de junio del dos mil catorce, el Alcalde Municipal de Alajuelita resolvió: “…Que para la Institución, y de acuerdo al Código Municipal en su artículo 162, la gestión presentada adolece de formalidades propias de admisibilidad a saber: revocatoria conocida por quien dicta el acto (Administración Tributaria), apelación Alcaldía Municipal (artículo 162 del CM) por lo indicado la resolución que se pretendía recurrir adquirió firmeza, SE DECLARA LA NULIDAD ABSOLUTA de la Gestión Pretendida, y en consecuencia, superado el plazo indicado en dicha norma (5 días hábiles) se mantiene la Resolución AD-TRIB-20-2014, de fecha 03 de marzo del 2014…”. Ello por cuanto, “…quien tenía que contestar esta impugnación es el funcionario que la dictó, en este caso el Licenciado Edwin Alemán, de acuerdo a lo que señala el artículo 162 del Código Municipal, y no ser interpuesta ante la Alcaldía o el Concejo, quienes no pueden agotar la vía administrativa…”; 8) Que el dieciocho de junio del dos mil catorce, el representante de la Asociación agraviada interpuso recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio, contra la resolución AMCENº0243-14 de las diez horas quince minutos del once de junio del dos mil catorce, dictada por el Alcalde Municipal de Alajuelita (folios 7 a 10 del expediente); 9) Que por resolución número AMCENº256-2014 de las nueve horas cincuenta minutos del veintiséis de junio del dos mil catorce, el Alcalde Municipal de Alajuelita rechazó el recurso de revocatoria y admitió para ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo la apelación en subsidio, emplazando a la parte para que se apersonara ante este Despacho, a hacer valer sus derechos. Dicho pronunciamiento fue notificado a la recurrente, por medio del sistema de fax, el dos de julio del dos mi catorce (folios 2 a 5 del expediente).

IIo.- OBJETO DEL RECURSO. El representante de la asociación recurrente estima que: i) “… La resolución aquí apelada es ilegal por que está decretando una nulidad inexistente y por demás por medio de una resolución dictada fuera del término de Ley, ya se había producido el silencio de la Administración (…) En este caso el señor Alcalde se guardó el expediente desde el siete de marzo al 11 de junio del 2014, sea más de tres meses, debiendo actuar dentro de los ocho días hábiles lo que no hizo, sino que en forma arbitraria al final decid ió no resolver correctamente conforme la ley lo exige sino que declara una inexistente nulidad de la gestión…”; ii) Considera que “…debía haberla trasladado de inmediato al órgano correspondiente para que resolviera la revocatoria, cosa que omitió el órgano receptor de esa gestión, afectando al administrado y si tiene un (sic) apelación esa apelación le corresponde conocerlo a está (sic) instancia a la que Ud. está ejerciendo, cosa que la resolución aquí impugnada está desconociendo por completo…”; iii) Estima que “..procedía en caso de que internamente no la remitiera a su inferior para que resolviera la revocatoria, debía entonces proceder a tener por renunciado el recurso de revocatoria y proceder a conocer como órgano superior, la ley interpreta que el recurso de revocatoria se puede tener como renunciado y conocerse el de apelación…”; iv) Aduce que “….la nulidad absoluta que decreta el señor Alcalde no se encuentra fundada, la resolución carece de fundamentación y necesita fundamentación legal específica…”; v) Por último, señala que “…insisten en cobrar ilegalmente un cobro sobre basura que no corresponde a la propiedad, a la Asociación, qué no tienen identificado en forma real quien es el titular que deja basura en la calle, con qué fines se hace, obviamente no son los correctos que la ley demanda, ya que la propiedad ni siquiera tiene colindancia con la calle sobre la cual dejan la basura. Consideramos, que más bien de oficio la Administración conforme a la ley debió anular el acto de cobro que era absolutamente nulo, por cobrarse lo indebido, en lugar de ello, causando perjuicio a la Asociación cuyos fines son de interés social, siguen ilegalmente intentándolo…”.

IIIo.- SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO. Cabe aclarar a la recurrente, que sin perjuicio de lo que se analizará en el considerando IV de esta resolución, el hecho de que el Alcalde Municipal de Alajuelita se haya pronunciado sobre el recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio interpuesto contra el cobro de 399 servicios de recolección de desechos –acto que origina la cadena recursiva-, hasta el once de junio del dos mil catorce, a pesar de que el recurso fue interpuesto desde el seis de marzo del dos mil catorce, no tiene la virtud de provocar la nulidad absoluta del acto impugnado por ese motivo, toda vez que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el inciso 3) del artículo 329 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, el acto dictado fuera del plazo establecido, será válido para todo efecto legal, salvo disposición en contrario de la ley , supuesto que no está previsto el artículo 162 del Código Municipal. En consecuencia, el agravio planteado en ese sentido, resulta improcedente y así debe declararse. Por otra parte, es menester resaltar que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 330 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y 32 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, el silencio positivo –cuando así se establezca expresamente en el ordenamiento jurídico- no es aplicable en fase recursiva, como sucede en este caso, sino en la fase constitutiva del procedimiento administrativo o sea en primera instancia (ver en ese sentido, la resolución número 285-2014 de las trece horas cincuenta y cinco minutos del veintiséis de junio de dos mil catorce, dictada por la Sección Tercera de este Tribunal). En ese sentido, resulta improcedente que se pretenda la declaratoria de silencio positivo en fase recursiva, toda vez que no resulta aplicable conforme a las normas legales antes indicadas. En este punto, es menester indicar que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 31.6 y 32 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, la dilación injustificada en resolver por acto motivado los recursos interpuesto, pudo haber producido silencio negativo, no obstante, el Alcalde Municipal se pronunció expresamente sobre los mismos y es contra esa resolución contra la que interpuso el recurso que ahora nos ocupa. En consecuencia, dicho también agravio resulta improcedente y así debe declararse.

IVo.- No obstante lo indicado en el considerando anterior, considera este Tribunal que el recurso interpuesto resulta procedente, por las razones que de seguido se exponen: i) En aplicación del principio de informalismo (numerales 224 y 348 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública), las normas de procedimiento deben interpretarse en forma favorable a la admisión y decisión final de las peticiones de los administrados; pero el informalismo no podrá servir para subsanar nulidades absolutas. En razón de lo anterior, los artículos 68 y 69 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, establecen que cuando una petición o instancia sujeta a término sea planteada ante un órgano incompetente, aquella no sólo se tendrá por presentada en tiempo, si la autoridad competente para resolverla pertenece al mismo ente, sino que además, el órgano que declina su competencia podrá adoptar las medidas de urgencia necesarias para evitar daños graves o irreparables a la Administración o a los particulares, comunicándolo al órgano competente. En esa misma línea, el numeral 260 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, establece que los "...términos se interrumpirán por la presentación de los recursos fijados por la ley ...", por lo que, “…No importará que el recurso haya sido interpuesto ante autoridad incompetente, en los casos previstos por el artículo 68 de esta ley…”; ii) Si bien es cierto, en el caso concreto y de acuerdo al párrafo 1º del numeral 162 del Código Municipal, el representante de la Asociación apelante interpuso el recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio ante una autoridad incompetente, pues al tratarse de una decisión adoptada por un funcionario que no depende directamente del Concejo Municipal –en este caso, el Jefe de la Administración Tributaria de la Municipalidad de Alajuelita-, la revocatoria debió plantearse ante el órgano que dictó el oficio AD-TRIB20-2014 del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil catorce y la apelación para ante la Alcaldía Municipal, y no como erróneamente lo hizo la agraviada (folios 22 a 24 del expediente); también lo es, que en aplicación de lo dispuesto en el numeral 69 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, el Alcalde Municipal debió haber declinado su competencia y remitirlo a la autoridad que le correspondía resolver el recurso de revocatoria, según lo dispuesto en el párrafo 1º del artículo 162 del Código Municipal y no “declararlo inadmisible por nulidad absoluta”; iii) En ese sentido y dado que los recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio contra el cobro de 399 servicios de recolección de desechos contenido en el oficio AD-TRIB20-2014, fueron planteados en el plazo de cinco días hábiles previsto en el numeral 162 del Código Municipal, pues se tiene por acreditado que dicho oficio fue notificado por fax, el tres de marzo y los recursos fueron interpuestos el seis de marzo, ambos del dos mil catorce (folios 22 a 27 del expediente), considera este Tribunal que resulta improcedente que el Alcalde Municipal sostenga que “…la resolución que se pretendía recurrir adquirió firmeza, SE DECLARA LA NULIDAD ABSOLUTA de la Gestión Pretendida, y en consecuencia, superado el plazo indicado en dicha norma (5 días hábiles) se mantiene la Resolución AD-TRIB-20-2014, de fecha 03 de marzo del 2014…”. Ello por cuanto, aún y cuando los recursos hayan sido interpuestos ante autoridad incompetente, no sólo se tienen presentados en tiempo si el órgano competente pertenece al mismo ente –en este caso, el Jefe de la Administración Tributaria de la Municipalidad de Alajuelita, es un órgano dependiente de la Alcaldía Municipal de ese Cantón-; sino que además, los plazos se interrumpirán por la presentación de los recursos fijados por la ley, como sucedió en la especie, en que la Asociación agraviada no sólo interpuso los recursos, sino que además, los planteó dentro del plazo previsto al efecto. Por ende, no resulta válido alegar que se tiene por vencido el plazo de cinco días para interponer dichos recursos y por firme el acto cuestionado; iv) Aunado a lo anterior, cabe aclarar al Alcalde Municipal que los recursos no son pasibles de declaratorias de nulidad, sino de rechazo y archivo, en el tanto adolezcan de algún requisito formal (por ejemplo, la falta de firma conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 285 inciso 2 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública) o bien, por incumplimiento de requisitos de admisibilidad (verbigracia, los previstos en el numeral 154 del Código Municipal). En consecuencia, la interposición de recursos ante autoridad incompetente, no encuadra en este caso concreto, en una causal que provoque su rechazo y archivo por motivos de inadmisiblidad; v) Por último, es necesario aclarar al Alcalde Municipal, que si bien es cierto, la observancia de las formas procedimentales garantizan la validez de las conductas en ese aspecto; también lo es, que aquellas no pueden interpretarse en forma tal que desfavorezcan la admisión y decisión final de las peticiones que planteen los administrados, claro está, siempre y cuando no se trate de omisiones a formalidades sustanciales que causen nulidad absoluta. Por todo lo expuesto, se declara con lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto y en consecuencia, se anula la resolución número AMCENº0243-14 de las diez horas quince minutos del once de junio del dos mil catorce, dictada por el Alcalde Municipal de Alajuelita. Se devuelve el expediente a la Municipalidad recurrida, a fin de que los recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio, interpuestos contra el oficio AD-TRIB20-2014 del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil catorce, sean resueltos por las autoridades competentes conforme a lo dispuesto en el párrafo 1º del numeral 162 del Código Municipal. Por la forma en que se resuelve, se omite pronunciamiento sobre el agravio de fondo, relativo a la procedencia o no del cobro de 399 servicios de recolección de desechos que se le imputa a la Asociación recurrente.

POR TANTO.

Se declara con lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto y en consecuencia, se anula la resolución número AMCENº0243-14 de las diez horas quince minutos del once de junio del dos mil catorce, dictada por el Alcalde Municipal de Alajuelita. Se devuelve el expediente a la Municipalidad recurrida, a fin de que los recursos de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio, interpuestos contra el oficio AD-TRIB20-2014 del veintiocho de febrero del dos mil catorce, sean resueltos por las autoridades competentes conforme a lo dispuesto en el párrafo 1º del numeral 162 del Código Municipal. - Evelyn Solano Ulloa Marianella Álvarez Molina Francisco José Chaves Torres ASUNTO: APELACIÓN MUNICIPAL RECURRENTE: ASOCIACIÓN PRO VIVIENDA LOS PINOS RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE ALAJUELITA 3