Ban on private practice pay does not apply to mayor without a university professional degreeImprocedencia del pago de prohibición a alcalde sin título profesional liberal

**SENTENCIA N° 89- 2014-I** **CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURAL COURT, FOURTH SECTION. II Judicial Circuit. San José, at eleven hours and thirty minutes on the eighth of December of two thousand fourteen.** Ordinary proceeding processed under number 11-6191-1027-CA, filed by the CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, represented by Mrs. Rocío Aguilar Montoya, of legal age, married, licensed in Law and Business Administration, identity card CED29778, in her capacity as Contralora General de la República, the plaintiff represented in the proceeding by Licenciado Juan Pablo Vargas Quirós, of legal age, single, attorney, identity card CED22221, against Nombre111673, of legal age, divorced, resident of Ciudad Cortés de Osa, identity card CED8902, represented in the proceeding by Licenciado Reyner Muñoz Piedra, and the MUNICIPALIDAD DE OSA, represented by the Deputy Mayoress Mrs. Yanina Chavatti Rosales, of legal age, married, Costa Rican, resident of Dirección13363, identity card CED88327, and in the proceeding by Licenciada Leidy Martínez González, of legal age, attorney.

**WHEREAS:** **I-** The present ordinary proceeding is brought with the object that the judgment declare, as relevant: "b) That it declare the non-conformity with the legal system of the challenged administrative conducts. c) That it order the absolute nullity of personnel actions (acciones de personal) No. 269-2008 and No. 62-2010, by which the payment of the prohibition on the liberal practice of the profession (prohibición al ejercicio liberal de la profesión) was recognized to Nombre111673, which have had continued effects from their issuance to date. d) That in accordance with the provisions of articles 36 subsection d) in relation to 122 subsection k) of the CPCA, the material actions connected to the formal administrative acts challenged herein be annulled (as well as any other formal act that has a direct and indirect relationship with the conducts questioned herein), which may have continuously and uninterruptedly maintained the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) in favor of Nombre111673. e) That it be declared that Nombre111673 is not entitled to any payment for the concept of prohibition on the liberal practice of the prohibition. f) That Nombre111673 be condemned in his personal capacity to reimburse the Public Treasury the total amount he has illegally received for the concept of prohibition, from the month of May 2008 until the date on which judgment is rendered (which at this time amounts to the sum of FIFTY-EIGHT MILLION SIX HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO COLONES WITH THREE CENTS), a sum duly indexed plus interest until its effective payment, values that will be specified in the judgment enforcement proceeding. g) That Nombre111673 and the Municipalidad de Osa be ordered to refrain from carrying out, in the future, administrative conducts similar to those challenged in this lawsuit. h) That the defendants be condemned to pay the procedural and personal costs of this proceeding." **II-** The defendant Nombre111673 answers the lawsuit negatively.

**III-** The representation of the Municipalidad de Osa answered the lawsuit negatively.

**IV-** The oral and public trial was held on October 20, attended by all parties to the proceeding, and was reopened on November 17, two thousand fourteen.

**V-** At the trial hearing, the representation of the Contraloría General de la República offered, as supplementary evidence, a certification from the Municipalidad de Osa regarding the amount that has been paid to the defendant Nombre111673 for the concept of prohibition, on which the parties were given a hearing and which was admitted.

**VI-** The representation of the defendant Nombre111673, at the oral hearing, filed the Exception of Expiration (Caducidad) of the action in accordance with numerals 67 and 39 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, on which a hearing was granted to the parties.

**VII-** This proceeding was declared complex, in accordance with Article 111 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, and the judgment has been rendered in accordance with ordinal 47 of its regulations.

**VIII-** The legal prescriptions of rigor have been observed in the procedures, and no defects or omissions susceptible of producing nullity of the actions taken or defenselessness to the parties are observed. This resolution is rendered after deliberation, within the legal term, and unanimously.

Drafted by Judge Loaiza Sánchez; and **CONSIDERING:** **I- REGARDING THE FACTS HELD AS PROVEN:** 1- Mr. Nombre111673 studied at the Universidad de Costa Rica and completed a short degree program, obtaining the undergraduate academic degree of Diplomado in Radio Technology (see evidence 8 on the evidence disk); 2- Mr. Nombre111673 was appointed as Alcalde Municipal of the Cantón de Osa for the periods 2007 to 2011 and re-elected in that capacity from 2011 to 2016, a position he holds at the time of the oral and public trial (facts not controverted by the parties and answer to fact 2, folio 250 of the judicial file); 3- On May 16, 2008 (official letter FOE-SM-0754), the Gerencia de Servicios Municipales of the Contraloría General de la República informs Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Alcalde Municipal, of the partial approval of extraordinary budget Number 2-2008 of the Municipalidad de Osa, and regarding the issue of the prohibition, indicates, as relevant: "Because said recognition is only appropriate in cases where a special law authorizes it, the budgetary content for said payment is approved in the case of the posts of Proveedor and Alcalde Municipal based on the Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública (...)" (see folios 2 of Volume I of the administrative file and 182 to 184 of the main file); 4- By personnel action number 00269 of May 16, 2008, of the Municipalidad de Osa, Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Alcalde Municipal and in his own favor, ordered a salary increase for the concept of the recognition of the Prohibition of 20%, with justification according to official letter FOE-SM-0754 (see evidence 1 on the evidence disk, folio 3 of the administrative file Volume I); 5- The aforementioned personnel action was signed by Mr. Nombre111673 and a human resources official (see evidence 1 of the evidence disk and folios 3 of Volume I of the administrative file); 6- On August 6, 2008, the Contraloría General de la República informs Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Alcalde of the Municipalidad de Osa, that in relation to the request for information and the documentation sent by that municipal corporation regarding the recognition and payment of the prohibition on the practice of liberal professions, in the study of the cases of the Alcalde and Proveedor Municipal, on the Contraloría's electronic page, there is information entitled Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento ilícito en la función pública annotated and concordanced (see evidence # 2 on the evidence disk); 7- In official letter DAGJ-1333-2008 (10455) dated October 8, 2008, the Contraloría General de la República communicates a Report to Mr. Nombre111673 in his capacity as Alcalde of the Municipalidad de Osa, that regarding the application of the prohibition on the practice of liberal professions in the municipalities, indicates as relevant: "Conclusions. The prohibition on the liberal practice of the profession constitutes a limitation on a fundamental freedom, a particularity that demands a restrictive interpretation and application of said figure, and requires, from those responsible for determining the covered positions, prudent, informed action that adheres to what the corresponding regulations establish. This excludes broad interpretations that exceed the legal and jurisprudential criteria and parameters under which the prohibition must be applied, extending it to positions whose powers, functions, and responsibilities do not correspond to those subject to said restriction, and in the event that the existence of an application in these terms is determined, the municipal authorities are compelled to immediately exercise the respective disciplinary and recovery actions, this in protection of an adequate safeguard of public funds and in an effort to restore a legality that may have been broken." (see evidence number 2 on the evidence disk); 8- In the cited official letter DAGJ-1333-2008, Mr. Alcalde of Osa was summoned so that, within the non-extendable period of fifteen business days, the Municipality must verify if the manner in which the prohibition is being applied conforms to the outlined criteria and parameters and, in general, its conformity with the legal system. 2. Taking into account the list of officials –previously sent to that oversight body– to whom the prohibition is being recognized, it must be indicated if the verification has implied any violation or change to said list, and if so, the immediate actions that will be adopted in order to bring each case into compliance with the law and recover sums improperly paid. 3. The confirmation of the list of servants – with the eventual changes that are noted – will be taken by the Contraloría General as a confirmation of the legality in the recognition of the prohibition in that Municipality, and in the independent exercise of its powers, it may be used as a basis for oversight actions as well as for corresponding disciplinary and civil liability. 4. The verification ordered here and the remittance of its results in the indicated terms must be made to the División de Asesoría y Gestión jurídica of this oversight body within the aforementioned period (...) (see evidence # 2 on the evidence disk); 9- Said official letter was notified to Mr. Nombre111673 personally on October 22, 2008 (see notification record, evidence # 2 on the evidence disk); 10- On January 25, 2010, the legal advisor of the Municipalidad de Osa issued a legal opinion regarding the payment of the prohibition to Mr. Nombre111673 for holding the position of Alcalde Municipal, concluding that the payment of the prohibition to the Alcalde is appropriate because "it is an aspect inherent to the position" (see evidence 4 on the evidence disk and folios 18 to 26 of the administrative file Volume I); 11- By personnel action number 062 of January 29, 2010, of the Municipalidad de Osa, Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Alcalde Municipal and for his own benefit, ordered a salary increase for the concept of the recognition of the difference of the prohibition 45%, since according to personnel action No. 00269, 20% was being paid to him, and according to Law 8422 it corresponds to 65%, therefore he ordered that the indicated percentage be paid starting 01/01/2010, according to official letter DAM-ALCAOSA-0070-2010 (see evidence 4 on the evidence disk and folio 38 of the administrative file Volume I); 12- The aforementioned personnel action was signed by Mr. Nombre111673 and a human resources official (see folio 38 of Volume I of the administrative file and evidence # 4 on the disk); 13- On January 29, 2010, the Contadora Municipal sends to the head of Recursos Humanos of the Municipalidad de Osa a missive indicating that after prior discussion on the subject with officials of the Contraloría General de la República, the payment of the prohibition to the Alcalde must be applied at a percentage of 65%, for which Mr. Alcalde must request the corresponding study from that Departamento de Recursos Humanos in order to determine compliance with the legal and academic requirements (folios 40 and 41 of the administrative file Volume I, 185 and 186 of the judicial file); 14- The office of Recursos Humanos of the Municipalidad de Osa issued, on February 15, 2010, a technical opinion on the payment of the prohibition and the percentage to be paid corresponding to 65% regarding Mr. Nombre111673 in his capacity as Alcalde Municipal (see official letter PRH- oficio 15-2010, folios 48 to 53 of the administrative file Volume I); 15- Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Alcalde of the Municipalidad de Osa, proceeded to sign, in that capacity, the Payroll payment order number 009654 dated April 14, 2010, by which the retroactive payment for the concept of prohibition in his favor is authorized (see folio 49 of Volume II of the administrative file); 16- Nombre111673 is authorized by the Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos under code TEC-1221 as a Tecnólogo in Radiological Procedures since August 18, 1987, and must practice his profession under the supervision of a specialist physician (see evidence numbered 6, official letter issued by the fiscal general of the Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos on the evidence disk); 17- Co-defendant Nombre111673 has worked for the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social since June 8, 1980, and as of March 2012 holds a permanent position with a leave of absence without pay, as Técnico Profesional 1 in the Radiodiagnóstico service (see folio 259 of the judicial file); 18- Mr. Nombre111673, in his performance as Técnico at the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, has worked without supervision because the medical service lacks, due to a shortage of human resources, a Médico in Radiología (see folio 259 of the main file); 19- The representation of the Contraloría General de la República filed, before the Municipalidad de Osa, an Extraordinary Review Appeal (Recurso extraordinario de Revisión) against the acts questioned here in the month of May 2011 (see folios 139 to 149 of Volume II of the administrative file); 20- The present Contentious action was filed before this office on November 4, 2011 (see folio 1 of the judicial file); 21- The aforementioned Extraordinary Review Appeal was resolved by the Municipalidad de Osa on December 21, 2011, and communicated on December 22, 2011 (see folios 160 to 170 of the administrative file Volume II); 22- Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Alcalde Municipal of Osa, has been paid the prohibition since the month of May 2008, and for that concept, up to the first half of October 2014, the sum of One hundred twenty-one million five hundred fifty-two thousand five hundred thirteen colones with sixty-four cents (C 121,552,513.64) has been paid to him, broken down as follows: Eighty-two million four hundred five thousand eight hundred fifteen colones with eight cents (C 82,405,815.08) for the concept of prohibition payment; fifteen million seven hundred eighty-five thousand seven hundred seventy-one colones with seventy-six cents (C 15,785,771.76) for the concept of social security contributions paid by the employer generated from the prohibition payment; five million two hundred sixty-nine thousand one hundred ninety-five colones with five cents (C 5,269,195.05) for the concept of year-end bonuses (aguinaldos) derived from the prohibition payment; two million nine hundred seventy-three thousand two hundred thirty-two colones with eighty-three cents (C 2,973,323.83) for the concept of school salary (salario escolar) derived from the prohibition payment; and fifteen million one hundred eighteen thousand four hundred ninety-eight colones with ninety-two cents (C 15,118,498.92) which corresponds to the retroactive payment made in the year 2010 for the differences in the prohibition paid in the years 2008 and 2009 when going from 20% to 65% (see folios 367 to 370 of the main file); **II- REGARDING THE FACTS NOT PROVEN** 1- That Mr. Nombre111673 recused himself from the knowledge or approval of the prohibition and/or its differences for his own benefit (the case records); 2- That Mr. Nombre111673 abstained from knowing, in his capacity as Alcalde of the Municipalidad de Osa, about the incorporation into his own salary of the items corresponding to the prohibition (the case records); 3- That the knowledge of the appropriateness of the prohibition item in the case of Mr. Alcalde Nombre111673, or the signing of the personnel actions that ordered the payment of said items in favor of Mr. Nombre111673, was transferred to the Acting Alcalde or to the Deputy Mayoresses of the Municipalidad de Osa (the case records); 4- That Mr. Nombre111673, when he was appointed as Alcalde in the Municipalidad de Osa, practiced a liberal profession (the case records) **III- REGARDING THE OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING AND THE PARTIES' ALLEGATIONS** The representation of the Oversight Body claims against the Municipalidad de Osa for granting, through Personnel Actions No. 269-2008 and No. 062-2010, the recognition to Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Alcalde Municipal, of the payment corresponding to the prohibition without having carried out the minimum study of the necessary academic and professional requirements. Regarding the co-defendant Nombre111673, he is sued in his personal capacity, and the financial restitution is sought for the monies received for the concept of prohibition, affirming that Mr. Nombre111673 was aware that he lacks the requirements for its applicability. It argues that the prohibition on the liberal practice of the profession constitutes a restriction legally imposed on some public officials, so that they do not practice their professions and dedicate themselves fully to their public tasks and responsibilities. That through the payment of the prohibition, the aim is to avoid the real or potential emergence of conflicts of interest, and such a restriction of fundamental freedom can only be established by law. Regarding liberal professionals, it notes those that are practiced in the services market, so one must hold an academic degree that grants that professional status in a branch of knowledge, as well as incorporation into the respective Colegio Profesional. In the specific case, it refers that they sent to the Municipal entity a series of provisions and recommendations that should have been taken into account for the applicability of the prohibition payment, which, in its opinion, the Municipality ignored, recognizing from the month of May 2008 the payment for said concept to Mr. Nombre111673, who does not possess one of the essential requirements to enjoy the payment, "which is the holding of an academic degree that accredits him as a professional and, to that extent, with sufficient academic and professional aptitude to be able to practice a profession in a liberal manner." It claims that it was the Alcalde himself who approved such a benefit in his favor without meeting the requirements for such a benefit. It indicates that the Contraloría at no time induced the Municipal Administration into error, that it was the wrong judgment of the Municipality that caused such payment, and that the Contraloría issues opinions in general cases, not specific ones; that when the budget approval was given, it indicated the payment of the prohibition to the Alcalde, however, in a general manner; the determination of whether it corresponded to Mr. Nombre111673 in that capacity corresponds to the Municipal entity, not to the Contraloría; that it is clear that in this case Mr. Nombre111673 does not meet the academic or professional requirements. It seeks the nullity of the personnel actions by which the payment was recognized and ordered to Mr. Nombre111673, as well as all subsequent ones that month by month have allowed the continuation of its payment, as well as the return to the Public Treasury of the money paid for that concept. For its part, the representation of the co-defendant Nombre111673 rejects the lawsuit and indicates that the approach made by the oversight official of the Contraloría General de la República is incorrect, inaccurate, and lacking in technical-legal foundation. It is alleged that the recognition of the prohibition was made based on the advice of the oversight entity, as well as on prior studies carried out by the internal bodies of the Municipality, such as Recursos Humanos and the Legal Advisory Office (Asesoría Legal); furthermore, that he never influenced the decision of the payment, but limited himself to carrying out the pertinent procedure and that only he could sign, since at the time the payment was approved, the vice-alcalde positions did not exist on a full-time basis. That contrary to what was stated by the Contraloría General de la República, he possesses the requirements demanded by the regulations for the recognition of the prohibition, since the Universidad de Costa Rica issued him an academic degree, which allowed him to be licensed and work at the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, and that there was neither fraud nor gross negligence in his conduct, and furthermore, it is clear that he is a professional, that he must follow the physician's request in the practice of his work, but in the development thereof, he is the one with the knowledge for it. He states that it is not the personnel action No. 269-2008 that authorizes the payment of the prohibition of 20%, but rather through document FOE-SM-0754, the partial approval of extraordinary budget No. 2-2008 of the Municipalidad de Osa carried out by the Contraloría. He affirms that the recognition was approved after prior studies, and that he holds the academic degree as established by the Contraloría's own opinion, as a técnico-radiólogo, and that the regulatory budget that allows the prohibition payment has nothing to do with requiring supervision from another professional to practice. In the trial conclusions, the representation of Mr. Nombre111673 indicates that it must be taken into account that at the time of his graduation in 1987, only the technical degree was available, as inferred from numeral 1 of the Regulation and Article 4 of the Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Médicos, and that according to numeral 33 of the regulations that govern him, the practice of the technical expertise can be done in the manner he considers. The Municipal representation, in its answer, acknowledges that it is through personnel action No. 00269-2008 that the payment of the recognition of the prohibition of 20% is authorized to Mr. Nombre111673, attending to document FOE-SM-0754 issued by the Contraloría General de la República by which it partially approves extraordinary budget 2-2008 of the Municipalidad de Osa, and that although official letter 10455 was subsequently issued by the Contraloría, it was never said that diplomado or technical degrees were not taken into account as professional degrees, and that their recommendation was that the official hold a university academic degree, and that in its opinion, the University Degree issued by the Universidad de Costa Rica possesses the character of a professional degree. Regarding the recognition of 65% through personnel action No. 62-2010, it was a consequence of an oversight study to which the Municipal entity was subjected by the Contraloría. Regarding the fact that Mr. Nombre111673 had to practice his profession under the supervision of a specialist physician, in its opinion, it does not detract from the fact that he can practice his profession in a liberal manner, since what Mr. Nombre111673 holds is an undergraduate university degree that consists of a diplomado in radio technology. In summary, it indicates that Mr. Nombre111673 meets the requirements for the prohibition to be recognized and is covered by the Ley de Enriquecimiento ilícito, holds a university academic degree, and is incorporated into the respective Colegio, and that such condition was determined from the technical studies carried out prior to the granting of the prohibition; it requests that the lawsuit be dismissed.

**IV- REGARDING THE ALLEGED EXPIRATION.** The representative of the plaintiff party raised, at the beginning of the oral and public trial, the exception of Expiration (Caducidad) in accordance with numeral 67 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. He bases his argument by noting that the plaintiff party filed the proceeding after the year as provided in ordinal 39 of said regulatory body. The representation of the Contraloría General de la República opposes said defense, and indicates that, on the contrary, because the Municipalidad de Osa, in the administrative venue, did not rule on the extraordinary review appeal filed by that Oversight body, they had to file a legal compliance remedy (amparo de legalidad) before this Court to obtain an answer. It further indicates that the acts sought to be declared null are of continued effect, given that the first personnel action was issued on May 16, 2008, and month by month, their effects have continued due to the payment made for the concept of prohibition to Mr. Nombre111673, the same person who has been Alcalde for the period 2007 to 2011 and from 2011 to 2016 because he was re-elected. In response to said defense, indeed numeral 67 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo enables the filing of the Expiration in the proceeding before the conclusion of the oral and public trial; therefore, having been filed by the representation of Mr. Nombre111673 at the beginning of the oral and public hearing, its filing is admissible, and the analysis of said exception proceeds immediately. The acts that the Oversight entity seeks to be declared null date – personnel action number 00269 – from May 16, 2008, and – personnel action 062 – from January 29, 2010; the first of them by which the 20% is recognized to Mr. Nombre111673 for the concept of prohibition, and the second where the increase of the percentage from 20% to 65% is recognized; said acts were challenged in the administrative venue on May 5, 2011 (folio 139 of Volume II of the administrative file) and were resolved by the Municipality on December 21, 2011, the date on which the present Contentious-Administrative action had already been filed by the Contraloría General de la República. Consequently, from the review of the dates, the year provided in numeral 39 of the CPCA had not elapsed; note that at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in judicial courts, the conducts sought to be annulled here were not final, as the resolution of an extraordinary review appeal in the administrative venue was pending. Thus, the action in Judicial Courts was indeed filed by the Oversight entity within the term established by numeral 39 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo; consequently, the exception of expiration must be rejected.

**V- REGARDING THE POSITION OF ALCALDE.** This is the executive official indicated in Article 169 of the Constitución Política. Likewise, the law provides for the existence of two municipal vice-alcaldes: a first vice-alcalde and a second vice-alcalde. The first shall carry out the administrative and operational functions assigned by the incumbent alcalde; furthermore, they shall substitute, by full right, the alcalde municipal in their temporary and permanent absences, with the same responsibilities and competencies as the latter during the substitution period. In cases where the first vice-alcalde cannot substitute the alcalde in their temporary and permanent absences, the second vice-alcalde shall substitute the alcalde, by full right, with the same responsibilities and competencies as the latter during the substitution period. In the municipal district councils (consejos municipales de distrito), the executive official indicated in Article 7 of Law No. 8173 is the district intendant (intendente distrital), who shall have the same powers as the alcalde municipal. Furthermore, there shall be a district vice-intendant (viceintendente distrital), who shall carry out the administrative and operational functions assigned by the incumbent intendant; they shall also substitute, by full right, the district intendant in their temporary and permanent absences, with the same responsibilities and competencies as the latter during the substitution period. All popularly elected positions at the municipal level contemplated by the legal system shall be elected popularly, through general elections to be held on the first Sunday of February, two years after the national elections in which the persons who will occupy the Presidency and Vice-Presidencies of the Republic and those who will make up the Asamblea Legislativa are elected. They shall take office on May 1st of the same year of their election, for a period of four years, and may be re-elected. (Thus reformed by Article 310 section a) of the Código Electoral, Law No. 8765 of August 19, 2009) Interpreted by Resolution of the Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones No. 405 of February 8, 2008, as follows: "Article 14 of the Código Municipal is interpreted to mean that, in the December 2010 elections, the positions of alcaldes, vice-alcaldes, intendants and vice-intendants, síndicos, proprietary and alternate district councilors (concejales de distrito), and proprietary and alternate members of the municipal district councils will be chosen, and the appointment of these officials will extend until those elected in February 2016 assume office, that is, until April 30, 2016." Likewise, to harmonize the municipal electoral system so that all offices are elected at the midpoint of the presidential and legislative term, the council members (regidores) elected in February 2010 will continue in their positions until April 30, 2016, on which date they will be replaced by the council members elected in February 2016.”... (article 14 of the Municipal Code) The preceding citation reformed numeral 14 regarding the introduction of the position of First and Second Deputy Mayor (Vicealcalde primero y segundo), which originally, before the reform of September 2009, established the existence of Alternate Mayors (Alcaldes Suplentes), who would substitute for the Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal) in his temporary and permanent absences, and who were also popularly elected. In conclusion, the Mayor is an official elected by popular and direct vote, by the majority vote of the residents of their canton, to head and direct the government of that municipality. They are the principal executive official of the Municipality (Municipalidad), an institution to which autonomy is constitutionally granted to attend to its affairs and fulfill its functions. As a public servant and the most relevant in administrative matters within the Municipality, they must carry out their work considering the common good and the solution of their canton's problems. The Municipal Mayor has the following powers and obligations, among others: a) Exercise the functions inherent to the condition of general administrator (administrador general) and head of the municipal departments, overseeing the organization, operation, coordination, and faithful fulfillment of municipal agreements, laws, and regulations in general. b) Delegate the functions entrusted by this law, based on articles 89 et seq. of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) (...)

VI- ON THE MATTER OF COMPETENCE (COMPETENCIA) Although the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) as plaintiff in this proceeding accuses the administrative acts of being null, alleging defects in the motive (motivo) and consequently in the purpose (fin) for departing from the satisfaction of the public interest, this Panel of Judges proceeds to analyze the Competence of the Mayor of the Municipality of Osa in the issuance of the administrative acts adopted by him for his own benefit. On the matter of Competence, the plaintiff in this proceeding does not directly allege a defect for such element, even though in the facts of its claim it states that Mr. Nombre111673 proceeded with a self-recognition of the payment for the concept of prohibition (prohibición). In order to justify, on the part of this Chamber of Judges, entering into an analysis of the matter of competence not formally alleged by the plaintiff, the First Chamber (Sala Primera), in reiterated rulings, including ruling 775-A-S1-2013 from 4:05 p.m. on June 13, 2013, ordered what is essential:

"III.- Based on a new analysis of the matter, specifically, reconsidered regarding the competent body to declare the harmfulness (lesividad) of the complex act that granted the defendant a pension in the National Teachers' Pension and Retirement System (Régimen de Pensiones y Jubilaciones del Magisterio Nacional), and for the purposes of a correct resolution of the matter, it is necessary to specify the following aspects: 1) The matter of the competence of the body or entity to declare the act harmful, as a prior condition to the filing of the harmfulness proceeding (proceso de lesividad), is an aspect of an eminently procedural nature, provided for by the regulations in force for this type of jurisdictional conflict. Therefore, the Administration seeking the annulment of its own act must act in accordance with the regulation of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, CPCA). 2) Ex officio declaration of the invalidity of an act due to a substantial infringement. Duty of the judge. The General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública, LGAP) establishes that the act must be issued by the competent body and by the regularly designated servant at the time of issuing it, '…prior fulfillment of all substantial procedures provided for that purpose…' and the indispensable requirements for the exercise of competence (article 129). Also, that the judge may not declare the invalidity of the act ex officio '…unless it involves substantial infringements relating to the subject, the procedure, or the form, in which cases they must do so. / For the purposes of this article, the subject shall be understood as an element encompassing the existence of the entity and its capacity, the existence of the body and its competence, the necessary requirements for exercising it, and the regular investiture of the public servant. / The judge may control ex officio the existence of all the aforementioned extremes in relation to the subject of the act, with the exception contained in the following paragraph. / Relative incompetence (incompetencia relativa) may not be declared or asserted ex officio.' (canon 182, subsection 1) (The underlining is not from the original). Of interest, this provision determines the obligation of the judge to declare ex officio the invalidity of an act when a substantial infringement relating to the subject occurs, that is, regarding who adopts the act. On this point, this Chamber has indicated that '…From the reading of the recently transcribed norm, various important elements to consider in the present case emerge. First, and as anticipated, this is not a power of the judge, but rather its compliance is mandatory. The judge's action is bound by the provisions of the legal system, not only regarding its application to the case that the parties submit to their knowledge, but also regarding the jurisdictional activity that they carry out. In this sense, it is imperative for them to rule on the indicated aspects when resolving any matter….' (Resolution no. 804-F-S1-2008 from 9:30 a.m. on December 4, 2008). 3) The CPCA, enacted by Law no. 8508 of April 28, 2006, entered into force on January 1, 2008. In mandate 34, subsection 3), it is expressly established that: 'The declaration of harmfulness of administrative acts issued by two or more ministries, or by these with any decentralized entity, shall correspond to the Government Council (Consejo de Gobierno). In such cases, they may not be declared harmful by a minister of a different branch.' Given the existence of a specific regulation that obligates an ex officio review of essential defects related to the subject and competence, this Chamber cannot ignore the existence of the pathology in question." In accordance with the foregoing, this Court is authorized to review the element of competence in the questioned administrative acts. Numeral 129 of the General Law of Public Administration establishes that the act must be issued by the competent body and by the servant regularly designated at the time of issuance, after fulfilling all substantial procedures provided for that purpose and the indispensable requirements for exercising competence. From the facts taken as proven and of interest for this matter, we have that Mr. Nombre111673 was appointed as Mayor of the Municipality of the Canton of Osa for the periods 2007 to 2011 and re-elected from 2011 to 2016, a position he currently holds. The acts questioned by the Comptroller entity were issued on May 16, 2008 (personnel action (acción de personal) 00269) and January 29, 2010 (personnel action 0062). From the review of the first, visible on folio 3 of volume I of the administrative file, the Personnel Action form of the Municipality of Osa shows that the procedure is in the name of Servant Nombre111673 with an effective date from May 16, 2008, position of Municipal Mayor, that a salary increase is ordered, and in the Observations "Payment of the recognition of the Prohibition (Proibicion) (sic) of 20%, according to official communication FOE-SM-0754 based on Law 8422 against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function" document signed by Mr. Nombre111673 in his capacity as Municipal Mayor. In the second document, visible on folio 38 of the administrative file of volume I, a Personnel Action of the Municipality of Osa is observed, servant's name Nombre111673, position Municipal Mayor, for the concept of salary increase and in observations "Recognition of the difference of the prohibition 45% since according to personnel action No. 00269, 20% was paid to him, and according to Law 8422, 65% corresponds, therefore said percentage is paid to him starting from 01/01/2010, according to official communication DAM-ALCAOSA-0070-2010" document signed by Nombre111673 in his capacity as Municipal Mayor. Having set forth the above, it is accredited that Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, proceeded to approve, for his own benefit, salary increases for the concept of prohibition payment, first for 20% and then for 65%, which correspond to the personnel actions questioned here 00269-2008 of May 2008 and 062 of January 2010. It remains to be established whether the Mayor was in a position to sign administrative acts that conferred rights on him as a Municipality official or should have abstained from participating in the procedure, approval, and payment order for his own benefit. In this regard, in his claim, Mr. Nombre111673 indicates that at the time the acts were issued, only he could sign them, because at the time he approved them "the deputy mayor positions did not exist full-time." It must be indicated that the acts occurred at different times, the first in 2008 when the norm (ordinal 14) established the figure of the Alternate Mayor (Alcalde Suplente) and for 2010 the figure of the Deputy Mayor (Vicealcalde). Notwithstanding the above, for both moments, numeral 17 established the powers corresponding to the Mayor. Subsection a) related to the condition of General Administrator (Administrador General) and Head of the municipal departments, overseeing the organization, operation, coordination, and faithful fulfillment of municipal agreements, laws, and regulations in general, and the possibility of b) Delegating the functions entrusted by this law, based on articles 89 et seq. of the General Law of Public Administration (...). From the above, it is deduced that the granting of competences is express and by means of the law; however, the same legal system provides the possibility for changes in the given competence to operate through the transfers established in the law with the budgets and particular limitations of each figure. It is true that for the issuance of both administrative acts, Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, had the power of General Administrator and head of Municipal departments, for which reason it corresponded to him to approve, once the corresponding studies had been carried out when necessary, the administrative procedures of the Municipality, including the payment of the prohibition to whomever it legally corresponded to. But precisely because of his power, to authorize such payment, he had to review the fulfillment of the corresponding requirements for that or any other procedure involving the disposition of public funds (Hacienda Pública). And it is precisely what subsection b) already cited protects: the possibility of delegating the functions entrusted by law pursuant to numerals 89 et seq. of the General Law of Public Administration. The cited normative body, in its ordinal 70, imposes that competence shall be exercised by the holder of the respective body, except in cases of delegation (delegación), avocation (avocación), substitution (sustitución), subrogation (subrogación), and in accordance with the above, numeral 230 imposes that the grounds for abstention (abstención) shall be the same as those for disqualification (impedimento) and recusal (recusación) established in the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial) and additionally those resulting from article 102 of the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic (Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República). Turning to such citations, the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, in article 31, imposes that in the absence of an express rule on disqualifications, excuses, and recusals, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) shall apply. And upon review of such normative body, it is established in subsection 1) of numeral 49 that there shall be a disqualification from hearing matters in which one has a direct interest. Applying such presumption to the one analyzed here, it is evident for this Chamber of Judges that Mr. Nombre111673 should have abstained and excused himself from hearing and authorizing an administrative action that granted rights to himself. The excuse of Mr. Nombre111673 that there was no official appointed full-time is not valid, and this for the first act because by the date of the issuance of the second, the figure of the Deputy Mayor had already been provided for. Therefore, his justification finds no basis whatsoever for this Panel of Judges. The Mayor had the legal and ethical obligation as a public official, and even more so one of popular election, to be transparent in his actions, and this obligated him to separate himself from the knowledge of conditions that could grant personal benefits, as in the specific case. This Court considers that the Municipal Code itself granted him, in subsection b) of numeral 17, the legal means to abstain from hearing the acts challenged here. However, on the contrary, Mr. Nombre111673 proceeded to approve rights and payments of public funds in his favor. The foregoing, without this chamber having issued a criterion on the legality of the motive for them, concludes that the questioned administrative acts, in accordance with the doctrine of numerals 129 and 166 of the General Law of Public Administration, contain a defect of absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) in the questioned acts, due to the subject who issued them, in this case Mr. Nombre111673, and consequently, they are themselves vitiated and must be declared null.

VII- ON THE PAYMENT OF THE PROHIBITION TO MUNICIPAL MAYORS.

Law 8422, called "Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function" (Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública), has been in force since October 29, 2014, and provides in its Chapter Two, on the Preventive System (Régimen Preventivo), article 14: "Prohibition on practicing liberal professions. The following may not practice liberal professions: the President of the Republic, the Vice Presidents, the Magistrates of the Judicial Branch and of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones), the Ministers, the Comptroller General and Deputy Comptroller General of the Republic, the Ombudsman and Deputy Ombudsman of the Inhabitants, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the Republic, the General Regulator of the Republic, the General Prosecutor of the Republic, the Vice Ministers, the Senior Officers (oficiales mayores), the Executive Presidents, the Managers and Administrative Directors of decentralized entities, autonomous institutions, semi-autonomous institutions, and public companies, the Superintendents of financial, securities, and pension entities, their respective Intendents, as well as the municipal mayors (alcaldes municipales) (bold and underlining do not correspond to the original) and the Deputy Managers and Deputy Administrative Directors, the Internal Comptrollers and Deputy Internal Comptrollers, the Internal Auditors and Deputy Internal Auditors of the Public Administration, as well as the Department Directors and Deputy Directors and the heads of procurement (proveeduría) of the Public Sector. Within this article, the other professions that the official possesses are included, even if they do not constitute a requirement to hold the respective public office." An economic compensation is established for the prohibition on practicing liberal professions. "Unless there is a special remuneration system (régimen especial de remuneración) for the public official, the economic compensation for the application of the preceding Article shall be equivalent to sixty-five percent (65%) of the base salary fixed for the category of the respective position." Subsequently, Executive Decree 32333, Regulation to the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function (Reglamento a la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública), in force since April 29, 2005, was issued, in which subsection 39 of the first article develops what constitutes the "Prohibition: For the purposes of article 14 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the public function, the prohibition shall be understood as the obligation not to practice the profession subject to contract in a liberal manner or privately. Within this prohibition, the other professions that the official possesses shall be understood as included, even if they do not constitute a requirement to hold the respective public office." For its part, on the subject of the prohibition, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has indicated: "(...) officials or employees subject to prohibition are absolutely barred not only from holding other public offices but also from performing, in the private sector, activities related to the positions they hold in the State, except, of course, in the exceptions that the norm itself establishes, based either on the nature of the activity –teaching– or when it involves the defense of personal interests or those of their close relatives. Said limitation is imposed (...) when the liberal practice of the profession or activity is incompatible with the public office held, that is, when it may generate serious harm to the interests of the Public Administration (...) It is clear, from the foregoing, that only those activities whose private practice is incompatible with the function the servant performs are subject to the prohibition (...) The non-existence of said incompatibility, on the contrary, empowers the public servant to privately practice their profession or trade, subject to the responsibilities of the case if they thereby incur any labor fault (...)" (Judgment No. 3369-96 from 10:27 a.m. on July 5, 1996). Having set forth the above, there is no doubt that the Legislator imposed on the figure of Municipal Mayors a prohibition on practicing liberal professions and imposed a compensation of 65% on the salary for the limitation that is effectively imposed on the liberal practice of the profession. Specifically, on the subject of Professional Freedom, the Constitutional Chamber has developed: "III.- ON PROFESSIONAL FREEDOM. The Political Constitution does not expressly enshrine professional freedom; however, this fundamental freedom can be deduced from the harmonious interpretation of several constitutional rights, specifically, from numerals 46 and 56 of the Political Charter that guarantee the right to work and business freedom in our legal system. The essential content of professional freedom includes the right to choose a profession and the free exercise of professional activity. Although these two concepts are closely related, state interventions in each of these facets occur with different intensity. Thus, the choice of profession must be an act of self-determination of the individual's free will and must remain, as much as possible, protected from any public power intervention. For its part, through the exercise of the profession, the individual directly intervenes in social life; therefore, restrictions may be imposed on them in the interest of others. In this way, non-affectation of third parties, protection of morality, and public order are conditions that justify the establishment of limitations on the exercise of professional activity (article 28 of the Constitution). Now, the principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva de ley) applies here, which determines that only through a norm with the rank of law – in the formal and material sense – is it possible to restrict fundamental rights. Likewise, the principle 'pro libertatis' applies, which dictates that every legal norm must be interpreted in a way that favors freedom. However, it is reiterated, the freedom to practice a profession can be restricted by law to the extent that reasonable considerations regarding the public interest require it, while the freedom to choose a profession, on the contrary, can only be restricted to the extent that the protection of an especially important common good justifies it. From this perspective, the protection of values as diverse as health, education, welfare, and security justifies the State's intervention – through law – in the practice of liberal professions, in order to guarantee the quality and reliability of the services provided, as well as the non-affectation of third parties and respect for morality and public order." (Emphasis added) Vote 1819-2005 from February 25, 2005, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. It is also important to mention some considerations that the Constitutional Body has issued: "V.- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRACTICE OF A LIBERAL PROFESSION AND A LUCRATIVE ACTIVITY. Traditionally, liberal professions include those that involve the exercise of an intellectual or technical activity, through the application of certain scientific and technical rules that must be handled with utmost propriety by their holder, after qualification to practice it through obtaining a suitable and appropriate degree and, eventually, incorporation into the respective professional association (colegio profesional). The singularity of liberal professions arises from the non-existence of a dependency relationship with their clientele, so that the liberal professional has full autonomy and independence in the way of providing professional services – schedule, place, etc. – since they do so on their own account, which is why their services are compensated through fees. The liberal professional applies, for a specific case, their scientific or technical knowledge without submitting to any direction and under their exclusive responsibility, that is, according to their best knowledge and understanding. It is necessary to point out that the practice of a liberal profession is intimately linked to professional freedom, which includes the freedom to freely choose the profession one intends to practice and, once obtained through adequate qualification and the corresponding membership, to freely practice it without other limits than those necessary to guarantee correctness, supervision, and oversight in its practice and the protection of the public interest and, in particular, of the consumers of professional services. The purpose of practicing a liberal profession is to provide the person who deploys it with compensation that ensures a decent quality of life, both personally and family-wise." Vote 18141-2009 from 11:12 a.m. on November 27, 2009. Once the citation of this ruling has been provided, from the development carried out by the Constitutional Chamber, it must be determined in the specific case whether Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Mayor, is covered by the prohibition and the consequent compensation provided by law. As a first matter, the arguments made by both the representation of the Municipality of Osa and Mr. Nombre111673 must be addressed, affirming that they always respected the criteria of the Comptroller’s Offices and that these complain, even though they were the ones who initially approved the payment of the prohibition to the Mayor and even corrected the percentage from 20% he initially received to 65%. From official communication FOE-SM-0754 dated May 16, 2008, it is evident that the Comptroller General of the Republic partially approves the budget of the Municipality of Osa, and regarding the matter of the payment of the prohibition of the Municipal Mayor, it establishes in point 2, as pertinent: "According to the expenditure justification, they propose the payment of the prohibition for the occupants of the positions of (…) Municipal Mayor. Because said recognition only proceeds in cases where a special law authorizes it, the budgetary content for said payment is approved in the cases of (…) and Municipal Mayor based on the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment (…)." Both co-defendants argue that, based on this document, they consider that the payment of the prohibition in favor of co-defendant Nombre111673 was proper because the Comptroller's Office had so ordered, an argument that this Court does not share. From the detailed review of said document, it is true that the Comptroller General of the Republic approved the payment of the prohibition for the Mayor in accordance with Law 8422, but at no time can it be inferred that this was a consequence of the review of the requirements established by law for the pertinence of the payment. It is essential to note that the application of the norm (ordinal 14) is not automatic. Even though the prohibition and its consequent payment are provided for the figure of the Mayor, it corresponds to the Municipality to determine if the Mayor meets the technical-legal requirements to aspire to said payment. In addition to the above, it is evidenced that the Comptroller body, on different occasions, sent information to Mr. Nombre111673 as Municipal Mayor of Osa in relation to the application of the prohibition on liberal professionals, this through Report DAG-J-1333-2008, which also summons the Mayor to verify how the prohibition and its payment are being recognized. This official communication was even personally notified by the Comptroller entity on October 22, 2008. The cited communication (folio 34 admin. file) even indicates that there are two elements for the recognition of the prohibition: an act of permanent appointment (nombramiento en propiedad) and possessing a university academic degree ("which must be assessed in each specific case") that accredits the person as a professional in a certain branch of knowledge, a requirement to which the respective professional incorporation is added, and that such incorporation is a necessary and sufficient condition for professional practice. Notwithstanding the above, it is not observed that the Municipality, by that date, undertook a review process regarding the payment of the prohibition to the benefited officials. On the contrary, it is not evidenced in the administrative files and the evidence presented to the proceeding that, prior to the issuance of act 00269 of May 16, 2008, the Municipality of Osa conducted a technical and/or legal study to adopt the administrative act of May 16, 2008, in order to determine the fulfillment of the legal requirements by Mr. Nombre111673. And it was not until January 25, 2010, that the Municipality's legal advisor issued a technical criterion regarding the payment of the prohibition, through Report MUNOSA –PSJ-02-2010, in which Lic. Leidy Gabriela Martínez González, in her capacity as Legal Advisor, concludes (folio 23 of volume I of the administrative file) that since the position of Mayor is one of popular election, she considers that it is not subject to category, structure, and academic condition, so the payment of the prohibition is an aspect inherent to the position because it is provided for in Law 8422. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Nombre111673 informs the Municipality's Human Resources Coordinator about the legal criteria rendered and consequently orders her to carry out the procedures for the payment of the 65% as well as the difference. Regarding the second administrative act, personnel action 0269, Mr. Nombre111673 has indicated that it was issued after having conducted prior studies. From the evidence submitted to the proceeding, the legal criterion rendered by the municipal legal advisor was on January 25, 2010, and the personnel action was signed by the Mayor on January 29, 2010. However, on that same date, the Municipal Accountant, Gabriela Elizondo Santamaría, sent a missive to the Municipality's Human Resources department communicating the legal criterion rendered as well as the information gathered with officials of the Comptroller's Office on the matter of the payment of the prohibition, and indicates that the officials occupying positions subject to prohibition, in the case at hand the Municipal Mayor, must make the request in writing to the Human Resources office, who must assess the fulfillment of the legal and academic requirements to make the retroactive payment. However, the criterion of the Municipal Human Resources Office is issued through official communication PRH-15-2010 dated February 15, 2010, and as cited above, Mr. Nombre111673 signed the payment order on January 29, 2010, without waiting for all the necessary technical criteria to determine the propriety of the payment to be issued. And further supporting this, Mr. Nombre111673 decided, as administrative head, to order the increase of his salary for the concept of prohibition even though official communication DAGJ-133-2008 from the Comptroller General of the Republic had already been brought to his personal knowledge, which had been notified to him since October 22, 2008, and he was summoned to proceed to verify the way in which the prohibition was being applied and whether it conformed to the criteria and parameters outlined in said communication and in accordance with the legal system. This makes it evident to this Panel of Judges that Mr. Nombre111673 made the decision to order his salary increase while being duly warned of the norms and criteria established for its propriety; he had been made aware of them personally. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the statement of co-defendant Nombre111673 that he only adhered to the legal criterion rendered by the Municipal advisor. He already knew the criteria outlined by the Comptroller entity, which, in the same way as can be inferred from the Municipal lawyer's report, were not taken into account for the legal conclusion, as can be extracted from said criterion, when its conclusion is that the payment of the prohibition is an aspect inherent to the position.

Having stated the foregoing, we must now turn to the specific examination to determine whether Mr. Nombre111673 is a liberal professional to whom the payment of the prohibition must be recognized. It was established as proven in the proceedings that Mr. Nombre111673 pursued studies at the University of Costa Rica and completed a program of study, obtaining the undergraduate academic degree of diploma in radio-technology. The defendants assert that this condition allows Mr. Nombre111673 to be classified as a liberal professional, given that he holds a university degree. On this subject, the plaintiff submitted to the proceedings a document issued by the University of Costa Rica, which effectively certifies the academic status obtained by Mr. Nombre111673 and the degree granted, this being in the year 1991, and informs that the diploma is the academic degree awarded to persons who fulfill the requirements of a university program, as derived from the Agreement to create a Nomenclature of degrees and titles of State University Higher Education. Furthermore, an opinion from the College of Physicians is provided, which informs that Mr. Nombre111673 has been authorized under Code TEC-1221 as a Technologist in Radiological Procedures since August 18, 1987, and must exercise his profession under the supervision of a specialist physician. The core discussion in the proceedings revolves around whether the university education received by Mr. Nombre111673 confers upon him a professional title and whether his academic status makes him deserving of the 65% payment that the Contraloría questions. For its part, Law 3019 of August 9, 1962, the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, imposes in its Article 4: "Without prior registration in the College of Physicians and Surgeons, no one may practice the professions of physician and surgeon nor their specialties in the country. Regarding other branches dependent on medical sciences, such as Homeopathy, Osteopathy, Radiological Technique, Physiotherapy, Kinesiotherapy, Optometry, Clinical Psychology, and Public Health, the College of Physicians and Surgeons shall authorize their practice, except for those persons registered in said branches in other colleges." Article 5 establishes that only persons registered in the College or authorized by it may hold public positions related to the professional practice of medicine or its branches, except for those persons registered in other professional colleges in the branches cited in Article 4. Regarding the status of Technologist, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, through ordinary session 2007-12-12 of December 12, 2007, issued the Regulations of the Chapter of Professionals in Branches Dependent on Medical Sciences Authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, recognizing in its first article that the chapter of Technologists of branches dependent on Medical Sciences shall be constituted by all health sector technologists duly authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica for the legal exercise of their functions, as indicated in Article Four of the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, and shall be governed by these Regulations. For its part, Article 2 establishes that the chapter of Technologists shall be governed by a Coordinating Committee, which shall represent this Chapter before its General Assembly, the Governing Board of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, and before the administrative dependencies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica in the rest of the country and other national institutions. Subsequently, said regulations were repealed by the regulation issued on September 9, 2012 by the Governing Board of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, which in its Article 1 establishes its scope of application: "Medical Science Technologists are persons whose technical preparation allows them to exercise processes related to the Branches Dependent on Medical Sciences, under direct medical supervision or specialized medical supervision as appropriate; who are duly authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Republic of Costa Rica (as indicated hereinafter in article four of the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Republic of Costa Rica) and shall be governed by this Law, its Regulations, the following Regulations, and other binding legal provisions." For its part, Article 2 defines the Technologist as the human resource with technical training and education in Medical Sciences, whose practice is characterized by the application of scientific knowledge, transformed to contribute to diagnosis, treatment, and health management, under direct medical supervision or direct specialized medical supervision as appropriate, and within Article 3, Medical Imaging Technology is established as one of the authorized disciplines. It is important to note that, according to the cited regulations, requirements are established for technologists to be authorized by the College of Physicians for the performance of their technical work; they must demonstrate their suitability and fulfill economic, ethical, and professional obligations with the College of Physicians. However, it is of utmost importance to highlight that the Organic Law of the College of Physicians makes a distinction between the condition of physician and collegial member, and that of technologist and authorized person for the performance of their duties. It is true that they need to be authorized for their practice, but such requirements do not convert them into liberal professionals. It is important to establish that we are dealing with Technicians who, by their specialization and scientific knowledge transformed into technology to contribute to health management, which is in accordance with each of the twenty-three authorized disciplines, as derived from Article 3 of the cited regulations, are essential for determining the diagnosis and treatment that the medical professional ultimately prescribes. A common and present element emerges in the opinion of this Panel of judges: the performance of the technologists' function is classified as branches dependent on the medical sciences, never exercised independently. This clearly yields an evident classification of the performance of technologists' duties, and specifically in radiology as in the case of Mr. Nombre111673, who even though he holds a university diploma as a radiology technician, cannot perform his work in that field in a liberal manner. Observe that the very certification issued by his former employer, the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social), informs that Mr. Nombre111673 works as a Professional Technician 1 in the radiodiagnostic service and has worked without supervision; the foregoing not because it is procedurally correct or advisable, but because the service does not have a human resource with a Physician in Radiology. It must be stated that it is precisely the analysis of each specific case that allows for a determination of whether the payment of the prohibition is in accordance with Article 14 of the Law on Illicit Enrichment. In Mr. Nombre111673's case, it must be concluded that, in accordance with the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and its internal regulations, the performance of his work as a Technologist is subject to the control and oversight of the said College of Physicians, being a branch dependent on medicine and which must be authorized by the collegiate body. This arises as an instrument to establish findings and diagnoses that must be determined so that it is ultimately the medical professional who decides on what is appropriate for the benefit of the patient's health. From the simple exercise of Mr. Nombre111673's work, it follows that the Technologist in radiology is an auxiliary with specialized technical knowledge who assists the physician, as it is the latter who decides if radiological examinations or assessments are necessary to finally issue a diagnosis and prescribe a treatment to address the health condition. This is a professional freedom that Mr. Nombre111673 does not possess. The co-defendant has indicated that at the time he carried out his studies at the University of Costa Rica, there were no specialists in that field, which, even though not proven, is a logical argument given the time period in which he obtained his degree in 1987; however, one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is not in that earlier era that he serves as Municipal Mayor, but rather from the year 2011 to date, and it is from that year onward that the analysis must be conducted in accordance with the prevailing reality, a period for which there already exist medical professionals with specialties such as radiology, and it is precisely these professionals who supervise tasks such as those performed by Mr. Nombre111673. In the opinion of this Collegiate Body, Mr. Nombre111673 cannot be considered a liberal professional, but rather a person with technical preparation at the university level, which, through his knowledge, allows him to assist medicine with the practice of his technical skills. It is of interest to note that Liberal Profession has been defined as: "That which constitutes the exercise of one of the careers pursued in university centers or in special higher schools, generally involving only intellectual activity and work, even though it does not exclude manual operations; such as that of the surgeon, and those of architects and engineers when drawing their plans. (...) The singularity of the Liberal Profession arises from the fact that there is no relationship of dependency or permanence with the clientele, although there may be regularity in the request for services; furthermore, unless special tariffs are established by the Public Power, the liberal professional freely determines their remuneration, which is called fees. Regarding the labor sphere, such independence, however, is compromised in certain modalities of Labor Law. In principle, the position of those exercising a liberal profession is one of autonomy in the provision of services; the person who performs it is not considered a worker in the restricted concept of a subject of an employment contract. The difficulty evidently arises in certain professionals who exercise their activity under third-party dependency and receive not fees, but a salary. The work provided by a doctor on ships and in the service of a shipowner is characterized by the technical independence of the professional in everything relating to their specialty, but they are subject, or may be subject, to a certain hierarchical and economic dependency, which obliges them to comply with a certain schedule, to assist the persons designated to them, to communicate the results of their services, and to observe the regulations established. Similar situations apply to the work services of other professionals, such as engineers, lawyers, chemists, who have a certain technical independence but can contract their services as workers in a company and receive, like them, a wage or a salary. Diccionario Enciclopédico del Derecho Usual, page 447, editorial Heliasta, volume VI P-Q, Edition number 21, Buenos Aires- República Argentina, 1989." In conclusion, for the purposes of the pertinence of the payment of the prohibition, the professional must not only be affiliated, registered as a collegial member, or authorized, but the public servant must be enabled to exercise a liberal profession. This implies that they meet the academic requirements and any other type required by the respective professional college. In the specific case, it has become clear to this Tribunal that the College of Physicians and Surgeons, even though it authorizes Mr. Nombre111673 for the exercise of his technique, does so in that condition, as a branch dependent on medicine and always under medical supervision. Therefore, the arguments of co-defendant Nombre111673 stating the contrary lack support in the face of the overwhelming nature of the regulations governing him. In the present matter, it has been duly proven that Mr. Nombre111673 did not fall within the various scenarios that permitted the payment of that component in accordance with the indicated regulations. For such purposes, it is necessary to state that in the sphere of the prohibition component referred to in this case, the aforementioned rules clearly establish the factual scenario that allows the emergence of that legal consequence. From that perspective, the pertinence or validity of the actions ordering the recognition of this item is conditioned on the concurrence of the various presuppositions that give rise to it. In this scenario, holding the position of Mayor is not sufficient; rather, the payment to a person holding a position of that nature shall be appropriate only while the liberal exercise of the profession is limited, a condition which Mr. Nombre111673 lacks. This therefore constitutes the motive element on which the Municipal public action was founded. Along these lines, Article 133.1 of the General Law of Public Administration states: "The motive must be legitimate and exist exactly as it was taken into account for issuing the act. (…)" Within this scope, it is evident that the absence of the discussed legal presupposition undoubtedly determines the unlawfulness of the conduct that, disregarding such requirement, or through omission or interpretative defects, considers that the official was eligible to receive that benefit and grants it. Now, the absence of this presupposition (motive) determines an absolute invalidity of the administrative conduct, which cannot be corrected or remedied, as derived from Article 172 of the General Law previously referenced. The granting of this benefit to someone who does not fall within the conditioning prerequisite established by the legal source justifying the specific salary benefit leads to a substantial non-conformity with the Legal System (Article 128 ibidem), which demands, in that eventuality, the suppression of the administrative conducts.

VIII- ON THE RETURN OF THE MONEY Regarding the reimbursement of the sums paid for the prohibition. The determination of nullity of the conducts challenged in this proceeding leads to the examination of the pertinence or not of imposing on Mr. Nombre111673 the duty to return the sums received for the payment of the prohibition component. Mr. Nombre111673 alleges that he never intervened or applied pressure for the processing of the prohibition payment. On this specific topic, Mrs. Gabriel Elizondo Santamaría testified in her capacity as Municipal accountant, who informed at trial that since 2008, the Contraloría approved the payment of the prohibition through the budget. Subsequently, based on information from the Contraloría, the amount was adjusted from 20% to 65% for the prohibition payment. Furthermore, a request was made to the Municipality's Human Resources department for a study. Later, she was called by the Contraloría, where she was told that they were going to reopen Mr. Nombre111673's file because the payment to the Mayor was improper and that Mr. Nombre111673 had to return the money. She indicates that the Mayor, during the processing of the prohibition payment, never exerted pressure for its approval and carried out the steps like any other employee of the Municipality. What has been analyzed in the preceding sections regarding the absolute invalidity of the conducts under examination in this proceeding leads to the conclusion that the sums paid out in favor of the defendant cannot be considered well received or protected by what is alleged as a consequence of the Municipality having been led into error by the Contraloría itself. From the evidence brought to the proceedings, it is evident that the Comptroller entity sent the Mayor reports establishing the parameters for the pertinence of the prohibition payment, and even filed an extraordinary appeal for review regarding the approval of the payment for his benefit. Added to the foregoing is the legal opinion provided by the legal advisor sent to him. It is evident that the recommendations and parameters determined by the Contraloría were not analyzed to establish if the prohibition payment for his benefit was appropriate. It is important to note that in the presence of defects determining the absolute nullity of the challenged conducts, in accordance with Articles 169 and 171 of the General Law of Public Administration, they entail the suppression of their effects retroactively to the date of issuance of those conducts. The presumption of validity of the administrative act resulting from Article 176 of the aforementioned legal body, which has the effect of protecting the effects generated by the act during its period of efficacy, is only applicable to relative nullity (in which, consistent with precept 167 ibidem, there is not an absence but rather an imperfection of one of the constituent elements of the act), not in absolute nullity, where the action is declaratory, therefore, retroactive to the date of issuance of the act. In the specific case, it is insisted, the invalidity is of absolute degree, for which reason it cannot be considered that the actions subject to controversy can be considered as validly incorporated into the legal sphere of Mr. Nombre111673. In accordance with the Law of Internal Control and in safeguarding the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), Mr. Nombre111673, in his condition as Administrator and Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality, should have been more diligent and, in case of doubt, if necessary, consulted the corresponding Administrative Bodies. This is especially so given that he approved such a salary supplement for his own benefit. Consequently, the return of the money is appropriate, as well as the corresponding payment of the money received for that concept since the month of May 2008. Said sum encompasses the payment, school salaries, year-end bonus (aguinaldo), and retroactive payments received for the prohibition, all from the month of May 2008 until the date he continues receiving said stipend and until the judgment becomes final. The award of interest is rejected in accordance with the provisions of Article 173 of the Labor Code, which stipulates that sums overpaid by the employer shall not accrue interest. Although evidence was admitted at the oral and public trial regarding the sum that Mr. Nombre111673 has received (C 121,552,513.64), it corresponds to the period from May 2008 to the first half of October 2014. However, the Mayor currently continues to receive the 65% supplementary salary payment. Therefore, it shall be in the sentence execution stage that the Comptroller body must finally demonstrate the current total amount paid to Mr. Nombre111673 for that concept.

IX- ON THE SUPPRESSION OF RELATED CONDUCTS. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION K) OF ARTICLE 122 OF THE CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE CODE.

The Comptroller body requests that the judgment, pursuant to Article 122 subsection K of the CPCA, annul related material actions or the challenged formal administrative acts, as well as any other formal act that has a direct or indirect relationship with the conducts challenged here, which may have continuously and uninterruptedly maintained the payment of the prohibition in favor of Nombre111673. In the oral and public hearing, the representative of the Contraloría General de la República clarified that this refers to the personnel actions that allowed the payment for the prohibition month after month, starting from May 2008. It must be stated that the dates and details that would allow a pronouncement of nullity on each and every one of those acts are not available. However, it must be taken into account that by annulling the administrative conducts that recognized the payment of 20% and later 65%, and the retroactive payment for the prohibition in favor of Mr. Nombre111673, the conducts that are connected to these formal actions, such as the biweekly payment acts where percentages were recognized for the prohibition payment from May 2008 to date, would lack legal support due to the declared nullity of the former. Nonetheless, the Tribunal cannot declare nullities in a general and abstract manner.

X- REGARDING THE DECLARATORY CLAIM IDENTIFIED AS G The plaintiff requests that Nombre111673 and the Municipality of Osa be ordered to refrain from carrying out future administrative conducts similar to those challenged in this lawsuit. In this regard, it must be indicated that it is not possible for this Collegiate Body to rule in those terms. Both the Municipal Administration and Mr. Nombre111673 are, in the performance of their functions, subject to the Principle of Legality, Internal Control norms that they must enforce, and the Principle of Probity. These are already implicit for Mr. Nombre111673 as an official appointed by popular election, and for the Municipal entity in the performance of its obligations and actions. It shall be in each of their individual conducts that their legality can be analyzed if necessary. Thus, this claim is rejected.

XI- REGARDING THE EXCEPTIONS Regarding the Expiration (Caducidad) alleged by the representation of Mr. Nombre111673, it has already been resolved and denied. Despite no substantive exceptions having been formulated, it is the Tribunal's duty to examine ex officio the material presuppositions of the action, such as the right, active and passive standing (legitimación), and interest. For this reason, analyzing the right, it is observed that in accordance with the cited regulations, the evidence provided, and the stated factual grounds, the plaintiff is partially entitled to the right invoked in support of its claims. This is because it was successfully proven the nullity of the administrative conducts, as well as the obligation of Mr. Nombre111673 to reimburse to the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) all sums received for the prohibition payment to which he was not entitled. Regarding active standing to sue (legitimación ad causam activa) and lack of passive standing to be sued (legitimación ad causam pasiva), in accordance with the facts aired in this action and according to the substantive legal relationship under analysis, it is evident that the Comptroller body, in the exercise of its control and oversight competencies, has the active standing to bring an action in this proceeding against both defendants for the purpose of seeking the annulment of the flawed administrative conducts and the recovery of the Public Treasury's money. With regard to interest, there is a current, valid, and palpable need for the plaintiff to resort to the judicial courts to challenge the contested conducts that are causing harm to its patrimonial interests.

XII- ON THE LEGAL COSTS The co-defendants MUNICIPALITY OF OSA and Nombre111673 having been defeated, and there being no merit for their exoneration, in accordance with Article 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, both are ordered to pay both costs of the proceeding.

POR TANTO

The defense of Expiration (Caducidad) raised by the representation of Mr. Nombre111673 is rejected. Consequently, the lawsuit is partially granted, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in what is not expressly granted. 1) The following administrative acts of the Municipality of Osa, personnel actions numbers 00269 of May 16, 2008 and 062 of January 29, 2010, are declared absolutely null and void. 2) Mr. Nombre111673 must reimburse to the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), specifically to the Municipality of Osa, the sums improperly paid for the prohibition from May 2008 to the date he continues receiving said stipend and until the judgment becomes final, which must be established in the sentence execution stage. 3) Both costs of the action are borne by the co-defendants Municipality of Osa and Nombre111673. Let it be notified.

Grace Emilia Loaiza Sánchez Claudia Bolaños Salazar Otto González Vilchez Trial Judges First Section f) That Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; font-style:italic">in his personal capacity be ordered to reimburse the Public Treasury the total amount he has illegally received for the prohibition, from the month of May 2008 until the date on which judgment is rendered (which at this time amounts to the sum of </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">FIFTY-EIGHT MILLION SIX HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO COLONES AND THREE CENTS),</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; font-style:italic"> a sum duly indexed plus interest until its effective payment, values that will be concretized in the judgment execution proceeding. g) That Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; font-style:italic">and the Municipality of Osa be ordered to refrain from engaging in future administrative conduct similar to that challenged in this lawsuit. h) That the defendants be ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs of this proceeding." **II-** The defendant Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">answers the lawsuit in the negative.

**III-** The representation of the Municipality of Osa answered the lawsuit in the negative.

**IV-** The oral and public trial was held on October 20, which was attended by all parties to the proceeding, and was reopened on November 17, two thousand fourteen.

**V-** At the trial hearing, the representation of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic offered, as complementary evidence, a certification from the Municipality of Osa regarding the amount that has been paid to the defendant Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">for the prohibition, on which the parties were heard and which was admitted.

**VI-** The representation of the defendant Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">raised, at the oral hearing, the Defense of Expiration of the action pursuant to articles 67 and 39 of the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Procedural Code, on which the parties were heard.

**VII-** That this proceeding was declared to be of a complex nature, in accordance with article 111 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, and judgment has been rendered in accordance with article 47 of its regulations.

**VIII-** The applicable legal requirements have been observed in the procedures, and no defects or omissions capable of producing nullity of the actions taken or defenselessness of the parties are observed. This resolution is issued after prior deliberation, within the term of law, and unanimously.

*Drafted by Judge Loaiza Sánchez; and* **WHEREAS:** **I- ON THE FACTS DEEMED PROVEN:** **1-** Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">studied and completed a short career at the University of Costa Rica, and obtained the academic undergraduate degree of Diploma in Radio Technology (see evidence 8 on the evidence disk); **2-** Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">was appointed as Municipal Mayor of the Canton of Osa for the periods 2007 to 2011 and re-elected in that capacity from 2011 to 2016, a position he holds at the time of the oral and public trial (facts not controverted by the parties and answer to fact 2, folio 250 of the judicial file); **3-** On May 16, 2008 (official communication FOE-SM-0754), the Municipal Services Management of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic notified Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">in his capacity as Municipal Mayor of the partial approval of extraordinary budget Number 2-2008 of the Municipality of Osa, and on the topic of the prohibition, it stated, as relevant, “*Since such recognition is appropriate only in cases where a special law authorizes it, the budgetary content for said payment is approved in the case of the positions of Supplier and Municipal Mayor, based on the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Service (…)*” (see folios 2 of volume I of the administrative file and 182 to 184 of the main file); **4-** By means of personnel action number 00269 of May 16, 2008, of the Municipality of Osa, Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">in his capacity as Municipal Mayor and in his own favor, ordered a salary increase for the recognition of the Prohibition of 20%, justified according to official communication FOE-SM-0754 (see evidence 1 on the evidence disk, folio 3 of the administrative file volume I); **5-** The previous personnel action was signed by Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">and a human resources official (see evidence 1 on the evidence disk and folios 3 of volume I of the administrative file); **6-** On August 6, 2008, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic notified Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Osa, that in relation to the request for information and the documentation sent by that municipal corporation regarding the recognition and payment of the prohibition on the exercise of liberal professions, in the study of the cases of the Mayor and Municipal Supplier, information titled "Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Service, annotated and concorded" was available on the Comptroller's Office electronic page (see evidence # 2 on the evidence disk); **7-** In official communication DAGJ-1333-2008 (10455) dated October 8, 2008, the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic communicated a Report to Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Osa that, regarding the application of the prohibition on the exercise of liberal professions in municipalities, as relevant, it states “*Conclusions. The prohibition on the liberal exercise of a profession constitutes a limitation on a fundamental freedom, a particularity that demands a restrictive interpretation and application of said figure, and requires of those responsible for determining the positions covered, prudent, informed action adhering to what the applicable regulations establish. This excludes broad interpretations that exceed the legal and jurisprudential criteria and parameters under which the prohibition must be applied, extending it to positions whose attributions, functions, and responsibilities do not correspond to those subject to said restriction, and should it be determined that an application in these terms exists, the municipal authorities are compelled to immediately exercise the respective disciplinary and recovery actions, this in protection of an adequate safeguarding of public funds and in pursuit of restoring legality that may have been broken.*” (see evidence number 2 on the evidence disk); **8-** In the cited official communication DAGJ-1333-2008, the Mayor of Osa was instructed that within the non-extendable period of fifteen business days, the Municipality must verify whether the manner in which the prohibition is being applied conforms to the criteria and parameters outlined and, in general, its conformity with the legal system. 2. Taking into account the list of officials –previously sent to this oversight body– to whom the prohibition is being recognized, it must be indicated whether the verification has implied any violation or change to said list, and if so, the immediate actions to be adopted in order to rectify each case and recover improperly paid sums. 3. The confirmation of the list of servants – with any eventual changes noted – will be taken by the Office of the Comptroller General as a confirmation of the legality in the recognition of the prohibition in that Municipality, and in the independent exercise of its attributions, it may be used as a basis for oversight actions as well as for the corresponding disciplinary and civil liability. 4. The verification ordered here and the remittance of its results in the terms indicated must be made to the Legal Advisory and Management Division of this oversight body within the aforementioned period (…) (see evidence # 2 on the evidence disk); **9-** Said official communication was personally notified to Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">on October 22, 2008 (see notification record, evidence # 2 on the evidence disk); **10-** On January 25, 2010, the legal advisor of the Municipality of Osa issued a legal opinion regarding the payment of the prohibition to Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">for holding the position of Municipal Mayor, concluding that the payment of the prohibition to the Mayor is appropriate because “*it is an aspect inherent to the position*” (see evidence 4 on the evidence disk and folios 18 to 26 of the administrative file volume I); **11-** By means of personnel action number 062 of January 29, 2010, of the Municipality of Osa, Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">in his capacity as Municipal Mayor and for his own benefit, ordered a salary increase for the recognition of the difference of the prohibition, 45%, since according to personnel action No. 00269, 20% was being paid to him, and according to Law 8422, it corresponds to 65%, therefore he ordered payment of the indicated percentage starting from 01/01/2010, according to official communication DAM-ALCAOSA-0070-2010 (see evidence 4 on the evidence disk and folio 38 of the administrative file volume I); **12-** The previous personnel action was signed by Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">and a human resources official (see folios 38 of volume I of the administrative file and evidence # 4 on the disk); **13-** On January 29, 2010, the Municipal Accountant sent a missive to the Head of Human Resources of the Municipality of Osa, indicating that after prior discussion on the topic with officials of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, the payment of the prohibition to the Mayor must be applied at a percentage of 65%, for which Mr. Mayor must request the corresponding study from that Human Resources Department in order to determine compliance with the legal and academic requirements (folios 40 and 41 of the administrative file Volume I, 185 and 186 of the judicial file); **14-** The Human Resources office of the Municipality of Osa issued, on February 15, 2010, a technical opinion on the payment of the prohibition and the percentage to pay, corresponding to 65%, regarding Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">in his capacity as Municipal Mayor (see official communication PRH- official communication 15-2010, folios 48 to 53 of the administrative file volume I); **15-** Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Osa, proceeded to sign, in that capacity, the Payroll payment order number 009654 dated April 14, 2010, by which the retroactive payment for the prohibition in his favor is authorized (see folio 49 of Volume II of the administrative file); **16-** Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">is authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons under code TEC-1221 as a Technologist in Radiological Procedures since August 18, 1987, and must exercise his profession under the supervision of a specialist physician (see evidence numbered 6, official communication issued by the chief prosecutor of the College of Physicians and Surgeons on the evidence disk); **17-** The co-defendant Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">has worked for the Costa Rican Social Security Fund since June 8, 1980, and as of March 2012, he holds a permanent position with leave without pay as Professional Technician 1 in the Radiodiagnosis service (see folio 259 of the judicial file); **18-** That Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">in his performance as a Technician at the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, has worked without supervision because the medical service lacks a Radiology Physician due to a lack of human resources (see folio 259 of the main file); **19-** The representation of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic filed with the Municipality of Osa an Extraordinary Motion for Review against the acts challenged herein in the month of May 2011 (see folios 139 to 149 of volume II of the administrative file); **20-** This Contentious action was filed before this office on November 4, 2011 (see folio 1 of the judicial file); **21-** The previous Extraordinary Motion for Review was resolved by the Municipality of Osa on December 21, 2011, and communicated on December 22, 2011 (see folios 160 to 170 of the administrative file volume II); **22-** Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">in his capacity as Municipal Mayor of Osa, has been paid the prohibition since the month of May 2008, and for this concept, he has been paid up to the first half of the month of October 2014, the sum of One hundred twenty-one million five hundred fifty-two thousand fifteen thirteen colones and sixty-four cents (C 121,552,513.64), broken down as follows: Eighty-two million four hundred five thousand eight hundred fifteen colones and eight cents (C 82,405,815.08) for the payment of the prohibition; fifteen million seven hundred eighty-five thousand seven hundred seventy-one colones and seventy-six cents (c 15,785.771.76) for social security contributions paid by the employer generated from the payment of the prohibition; five million two hundred sixty-nine thousand one hundred ninety-five colones and five cents (C 5,269,195.05) for the year-end bonuses arising from the payment of the prohibition; two million nine hundred seventy-three thousand two hundred thirty-two colones and eighty-three cents (C 2,973,323.83) for the school salary bonuses arising from the payment of the prohibition; and fifteen million one hundred eighteen thousand four hundred ninety-eight colones and ninety-two cents (C 15,118,498.92) which corresponds to the retroactive payment made in the year 2010 for the differences in the prohibition paid in the years 2008 and 2009 when going from 20% to 65% (see folios 367 to 370 of the main file); **II- ON THE FACTS NOT PROVEN** **1-** That Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">recused himself from the knowledge or approval of the prohibition and/or its differences for his own benefit (the records); **2-** That Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">refrained from taking cognizance, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Osa, of the incorporation into his own salary of the items corresponding to the prohibition (the records); **3-** That the decision on the appropriateness of the item for the prohibition in the case of Mayor Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">was transferred to the Deputy Mayor or to the Vice Mayors of the Municipality of Osa, or the signing of the personnel actions that ordered the payment of said items in favor of Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">(the records); **4-** That Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">was exercising a liberal profession when he was appointed as Mayor in the Municipality of Osa (the records) **III- ON THE OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING AND ALLEGATIONS OF THE PARTIES** The representation of the Oversight Body claims that the Municipality of Osa granted, through Personnel Actions No. 269-2008 and No. 062-2010, the recognition to Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, the payment corresponding to the prohibition without having carried out the minimum study of the necessary academic and professional requirements. Regarding the co-defendant Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">he is sued in his personal capacity, and the restitution of the funds received for the prohibition is sought, affirming that Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">was aware that he lacks the requirements for its appropriateness. It argues that the prohibition on the liberal exercise of a profession constitutes a restriction legally imposed on some public officials so that they do not exercise their professions and dedicate themselves completely to their public tasks and responsibilities. That through the payment of the prohibition, the real or potential emergence of conflicts of interest is sought to be avoided, and such restriction of fundamental freedom can only be ordered by law. Regarding liberal professions, it designates those exercised in the service market, therefore one must possess an academic degree that grants that professional status in a branch of knowledge, as well as membership in the respective Professional Association. In the specific case, it states that they sent the Municipal entity a series of provisions and recommendations that should have been taken into account for the appropriateness of the payment of the prohibition, which in its view the Municipality disregarded by recognizing, since the month of May 2008, the payment for said concept to Mr. Nombre111673</span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Bookman Old Style'">who lacks one of the essential requirements to enjoy the payment “*which is the possession of an academic degree that accredits him as a professional and, to that extent, with sufficient academic and professional aptitude to be able to exercise a profession liberally*”. It claims that it was the Mayor himself who approved such benefit in his favor, without meeting the requirements for such benefit.

It indicates that the Comptroller General's Office at no time misled the Municipal Administration; that it was the mistaken criterion of the Municipality that caused such payment; and that the Comptroller General's Office issues criteria in general cases, not specific ones, that when the budget approval was given, it was indicated that the payment of the prohibition to the Mayor was in a general manner, the determination of whether it corresponded in such condition to Mr. Nombre111673 falls to the Municipal entity, not to the Comptroller General's Office, that it is clear that in this case Mr. Nombre111673 does not meet the academic or professional requirements. It seeks the nullity of the personnel actions through which the payment to Mr. Nombre111673 was recognized and ordered, as well as all subsequent actions that month after month have allowed the continuation of his payment, as well as the return to the Public Treasury of the money paid for such concept. For his part, the representative of the co-defendant Nombre111673 rejects the claim, and indicates that the approach made by the oversight official of the Comptroller General's Office of the Republic is incorrect, imprecise, and lacking in technical-legal foundation. It is argued that the recognition of the prohibition was made based on the advice of the comptroller entity, as well as previous studies carried out by the internal bodies of the Municipality, such as Human Resources and Legal Advisory, also that he never influenced the payment decision, but rather limited himself to carrying out the pertinent procedure and that only he could sign it, since at the time the payment was approved, the vice-mayor positions did not exist on a full-time basis. That contrary to what was stated by the Comptroller General's Office of the Republic, he meets the requirements demanded by the regulations for the recognition of the prohibition, since the University of Costa Rica issued him an academic degree, which allowed him to become a member of a professional association and work at the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, and that there was neither intent nor gross negligence in his conduct, furthermore that it is clear that he is a professional, who must follow the doctor's request in the practice of his work, but in the development of it, it is he who has the knowledge to do so. He states that it is not personnel action No. 269-2008 that authorizes the payment of the prohibition of 20%, but rather through document FOE-SM-0754, the partial approval of the extraordinary budget No. 2-2008 of the Municipality of Osa carried out by the Comptroller General's Office. He affirms that the recognition was approved for him after prior studies, and that he has the academic degree as established by the same criterion of the Comptroller General's Office, as a radiology technician, and that the normative budget that allows the payment of the prohibition has nothing to do with requiring supervision by another professional to practice. In the conclusions of the trial, the representation of Mr. Nombre111673 indicates that it must be taken into account that at the time of his graduation in 1987, there was only a technical degree, as can be deduced from numeral 1 of the Reglamento and Article 4 of the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and that according to numeral 33 of the regulations that govern it, the exercise of the technical specialty can be done in the manner he deems appropriate. The Municipal representation in its response recognizes that it is through personnel action No. 00269-2008 that the payment of recognition of the prohibition of 20% is authorized to Mr. Nombre111673, attending to document FOE-SM-0754 issued by the Comptroller General's Office of the Republic through which it partially approves extraordinary budget 2-2008 of the Municipality of Osa and that although subsequently official letter 10455 was issued by the Comptroller General's Office, it was never said that diploma or technical degrees were not taken into account as professional qualifications, and that its recommendation was that the official hold a university academic degree, and that in its opinion the University Degree issued by the University of Costa Rica has the character of a professional qualification. Regarding the recognition of 65% through personnel action no. 62-2010, it was a consequence of an oversight study to which the Municipal entity was subjected by the Comptroller General's Office. Regarding the fact that Mr. Nombre111673 had to practice his profession under the supervision of a medical specialist, from its viewpoint, this does not detract from the fact that he can practice his profession in a liberal manner, since what Mr. Nombre111673 holds is a university degree called undergraduate, which consists of a diploma in radio technology. In summary, it indicates that Mr. Nombre111673 meets the requirements for the prohibition to be recognized and is covered by the Law on Illicit Enrichment, has a university academic degree, and is incorporated into the respective College and that such condition was determined from the technical studies that were carried out prior to the granting of the prohibition, and it requests that the claim be declared without merit.

**IV- ON THE ALLEGED EXPIRATION.** The representative of the plaintiff party raised the exception of Expiration at the beginning of the oral and public trial, in accordance with numeral 67 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Procedure and Civil Procedure of the Treasury. He bases his argument by pointing out that the plaintiff party filed the process after the year had passed as provided by ordinal 39 of the aforementioned normative body. The representation of the Comptroller General's Office of the Republic opposes said defense, and indicates that, on the contrary, given that the Municipality of Osa did not rule on the appeal for review filed by that Comptroller body in administrative proceedings, they had to file a legal compliance action (amparo de legalidad) before this Court to obtain a response. It also indicates that the acts sought to be declared null are of a continuing effect, given that the first personnel action was issued on May 16, 2008, and month after month their effects have continued due to the payment made for the concept of prohibition to Mr. Nombre111673, the same person who served as Mayor in the period from 2007 to 2011 and from 2011 to 2016 because he was re-elected. In attention to said defense, effectively, numeral 67 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Procedure allows for the filing of the Expiration defense in the process before the conclusion of the oral and public trial, and therefore, having been filed by the representation of Mr. Nombre111673 at the beginning of the oral and public hearing, its filing is admissible, and an analysis of said exception proceeds immediately. The acts sought to be nullified by the Comptroller entity date back to – personnel action number 00269- of May 16, 2008, and – personnel action 062- of January 29, 2010 – the first of which recognizes Mr. Nombre111673 the 20% for the concept of prohibition, and the second where the increase of the percentage from 20% to 65% is recognized. These acts were challenged in administrative proceedings on May 5, 2011 (folio 139 of volume II of the administrative file), and were resolved by the Municipality on December 21, 2011, a date on which the Comptroller General's Office of the Republic had already filed this Administrative Litigation action. Consequently, from the review of the dates, the year provided in numeral 39 of the CPCA had not elapsed; note that at the time of the filing of the claim in judicial courts, the conducts sought to be annulled here were not final, as the attention of an extraordinary appeal for review in administrative proceedings was pending. Therefore, the action in Judicial Courts was indeed filed by the Comptroller entity within the period established by numeral 39 of the Code of Administrative Litigation Procedure, and consequently, the exception of expiration must be rejected.

**V- ON THE POSITION OF MAYOR.** He is the executive official indicated in Article 169 of the Political Constitution; likewise, the law provides for the existence of two municipal vice-mayors: a first vice-mayor and a second vice-mayor. The first shall carry out the administrative and operative functions assigned by the sitting mayor; moreover, they shall substitute, by operation of law, the municipal mayor in their temporary and definitive absences, with the same responsibilities and competencies during the substitution period. In cases where the first vice-mayor cannot substitute the mayor, in their temporary and definitive absences, the second vice-mayor shall substitute the mayor, by operation of law, with the same responsibilities and competencies during the substitution period. In the municipal district councils, the executive official indicated in Article 7 of Law No. 8173 is the district intendant, who shall have the same powers as the municipal mayor. Additionally, there shall be a vice-district intendant, who shall carry out the administrative and operative functions assigned by the sitting intendant; they shall also substitute, by operation of law, the district intendant in their temporary and definitive absences, with the same responsibilities and competencies during the substitution period. All popularly elected positions at the municipal level contemplated by the legal system shall be elected popularly, through general elections to be held on the first Sunday of February, two years after the national elections in which the persons occupying the Presidency and Vice-Presidencies of the Republic and those who will comprise the Legislative Assembly are elected. They shall take office on May 1st of the same year of their election, for a period of four years, and may be re-elected. (As reformed by Article 310, section a) of the Electoral Code, Law No. 8765 of August 19, 2009) Interpreted by Resolution of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal No. 405 of February 8, 2008, as follows: *“Article 14 of the Municipal Code is interpreted to mean that, in the elections of December 2010, the positions of mayors, vice-mayors, intendants and vice-intendants, syndics, proprietary and alternate district councilors, and proprietary and alternate members of the municipal district councils shall be chosen, and the appointment of these officials shall be extended until those elected in February 2016 take office, specifically until April 30, 2016. Likewise, to harmonize the municipal electoral regime so that all positions are elected at the midpoint of the presidential and legislative term, the council members elected in February 2010 shall continue in their positions until April 30, 2016, a date on which they shall be substituted by the council members elected in February 2016”…* (Article 14 of the Municipal Code) The previous citation came to reform numeral 14 regarding the introduction of the figure of the First and Second Vice-Mayor, which originally, before the reform of September 2009, established the existence of Substitute Mayors, who would substitute the Municipal Mayor in their temporary and definitive absences, who were also popularly elected. In conclusion, the Mayor is an official elected in a popular and direct manner, by the majority vote of the residents of their canton, to head and direct the government of that municipality. They are the main executive official of the Municipality, an institution to which autonomy is constitutionally granted to attend to its affairs and fulfill its functions. Being a public servant and the most relevant in administrative matters within the Municipality, they must carry out their work considering the common good and the solution of the problems of their canton. The Municipal Mayor has the following attributions and obligations, among others: a) To exercise the functions inherent to the condition of general administrator and head of the municipal dependencies, monitoring the organization, functioning, coordination, and faithful compliance with municipal agreements, laws, and regulations in general. b) To delegate the functions entrusted by this law, based on Articles 89 and following of the General Law of Public Administration (...)

**VI- ON THE ISSUE OF COMPETENCE** Although the Comptroller General's Office of the Republic, as the plaintiff in this process, accuses the administrative actions of being null, alleging defects in the motive and consequently in the purpose for departing from the satisfaction of the public interest, this Panel of Judges proceeds to analyze the Competence of the Mayor of the Municipality of Osa in issuing the administrative actions adopted by him for his own benefit. On the issue of Competence, the plaintiff party in this process does not directly allege a defect regarding this element, even though in the facts of its claim it states that Mr. Nombre111673 proceeded with a self-recognition of the payment for the concept of prohibition. It is essential, in order to justify this Chamber of Judges' examination of the issue of competence not formally alleged by the plaintiff party, that the First Chamber, in reiterated rulings, among them 775-A-S1-2013 of 4:05 PM on June 13, 2013, ruled:

“**III.-** Starting from a new analysis of the subject, specifically, reconsidered regarding the competent body to declare the harmfulness (lesividad) of the complex act that granted the pension to the defendant under the National Teachers' Pensions and Retirement Regime (Régimen de Pensiones y Jubilaciones del Magisterio Nacional), and for the correct resolution of the matter, it is necessary to specify the following aspects: 1) The issue of the competence of the body or entity to declare an act harmful, as a prerequisite to filing the harmfulness process, is an aspect of an eminently procedural nature, provided for by the regulations in force for this type of jurisdictional conflict. Therefore, the Administration seeking the annulment of its own act must act as regulated by the Code of Administrative Litigation Procedure (CPCA). 2) <u>Declaration ex officio of the invalidity of an act by virtue of a substantial infringement. Duty of the judge</u>. The General Law of Public Administration (LGAP) establishes that the act must be issued by the competent body and by the regularly designated public servant at the time of issuing it, ‘…prior compliance with all the substantial steps provided for the purpose…’ and the essential requirements for the exercise of competence (Article 129). Also, that the judge may not declare the invalidity of the act ex officio ‘…<u>unless it involves substantial infringements related to the subject</u>, the procedure, or the form, <u>in which cases they must do so</u>.’ / For the purposes of this article, the subject shall be understood as an element encompassing the existence of the entity and its capacity, the existence of the body and its competence, the requirements necessary for the exercise thereof, and the regular investiture of the public servant. / The judge may control ex officio the existence of all the foregoing ends in relation to the subject of the act, with the exception contained in the following paragraph. / Relative incompetence may not be declared or asserted ex officio.” (canon 182, paragraph 1) (The underlining is not from the original). Of interest, this provision determines the obligation of the judge to declare ex officio the invalidity of an act when a substantial infringement related to the subject arises, that is, regarding the person adopting the act. On this matter, this Chamber has indicated that ‘…From the reading of the recently transcribed norm, various important elements to consider in this case emerge. First, and as stated in advance, it is not a power of the judge, but rather its compliance is mandatory. The actions of the judge are linked to what the legal system provides, not only in terms of its application to the case submitted by the parties, but also in terms of the jurisdictional activity they carry out. In this sense, it is imperative for them to rule on the indicated aspects when resolving any matter….” (Resolution no. 804-F-S1-2008 of 9:30 AM on December 4, 2008). 3) The CPCA, enacted by Law no. 8508 of April 28, 2006, came into effect on January 1, 2008. In mandate 34, paragraph 3), it is expressly established that: ‘The declaration of harmfulness (lesividad) of administrative acts issued by two or more ministries, or by these with any decentralized entity, shall correspond to the Government Council. In such cases, they may not be declared harmful by a minister of a different branch.’ Given the existence of a specific regulation that requires a review ex officio of the essential defects referring to the subject and competence, this Chamber cannot ignore the existence of the pathology in question.” In accordance with the foregoing, this Court is empowered to review the element of competence in the challenged administrative actions. Numeral 129 of the General Law of Public Administration establishes that the act must be issued by the competent body and by the regularly designated public servant at the time of issuance, after prior compliance with all substantial steps provided for the purpose and the essential requirements for the exercise of competence. From the facts deemed proven and of interest for this matter, we have that Mr. Nombre111673 was appointed as Mayor of the Municipality of the Canton of Osa for the periods 2007 to 2011 and re-elected from 2011 to 2016, the position he currently holds. The acts challenged by the Comptroller entity were issued on May 16, 2008 (personnel action 00269) and on January 29, 2010 (personnel action 0062). From the review of the first one, visible on folio 3 of volume I of the administrative file, the form of the Personnel Action of the Municipality of Osa shows that the procedure is in the name of Servant Nombre111673, effective from May 16, 2008, position Municipal Mayor, that a salary increase is ordered, and in Observations "*Payment of the recognition of the Prohibition (sic) of 20%, according to official letter FOE-SM-0754 based on Law 8422 against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Function*" document signed by Mr. Nombre111673 in his capacity as Municipal Mayor. In the second document visible on folio 38 of the administrative file, volume I, a Personnel Action of the Municipality of Osa is observed, name of servant Nombre111673, position Municipal Mayor, for the concept of salary increase and in observations "*Recognition of the difference of the prohibition 45% since according to personnel action No. 00269, 20% is paid to him, and according to Law 8422, 65% corresponds, so said percentage is paid to him starting 01/01/2010, according to official letter DAM-ALCAOSA-0070-2010*" document signed by Nombre111673 in his capacity as Municipal Mayor. Given the foregoing, it is accredited that Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, proceeded to approve for his own benefit the salary increases for the concept of payment of prohibition, first for 20% and then for 65%, which correspond to the personnel actions challenged here 00269-2008 of May 2008 and 062 of January 2010. It remains to be established whether the Mayor was in a position to sign administrative acts that conferred rights upon him as an official of the Municipality or should have abstained from participating in the procedure, approval, and payment order for his own benefit. In this regard, in his claim, Mr. Nombre111673 indicates that at the time the acts were issued, only he could sign them, because at the time he approved that *"the vice-mayor positions did not exist on a full-time basis."* It must be pointed out that the acts occurred at different times, the first in 2008 when the norm (ordinal 14) established the figure of the Substitute Mayor, and for 2010 the Figure of the Vice-Mayor. However, despite the above, for both moments, numeral 17 established the attributions corresponding to the Mayor, paragraph a) concerning the condition of General Administrator and Head of the municipal dependencies, monitoring the organization, functioning, coordination, and faithful compliance with municipal agreements, laws, and regulations in general, and the possibility to b) Delegate the functions entrusted by this law, based on Articles 89 and following of the General Law of Public Administration (...). From the foregoing, it is deduced that the granting of competences is express and by means of the law; however, the same legal system offers the possibility for changes in the given competence to operate through the transfers established in the law with the assumptions and particular limitations of each figure. It is true that for the issuance of both administrative acts, Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, had as an attribution that of General Administrator and head of Municipal dependencies, so it fell to him to approve, once the corresponding studies were carried out when necessary, the administrative procedures of the Municipality, among these the payment of the prohibition to whomever it corresponded by law. But precisely because of his attribution, to authorize such payment, he had to review compliance with the corresponding requirements for that or any other procedure that implies the disposal of Public Treasury money, and it is precisely what paragraph b) already cited safeguards: the possibility of delegating the functions entrusted by law according to numerals 89 and following of the General Law of Public Administration. The cited normative body, in its ordinal 70, imposes that competence shall be exercised by the head of the respective body, except in cases of delegation, avocation, substitution, subrogation, and in accordance with the foregoing, numeral 230 imposes that the grounds for abstention shall be the same as those for challenge and recusal established in the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, and also those resulting from Article 102 of the Law of Financial Administration of the Republic, resorting to such citations from the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch.

Article 31 imposes that in the absence of an express rule on grounds for disqualification, excuses, and recusals, the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code shall apply, and upon review of that normative body, subsection 1) of numeral 49 establishes that there shall be grounds for disqualification from hearing matters in which one has a direct interest. Applying this scenario to the one analyzed here, it is evident to this Chamber of Judges that Mr. Nombre111673 should have abstained and excused himself from hearing and authorizing an administrative action that granted rights to himself. The excuse put forward by Mr. Nombre111673 that there was no official appointed full-time is not valid—and this regarding the first act, because by the date the second act was issued, the figure of the Vice-Mayor had already been established, so his justification finds no support whatsoever for this Panel of Judges. The Mayor had the legal and ethical obligation as a public official, and even more so as a popularly elected one, to be transparent in his actions, and this obligated him to recuse himself from hearing matters that could grant personal benefits, as in the specific case. This Court considers that the Municipal Code itself granted him, in subsection b) of numeral 17, the legal avenue to abstain from hearing the acts challenged here; nevertheless, on the contrary, Mr. Nombre111673 proceeded to approve rights and payments of public funds in his own favor. The foregoing, without this chamber having issued an opinion on the legality of the reason for those payments, leads it to conclude that the challenged administrative acts, in accordance with the doctrine of numerals 129 and 166 of the General Law of Public Administration, impose a defect of absolute nullity in the challenged acts, based on the subject who issued them—in this case, Mr. Nombre111673—and consequently, those acts are found to be defective and must be declared null.

**VII- REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF THE PROHIBITION TO MUNICIPAL MAYORS.** Law 8422, called the *Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office*, has been in force since October 29, 2014, and provides in its Chapter Two on the Preventive Regime, Article 14: **"Prohibition on exercising liberal professions**. The following may not exercise liberal professions: the President of the Republic, the Vice Presidents, the Magistrates of the Judicial Branch and of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Ministers, the Comptroller General and Deputy Comptroller General of the Republic, the Ombudsperson and Deputy Ombudsperson for Inhabitants, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General of the Republic, the General Regulator of the Republic, the Chief Prosecutor of the Republic, the Vice Ministers, the chief administrative officers, the executive presidents, the managers and administrative directors of decentralized entities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, and public enterprises, the superintendents of financial, securities, and pension entities, their respective superintendency directors, *as well as municipal mayors* (bold and underline not in the original) and the deputy managers and deputy administrative directors, the internal comptrollers and deputy comptrollers, the internal auditors and deputy internal auditors of the Public Administration, as well as the department directors and deputy directors and the heads of procurement of the Public Sector. Included within this article are the other professions that the official holds, even if they do not constitute a requirement for holding the respective public office." An economic compensation is established for the prohibition on exercising liberal professions. "*Unless a special remuneration regime exists for the public official, the economic compensation for the application of the preceding Article shall be equivalent to sixty-five percent (65%) of the base salary set for the category of the respective position*". Subsequently, Executive Decree 32333, Regulations to the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office, in force as of April 29, 2005, was issued, in which subsection 39 of the first article develops what constitutes the "*Prohibition: For the purposes of Article 14 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in Public Office, prohibition shall be understood as the obligation not to exercise the profession subject to contracting in a liberal or private manner. Within this prohibition shall be understood to be included the other professions that the official holds, even if they do not constitute a requirement for holding the respective public office*." For its part, regarding the issue of the prohibition, the Constitutional Chamber has stated: *"(...) officials or employees subject to prohibition are absolutely prevented not only from holding other public positions, but also from carrying out, in the private sector, activities related to the positions they hold in the State, except, of course, in the exceptions that the rule itself establishes, based either on the nature of the activity—teaching—or when it involves the defense of personal interests or those of their close relatives. Said limitation is imposed (...) when the liberal exercise of the profession or activity is incompatible with the public office held, that is, when it could cause serious harm to the interests of the Public Administration (...) It is clear, from what has been said, that only those activities whose private exercise results incompatible with the function the public servant performs are subject to the prohibition (...) The absence of such incompatibility, on the contrary, enables the public servant to exercise their profession or trade privately, subject to the liabilities of the case if they thereby incur any labor fault (...)"* (Judgment No. 3369-96 of 10:27 a.m. on July 5, 1996). Having set forth the foregoing, there is no doubt whatsoever that the Legislator imposed on the figure of Municipal Mayors a prohibition on exercising liberal professions and imposed compensation of 65% of the salary for the limitation effectively imposed on the liberal exercise of the profession. Specifically regarding the issue of professional freedom, the Constitutional Chamber has developed: "*III.- REGARDING PROFESSIONAL FREEDOM. The Political Constitution does not expressly enshrine professional freedom; however, this fundamental freedom can be deduced from the harmonious interpretation of several constitutional rights, specifically, numerals 46 and 56 of the Political Charter, which guarantee in our legal system the right to work and entrepreneurial freedom. The essential content of professional freedom comprises the right to choose a profession and the free exercise of the professional activity. Although these two concepts are closely related, state interventions in each of these facets occur with different intensity. Thus, the choice of profession must be an act of self-determination of the individual's free will and must remain, as far as possible, protected from all intervention by public power. For its part, through the exercise of the profession, the individual directly intervenes in social life; consequently, restrictions may be imposed on them in the interest of others. In this way, non-affectation of third parties, protection of morality, and public order are conditions that justify the establishment of limitations on the exercise of professional activity (Article 28 of the Constitution). Now then, the principle of reservation of law applies here, which determines that only through a rule with the rank of law—in formal and material sense—is it possible to restrict fundamental rights. Likewise, the 'pro libertatis' principle applies, which provides that every legal rule must be interpreted in a way that favors freedom. However, it is reiterated, the freedom to exercise a profession can be restricted by means of law to the extent that reasonable considerations regarding the public interest demand it, while the freedom to choose a profession, on the contrary, can only be restricted to the extent that the protection of an especially important common good justifies it. From that perspective, the protection of values as diverse as health, education, well-being, and security underpins State intervention—by means of law—in the exercise of *liberal professions*, for the purpose of guaranteeing the quality and reliability of the services provided, as well as the non-affectation of third parties and respect for morality and public order*." (Emphasis added) Ruling 1819-2005 of February 25, 2005, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. It is also of importance to mention some considerations issued by the Constitutional Body: *"V.- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EXERCISE OF A LIBERAL PROFESSION AND A LUCRATIVE ACTIVITY. Traditionally, within the liberal professions are grouped those that involve the exercise of an intellectual or technical activity, through the application of certain scientific and technical rules that must be handled with the utmost propriety by the holder, prior authorization to exercise it through the attainment of a suitable and adequate degree and, eventually, incorporation into the respective professional association. The singularity of liberal professions arises from the absence of a dependency relationship with their clientele, so that the liberal professional has full autonomy and independence in the manner of providing professional services—schedule, place, etc.—since they do so on their own account, which is why their services are remunerated through fees. The liberal professional applies, for a specific case, their scientific or technical knowledge without submitting to any direction and under their exclusive responsibility, that is, according to their best knowledge and understanding. It is necessary to point out that the exercise of a liberal profession is intimately linked to professional freedom, which includes the freedom to freely choose the profession one intends to exercise and, once obtained through suitable qualification and the corresponding professional association membership, to exercise it freely without limits other than those necessary to guarantee correctness, supervision, and oversight in its exercise and the protection of the public interest and, in particular, of the consumers of professional services. The object of exercising a liberal profession is to provide the person engaging in it with remuneration that ensures a dignified quality of life, both personally and in family terms."* Ruling 18141-2009 of 11:12 a.m. on November 27, 2009. Once the citation of this judgment is provided, from the development carried out by the Constitutional Chamber, it must be determined in the specific case whether Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Mayor, is covered by the prohibition and the consequent compensation provided in the law. As a first issue, the arguments made by both the representation of the Municipality of Osa and that of Mr. Nombre111673 must be addressed, affirming that they always respected the criteria of the Comptroller’s Office and that they are contesting this, even though they were the ones who initially approved the payment of the prohibition to the Mayor, even correcting the percentage from 20%, which he initially received, to 65%. From official communication FOE-SM-0754 dated May 16, 2008, it is evident that the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic partially approves the budget of the Municipality of Osa, and regarding the issue of the payment of the prohibition to the Municipal Mayor, it is established in point 2, in the pertinent part: “According to the expenditure justification, they propose the payment of the prohibition for the holders of the positions of (…) Municipal Mayor. Because said recognition proceeds only in cases where a special law authorizes it, the budgetary content for said payment is approved in the cases of (…) and Municipal Mayor based on the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment (…).” Both co-defendants allege that based on that document, they considered that the payment of the prohibition in favor of co-defendant Nombre111673 was proper, because the Comptroller’s Office had so ordered, an argument this Court does not share. From the detailed review of said document, it is true that the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic approved the payment of the prohibition for the Mayor in accordance with Law 8422, but at no point can it be inferred that this was a consequence of the review of the requirements established by the law for the pertinence of the payment. It is essential to note that the application of the rule (ordinal 14) is not automatic; even though the prohibition and its consequent payment are provided for the figure of the Mayor, it is incumbent upon the Municipality to determine whether the Mayor meets the technical-legal requirements to aspire to said payment. In addition to the foregoing, it is evident that the Comptroller’s Office on several occasions sent information to Mr. Nombre111673 as Municipal Mayor of Osa in relation to the application of the prohibition on liberal professionals, this through Report DAG-J-1333-2008, in which the Mayor is also directed to verify the manner in which the prohibition and its payment were being recognized, a communication that the Comptroller’s Office even personally notified him of on October 22, 2008. The cited communication (folio 34 administrative file) even points out that there are two elements for the recognition of the prohibition: an act of permanent appointment and possession of a university academic degree "*which must be assessed in each specific case*" that accredits the person as a professional in a specific branch of knowledge, a requirement to which the respective professional incorporation is added, and that their incorporation is a necessary and sufficient condition for professional exercise. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is not observed that the Municipality, by that date, undertook a review process regarding the payment of the prohibition to the benefiting officials; on the contrary, it is not evident in the administrative files and the evidence presented to the proceedings that prior to the issuance of act 00269 of May 16, 2008, the Municipality of Osa carried out a technical and/or legal study to adopt the administrative act of May 16, 2008, in order to determine Mr. Nombre111673’s fulfillment of the legal requirements. And it was not until January 25, 2010, that the legal advisor of the Municipality issued a technical opinion regarding the payment of the prohibition, through Report MUNOSA–PSJ-02-2010, in which Licenciada Leidy Gabriela Martínez González, in her capacity as Legal Advisor, concluded (folio 23 of volume I of the administrative file) that the position of Mayor, being of popular election, is considered not subject to a category, structure, and academic condition, so the payment of the prohibition is an aspect inherent to the position because it is provided for in Law 8422. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Nombre111673 communicated to the Human Resources Coordinator of the Municipality about the legal opinion rendered and consequently ordered that steps be taken for the payment of the 65% as well as the difference. Regarding the second administrative act, personnel action 0269, Mr. Nombre111673 has indicated that it was issued after having carried out prior studies. From the evidence brought to the proceedings, the legal opinion rendered by the municipal legal advisor was dated January 25, 2010, and the personnel action was signed by the Mayor on January 29, 2010. However, on that same date, the Municipal Accountant, Gabriela Elizondo Santamaría, sent a missive to the Municipality’s Human Resources Department communicating the legal opinion rendered as well as information gathered from officials of the Comptroller’s Office on the issue of the prohibition payment, and indicated that officials holding positions subject to prohibition—in the case at hand, the Municipal Mayor—must make a written request to the Human Resources office, who must assess compliance with the legal and academic requirements to make the retroactive payment. However, the opinion of the Municipal Human Resources Office was issued through official communication PRH-15-2010 dated February 15, 2010, and as cited above, Mr. Nombre111673 signed the payment order on January 29, 2010, without waiting for all the necessary technical opinions to be issued to determine the propriety of the payment. Furthermore, Mr. Nombre111673 decided, as the administrative head, to order the increase of his salary on account of the prohibition, even though official communication DAGJ-133-2008 from the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic had already been brought to his personal knowledge, which had been notified to him since October 22, 2008, and he had been directed to proceed to verify how the prohibition was being applied and whether it conformed to the criteria and parameters outlined in said communication and in accordance with the legal order. This demonstrates to this Panel of Judges that Mr. Nombre111673 made the decision to order his salary increase while being duly warned of the rules and criteria established for its propriety; he had been made aware of them personally, so it is not possible to accept the claim of co-defendant Nombre111673 that he merely adhered to the legal opinion rendered by the Municipal advisor. He already knew the criteria outlined by the Comptroller’s Office, which, as is evident from the Municipal attorney’s report, were likewise not taken into account for the legal conclusion as can be inferred from said opinion, when her conclusion is that the payment of the prohibition is an aspect inherent to the position. Having said this, the specific examination must be undertaken to determine if Mr. Nombre111673 is a liberal professional who must be recognized the payment of the prohibition. It was accredited in the proceedings that Mr. Nombre111673 studied at the University of Costa Rica and completed a degree program, obtaining the undergraduate academic degree of diplomado in radio-technology. The defendants affirm that this condition allows Mr. Nombre111673 to be qualified as a liberal professional, given that he holds a university degree. On this issue, the plaintiff brought to the proceedings a document issued by the University of Costa Rica, where it effectively certifies the academic status obtained by Mr. Nombre111673 and the degree awarded, in the year 1991, and informs that the diplomado is the academic degree awarded to persons who fulfill the requirements of a university program, as set forth in the Agreement to Create a Nomenclature of Degrees and Titles of State University Higher Education. Furthermore, an opinion from the College of Physicians and Surgeons is provided, which informs that Mr. Nombre111673 is authorized under Code TEC-1221 as a Technologist in Radiological Procedures since August 18, 1987, and must exercise his profession under the supervision of a medical specialist. The core discussion in the proceedings revolves around whether the university-level education received by Mr. Nombre111673 confers upon him a professional title and whether his academic status makes him eligible for the 65% payment that the Comptroller’s Office questions. For its part, Law 3019 of August 9, 1962, the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, imposes in its numeral 4: Without prior registration with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, no one may exercise in the country the professions of physician and surgeon nor their specialties. Regarding other branches dependent on medical sciences, such as Homeopathy, Osteopathy, Radiological Technology, Physiotherapy, Kinesiotherapy, Optometry, Clinical Psychology, and Public Health, the College of Physicians and Surgeons shall authorize their exercise, except for those persons registered in said branches in other professional associations. In its article 5, it is established that only persons registered with the College or authorized by it may perform public functions related to the professional exercise of medicine or its branches, except those persons registered in other professional associations in the branches cited in article 4. Regarding the status of Technologist, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, through ordinary session 2007-12-12 of December 12, 2007, issued the Regulations of the Chapter of Professionals in Branches Dependent on Medical Sciences Authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, recognizing in its first article that the chapter of Technologists of branches dependent on Medical Sciences shall be constituted by all technologists in the Health sector duly authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica for the legal exercise of their functions, as indicated in Article Four of the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica and shall be governed by this Regulation. For its part, numeral 2 establishes that the chapter of Technologists shall be governed by a Coordinating Committee, which shall represent this Chapter before its General Assembly, the Governing Board of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, and before the administrative dependencies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica in the rest of the country and other national institutions. Subsequently, that regulation was repealed by the regulation issued on September 9, 2012, by the Governing Board of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, which in its numeral 1 establishes as its scope of application "*Medical Sciences Technologists are persons whose technical training allows them to exercise processes related to the Branches Dependent on Medical Sciences, under direct medical supervision or specialized medical supervision as appropriate; who are duly authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Republic of Costa Rica (as indicated herein in article four of the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Republic of Costa Rica and shall be governed by this Law, its Regulation, the following Regulations, and other binding legal provisions*." For its part, numeral 2 defines the Technologist as the human resource with technical training and education in Medical Sciences, whose practice is characterized by the application of scientific knowledge, transformed to contribute to diagnosis, treatment, and health management, under direct medical supervision or direct specialized medical supervision as appropriate, and within ordinal three, Technology in Medical Imaging is established as one of the authorized disciplines.

it is important to point out that according to the cited regulations, requirements are established for technologists to be authorized by the Colegio de Médicos for the practice of their technical field; they must demonstrate their suitability and fulfill economic, ethical, and professional obligations to the Colegio de Médicos. However, it is important to highlight that the Organic Law of the Colegio de Médicos differentiates between the condition of physician and member (colegiado), and that of technologist and authorized person for the performance of their duties. It is true that they need to be authorized for their practice, yet such requirements do not convert them into liberal professionals. It is important to establish that we are dealing with Technicians who, through their specialization and scientific knowledge transformed into technology, contribute to health management, which is in accordance with each of the twenty-three authorized disciplines. As can be inferred from section three of the cited regulation, they are essential for determining the diagnosis and treatment that the medical professional ultimately prescribes. In the opinion of this Panel of judges, a present and common element emerges: the exercise of the technologists’ function is classified as auxiliary branches dependent on medical sciences, never exercised independently, which clearly provides an evident classification of the performance of the technologists’ work and specifically in radiology, as in the case of Mr. Nombre111673, that even though he holds a university diploma as a radiology technician, he cannot perform his work in that field in a liberal manner. Note that the very certificate issued by his former employer, the Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, informs that Mr. Nombre111673 works as a Professional Technician 1 in the radiodiagnosis service and that he has worked without supervision. The foregoing is not because it is procedurally correct or convenient, but because the service does not have human resources with a Physician in Radiology. It must be indicated that it is precisely the analysis of each specific case that allows determining whether the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) is in accordance with section 14 of the Law of Illicit Enrichment. In the case of Mr. Nombre111673, it must be concluded that according to the Organic Law of the Colegio de Médicos and its internal regulations, the practice of his work as a Technologist is subject to the control and oversight of the cited Colegio de Médicos, because it is an auxiliary branch dependent on medicine and must be authorized by the professional body. This technical function arises as an instrument to establish findings and diagnoses that must be determined so that, ultimately, the medical professional decides on what is appropriate for the benefit of the patient's health. From the simple exercise of the work of Mr. Nombre111673, it is clear that the Technologist in radiology is an auxiliary with specialized technical knowledge who assists the physician, since it is the latter who decides if radiological examinations or evaluations are necessary to ultimately issue a diagnosis and prescribe treatment to address the health condition. This is a professional freedom that Mr. Nombre111673 does not have. The co-defendant has indicated that at the time he completed his studies at the Universidad de Costa Rica, there were no specialists in that field, which, although not proven, is a logical argument given the timeframe in which he obtained his degree in 1987. However, one cannot lose sight that it is not in that era that he serves as Municipal Mayor but rather from the year 2011 to date, and it is from that year that the analysis must be carried out according to the prevailing reality, a time for which medical professionals with specialties such as radiology already exist, and it is precisely these professionals who supervise tasks like the one performed by Mr. Nombre111673. In the opinion of this Collegiate Body, Mr. Nombre111673 cannot be considered a liberal professional, but rather a person with technical preparation at a university level that allows him, through his knowledge, to assist medicine with the practice of his technical field. It is of interest to point out that a Liberal Profession has been defined as: "That which constitutes the exercise of one of the careers pursued in university centers or in high specialized schools, generally involving only intellectual activity and work, even though it does not exclude manual operations; such as that of the surgeon, and those of architects and engineers when drawing their plans. (...) The singularity of the Liberal Profession arises from the fact that there is no relationship of dependency or permanence with the client, although there may be regularity in the requirement for services; furthermore, except when special fee schedules are established by the Public Power, the liberal professional freely determines their remuneration, which is called fees (honorarios). Regarding the labor sphere, such independence, however, is compromised in certain modalities of Labor Law. In principle, the position of those who exercise a liberal profession is one of autonomy in the provision of services; the person who performs it is not considered a worker in the restricted concept of the subject of an employment contract. The difficulty evidently arises with certain professionals who carry out their activity under the dependency of others and receive not fees, but a salary. The work provided by a doctor on ships and in the service of a shipowner is characterized by the technical independence of the professional in everything related to their specialty, but they are subject, or may be subject, to a certain hierarchical and economic dependency, which obliges them to comply with a specific schedule, assist the designated persons, report the results of their services, and observe the established regulations. Similar situations occur in the work services of other professionals, such as engineers, lawyers, chemists, who have a certain technical independence; but they can contract their services as workers in a company and receive a salary or wage like them." Diccionario Enciclopédico del Derecho Usual, page 447, Editorial Heliasta, Volume VI P-Q, 21st Edition, Buenos Aires- República Argentina, 1989. In conclusion, for the purposes of the pertinence of the payment of the prohibition (prohibición), the professional must not only be registered, incorporated (colegiado), or authorized, but the public servant must be enabled to exercise a liberal profession. This implies that they meet the academic requirements and any other type required by the respective professional association (colegio profesional). In the specific case, it has become clear to this Court that the Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos, even though it authorizes Mr. Nombre111673 for the exercise of his technical field, does so in that condition, as an auxiliary branch dependent on medicine and always under medical supervision. Therefore, the arguments of the co-defendant Mr. Nombre111673 claiming otherwise lack support given the compelling nature of the regulations governing him. In this instance, it has been duly accredited that Mr. Nombre111673 was not within the various scenarios that permitted the payment of that component according to the indicated regulations. For such purposes, it is necessary to indicate that within the scope of the prohibition (prohibición) component referred to in this case, the aforementioned rules clearly establish the factual situation (supuesto de hecho) that allows the emergence of that legal consequence. From that perspective, the pertinence or validity of the actions ordering the recognition of this item is conditioned upon the concurrence of the various requirements that give rise to it. In this scenario, occupying a position as Mayor is not sufficient; rather, the payment to someone holding a position of that nature will be procedurally correct as long as it limits the liberal exercise of the profession, a condition which Mr. Nombre111673 lacks. This then constitutes the grounds (motivo) upon which the Municipal public action was based. In this line, section 133.1 of the General Law of Public Administration states: “The grounds (motivo) must be legitimate and exist as they have been taken into account for issuing the act. (…)” Within this scope, it is evident that the absence of the commented legal requirement undoubtedly determines the unlawfulness of the conduct that, disregarding this requirement, or through omission or interpretative defects, considers that the official was eligible to receive that benefit and grants it. Now, the absence of this requirement (grounds (motivo)) determines an invalidity of absolute degree in the administrative conduct, which cannot be remedied or cured, as can be inferred from section 172 of the previously referenced General Law. The granting of this benefit to someone who is not within the conditioning requirement established by the legal source that justifies the specific salary benefit leads to a substantial nonconformity with the Legal System (section 128 ibidem) which requires, in that eventuality, the suppression of the administrative conduct.

**VIII- ON THE REIMBURSEMENT OF THE MONEY** Regarding the reimbursement of the sums paid for the prohibition (prohibición) component. The determination of nullity of the conduct challenged in this proceeding leads to the examination of the pertinence or not of imposing on Mr. Nombre111673 the duty to return the sums received for the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) component. Mr. Nombre111673 alleges that he never intervened in, nor pressured for, the processing of the prohibition (prohibición) payment. On this specific topic, Ms. Gabriel Elizondo Santamaría declared in her capacity as Municipal accountant, who informed in the trial that since 2008, the Contraloría approved the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) via the budget, and later, based on information from the Contraloría, the amount was adjusted from 20% to 65% of the prohibition (prohibición) payment. Furthermore, the request was made to the Municipality's Human Resources department for the study. Subsequently, they called her from the Contraloría where they told her that they were going to reopen the file of Mr. Nombre111673 because the payment to the Mayor was not procedurally correct and that Mr. Nombre111673 had to return the money. She indicates that during the processing of the prohibition (prohibición) payment, the Mayor never exerted pressure for the payment to be approved; he carried out the procedures like any other employee of the Municipality. What was analyzed in the previous sections regarding the absolute invalidity of the conduct under examination in this proceeding leads to the conclusion that the sums disbursed in favor of the defendant cannot be considered well received or protected by what is alleged as a consequence of the Municipality having been induced into error by the Contraloría itself. From the evidence brought to the proceeding, it is evident that the Contraloría entity sent the Mayor reports establishing the parameters for the pertinence of the prohibition (prohibición) payment, and even filed an extraordinary appeal for review regarding the approval of the payment for his benefit. Added to this is the Legal opinion issued by the legal advisor sent to him, it is evident that the recommendations and parameters determined by the Contraloría were not analyzed to establish whether the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) for his benefit was procedurally correct. It is important to note that given the existence of defects that determine the absolute nullity of the challenged conduct, in accordance with sections 169 and 171 of the General Law of Public Administration, they entail the suppression of their effects retroactively to the date of issuance of said conduct. The presumption of validity of the administrative act resulting from section 176 of the aforementioned legal body, which has the effect of protecting the effects generated by the act during its effectiveness, is only applicable to relative nullity (in which, in accordance with precept 167 ibidem, there is not an absence, but rather an imperfection of one of the constitutive elements of the act), but not to absolute nullity, in which the action is declaratory and, therefore, retroactive to the date of issuance of the act. In the specific case, it is reiterated, the invalidity is of an absolute degree. For this reason, it cannot be considered that the actions subject to controversy can be validly incorporated into the legal sphere of Mr. Nombre111673, because in accordance with the Internal Control Law and in safeguarding the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), Mr. Nombre111673, in his condition as Administrator and Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality, should have been more diligent. When in doubt, it was necessary to make inquiries before the corresponding administrative bodies, especially since he approved such additional salary for his own benefit. Consequently, the return of the money and the corresponding payment of the money received for that concept from the month of May 2008 is procedurally correct, said sum comprising the payment, school salaries (salarios escolares), year-end bonus (aguinaldo), and retroactive payments received for the prohibition (prohibición) component, from May 2008 until the date he continues to receive said stipend and until the judgment becomes final (firmeza del fallo). The imposition of interest, as provided in section 173 of the Labor Code, which states that sums overpaid by the employer shall not accrue interest, is rejected. Although in the oral and public trial, evidence was admitted regarding the sum that Mr. Nombre111673 has received (C 121,552,513.64), this corresponds from May 2008 to the first half of October 2014. However, the Mayor currently continues to receive the payment of the 65% additional salary (sobresueldo). Therefore, it will be in the judgment enforcement stage (etapa de ejecución de sentencia) that the Contraloría body must finally demonstrate the updated amount to which the sum paid for that concept to Mr. Nombre111673 amounts.

**IX- ON THE SUPPRESSION OF RELATED CONDUCT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION K) OF ARTICLE 122 OF THE CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE CODE.** The Contraloría body requests that in the judgment, in accordance with section 122 subsection K of the CPCA, the related material actions or the challenged formal administrative acts be annulled, as well as any other formal act that has a direct or indirect relationship with the conduct challenged here, which may have continuously and uninterruptedly maintained the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) in favor of Nombre111673. In the oral and public hearing, the representative of the Contraloría General de la República clarifies that he refers to the personnel actions that allowed the payment for the prohibition (prohibición) component month after month, from May 2008. It must be indicated that the dates or details that allow issuing a pronouncement of nullity for each and every one of these acts are not available. However, it must be taken into account that since the administrative conduct that recognized the payment of 20% and later of 65%, and the retroactive payment for the prohibition (prohibición) component in favor of Mr. Nombre111673 are being annulled, the conduct that is related to these formal actions, such as the bi-weekly payment acts where percentages for the prohibition (prohibición) payment component were recognized from May 2008 to date, would lack legal basis due to the declared nullity of the former. Nevertheless, the Court cannot generally and abstractly declare nullities.

**X- ON THE DECLARATORY CLAIM IDENTIFIED AS G** The plaintiff requests that Nombre111673 and the Municipalidad de Osa be ordered to refrain in the future from performing administrative conduct similar to that challenged in this lawsuit. In this regard, it must be indicated that it is not possible for this Collegiate Body to pronounce in those terms. Both the Municipal Administration and Mr. Nombre111673 are, in the exercise of their functions, subject to the Principle of Legality, Internal Control rules that they must enforce, and the Principle of Probity, which are already implicit for Mr. Nombre111673 as an official appointed by popular election, as well as for the Municipal entity in the performance of its obligations and actions. It will be in each of their actions that their legality can be analyzed if necessary. Thus, this claim is rejected.

**XI- ON THE EXCEPTIONS** Regarding the Expiration (Caducidad) alleged by the representation of Mr. Nombre111673, it has already been resolved and rejected. Despite no substantive exceptions having been formulated, it is the duty of the Court to examine ex officio the material requirements of the action, such as the right, active and passive standing (legitimación), and the interest. For this reason, **having analyzed the right**, it is observed that in accordance with the cited regulations, the evidence provided, and the factual grounds presented, the right invoked by the plaintiff in support of its claims is partially upheld, since it was possible to accredit the nullity of the administrative conduct, as well as the obligation of Mr. Nombre111673 to reimburse to the Public Treasury all sums received for the prohibition (prohibición) payment component to which he was not entitled. **Regarding active ad causam standing (legitimación ad causam activa) and lack of passive ad causam standing (falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva)**, in accordance with the facts aired in this action and according to the material legal relationship under analysis, it is evident that the Contraloría body, in the exercise of its control and oversight powers, has the active standing to bring action in this proceeding against both defendants for the purpose of seeking the annulment of the flawed administrative conduct and the recovery of the Public Treasury's money. Regarding the **interest**, there is a current, valid, and palpable need for the promoter to go to judicial courts to challenge the impugned conduct that is causing harm to its patrimonial interests.

**XII- ON COSTS (COSTAS)** Since the co-defendants MUNICIPALIDAD DE OSA and Nombre111673 have been defeated, and there being no merit for their exoneration, in accordance with section 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, both are ordered to pay both costs (costas) of the proceeding.

**POR TANTO** The defense of Expiration (Caducidad) raised by the representation of Mr. Nombre111673 is rejected. Consequently, the lawsuit is partially granted, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in what is not expressly granted. 1) The following administrative acts of the Municipalidad de Osa, personnel actions numbers 00269 of May 16, 2008 and 062 of January 29, 2010, are declared absolutely null. 2) Mr. Nombre111673 must reimburse to the Public Treasury, in this specific case to the Municipalidad de Osa, the sums unduly paid for the prohibition (prohibición) component from May 2008 to the date he continues to receive said stipend and until the judgment becomes final (firmeza del fallo), which must be established in the judgment enforcement stage (etapa de ejecución de sentencia). 3) Both costs (costas) of the action are the responsibility of the co-defendants Municipalidad de Osa and Nombre111673.

Notify.

&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; **Grace Emilia Loaiza Sánchez** ** ** &nbsp; &nbsp; **Claudia Bolaños Salazar** ** ** ** Otto González Vilchez** &nbsp; **Trial Judges** **First Section** &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; b) Delegate the functions entrusted by this law, based on articles 89 and following of the General Public Administration Law (...)

**VI- ON THE MATTER OF COMPETENCE** Although the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, as the plaintiff in this proceeding, accuses the administrative actions of being null, alleging defects in the reason (motivo) and consequently in the purpose (fin) for departing from the satisfaction of the public interest, this Panel of Judges proceeds to analyze the Competence of the Mayor of the Municipality of Osa in issuing the administrative actions adopted by him for his own benefit. On the matter of Competence, the plaintiff in this proceeding does not directly allege a defect of that element, even though in the facts of its complaint it affirms that Mr. Cole de León proceeded to a self-approval of the payment for the concept of prohibition (prohibición). It is essential, in order to justify this Chamber of Judges entering to analyze the matter of competence not formally alleged by the plaintiff, that the First Chamber, in reiterated rulings, among them 775-A-S1-2013 of 16 hours 5 minutes on June 13, 2013, ordered:

“ **III.-** After a new analysis of the matter, specifically, reconsidered regarding the competent body to declare the lesivity (lesividad) of the complex act that granted the pension to the defendant under the National Teachers' Pension and Retirement Regime, and for the purposes of a correct resolution of the issue, it is necessary to specify the following aspects: 1) The matter of the competence of the body or entity to declare the act lesivo (lesivo), as a condition precedent to filing the lesivity (lesividad) proceeding, is an aspect of an eminently procedural nature, provided for by the regulations in force for this type of jurisdictional conflict. Therefore, the Administration that seeks the annulment of its own act must proceed as regulated by the Administrative Contentious Procedural Code (CPCA). 2) *Ex officio declaration of the invalidity of an act by virtue of a substantial infringement. Duty of the judge*. The General Public Administration Law (LGAP) establishes that the act must be issued by the competent body and by the regularly designated public servant at the time of issuing it, "...prior compliance with all the substantial procedures provided for that purpose..." and the indispensable requirements for the exercise of the competence (article 129). Also, that the judge may not declare the invalidity of the act ex officio "...*except in cases of substantial infringements relating to the subject (sujeto)*, the procedure, or the form, *in which cases they must do so.* / For the purposes of this article, the subject (sujeto) shall be understood as an element encompassing the existence of the entity and its capacity, the existence of the body and its competence, the necessary requirements for the exercise thereof, and the regular investiture of the public servant. / The judge may control ex officio the existence of all the aforesaid extremes in relation to the subject (sujeto) of the act, with the exception contained in the following paragraph. / Relative incompetence may not be declared or asserted ex officio." (canon 182, subsection 1) (The underlining is not from the original). Of interest, that provision determines the obligation of the judge to declare ex officio the invalidity of an act when there is a substantial infringement relating to the subject (sujeto), that is, regarding who adopts the act. On this point, this Chamber has stated that "...From reading the recently transcribed rule, various important elements to consider in the present case emerge. Firstly, and as was advanced, it is not a power of the judge, but rather compliance is mandatory. The judge's action is linked to what is provided by the legal system, not only regarding its application to the case that the parties submit to their knowledge, but also, regarding the jurisdictional activity that they carry out. In this sense, it is imperative for them to rule on the indicated aspects when resolving any matter…." (Resolution no. 804-F-S1-2008 of 9 hours 30 minutes on December 4, 2008). 3) The CPCA, enacted by Law no. 8508 of April 28, 2006, entered into force on January 1, 2008. In mandate 34, subsection 3), it is expressly established that: "The Government Council shall be responsible for the declaration of lesivity (lesividad) of administrative acts issued by two or more ministries, or by these together with a decentralized entity. In such cases, they may not be declared lesivos (lesivos) by a minister of a different branch." In the presence of a specific regulation that obliges the ex officio review of essential defects referring to the subject (sujeto) and the competence, this Chamber cannot ignore the existence of the pathology in question.” According to the foregoing, this Court is empowered to review the element of competence in the challenged administrative actions. Article 129 of the General Public Administration Law establishes that the act must be issued by the competent body and by the regularly designated public servant at the time of issuing it, prior compliance with all the substantial procedures provided for that purpose and the indispensable requirements for the exercise of the competence. From the facts deemed proven and of interest for this matter, we have that Mr. Jorge Alberto Cole de León was appointed as Mayor of the Municipality of the Canton of Osa for the periods 2007 to 2011 and reelected from 2011 to 2016, a position he currently holds. The acts challenged by the Comptroller entity were issued on May 16, 2008 (personnel action 00269) and on January 29, 2010 (personnel action 0062). From the review of the first one, visible on folio 3 of volume I of the administrative file, it is evident from the Personnel Action form of the Municipality of Osa, that the proceeding is in the name of Servant Jorge Alberto Cole de León with an effective date of May 16, 2008, position Municipal Mayor, that a salary increase is ordered, and in the Observations "*Payment of the recognition of the Prohibition (sic) of 20%, according to official letter FOE-SM-0754 based on Law 8422 against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function*" document signed by Mr. Alberto Cole de León in his capacity as Municipal Mayor. In the second document visible on folio 38 of the administrative file, volume I, a Personnel Action of the Municipality of Osa is observed, servant's name Cole de León Alberto, position Municipal Mayor, for the concept of salary increase and in observations "*Recognition of the difference of the 45% prohibition since according to personnel action No. 00269, 20% was paid to him, and according to Law 8422, 65% corresponds, so said percentage is paid to him as of 01/01/2010, according to official letter DAM-ALCAOSA-0070-2010*" document signed by Alberto Cole de León in his capacity as Municipal Mayor. Having set forth the above, it is accredited that Mr. Jorge Alberto Cole de León, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, proceeded to approve for his own benefit the salary increases for the concept of payment of prohibition (prohibición), first for 20% and then for 65%, which correspond to the personnel actions challenged here, 00269-2008 of May 2008 and 062 of January 2010. It remains to be established whether the Mayor was in a position to sign administrative acts that conferred rights upon him as an official of the Municipality or whether he should have abstained from participating in the proceeding, approval, and payment order for his own benefit. In this regard, in his answer, Mr. Cole de León indicates that at the time the acts were issued, only he could sign them, because at the time he approved "*the vice-mayoral positions did not exist full-time.*" It must be indicated that the acts occurred at different times, the first in 2008 when what the regulation (article 14) established was the figure of the Substitute Mayor and by 2010 the Figure of the Vice Mayor. Notwithstanding the above, for both times, article 17 established the powers corresponding to the Mayor, subsection a) relating to the condition of General Administrator and Head of the municipal dependencies, watching over the organization, functioning, coordination, and faithful compliance with municipal agreements, laws, and regulations in general, and the possibility of b) Delegating the functions entrusted by this law, based on articles 89 and following of the General Public Administration Law (...). From the foregoing, it is deduced that the granting of competences is express and by means of law; however, the same legal system offers the possibility that changes in the given competence may operate through the transfers established in the law with the presuppositions and particular limitations of each figure. It is true that for the issuance of both administrative acts, Mr. Alberto Cole de León, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, had as his power that of General Administrator and head of Municipal dependencies, so it was his responsibility to approve, once the corresponding studies were carried out when necessary, the administrative procedures of the Municipality, among these the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) to whomever corresponded by law. But precisely because of his power, to authorize such payment he had to review compliance with the corresponding requirements for that or any other proceeding that implies the disposition of money from the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública), and it is precisely what subsection b) already cited protects: the possibility of delegating the functions entrusted by law in accordance with articles 89 and following of the General Public Administration Law. The cited legal body, in its article 70, mandates that competence shall be exercised by the head of the respective body, except in cases of delegation, avocation (avocación), substitution, subrogation (subrogación), and in accordance with the above, article 230 mandates that the same grounds for impediment and recusal (impedimento y recusación) established in the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch shall be grounds for abstention, in addition to those resulting from article 102 of the Financial Administration Law of the Republic. Turning to such citations, the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, in article 31, mandates that in the absence of an express rule on impediments, excuses, and recusals, what is provided by the Civil Procedure Code shall apply, and upon review of such legal body, subsection 1) of article 49 establishes that there shall be an impediment to hear cases in which one has a direct interest. Applying this assumption to the one analyzed here, it is evident to this Chamber of Judges that Mr. Alberto Cole de León should have abstained (abstenerse) and excused himself from hearing and authorizing an administrative action that granted rights to himself. Mr. Cole de León's excuse that there was no official appointed full-time is not valid, and this for the first act because by the date the second was issued, the figure of the Vice Mayor had already been provided for. Therefore, his justification finds no basis whatsoever for this Panel of Judges. The Mayor had the legal and ethical obligation as a public servant, and even more so as one of popular election, to be transparent in his actions, and this obliged him to separate himself from hearing conditions that could grant personal benefits, as in the specific case. This Court considers that the Municipal Code itself granted him, in subsection b) of article 17, the legal avenue to abstain from hearing the acts here challenged. However, on the contrary, Mr. Cole de León proceeded to approve rights and payments of monies from the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) in his favor. The foregoing, without this chamber having issued a criterion on the legality of the reason (motivo) for them, concludes that the challenged administrative acts, in accordance with the doctrine of articles 129 and 166 of the General Public Administration Law, carry a defect of absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) in the challenged acts, due to the subject (sujeto) who issued them, in this case Mr. Cole de León, and consequently, they are thereby vitiated and must be declared null.

**VII- ON THE PAYMENT OF THE PROHIBITION (PROHIBICIÓN) TO MUNICIPAL MAYORS.** Law 8422, called “*Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function*”, has been in force since October 29, 2014, and provides in its Second Chapter on the Preventive Regime, article 14: “**Prohibition on practicing liberal professions (profesiones liberales)** . The President of the Republic, the Vice Presidents, the magistrates of the Judicial Branch and of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the ministers, the Comptroller General and the Deputy Comptroller General of the Republic, the Ombudsman and the Deputy Ombudsman of the Inhabitants, the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General of the Republic, the General Regulator of the Republic, the Attorney General of the Republic (fiscal general), the vice ministers, the senior officials (oficiales mayores), the executive presidents, the managers, and the administrative directors of decentralized entities, autonomous institutions, semi-autonomous institutions, and public enterprises, the superintendents of financial, securities, and pension entities, their respective intendents, ***as well as municipal mayors*** (bold and underlining not in the original) and the deputy managers and deputy administrative directors, the internal comptrollers and deputy internal comptrollers, the internal auditors and deputy internal auditors of the Public Administration, as well as department directors and deputy directors and the heads of procurement (proveeduría) of the Public Sector. Within this article are included the other professions that the official possesses, even if they do not constitute a requirement to hold the respective public office.” An economic retribution is established for the prohibition on practicing liberal professions (profesiones liberales). “*Unless there is a special remuneration regime for the public official, the economic compensation for the application of the preceding Article shall be equivalent to sixty-five percent (65%) on the base salary set for the category of the respective position*”. Subsequently, Executive Decree 32333 Regulation to the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function was issued, in force as of April 29, 2005, in which subsection 39 of article one develops what constitutes the “*Prohibition (Prohibición): For the purposes of article 14 of the Law against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function, prohibition shall be understood as the obligation not to practice the profession subject to contracting in a liberal manner or privately. Within this prohibition shall be understood as included the other professions that the official possesses, even if they do not constitute a requirement to hold the respective public office”*. For its part, on the matter of the prohibition (prohibición), the Constitutional Chamber has stated: *"(...) officials or employees subject to prohibition (prohibición) are absolutely prevented not only from holding other public positions but also from performing, in the private sector, activities related to the positions they hold in the State, except, of course, in the exceptions that the regulation itself establishes, based either on the nature of the activity –teaching– or when it involves the defense of personal interests or those of their close relatives. Said limitation is imposed (...) when the liberal practice of the profession or activity is incompatible with the public position held, that is, when it could generate serious harm to the interests of the Public Administration (...) It is clear, from what has been said, that only those activities whose private practice is incompatible with the function that the servant performs are subject to the prohibition (prohibición) (...) The lack of such incompatibility, on the contrary, empowers the public servant to practice their profession or trade privately, subject to the responsibilities of the case if they thereby incur any labor fault (...)"* (Judgment No. 3369-96 of 10:27 hours on July 5, 1996). Having set forth the above, there is not the slightest doubt that the Legislator imposed on the figure of Municipal Mayors a prohibition on practicing liberal professions (profesiones liberales) and imposed compensation of 65% on the salary for the limitation that is effectively imposed on the liberal practice of the profession. Specifically on the matter of Professional Freedom, the Constitutional Chamber has developed: “*III.- ON PROFESSIONAL FREEDOM. The Political Constitution does not expressly enshrine professional freedom; however, this fundamental freedom can be deduced from the harmonious interpretation of several constitutional rights, specifically, articles 46 and 56 of the Political Charter, which guarantee the right to work and business freedom in our legal system. The essential content of professional freedom comprises the right to choose a profession and the free practice of the professional activity. Although these two concepts are closely related, state interventions in each of these facets occur with different intensity. Thus, the choice of profession must be an act of self-determination of the free will of the individual and must remain, as far as possible, protected from any intervention by public power. On the other hand, through the practice of the profession, the individual directly intervenes in social life; consequently, restrictions may be imposed in the interest of others. In this way, non-affectation of third parties, the protection of public morals and order are conditions that justify the establishment of limitations on the practice of professional activity (article 28 of the Constitution). Now, the principle of legal reservation applies here, which determines that only through a norm with the force of law – in a formal and material sense – is it possible to restrict fundamental rights. Likewise, the principle “pro libertatis” applies, which provides that every legal norm must be interpreted in a way that favors freedom. However, it is reiterated, the freedom to practice a profession can be restricted by law to the extent that reasonable considerations of public interest demand it, while the freedom to choose a profession, on the contrary, can only be restricted to the extent that the protection of an especially important common good justifies it. From that perspective, the protection of values as diverse as health, education, welfare, and security, grounds the intervention of the State – by means of law – in the practice of liberal professions (profesiones liberales), in order to guarantee the quality and reliability of the services provided, as well as the non-affectation of third parties and respect for public morals and order.”* (Emphasis added) Vote 1819-2005 of February 25, 2005, of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Furthermore, it is important to mention some considerations that the Constitutional Body has issued: *"V.- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRACTICE OF A LIBERAL PROFESSION (PROFESIÓN LIBERAL) AND A LUCRATIVE ACTIVITY. Traditionally, within liberal professions (profesiones liberales) are grouped those that involve the exercise of an intellectual or technical activity, through the application of certain scientific and technical rules that must be handled with utmost propriety by their holder, prior authorization to practice it through obtaining a suitable and adequate degree and, eventually, incorporation into the respective professional association. The uniqueness of liberal professions (profesiones liberales) arises from the lack of a dependency relationship with their clientele, so that the liberal professional has full autonomy and independence in the manner of providing professional services - schedule, place, etc.- given that they do it on their own account, which is why their services are remunerated through fees. The liberal professional applies, for a specific case, their scientific or technical knowledge without submitting to any direction and under their exclusive responsibility, that is, according to their loyal knowledge and understanding. It is necessary to point out that the practice of a liberal profession (profesión liberal) is intimately linked to professional freedom, which includes the freedom to freely choose the profession one intends to practice and, once obtained through adequate certification and the corresponding membership, the freedom to practice it freely without other limits than those necessary to guarantee correctness, supervision, and oversight in its practice and the protection of the public interest and, in particular, of the consumers of professional services. The practice of a liberal profession (profesión liberal) aims to provide the one who carries it out with a remuneration that ensures a dignified quality of life, both personally and family-wise."* Vote 18141-2009 of 11:12 hours on November 27, 2009 [….].” San José, at eleven hours and thirty minutes on the eighth of December of two thousand fourteen.

**Ordinary proceeding** processed under case number **11-6191-1027-CA**, filed by the **CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA,** represented by Ms. Rocío Aguilar Montoya, of legal age, married, licensed in Law and Business Administration, identity card CED29778 in her capacity as Comptroller General of the Republic, in the proceeding the plaintiff represented by Licenciado Juan Pablo Vargas Quirós, of legal age, single, attorney, identity card CED22221 against **Nombre111673** , of legal age, divorced, resident of Ciudad Cortés de Osa, identity card CED8902, represented in the proceeding by Licenciado Reyner Muñoz Piedra and the **MUNICIPALIDAD DE OSA,** represented by the Vice-Mayor Ms. Yanina Chavatti Rosales, of legal age, married, Costa Rican, resident of Dirección13363 , identity card CED88327, and in the proceeding by Licenciada Leidy Martínez González, of legal age, attorney.

**WHEREAS:** **I-** The present ordinary proceeding is brought with the objective that the judgment declare in pertinent part: "*b) That it declare the non-conformity with the legal order of the challenged administrative conducts. c) That it order the absolute nullity of personnel actions No. 269-2008 and No. 62-2010, through which the payment of prohibition on the private practice of the profession was recognized to Nombre111673 , which have had continued effects from their issuance to date. d) That in accordance with the provisions of articles 36 subsection d) in relation to 122 subsection k) of the CPCA, the material actions connected to the formal administrative acts challenged herein be annulled (as well as any other formal act that has a direct and indirect relationship with the conducts questioned herein), which may have continuously and uninterruptedly maintained the payment of prohibition in favor of Nombre111673 . e) That it be declared that Nombre111673 is not entitled to any payment for the concept of prohibition on the private practice of the profession. f) That Nombre111673 be condemned in his personal capacity, to reimburse to the Public Treasury the entirety of the amount he has illegally received for the concept of prohibition, from the month of May 2008 until the date on which judgment is rendered (which at this moment amounts to the sum of **FIFTY-EIGHT MILLION SIX HUNDRED FORTY-FOUR THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-TWO COLONES WITH THREE CÉNTIMOS),** a sum duly indexed plus interest until its effective payment, values that will be made concrete in the execution of judgment proceeding. g) That Nombre111673 and the Municipalidad de Osa be ordered to refrain from carrying out in the future administrative conducts similar to those challenged in this lawsuit. h) That the defendants be condemned to pay the procedural and personal costs of this proceeding*." **II-** The defendant Nombre111673 contests the lawsuit negatively.

**III-** The representation of the Municipalidad de Osa contested the lawsuit negatively.

**IV-** The oral and public trial was held on the 20th of October, which was attended by all the parties to the proceeding and was reopened on the 17th of November of two thousand fourteen.

**V-** In the trial hearing, the representation of the Contraloría General de la República offered, as complementary evidence, certification from the Municipalidad de Osa regarding the amount that has been paid to the defendant Nombre111673 for the concept of prohibition, on which the parties were granted a hearing and it was admitted.

**VI-** The representation of the defendant Nombre111673 in the oral hearing raised the Exception of Expiration of the action in accordance with numerals 67 and 39 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, on which the parties were granted a hearing.

**VII-** That the present proceeding was declared a complex process, in accordance with article 111 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo and the judgment has been rendered in accordance with ordinal 47 of its regulations.

**VIII-** In the proceedings, the pertinent legal prescriptions have been observed, and no defects or omissions susceptible of producing nullity of the actions or defenselessness to the parties are observed. This resolution is rendered after deliberation, within the term of law and unanimously.

*Drafted by Judge Loaiza Sánchez; and* **WHEREAS:** **I- ON THE FACTS HELD AS PROVEN:** **1-** Mr. Nombre111673 studied at the University of Costa Rica and completed a short program, and obtained the academic undergraduate degree of Diplomado in Radiotecnology (see proof 8 of the evidence disk); **2-** Mr. Nombre111673 was appointed as Mayor of the Cantón de Osa for the periods 2007 to 2011 and reelected in such condition from 2011 to 2016, a position he holds at the time of the oral and public trial (facts not controverted by the parties and answer to fact 2, folio 250 of the judicial file); **3-** On May 16, 2008 (official letter FOE-SM-0754) the Gerencia de Servicios Municipales of the Contraloría General de la República communicated to Mr. Nombre111673 in his condition as Mayor the partial approval of the extraordinary budget Number 2-2008 of the Municipalidad de Osa and on the topic of the prohibition indicates in pertinent part "*Due to the fact that said recognition is appropriate only in cases where a special law authorizes it, the budgetary content for said payment is approved in the case of the positions of Provider and Mayor based on the Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública (...)*" (see folios 2 of tome I of the administrative file and 182 to 184 of the main file); **4-** By means of personnel action number 00269 of May 16, 2008, from the Municipalidad de Osa, Mr. Nombre111673 in his condition as Mayor and in his favor, ordered a salary increase for the concept of the recognition of the Prohibition of 20% with justification according to official letter FOE-SM-0754 (see proof 1 of the evidence disk, folio 3 of the administrative file tome I); **5-** The previous personnel action was signed by Mr. Nombre111673 and a human resources official (see proof 1 evidence disk and folios 3 of tome I of the administrative file); **6-** On August 6, 2008, the Contraloría General de la República communicated to Mr. Nombre111673 in his condition as Mayor of the Municipalidad de Osa that in relation to the request for information and the documentation sent by that municipal corporation regarding the recognition and payment of prohibition on the exercise of liberal professions, in the study of the cases of the Mayor and Municipal Provider, on the Comptroller's electronic page information is found called Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento ilícito en la función pública annotated and concorded (see proof # 2 of the evidence disk); **7-** In official letter DAGJ-1333-2008 (10455) dated October 8, 2008, the Contraloría General de la República communicates a Report to Mr. Nombre111673 in his condition as Mayor of the Municipalidad de Osa that in attention to the application of the prohibition on the exercise of liberal professions in the municipalities, which in pertinent part indicates "*Conclusions. The prohibition on the private practice of the profession constitutes a limitation on a fundamental freedom, a particularity that demands a restrictive interpretation and application of said figure, and demands from those to whom the determination of the affected positions corresponds, prudent, informed action adhered to what the corresponding regulations establish. This excludes broad interpretations that exceed the legal and jurisprudential criteria and parameters under which the prohibition must be applied, making it extensive to positions whose attributions, functions, and responsibilities do not correspond to those subject to said restriction, and in the event that the existence of an application in these terms is determined, the municipal authorities are compelled to immediately exercise the respective disciplinary and recovery actions, this in protection of adequate guardianship of public funds and in pursuit of restoring a legality that may have been broken.*” (see proof number 2 of the evidence disk); **8-** In the cited official letter DAGJ-1333-2008, the Mayor of Osa was summoned so that within the non-extendable period of fifteen business days, the Municipality must verify if the manner in which the prohibition has been applied conforms to the criteria and parameters outlined and in general its conformity with the legal order. 2. Taking into account the list of officials –previously sent to that comptroller organ–, to whom prohibition is being recognized, it must be indicated if the verification has implied any violation or change of said list, and if so, the immediate actions to be adopted in order to bring each case to law and recover sums improperly paid. 3. The confirmation of the list of servants– with the eventual changes that are noted– will be taken by the Contraloría General as a confirmation of the legality in the recognition of the prohibition in that Municipality, and in the independent exercise of its attributions, it may be used as a basis for oversight actions as well as for disciplinary and civil liability actions that correspond. 4.

The verification ordered herein and the remittance of its results under the indicated terms must be made to the Legal Advisory and Management Division of this oversight body within the aforementioned timeframe (…) (see evidentiary disk exhibit # 2); **9-** Said official letter was personally notified to Mr. Nombre111673 on October 22, 2008 (see notification record, evidentiary disk exhibit # 2); **10-** On January 25, 2010, the legal advisor of the Municipality of Osa issued a legal opinion regarding the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) to Mr. Nombre111673 for holding the position of Municipal Mayor, concluding that the payment of the prohibition to the Mayor was appropriate because “*it is an inherent aspect of the position*” (see exhibit 4 on evidentiary disk and folios 18 to 26 of administrative file volume I); **11-** By means of personnel action number 062 of January 29, 2010, of the Municipality of Osa, Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor and for his own benefit, ordered a salary increase for the recognition of the difference in the 45% prohibition (prohibición), given that, according to personnel action No. 00269, he was being paid 20%, and in accordance with Law 8422, it corresponds to 65%, therefore ordering the indicated percentage to be paid as of 01/01/2010, pursuant to official letter DAM-ALCAOSA-0070-2010 (see exhibit 4 of the evidentiary disk and folio 38 of administrative file volume I); **12-** The preceding personnel action was signed by Mr. Nombre111673 and a human resources official (see folios 38 of volume I of the administrative file and evidentiary disk exhibit # 4); **13-** On January 29, 2010, the Municipal Accountant forwarded a missive to the head of Human Resources of the Municipality of Osa, indicating that, after prior discussion on the matter with officials of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) to the Mayor must be applied at a percentage of 65%, for which the Mayor must request the corresponding study from that Human Resources Department in order to determine compliance with the legal and academic requirements (folios 40 and 41 of administrative file Volume I, 185 and 186 of the judicial file); **14-** The Human Resources office of the Municipality of Osa issued, on February 15, 2010, a technical opinion on the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) and the percentage to be paid, corresponding to 65%, regarding Mr. Nombre111673 in his capacity as Municipal Mayor (see official letter PRH- oficio 15-2010, folios 48 to 53 of administrative file volume I); **15-** Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Osa, proceeded to sign in that capacity the Payment Order Payroll number 009654, dated April 14, 2010, by which the payment of the retroactive amount for the prohibition (prohibición) in his favor is authorized (see folio 49 of Volume II of the administrative file); **16-** Nombre111673 has been authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons under code TEC-1221 as a Technologist in Radiological Procedures since August 18, 1987, and must practice his profession under the supervision of a specialist physician (see numbered exhibit 6, official letter issued by the general attorney of the College of Physicians and Surgeons on the evidentiary disk); **17-** The co-defendant Nombre111673 has worked for the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social) since June 8, 1980, and as of the month of March 2012, holds a permanent position with leave without pay, as a Professional Technician 1 in the Radiodiagnosis service (see folio 259 of the judicial file); **18-** That Mr. Nombre111673, in his performance as a Technician at the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, has worked without supervision because, due to a lack of human resources, the medical service does not have a Physician in Radiology (see folio 259 of the main file); **19-** The representation of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic filed, before the Municipality of Osa, an Extraordinary Appeal for Review (Recurso extraordinario de Revisión) against the acts questioned herein in the month of May 20118 (see folios 139 to 149 of volume II of the administrative file); **20-** This Administrative Litigation action was filed before this court on November 4, 2011 (see folio 1 of the judicial file); **21-** The preceding Extraordinary Appeal for Review (Recurso Extraordinario de Revisión) was resolved by the Municipality of Osa on December 21, 2011, and communicated on December 22, 2011 (see folios 160 to 170 of administrative file volume II); **22-** Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor of Osa, has been paid the prohibition (prohibición) since the month of May 2008, and he has been paid, for said concept up to the first fortnight of October 2014, the sum of one hundred twenty-one million five hundred fifty-two thousand fifteen thirteen colones and sixty-four céntimos (C 121,552,513.64), broken down as follows: eighty-two million four hundred five thousand eight hundred fifteen colones and eight céntimos (C 82,405,815.08) for payment of the prohibition (prohibición); fifteen million seven hundred eighty-five thousand seven hundred seventy-one colones and seventy-six céntimos (c 15,785,771.76) for social charges paid by the employer generated from the payment of the prohibition; five million two hundred sixty-nine thousand one hundred ninety-five colones and five céntimos (C 5,269,195.05) for the year-end bonuses (aguinaldos) arising from the payment of the prohibition; two million nine hundred seventy-three thousand two hundred thirty-two colones and eighty-three céntimos (C 2,973,323.83) for the school salary (salario escolar) arising from the payment of the prohibition; and fifteen million one hundred eighteen thousand four hundred ninety-eight colones and ninety-two céntimos (C 15,118,498.92) corresponding to the retroactive payment made in 2010 for the differences in the prohibition (prohibición) paid in the years 2008 and 2009 upon going from 20% to 65% (see folios 367 to 370 of the main file).

**II- REGARDING THE UNPROVEN FACTS** **1-** That Mr. Nombre111673 recused himself from the knowledge or approval of the prohibition (prohibición) and/or its differences for his own benefit (the court record); **2-** That Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Mayor of the Municipality of Osa, abstained from being involved in the incorporation into his own salary of the items corresponding to the prohibition (prohibición) (the court record); **3-** That the knowledge of the appropriateness of the prohibition (prohibición) item in the case of Mayor Nombre111673, or the signing of the personnel actions ordering the payment of said items in favor of Mr. Nombre111673, was transferred to the Acting Mayor or to the Vice-Mayors of the Municipality of Osa (the court record); **4-** That Mr. Nombre111673, when he was appointed as Mayor of the Municipality of Osa, was practicing a liberal profession (profesión liberal) (the court record).

**III- REGARDING THE OBJECT OF THE PROCEEDING AND THE PARTIES' ALLEGATIONS** The representation of the Oversight Body challenges the Municipality of Osa for granting, through Personnel Actions No. 269-2008 and No. 062-2010, the recognition to Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor, of the payment corresponding to the prohibition (prohibición) without having performed the minimum study of the necessary academic and professional requirements. Regarding the co-defendant Nombre111673, he is sued in his personal capacity and the financial reimbursement of the monies received for the prohibition (prohibición) is sought, asserting that Mr. Nombre111673 was aware that he lacks the requirements for its appropriateness. It argues that the prohibition on the liberal practice of the profession (prohibición al ejercicio liberal de la profesión) constitutes a restriction legally imposed on some public officials so that they do not practice their professions and dedicate themselves entirely to their public tasks and responsibilities. That through the payment of the prohibition (prohibición), the aim is to avoid the real or potential emergence of conflicts of interest, and such a restriction on fundamental freedom can only be mandated by law. Regarding liberal professions (profesionales liberales), it points to those practiced in the services market, and therefore one must possess an academic degree granting that professional status in a branch of knowledge, as well as incorporation into the respective Professional Association (Colegio Profesional). In the specific case, it states that they forwarded to the Municipal entity a series of provisions and recommendations that should have been taken into account for the appropriateness of the payment of the prohibition (prohibición), which, in its opinion, the Municipality ignored, recognizing from the month of May 2008 the payment for said concept to Mr. Nombre111673, who does not meet one of the essential requirements to enjoy the payment “*which is the possession of an academic degree that accredits him as a professional and, to that extent, with sufficient academic and professional aptitude to be able to practice a profession in a liberal manner*”. It claims that it was the Mayor himself who approved such a benefit in his own favor, without meeting the requirements for said benefit. It indicates that the Office of the Comptroller General at no time induced the Municipal Administration into error, that it was the mistaken opinion of the Municipality that caused such payment, and that the Office of the Comptroller issues opinions in general, not specific cases; that when the budget was approved, it was indicated that the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) to the Mayor was, however, in general terms, the determination of whether it corresponded to Mr. Nombre111673 in such a condition falls to the Municipal entity, not to the Office of the Comptroller; that it is clear that in this case Mr. Nombre111673 does not meet the academic or professional requirements. It seeks the annulment of the personnel actions through which the payment to Mr. Nombre111673 was recognized and ordered, as well as all subsequent actions that month by month have allowed the continuation of its payment, and the return to the Public Treasury of the money paid for said concept. For his part, the representative of the co-defendant Nombre111673 rejects the lawsuit, and indicates that the approach taken by the oversight official of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic is incorrect, imprecise, and lacks technical-legal foundation. It is alleged that the recognition of the prohibition (prohibición) was made based on the advice of the oversight body, as well as prior studies conducted by the internal bodies of the Municipality, such as Human Resources and the Legal Advisory Office; furthermore, that he never influenced the decision to pay, but merely performed the pertinent administrative task, and that only he could sign, since at the time the payment was approved, the vice-mayoral positions did not exist on a full-time basis. That contrary to what the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic affirms, he meets the requirements demanded by the regulations for the recognition of the prohibition (prohibición), given that the University of Costa Rica issued him an academic degree, which allowed him to join the professional association (colegiarse) and work at the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, and that there was neither willful misconduct (dolo) nor gross negligence (culpa grave) in his conduct; moreover, it is clear that he is a professional, who must follow the physician's request in the practice of his work, but in carrying it out, he is the one who possesses the knowledge for it. He states that it is not personnel action No. 269-2008 that authorizes the payment of the 20% prohibition (prohibición), but rather through document FOE-SM-0754, the partial approval of extraordinary budget No. 2-2008 of the Municipality of Osa carried out by the Office of the Comptroller. He affirms that the recognition was approved for him after prior studies, and that he holds the academic degree, as established by the Office of the Comptroller's own opinion, as a technician-radiologist, and that the normative budget enabling the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) has nothing to do with requiring the supervision of another professional to practice. In the conclusions of the trial, the representative of Mr. Nombre111673 indicates that it must be taken into account that at the time of his graduation in 1987, only a technical degree existed, as inferred from numeral 1 of the Regulation (Reglamento) and article 4 of the Organic Law of the College of Physicians (Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Médicos), and that pursuant to numeral 33 of the regulations governing him, he may carry out the practice of the technical profession in the manner he deems appropriate. The Municipal representation, in its response, acknowledges that it is through personnel action No. 00269-2008 that Mr. Nombre111673 is authorized the payment of recognition of the 20% prohibition (prohibición), in compliance with document FOE-SM-0754 issued by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, through which it partially approves extraordinary budget 2-2008 of the Municipality of Osa, and that although official letter 10455 was subsequently issued by the Office of the Comptroller, it was never stated that diploma or technical degrees were not taken into account as professional degrees, and that its recommendation was that the official hold a university academic degree, and that in its opinion, the University Degree issued by the University of Costa Rica has the character of a professional degree. Regarding the recognition of 65% through personnel action No. 62-2010, it was a consequence of a supervisory study to which the Municipal entity was subject by the Office of the Comptroller. Regarding the fact that Mr. Nombre111673 had to practice his profession under the supervision of a specialist physician, from its viewpoint, this does not invalidate the fact that he can practice his profession in a liberal manner, since what Mr. Nombre111673 holds is a university degree called an undergraduate degree (pregrado) consisting of a diploma in radio technology. In summary, it indicates that Mr. Nombre111673 meets the requirements for the prohibition (prohibición) to be recognized for him and is affected by the Law on Illicit Enrichment (Ley de Enriquecimiento ilícito), holds a university academic degree, is incorporated into the respective professional association (Colegio), and that such a condition was determined from the technical studies carried out prior to the granting of the prohibition, and requests that the lawsuit be dismissed.

**IV- REGARDING THE ALLEGED EXPIRATION (CADUCIDAD).** The representative of the plaintiff raised, at the beginning of the oral and public trial, the defense of Expiration (Caducidad) pursuant to numeral 67 of the Code of Administrative Litigation and Civil Procedure of the Treasury (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda). He bases his argument by stating that the plaintiff filed the proceeding after the year had elapsed as provided in article 39 of the aforementioned regulatory body. The representation of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic opposes said defense, and indicates that, on the contrary, because the Municipality of Osa did not rule at the administrative stage on the appeal for review (recurso de revisión) filed by that Oversight Body, they had to file a legal protection action (amparo de legalidad) before this Court to obtain a response. It further indicates that the acts sought to be declared null and void are of a continuous effect, given that the first personnel action was issued on May 16, 2008, and month after month its effects have continued due to the payment made for the prohibition (prohibición) to Mr. Nombre111673, who has served as Mayor in the period from 2007 to 2011 and from 2011 to 2016 because he was re-elected. In response to said defense, effectively numeral 67 of the Code of Administrative Litigation allows for the filing of the Expiration (Caducidad) defense in the proceeding before the conclusion of the oral and public trial, and given that it was filed by the representative of Mr. Nombre111673 at the beginning of the oral and public hearing, its filing is admissible, and the analysis of said defense proceeds immediately. The acts that the Comptroller entity seeks to have declared null date from - personnel action number 00269- of May 16, 2008, and - personnel action 062- of January 29, 2010-, the first of which recognizes Mr. Nombre111673 205 for the prohibition (prohibición) concept and the second where the increase in the percentage from 20% to 65% is recognized; said acts were challenged at the administrative stage on May 5, 2011 (folio 139 of volume II of the administrative file) and were resolved by the Municipality on December 21, 2011, a date on which the present Administrative Litigation action had already been filed by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic; consequently, upon review of the dates, the year provided for in numeral 39 of the CPCA had not elapsed. Note that at the time of filing the lawsuit in court, the conducts sought to be annulled herein were not final, as the resolution of an extraordinary appeal for review (recurso extraordinario de revisión) was pending at the administrative stage. Thus, the action in court was filed by the Comptroller entity within the timeframe established in numeral 39 of the Code of Administrative Litigation; consequently, the defense of expiration (caducidad) must be dismissed.

**V- REGARDING THE POSITION OF MAYOR.** This is the executive official indicated in article 169 of the Political Constitution; likewise, the law provides for the existence of two municipal vice-mayors: a first vice-mayor and a second vice-mayor. The first shall perform the administrative and operational functions assigned to them by the incumbent mayor; furthermore, they shall substitute, by operation of law, for the municipal mayor in their temporary and definitive absences, with the same responsibilities and powers as the latter during the substitution period. In cases where the first vice-mayor cannot substitute for the mayor, in their temporary and definitive absences, the second vice-mayor shall substitute for the mayor, by operation of law, with the same responsibilities and powers as the latter during the substitution period. In the municipal district councils, the executive official indicated in article 7 of Law No. 8173 is the district intendant (intendente distrital), who shall have the same powers as the municipal mayor. Furthermore, there shall be a district vice-intendant, who shall perform the administrative and operational functions assigned to them by the incumbent intendant; they shall also substitute, by operation of law, for the district intendant in their temporary and definitive absences, with the same responsibilities and powers as the latter during the substitution period. All popularly elected positions at the municipal level contemplated in the legal system shall be chosen by popular vote, through general elections to be held on the first Sunday of February, two years after the national elections in which the persons who will hold the Presidency and Vice-Presidencies of the Republic and those who will make up the Legislative Assembly are elected. They shall take possession of their positions on May 1st of the same year of their election, for a period of four years, and may be re-elected. (Thus amended by article 310, paragraph a) of the Electoral Code, Law No. 8765 of August 19, 2009) Interpreted by Resolution of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones) No. 405 of February 8, 2008, as follows: “*Article 14 of the Municipal Code is interpreted to the effect that, in the December 2010 elections, the positions of mayors, vice-mayors, intendants and vice-intendants, trustees (síndicos), proprietary and alternate district councilors (concejales de distrito propietarios y suplentes), and proprietary and alternate members of the municipal district councils shall be chosen, and the appointment of these officials shall extend until those elected in February 2016 assume office, i.e., until April 30, 2016.*" Likewise, in order to harmonize the municipal electoral regime so that all offices are elected at the midpoint of the presidential and legislative term, the councilmembers (regidores) elected in February 2010 will continue in their posts until April 30, 2016, the date on which they will be replaced by the councilmembers (regidores) elected in February 2016”.... (article 14 of the Código Municipal) the preceding citation reformed numeral 14 with regard to the introduction of the figure of the First and Second Deputy Mayor (Vicealcalde primero y segundo), which originally, before the reform of September 2009, established the existence of Alternate Mayors (Alcaldes Suplentes), who would substitute for the Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal) in his temporary and permanent absences, who were also popularly elected. In conclusion, the Mayor (Alcalde) is an official elected in a popular and direct manner, by the majority vote of the residents of his canton, to head and direct the government of that municipality. He is the principal executive official of the Municipality (Municipalidad), an institution to which the Constitution grants autonomy to attend to its affairs and fulfill its functions. As a public servant and the most relevant in administrative matters within the Municipality (Municipalidad), he must carry out his work taking into account the common good and the solution of the problems of his canton. The Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal) has the following attributions and obligations, among others: a) To exercise the functions inherent to the condition of general administrator and head of the municipal dependencies, overseeing the organization, operation, coordination, and faithful fulfillment of the municipal agreements, laws, and regulations in general. b) To delegate the functions entrusted by this law, based on articles 89 and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública (...)

**VI- ON THE ISSUE OF COMPETENCE (COMPETENCIA)** Although the Contraloría General de la República, as the plaintiff in this proceeding, accuses the administrative actions of being null, alleging defects in the motive and consequently in the purpose for departing from the satisfaction of the public interest, this Panel of Judges proceeds to analyze the Competence (Competencia) of the Mayor (Alcalde) of the Municipality of Osa (Municipalidad de Osa) in issuing the administrative actions adopted by him for his own benefit. On the issue of Competence (Competencia), the plaintiff in this proceeding does not directly allege a defect for this element, even though in the facts of its complaint it affirms that Mr. Nombre111673 proceeded with a self-recognition of the payment for the concept of prohibition (prohibición). It is essential, in order to justify on the part of this Chamber of Judges entering into an analysis of the issue of competence (competencia) not formally alleged by the plaintiff, that the Sala Primera, in reiterated rulings, among these 775-A-S1-2013 of 4:05 p.m. on June 13, 2013, ordered:

"**III.-** Based on a new analysis of the issue, specifically, reconsidered regarding the competent body to declare the harmfulness (lesividad) of the complex act that granted the pension to the defendant under the Pension and Retirement Regime of the National Teachers (Régimen de Pensiones y Jubilaciones del Magisterio Nacional), and for the purposes of a correct solution to the matter, it is necessary to specify the following aspects: 1) The issue of the competence (competencia) of the body or entity to declare the act harmful (lesivo), as a prior condition to the filing of a harmfulness (lesividad) proceeding, is an aspect of an eminently procedural nature, provided for by the regulations in force for this type of jurisdictional conflict. Therefore, the Administration that seeks the annulment of its own act must act in accordance with what is regulated by the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (CPCA). 2) *Ex officio* declaration of the invalidity of an act by virtue of a substantial infringement. Duty of the judge. The Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP) establishes that the act must be issued by the competent body and by the regularly designated servant at the time of issuing it, "...upon prior fulfillment of all the substantial procedures provided for that purpose..." and the indispensable requirements for the exercise of competence (competencia) (article 129). Also, that the judge may not declare the invalidity of the act *ex officio* "...except in the case of substantial infringements relating to the subject, the procedure, or the form, in which cases they must do so. / For the purposes of this article, the subject shall be understood as a comprehensive element of the existence of the entity and its capacity, the existence of the body and its competence, the necessary requirements for the exercise of this, and the regular investiture of the public servant. / The judge may control *ex officio* the existence of all the aforesaid extremes in relation to the subject of the act, with the exception contained in the following paragraph. / Relative incompetence may not be declared or enforced *ex officio*." (canon 182, paragraph 1) (The underlining is not from the original). Of interest, this provision determines the obligation of the adjudicator to declare *ex officio* the invalidity of an act when a substantial infringement relating to the subject occurs, that is, with respect to who adopts the act. On this matter, this Chamber has indicated that "...From the reading of the recently transcribed norm, several important elements to consider in the present case emerge. First, and as stated, it is not a faculty of the judge, but rather its observance is preceptive. The adjudicator's action is linked to the provisions of the legal system, not only regarding its application to the case that the parties submit to its knowledge but also regarding the jurisdictional activity it carries out. In this sense, it is imperative for them to rule on the indicated aspects when resolving any matter...". (Resolution No. 804-F-S1-2008 of 9:30 a.m. on December 4, 2008). 3) The CPCA, enacted by Law No. 8508 of April 28, 2006, came into force as of January 1, 2008. In mandate 34, paragraph 3), it is expressly established that: "The declaration of harmfulness (lesividad) of administrative acts issued by two or more ministries, or by these with a decentralized entity, shall correspond to the Government Council (Consejo de Gobierno). In such cases, they may not be declared harmful (lesivos) by a minister of a different branch." Given the existence of a specific regulation that requires a review *ex officio* of the essential defects referring to the subject and to the competence (competencia), this Chamber cannot ignore the existence of the pathology in question." In accordance with the foregoing, this Court is enabled to review the element of competence (competencia) in the questioned administrative actions. Numeral 129 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública establishes that the act must be issued by the competent body and by the regularly designated servant at the time of issuance, upon prior fulfillment of all substantial procedures provided for that purpose and of the indispensable requirements for the exercise of the competence (competencia). From the facts held as proven and of interest for this issue, we have that Mr. Nombre111673 was appointed as Mayor (Alcalde) of the Municipality of the Canton of Osa (Municipalidad del Cantón de Osa) for the periods 2007 to 2011 and reelected from 2011 to 2016, a position he currently holds. The acts questioned by the Contraloría entity were issued on May 16, 2008 (personnel action 00269) and on January 29, 2010 (personnel action 0062). From the review of the first of these, visible on folio 3 of volume I of the administrative file, the Personnel Action form of the Municipality of Osa (Municipalidad de Osa) shows that the procedure is in the name of Servant Nombre111673, effective from May 16, 2008, position Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal), that a salary increase is ordered, and in the Observations "*Payment of the recognition of the Prohibition (Proibicion) [sic] of 20%, according to official letter FOE-SM-0754 based on Law 8422 against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment in the Public Function*", a document signed by Mr. Nombre111673 in his capacity as Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal). In the second document, visible on folio 38 of the administrative file of volume I, a Personnel Action of the Municipality of Osa (Municipalidad de Osa) is observed, name of the servant Nombre111673, position Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal), for the concept of salary increase and in observations "*Recognition of the difference of the 45% prohibition (prohibición) since according to personnel action No. 00269, he was being paid 20%, and according to Law 8422, 65% corresponds, so said percentage is paid to him as of 01/01/2010, according to official letter DAM-ALCAOSA-0070-2010*", a document signed by Nombre111673 in his capacity as Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal). Having set forth the foregoing, it is accredited that Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal), proceeded to approve for his own benefit the salary increases for the concept of payment of prohibition (prohibición), first for 20% and then for 65%, which correspond to the personnel actions questioned here, 00269-2008 of May 2008 and 062 of January 2010. It remains to be established whether the Mayor (Alcalde) was in a position to sign administrative acts that conferred rights upon him as an official of the Municipality (Municipalidad) or whether he should have abstained from participating in the processing, approval, and payment order for his own benefit. In this regard, in his defense, Mr. Nombre111673 indicates that at the time of issuing the acts, only he could sign them, because at the time he approved them "*the ranks of deputy mayor (vicealcalde) did not exist full-time.*" It must be noted that the acts occurred at different times, the first in 2008 when what the norm (ordinal 14) established was the figure of the Alternate Mayor (Alcalde Suplente), and for 2010 the figure of the Deputy Mayor (Vicealcalde). Notwithstanding the foregoing, for both moments numeral 17 established the attributions that corresponded to the Mayor (Alcalde), paragraph a) relating to the condition of General Administrator and Head of the municipal dependencies, overseeing the organization, operation, coordination, and faithful fulfillment of the municipal agreements, laws, and regulations in general, and the possibility of b) Delegating the functions entrusted by this law, based on articles 89 and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública (...). From the foregoing, it is deduced that the granting of competences (competencias) is express and by means of the law; however, the same legal system provides the possibility of changes occurring in the competence (competencia) given through the transfers established in the law with the prerequisites and the particular limitations of each figure. It is true that for the issuance of both administrative acts, Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Municipal Mayor (Alcalde Municipal), had the attribution of General administrator and head of Municipal dependencies, for which reason it fell to him to approve, once the corresponding studies had been carried out when necessary, the administrative procedures of the Municipality (Municipalidad), among these the payment of the prohibition (prohibición) to whoever was entitled by law. But precisely because of his attribution, in order to authorize such payment, he had to review the fulfillment of the corresponding requirements for that or any other procedure involving the disposition of money from the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública). And it is precisely what paragraph b) already cited protects, the possibility of delegating functions entrusted by law in accordance with numerals 89 and following of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. The cited normative body, in its ordinal 70, imposes that the competence (competencia) shall be exercised by the head of the respective body, except in cases of delegation, avocation (avocación), substitution, subrogation, and in concordance with the foregoing, numeral 230 imposes that the grounds for abstention (abstención) shall be the same as those for impediment and recusal established in the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, and in addition those resulting from article 102 of the Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República. Turning to such citations, the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, in article 31, imposes that in the absence of an express rule on impediments, excuses, and recusals, the provisions of the Código Procesal Civil shall apply, and upon review of such normative body, it is established in paragraph 1) of numeral 49 that there shall be an impediment to hear matters in which one has a direct interest. Applying such assumption to the one analyzed here is evident to this Chamber of Judges: Mr. Nombre111673 ought to have abstained (abstenerse) and excused himself from hearing and authorizing an administrative action that granted rights to himself. The excuse of Mr. Nombre111673 that there was no official appointed full-time is not valid—and this for the first act—because by the date of issuance of the second, the figure of the Deputy Mayor (Vicealcalde) had already been provided for, so his justification finds no support whatsoever for this Panel of Judges. The Mayor (Alcalde) had the legal and ethical obligation as a public servant, and even more as a popularly elected one, to be transparent in his actions, and this obligated him to separate himself from the knowledge of conditions that could grant personal benefits, as in the specific case. This Court considers that the Código Municipal itself granted him, in paragraph b) of numeral 17, the legal avenue to abstain from hearing the acts challenged here; nevertheless, on the contrary, Mr. Nombre111673 proceeded to approve rights and payments of money from the Public Treasury (Hacienda Pública) in his favor. The foregoing, without this chamber having issued a criterion on the legality of their motive, concludes that the questioned administrative acts, in accordance with the doctrine of numerals 129 and 166 of the Ley General de la Administrativa Pública, impose a defect of absolute nullity in the questioned acts, by reason of the subject who issued it—in this case Mr. Nombre111673—and consequently, they are themselves vitiated and must be declared null.

**VII- ON THE PAYMENT OF THE PROHIBITION (PROHIBICIÓN) TO MUNICIPAL MAYORS.** Law 8422, called "*Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública*" has been in force since October 29, 2014, and provides in its Second Chapter on the Preventive Regime, article 14: "**Prohibition against practicing liberal professions (Prohibición para ejercer profesiones liberales)**. The following may not practice liberal professions (profesiones liberales): the President of the Republic, the Vice Presidents, the Magistrates of the Judicial Branch and of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones), the Ministers, the Comptroller General (Contralor) and the Deputy Comptroller General (Subcontralor) of the Republic, the Ombudsman (Defensor) and the Deputy Ombudsman (Defensor Adjunto) of the Inhabitants, the Attorney General (Procurador General) and the Deputy Attorney General (Procurador General Adjunto) of the Republic, the General Regulator of the Republic, the Attorney General (Fiscal General) of the Republic, the Vice Ministers, the Senior Officers (Oficiales Mayores), the Executive Presidents, the Managers, and the Administrative Directors of decentralized entities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions, and public companies, the Superintendents of financial, securities, and pension entities, their respective Intendants, ***as well as the municipal mayors*** (bold and underline not in the original), and the Deputy Managers and Deputy Administrative Directors, the Internal Comptrollers (Contralores) and Deputy Internal Comptrollers (Subcontralores), the Internal Auditors and Deputy Internal Auditors of the Public Administration, as well as the Directors and Deputy Directors of departments and the Heads of Procurement (Titulares de Proveeduría) of the Public Sector. This article encompasses the other professions that the official possesses, even if they do not constitute a requirement to hold the respective public office." An economic remuneration is established for the prohibition against practicing liberal professions (prohibición de ejercer profesiones liberales). "*Unless there is a special remuneration regime for the public official, the economic compensation for the application of the preceding Article shall be equivalent to sixty-five percent (65%) of the base salary set for the category of the respective position*." Subsequently, Executive Decree 32333, Reglamento a la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública, was issued, effective as of April 29, 2005, in which paragraph 39 of article one defines what constitutes the "*Prohibition (Prohibición): For the purposes of article 14 of the Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la función pública, prohibition shall be understood as the obligation not to practice the profession subject to contracting in a liberal manner or in a private capacity. This prohibition shall be understood to include the other professions that the official possesses, even if they do not constitute a requirement to hold the respective public office*." For its part, on the subject of the prohibition (prohibición), the Sala Constitucional has stated: *"(...) the officials or employees subject to prohibition are absolutely prevented not only from holding other public offices but also from performing, in private enterprise, activities related to the positions they hold in the State, except, of course, in the exceptions that the norm itself establishes, based either on the nature of the activity—teaching—or when it involves the defense of personal interests or those of close relatives. Said limitation is imposed (...) when the liberal exercise (ejercicio liberal) of the profession or activity is incompatible with the public office held, that is, when it could generate serious harm to the interests of the Public Administration (...) It is clear, from what has been said, that only those activities whose private exercise is incompatible with the function that the servant performs are subject to the prohibition (...) The non-existence of such incompatibility, on the contrary, empowers the public servant to privately practice their profession or trade, subject to the corresponding responsibilities if they thereby incur any labor fault (...)"* (Judgment No. 3369-96 of 10:27 a.m. on July 5, 1996). Having set forth the foregoing, there is no doubt that the Legislator imposed on the figure of Municipal Mayors (Alcaldes Municipales) a prohibition (prohibición) against practicing liberal professions (profesiones liberales) and imposed an indemnity of 65% of the salary for the limitation that is effectively imposed on the liberal exercise (ejercicio liberal) of the profession. Specifically, on the subject of Professional Freedom, the Sala Constitucional has developed: "*III.- ON PROFESSIONAL FREEDOM. The Political Constitution does not expressly enshrine professional freedom; however, this fundamental freedom can be deduced from the harmonious interpretation of several constitutional rights, specifically, from numerals 46 and 56 of the Political Charter that guarantee in our legal system the right to work and the freedom of enterprise. The essential content of professional freedom includes the right to choose a profession and the free exercise of professional activity. Although these two concepts are closely related, state interventions in each of these facets occur with different intensity. Thus, the choice of profession must be an act of self-determination of the individual's free will and must remain, as far as possible, protected from all intervention by public power. On the other hand, through the exercise of the profession, the individual directly intervenes in social life; consequently, restrictions may be imposed on them in the interest of others. In this way, non-affectation of third parties, the protection of morality and public order are conditions that justify the establishment of limitations on the exercise of professional activity (article 28 of the Constitution). Now, the principle of legal reserve applies here, which determines that only through a norm with the rank of law—in a formal and material sense—is it possible to restrict fundamental rights. Likewise, the pro libertatis principle applies, which provides that every legal norm must be interpreted in a way that favors freedom. However, it is reiterated, the freedom to exercise a profession can be restricted by law to the extent that reasonable considerations of public interest demand it, while the freedom to choose a profession, on the contrary, can only be restricted to the extent that the protection of an especially important common good justifies it. From that perspective, the protection of values as diverse as health, education, well-being, and security grounds the intervention of the State—by means of law—in the exercise of the *liberal professions (profesiones liberales)*, in order to guarantee the quality and reliability of the services provided, as well as the non-affectation of third parties and respect for morality and public order*." (Emphasis added) Vote 1819-2005 of February 25, 2005, of the Sala Constitucional of the Corte Suprema de Justicia. It is also important to mention some considerations issued by the Constitutional Body: *"V.- DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRACTICE OF A LIBERAL PROFESSION AND A LUCRATIVE ACTIVITY. Traditionally, within the liberal professions (profesiones liberales) are grouped those that involve the exercise of an intellectual or technical activity, through the application of certain scientific and technical rules that must be handled with utmost propriety by their holder, prior qualification to exercise it through obtaining an appropriate and adequate degree and, eventually, incorporation into the respective professional association (colegio profesional). The singularity of the liberal professions (profesiones liberales) arises from the inexistence of a dependency relationship with their clientele, so that the liberal professional has full autonomy and independence in the way of providing professional services—schedule, place, etc.—given that they do so on their own account, which is why their services are remunerated through fees. The liberal professional applies, for a specific case, their scientific or technical knowledge without submitting to any direction and under their exclusive responsibility, that is, according to their best knowledge and understanding. It is necessary to point out that the practice of a liberal profession (profesión liberal) is intimately linked to professional freedom, which includes the freedom to freely choose the profession one intends to practice and, once obtained through an adequate degree and the corresponding professional licensure (colegiatura), the freedom to practice it freely without other limits than those necessary to guarantee correctness, supervision, and oversight in its practice and the protection of the public interest and, in particular, of the consumers of professional services. The purpose of practicing a liberal profession (profesión liberal) is to provide the one who deploys it with a remuneration that ensures a dignified quality of life, both personally and for their family.*" Vote 18141-2009 of 11:12 a.m. on November 27, 2009.

Once the citation of this judgment has been adduced, from the development carried out by the Constitutional Chamber, it must be determined in the specific case whether Mr. Nombre111673, in his capacity as Mayor, is covered by the prohibition and the consequent compensation provided for in the law. As a first matter, the arguments made by both the representation of the Municipality of Osa and that of Mr. Nombre111673 must be addressed, stating that they always respected the criteria of the Comptroller's Office and that they claim this, even though they were the ones who initially approved the payment of the prohibition to the Mayor, even correcting the percentage from an initial 20% to 65%. From official communication FOE-SM-0754 dated May 16, 2008, it is evident that the Comptroller General of the Republic partially approved the budget of the Municipality of Osa, and regarding the issue of the payment of the prohibition for the Municipal Mayor, it is established in point 2, where relevant: “According to the expenditure justification, they propose the payment of the prohibition for the occupants of the positions of (…) Municipal Mayor. Because said recognition is only appropriate in cases where a special law authorizes it, the budgetary content for said payment is approved in the cases of (…) and Municipal Mayor based on the Law Against Corruption and Illicit Enrichment (…)”, both co-defendants allege that based on that document they considered that the payment of the prohibition in favor of co-defendant Nombre111673 was appropriate, as the Comptroller's Office had so ordered, an argument this Court does not share. From a detailed review of said document, it is true that the Comptroller General of the Republic approves the payment of the prohibition for the Mayor under Law 8422, but at no point can it be inferred that this was a consequence of the review of the requirements established by law for the pertinence of the payment; it is essential to note that the application of the rule (section 14) is not automatic. Even when the prohibition and its consequent payment are provided for the figure of the Mayor, it is the Municipality's responsibility to determine if the Mayor meets the technical-legal prerequisites to aspire to said payment. In addition to the above, it is evident that the Comptroller body on different occasions sent information to Mr. Nombre111673 as Municipal Mayor of Osa regarding the application of the prohibition for independent professionals, this through Report DAG-J-1333-2008, which also summons the Mayor to verify how the prohibition and its payment were being recognized, an official communication that the Comptroller entity even personally notified him on October 22, 2008; the cited communication even points out (folio 34 admin. file) that there are two elements for the recognition of the prohibition: an act of permanent appointment and holding a university academic degree “*which must be assessed in each specific case)*” that certifies the person as a professional in a specific branch of knowledge, a requirement to which the respective professional incorporation is added, and that their incorporation is a necessary and sufficient condition for professional practice. Notwithstanding the above, it is not observed that the Municipality, by that date, undertook a review process regarding the payment of the prohibition to the benefited officials; on the contrary, it is not evident in the administrative files and the evidence presented to the process that, prior to the issuance of act 00269 of May 16, 2008, the Municipality of Osa had conducted a technical and/or legal study to adopt the administrative act of May 16, 2008, in order to determine compliance with the legal prerequisites by Mr. Nombre111673. And it was not until January 25, 2010, that the Municipality's legal advisor issued a technical opinion regarding the payment of the prohibition, through Report MUNOSA –PSJ-02-2010 in which Lic. Leidy Gabriela Martínez González, in her capacity as Legal Advisor, concludes (folio 23 of volume I of the administrative file) that the position of Mayor, being by popular election, is considered not subject to category, structure, and academic condition, for which reason the payment of the prohibition is an aspect inherent to the position as provided in Law 8422. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Nombre111673 informs the Municipality's Human Resources Coordinator about the legal opinion rendered and consequently orders her to proceed with the steps for the payment of the 65% as well as the difference. Regarding the second administrative act, personnel action 0269, Mr. Nombre111673 has indicated that it was issued after having carried out prior studies. From the evidence brought to the process, the legal opinion rendered by the municipal legal advisor was on January 25, 2010, and the personnel action was signed by the Mayor on January 29, 2010; however, on that same date, the Municipal Accountant Gabriela Elizondo Santamaría sent a missive to the Municipality's Human Resources department communicating the legal opinion rendered as well as the information gathered from Comptroller's Office officials on the topic of the payment of the prohibition, and indicates that officials who occupy positions subject to prohibition, in the case at hand the Municipal Mayor, must make the request in writing to the Human Resources office, who must assess compliance with the legal and academic requirements to make the retroactive payment. However, the opinion of the Municipal Human Resources Office is issued through communication PRH-15-2010 dated February 15, 2010, and as cited above, Mr. Nombre111673 signed the payment order on January 29, 2010, without waiting for all the necessary technical opinions to be issued to determine the appropriateness of the payment. Furthermore, Mr. Nombre111673 decided, as administrative head, to order the increase of his salary for the concept of prohibition even though communication DAGJ-133-2008 from the Comptroller General of the Republic had already been brought to his personal knowledge, which was notified to him on October 22, 2008, and he was summoned to proceed with the verification of how the prohibition was being applied and whether it conformed to the criteria and parameters outlined in said communication and according to the legal system. This demonstrates to this Panel of Judges that Mr. Nombre111673 made the decision to order his salary increase having been duly warned of the rules and criteria established for its appropriateness; he had been made aware of them personally, and therefore it is not possible to accept the statement of co-defendant Nombre111673 that he merely adhered to the legal opinion rendered by the Municipal advisor; he already knew the criteria outlined by the Comptroller entity, which, as is evident from the Municipal lawyer's report, were not taken into account for the legal conclusion, as can be inferred from said opinion, when its conclusion is that the payment of the prohibition is an aspect inherent to the position. Having said the above, we must turn to the specific examination to determine if Mr. Nombre111673 is an independent professional to whom the payment of the prohibition must be recognized. It was duly accredited in the process that Mr. Nombre111673 studied at the University of Costa Rica and completed a degree, obtaining the academic pre-graduate degree of diploma in radio-technology. The defendants state that such condition allows Mr. Nombre111673 to be classified as an independent professional, by having a university degree. On the subject, the plaintiff brought to the process a document issued by the University of Costa Rica, where it effectively certifies the academic condition obtained by Mr. Nombre111673 and the degree awarded, this in the year 1991, and informs that the diploma is the academic degree granted to persons who meet the requirements of a university program, as is evident from the Agreement to create a Nomenclature of degrees and titles of State University Higher Education. Additionally, an opinion is provided from the College of Physicians reporting that Mr. Nombre111673 is authorized under Code TEC-1221 as a Technologist in Radiological Procedures since August 18, 1987, and must practice his profession under the supervision of a specialist physician. The core discussion in the process revolves around whether the university education received by Mr. Nombre111673 confers a professional title on him and whether his academic condition makes him eligible for the payment of the 65% that the Comptroller's Office questions. For its part, Law 3019 of August 9, 1962, Organic Law of the College of Physicians and Surgeons, imposes in its section 4: Without prior registration in the College of Physicians and Surgeons, no one may practice in the country the professions of physician and surgeon or their specialties. Regarding other branches dependent on medical sciences, such as Homeopathy, Osteopathy, Radiological Technique, Physiotherapy, Kinesiotherapy, Optometry, Clinical Psychology, and Public Health, the College of Physicians and Surgeons shall authorize their practice, except for those persons registered in said branches in other professional associations. In its article 5, it is established that only persons registered in the College or authorized by it may perform public functions related to the professional practice of medicine or its branches, except for those persons registered in other professional associations in the branches cited in article 4. Regarding the condition of Technologist, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, through ordinary session 2007-12-12 of December 12, 2007, issued the Regulations of the Chapter of Professionals in branches dependent on Medical Sciences Authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, recognizing in its first article that the chapter of Technologists of branches dependent on Medical Sciences shall be constituted by all technologists in the Health sector duly authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica for the legal exercise of their functions, as indicated in Article Four of the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica and shall be governed by this Regulation. For its part, section 2 establishes that the chapter of Technologists shall be governed by a Coordinating Committee, which shall represent this Chapter before its General Assembly, the Governing Board of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, and before the administrative dependencies of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica in the rest of the country and other national institutions. Subsequently, said regulations were repealed by the regulation issued on September 9, 2012, by the Governing Board of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Costa Rica, which in its section 1 establishes its scope of application as "Medical Science Technologists are persons whose technical training allows them to exercise processes related to the Branches Dependent on Medical Sciences, under direct medical supervision or specialized medical supervision as appropriate; who are duly authorized by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Republic of Costa Rica (which is hereinafter indicated in article four of the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Republic of Costa Rica and shall be governed by this Law, its Regulation, the following Rules, and other binding legal provisions)", for its part, section 2 defines the Technologist as the human resource with technical training and education in Medical Sciences, whose practice is characterized by the application of scientific knowledge, transformed to contribute to diagnosis, treatment, and health management, under direct medical supervision or direct specialized medical supervision as appropriate, and within the third section, Medical Imaging Technology is established as one of the authorized disciplines. It is important to note that according to the cited regulations, requirements are established for technologists to be authorized by the College of Physicians for the development of their technicality; they must demonstrate their suitability, fulfill economic, ethical, and professional obligations with the College of Physicians. However, it is important to highlight that the Organic Law of the College of Physicians makes a distinction between the condition of physician and member, and that of technologist and authorized person for the performance of their work. It is true that they need to be authorized for their development, but such requirements do not convert them into independent professionals. It is important to establish that we are dealing with Technicians who, through their specialization and scientific knowledge transformed into technology to contribute to health management, which is consistent with each of the twenty-three authorized disciplines, as is evident from section three of the cited regulation, are essential for determining the diagnosis and treatment that the medical professional ultimately prescribes. It is evident, in the opinion of this Panel of Judges, that a common and present element is that the performance of the function of technologists is classified as branches dependent on medical sciences, never exercised independently, which clearly yields an evident qualification of the performance of technologists' work, and specifically in radiology as in the case of Mr. Nombre111673. Even though he holds a university diploma as a radiology technician, he cannot perform his work in such a field independently; note that the same certificate issued by his former employer, the Costa Rican Social Security Fund, reports that Mr. Nombre111673 works as a Professional Technician 1 in the radiodiagnosis service and that he has worked without supervision; the above not because it is appropriate or advisable, but because the service does not have a human resource with a Physician in Radiology. It must be indicated that it is precisely the analysis of each specific case that allows for determining whether the payment of the prohibition is in accordance with section 14 of the Illicit Enrichment law. In the case of Mr. Nombre111673, it must be concluded that, in accordance with the Organic Law of the College of Physicians and its internal regulations, the development of his work as a Technologist is subject to the control and oversight of the cited College of Physicians, as it is a branch dependent on medicine and must be authorized by the collegiate body; this arises as an instrument to establish findings and diagnoses that must be determined so that it is ultimately the medical professional who decides on what is appropriate for the patient's health. From the mere exercise of Mr. Nombre111673's work, it is evident that the Technologist in radiology is an auxiliary with specialized technical knowledge who assists the physician, since it is the latter who decides whether radiological examinations or evaluations are necessary to finally issue a diagnosis and prescribe treatment to address the health condition. This is a professional freedom that Mr. Nombre111673 does not have. The co-defendant has indicated that at the time he studied at the University of Costa Rica, there were no specialists in that field, which, although not demonstrated, is a logical argument given the timeframe in which he obtained his degree in 1987. However, one cannot lose sight of the fact that it is not in that era that he serves as Municipal Mayor but rather from the year 2011 to date, and it is from that year that the analysis must be carried out according to the prevailing reality, an era in which there already exist medical professionals with specialties such as radiology, and who precisely supervise work such as that developed by Mr. Nombre111673. In the opinion of this Collegiate Body, Mr. Nombre111673 cannot be considered an independent professional, but rather a person with technical training at the university level that allows him, through his knowledge, to assist medicine through the practice of his technicality. It is of interest to note that an Independent Profession has been defined as: "That which constitutes the exercise of one of the careers pursued in university centers or in higher specialized schools, generally involving purely intellectual activity and work, even though it does not exclude manual operations; such as that of the surgeon, and those of architects and engineers when drawing their plans. (...) The singularity of the *Independent Profession* arises from the fact that there is no relationship of dependency or permanence with the clientele, although there may be regularity in the request for services; furthermore, unless special tariffs are established by the Public Power, the independent professional freely determines their remuneration, which is called fees. Regarding the labor sphere, such independence, however, is compromised in certain modalities of Labor Law. In principle, the position of those who exercise an *independent profession* is one of autonomy in the provision of services; the person performing it is not considered a worker in the restricted concept of a subject of an employment contract. The difficulty evidently arises in certain professionals who exercise their activity under third-party dependency and receive not fees, but a salary. The work provided by a doctor on ships and in the service of a shipowner is characterized by the technical independence of the professional in everything related to their specialty, but they are subject, or may be subject, to a certain hierarchical and economic dependency, which requires compliance with a certain schedule, attending to the persons designated to them, communicating the results of their services, and observing the regulations established. Similar situations apply to the work services of other professionals, such as engineers, lawyers, chemists, who have certain technical independence but can contract their services as workers in a company and receive, like them, a wage or salary." Encyclopedic Dictionary of Usual Law, page 447, Heliasta publishing house, volume VI P-Q, Edition number 21, Buenos Aires- Argentine Republic, 1989. In conclusion, for the purposes of the pertinence of the payment of the prohibition, the professional must not only be registered, be a member of the professional association, or authorized, but the public servant must be enabled to exercise an independent profession. This implies that they meet the academic requirements and any other type required by the respective professional association. In the specific case, it has become clear to this Court that the College of Physicians and Surgeons, even though it authorizes Mr. Nombre111673 to exercise his technique, does so in that condition, as a branch dependent on medicine and always under medical supervision; therefore, the allegations of co-defendant Nombre111673 stating otherwise lack support given the conclusiveness of the regulations governing him. In the instant case, it has been duly accredited that Mr. Nombre111673 did not fall within the various scenarios that permitted the payment of that aspect in accordance with the indicated regulations. For such purposes, it is necessary to indicate that in the scope of the item of prohibition referred to in this case, the aforementioned rules clearly establish the factual scenario that allows for the emergence of that legal consequence. From that standpoint, the pertinence or validity of the actions ordering the recognition of this item is conditioned on the concurrence of the various prerequisites that allow for it. In this scenario, occupying a Mayor's position is not sufficient; rather, the payment to whoever holds a position of that nature will be appropriate as long as the independent exercise of the profession is limited, a condition Mr. Nombre111673 lacks, and this then constitutes the motivating element on which the Municipal public action was based. Along these lines, section 133.1 of the General Law of Public Administration states: “The motive must be legitimate and exist as it has been taken into account to issue the act. (…)” Within this scope, it is evident that the absence of the aforementioned legal prerequisite undoubtedly determines the unlawfulness of the conduct that, disregarding such requirement, or by omission or interpretive defects, considers that the official was eligible to receive that benefit, and confers it. Now then, the absence of this prerequisite (motive) determines an absolute degree of invalidity in the administrative conduct, which cannot be corrected or remedied, as is evident from section 172 of the General Law referenced previously. The granting of this benefit to someone who does not fall within the conditioning prerequisite established by the legal source justifying the specific salary benefit entails a substantial non-conformity with the Legal System (section 128 ibidem) that requires, in that eventuality, the suppression of the administrative conduct.

**VIII- ON THE RETURN OF THE MONEY** Regarding the reimbursement of the sums paid for the concept of prohibition. The determination of nullity of the conduct questioned in this process leads to the examination of the pertinence or not of imposing on Mr. Nombre111673 the duty to return the sums received for the payment of the prohibition item. Mr. Nombre111673 alleges that he never intervened, nor did he pressure for the processing of the payment of the prohibition. On this specific topic, Ms. Gabriel Elizondo Santamaría testified in her condition as Municipal Accountant, who reported at trial that since 2008, the Comptroller's Office approved the payment of the prohibition through the budget, and later, based on information from the Comptroller's Office, the amount of the payment for the prohibition was adjusted from 20% to 65%. Furthermore, the process was initiated before the Municipality's Human Resources requesting the study. Subsequently, she received a call from the Comptroller's Office where they told her that they were going to reopen Mr. Nombre111673's file because the payment to the Mayor was not appropriate and that Mr. Nombre111673 had to return the money. She indicates that the Mayor, during the processing of the payment of the prohibition, never exerted pressure for the payment to be approved; he carried out the steps like any other employee of the Municipality. What has been analyzed in the previous sections regarding the absolute invalidity of the conduct under examination in this process leads to the conclusion that the sums disbursed in favor of the defendant cannot be considered as well-received or, indeed, protected by what is alleged as a consequence of the Municipality having been induced into error by the Comptroller's Office itself.

From the evidence brought to the process, it is evident that the Comptroller entity sent reports to the Mayor establishing the parameters for the pertinence of the prohibition payment, and even filed an extraordinary remedy of review regarding the approval of the payment for his benefit; coupled with the Legal Opinion issued by the legal advisor sent to him, it is clear that the recommendations and parameters determined by the Comptroller's Office to establish whether the payment of the prohibition for his benefit was appropriate were not analyzed. It is important to note that, given the existence of defects that determine the absolute nullity of the questioned conduct, in accordance with Articles 169 and 171 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, they entail the suppression of their effects retroactively to the date of issuance of said conduct. The presumption of validity of the administrative act resulting from Article 176 of the aforementioned legal body, which has the effect of protecting the effects generated by the act during its effectiveness, is only applicable to relative nullity (in which, according to Article 167 ibidem, there is not the absence but the imperfection of one of the constitutive elements of the act), not so in absolute nullity, in which the action is declaratory, therefore retroactive to the date of issuance of the act. In the specific case, it is insisted, the invalidity is of an absolute degree, which is why it cannot be considered that the actions subject to controversy could be validly incorporated into the legal sphere of Mr. Nombre111673, since in accordance with the Ley de Control Interno and in safeguarding of the Public Treasury, Mr. Nombre111673, in his condition as Administrator and Chief Administrative Officer of the Municipality, should have been more diligent and, when in doubt, needed to make the consultations before the corresponding administrative bodies, especially since he approved such salary bonus for his own benefit; consequently, the return of the money and the corresponding payment of the money received for this concept since the month of May 2008 is appropriate, said sum comprising the payment, school salaries, Christmas bonus, and retroactive payments received for the prohibition concept, from the month of May 2008 until the date on which he continues to receive said stipend and until the finality of the judgment. The awarding of interest is rejected in accordance with the provisions of Article 173 of the Código de Trabajo, which establishes that sums overpaid by the employer shall not accrue interest. Although in the oral and public trial, evidence of the sum that Mr. Nombre111673 has received was admitted (C 121,552,513.64), it corresponds to the period from May 2008 to the first half of October 2014; however, currently the Mayor continues to receive the payment of the extra salary of 65%, so it will be in the judgment execution stage that the Comptroller entity must finally demonstrate the updated amount to which the sum paid for such concept to Mr. Nombre111673 amounts.

IX- ON THE SUPPRESSION OF RELATED CONDUCT. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION K) OF ARTICLE 122 OF THE CÓDIGO PROCESAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. The Comptroller entity requests that in the judgment, in accordance with Article 122, subsection K of the CPCA, related material actions or the questioned formal administrative acts be annulled, as well as any other formal act that has a direct or indirect relationship with the conduct questioned here, which may have continuously and uninterruptedly maintained the payment of the prohibition in favor of Nombre111673. In the oral and public hearing, the representative of the Contraloría General de la República clarifies that he refers to the personnel actions that allowed the payment for the prohibition concept month by month, from the month of May 2008. It must be indicated that the dates or details that would allow issuing a ruling of nullity for each and every one of those acts are not available; however, it must be taken into account that by annulling the administrative conduct that recognized the payment of 20% and later 65% and the retroactive payment for the prohibition concept in favor of Mr. Nombre111673, the conduct that is related to these formal actions, such as the biweekly payment acts where percentages for the prohibition payment concept were recognized from the month of May 2008 to date, would lack legal basis due to the declared nullity of the former; however, the Tribunal cannot generally and abstractly declare nullities.

X- ON THE DECLARATORY CLAIM IDENTIFIED AS G The plaintiff requests that Nombre111673 and the Municipalidad de Osa be ordered to refrain from undertaking, in the future, administrative conduct similar to that challenged in this lawsuit. In this regard, it must be indicated that it is not possible for this Collegiate body to rule in those terms; both the Municipal Administration and Mr. Nombre111673, in the performance of their duties, are subject to the Principle of Legality, internal control standards that they must enforce, and the Principle of Probity, which are already implicit for Mr. Nombre111673 as an official appointed by popular election, as well as for the Municipal entity in the performance of its obligations and actions. It will be in each of their conducts that its legality can be analyzed if necessary; thus, this claim is rejected.

XI- ON THE EXCEPTIONS Regarding the Expiration alleged by the representation of Mr. Nombre111673, it has already been resolved and rejected. Despite no substantive exceptions having been formulated, it is the Tribunal's duty to examine ex officio the material prerequisites of the action, such as the right, active and passive standing (legitimación activa y pasiva), and the interest. Therefore, having analyzed the right, it is observed that in accordance with the cited regulations, the evidence provided, and the factual grounds set forth, the right invoked by the plaintiff in support of his claims partially assists him, since it was possible to prove the nullity of the administrative conduct, as well as the obligation of Mr. Nombre111673 to refund to the Public Treasury all sums received for the prohibition payment concept that did not correspond to him. Regarding active standing to sue (legitimación ad causam activa) and lack of passive standing to be sued (legitimación ad causam pasiva), in accordance with the facts aired in this action and according to the material legal relationship under analysis, it is evident that the Comptroller entity, in the exercise of its control and oversight powers, has the active standing to bring action in this process against both defendants for the purpose of requesting the annulment of the flawed administrative conduct and the recovery of the Public Treasury's money. Regarding the interest, there is a current, valid, and palpable need for the promoter to come to judicial courts to challenge the impugned conduct that is causing harm to its patrimonial interests.

XII- ON COSTS The co-defendants MUNICIPALIDAD DE OSA and Nombre111673 having been unsuccessful, and there being no merit for their exoneration, in accordance with Article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, both are ordered to pay the costs of the process.

POR TANTO The defense of Expiration raised by the representation of Mr. Nombre111673 is rejected. Consequently, the lawsuit is partially granted, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in what is not expressly granted. 1) The following administrative acts of the Municipalidad de Osa are declared absolutely null: personnel actions numbers 00269 of May 16, 2008, and 062 of January 29, 2010. 2) Mr. Nombre111673 must refund to the Public Treasury, in the specific case to the Municipalidad de Osa, the sums improperly disbursed for the prohibition concept from the month of May 2008 until the date on which he continues to receive said stipend and until the finality of the judgment, which must be established in the judgment execution stage. 3) The costs of the action shall be borne by both co-defendants, the Municipalidad de Osa and Nombre111673. Notify.

Grace Emilia Loaiza Sánchez Claudia Bolaños Salazar Otto González Vilchez Trial Judges Section One

SENTENCIA N° 89- 2014-I TRIBUNAL PROCESAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN CUARTA. II Circuito Judicial. San José, a las once horas con treinta minutos del ocho de diciembre de diciembre de dos mil catorce.

Proceso de conocimiento tramitado bajo el número 11-6191-1027-CA, interpuesto por la CONTRALORÍA GENERAL DE LA REPÚBLICA, representada por la señora Rocío Aguilar Montoya, mayor, casada, licenciada en Derecho y Administración de Empresas, cédula de identidad CED29778 en su condición de Contralora General de la República, en proceso representada la actora por el Licenciado Juan Pablo Vargas Quirós, mayor, soltero, abogado, cédula de identidad CED22221 en contra de Nombre111673 , mayor, divorciado, vecino de Ciudad Cortés de Osa, cédula de identidad CED8902, representado en el proceso por el Licenciado Reyner Muñoz Piedra y la MUNICIPALIDAD DE DE OSA, representada por la Vicealcaldesa señora Yanina Chavatti Rosales, mayor, casada, costarricense, vecina de Dirección13363 , , cédula de identidad CED88327, y en el proceso por la Licenciada Leidy Martínez González, mayor, abogada.

RESULTANDO:

I- El presente proceso de conocimiento se acciona con el objeto de que en sentencia se declare en lo que interesa: " b) Que declare la disconformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico de las conductas administrativas impugnadas. c) Que disponga la nulidad absoluta de las acciones de personal N° 269-2008 y N° 62-2010, mediante las cuales se reconoció el pago de prohibición al ejercicio liberal de la profesión a Nombre111673 , las cuales han tenido efectos continuados desde su emisión hasta la fecha. d) Que de conformidad con lo establecido en los artículos 36 inciso d) en relación con el 122 inciso k) del CPCA, se anulen las actuaciones materiales conexas a los actos administrativos formales aquí impugnados (así como cualquier otro acto formal que tenga relación directa e indirecta con las conductas aquí cuestionadas), que hayan podido mantener de manera continua e ininterrumpida el pago de prohibición a favor de Nombre111673 . e) Que se declare que a Nombre111673 no le corresponde ningún pago por concepto de prohibición al ejercicio liberal de la prohibición. f) Que se condene a Nombre111673 en su condición personal, a reintegrar a la Hacienda Pública la totalidad del monto que ha recibido de manera ilegal por concepto de prohibición, desde el mes de mayo de 2008 hasta la fecha en la que se dicte sentencia (el cual a este momento asciende a la suma de CINCUENTA Y OCHO MILLONES SEISCIENTOS CUARENTA Y CUATRO MIL TRESCIENTOS VEINTIDÓS COLONES CON TRES CÉNTIMOS), suma debidamente indexada más los intereses hasta su efectivo pago, valores que se concretizarán en el proceso de ejecución de sentencia. g) Que se ordena a Nombre111673 y a la municipalidad de Osa, abstenerse de realizar en el futuro conductas administrativas similares a las impugnadas en esta demanda. h) Que se condene a los demandados al pago de las costas procesales y personales de este proceso".

II- El demandado Nombre111673 contesta negativamente la demanda.

III- La representación de la Municipalidad de Osa contestó negativamente a demanda.

IV- El juicio oral y público se llevó a cabo el día 20 de octubre, al cual asistieron todas las partes del proceso y se reabrió el día 17 de noviembre de dos mil catorce.

V- En la audiencia de juicio, la representación de la Contraloría General de la República, ofreció en condición de prueba complementaria, certificación de la Municipalidad de Osa, respecto al monto que se le ha cancelado al demandado Nombre111673 por concepto de prohibición, de la cual se confirió audiencia a las partes y se admitió la misma.

VI- La representación del demandado Nombre111673 en la audiencia oral interpuso la Excepción de Caducidad de la acción conforme a los numerales 67 y 39 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, de la cual se otorgó audiencia a las partes.

VII- Que el presente proceso se declaró de trámite complejo, conforme con el artículo 111 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y la sentencia se ha dictado conforme al ordinal 47 de su reglamento.

VIII- En los procedimientos se han observado las prescripciones legales de rigor, y no se observan vicios u omisiones susceptibles de producir nulidad de lo actuado o indefensión a las partes. Se dicta esta resolución previa deliberación, dentro del término de ley y por unanimidad.

Redacta la jueza Loaiza Sánchez; y

CONSIDERANDO:

I- SOBRE LOS HECHOS TENIDOS POR DEMOSTRADOS:

1- El señor Nombre111673 cursó en la Universidad de Costa Rica estudios y completó una carrera corta, y obtuvo el pregrado académico de Diplomado en Radio tecnología (ver prueba 8 del disco de prueba); 2- El señor Nombre111673 fue nombrado como Alcalde Municipal del Cantón de Osa en los períodos 2007 al 2011 y reelecto en tal condición del 2011 al 2016, cargo que ostenta al momento del juicio oral y público (hechos no controvertidos por las partes y contestación del hecho 2, folio 250 del expediente judicial); 3- En fecha 16 de mayo de 2008 (oficio FOE-SM-0754) la Gerencia de Servicios Municipales de la Contraloría General de la República comunica al señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde Municipal la aprobación parcial del presupuesto extraordinario Número 2-2008 de la Municipalidad de Osa y en punto al tema de la prohibición indica en lo conducente "Debido a que dicho reconocimiento procede únicamente en los casos en que una ley especial los autorice, se aprueba el contenido presupuestario para dicho pago en el caso de los puestos de Proveedor y Alcalde Municipal con base en la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública (...)" (ver folios 2 del tomo I del expediente administrativo y 182 a 184 del expediente principal); 4- Mediante acción de personal número 00269 del 16 de mayo de 2008 de la Municipalidad de Osa se dispuso por parte del señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde Municipal y en su favor, un aumento de sueldo por concepto del reconocimiento de la Prohibición de un 20% con justificación según oficio FOE-SM-0754 (ver prueba 1 del disco de prueba, folio 3 del expediente administrativo tomo I); 5- La anterior acción de personal fue suscrita por el señor Nombre111673 y una funcionaria de recursos humanos (ver prueba 1 disco de prueba y folios 3 del tomo I del expediente administrativo); 6- En fecha 06 de agosto de 2008 la Contraloría General de la República comunica al señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Osa que en relación con el requerimiento de información y la documentación remitida por esa corporación municipal respecto del reconocimiento y pago de prohibición en el ejercicio de profesiones liberales, en el estudio de los casos del Alcalde y Proveedor Municipal, en la página electrónica de la Contraloría se encuentra información denominada Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento ilícito en la función pública anotada y concordada (ver prueba # 2 del disco de prueba); 7- En oficio DAGJ-1333-2008 (10455) fechado 08 de octubre de 2008 la Contraloría General de la República comunica Informe al señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Osa que en atención a la aplicación de la prohibición al ejercicio de profesiones liberales en las municipalidades, que en lo que interesa indica "Conclusiones. La prohibición al ejercicio liberal de la profesión, constituye una limitación a una libertad fundamental, particularidad que demanda una interpretación y aplicación restrictiva de dicha figura, y exige de aquellos a quienes compete la determinación de los cargos alcanzados, una actuación prudente, informada y apegada a lo que establece la normativa correspondiente. Esto excluye interpretaciones amplias que rebasen los criterios y parámetros legales y jurisprudenciales bajo los que debe ser aplicada la prohibición, haciéndola extensiva a cargos cuyas atribuciones, funciones y responsabilidades no corresponden con las de aquellos afectos a dicha restricción, y en caso de que se determine la existencia de una aplicación en estos términos, las autoridades municipales están compelidas a ejercer de inmediato las acciones disciplinarias y de recuperación respectivas, esto en resguardo de una adecuada tutela de los fondos públicos y en procura de restaurar una legalidad que haya sido quebrada.” (ver prueba número 2 del disco de prueba); 8- En el citado oficio DAGJ-1333-2008 se emplazó al señor Alcalde de Osa para que dentro del plazo improrrogable de quince días hábiles la Municipalidad deberá verificar si la forma en que viene siendo aplicada la prohibición se ajusta a los criterios y parámetros esbozados y en general su conformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico. 2. Tomando en cuenta el listado de funcionarios –previamente remitido a ese órgano contralor-, a quienes se viene reconociendo prohibición, deberá indicarse si la verificación ha implicado alguna violación o cambio de dicho listado, y si así fuera, las acciones inmediatas que se van a adoptar a fin de poner a derecho cada caso y recuperar sumas pagadas indebidamente. 3. La confirmación del listado de servidores- con los eventuales cambios que se adviertan-; serán tomados por la Contraloría General como una confirmación de la legalidad en el reconocimiento de la prohibición en esa Municipalidad, y en el ejercicio independiente de sus atribuciones, podrá ser utilizada como base para acciones de fiscalización así como de responsabilidad tanto disciplinaria como de naturaleza civil que corresponda. 4. La verificación que aquí se ordena y la remisión de sus resultados en los términos indicados, deberá hacerse a la División de Asesoría y Gestión jurídica de este órgano contralor dentro del plazo antes mencionado (…) (ver prueba # 2 del disco de prueba); 9- Dicho oficio fue notificado al señor Nombre111673 personalmente el día 22 de octubre de 2008 (ver acta de notificación, prueba # 2 de disco de prueba); 10- En 25 de enero de 2010 la asesora legal de la Municipalidad de Osa, emitió criterio jurídico con respecto al pago de prohibición al señor Nombre111673 por ejercer el puesto de Alcalde Municipal, concluyendo la procedencia del pago de prohibición al Alcalde porque "es un aspecto inherente al puesto" (ver prueba 4 en disco de prueba y folios 18 a 26 del expediente administrativo tomo I); 11- Mediante acción de personal número 062 del 29 de enero de 2010 de la Municipalidad de Osa se dispuso por parte del señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde Municipal y en su propio beneficio, un aumento de sueldo por concepto del reconocimiento de la diferencia de la prohibición 45 % ya que según acción de personal N° 00269, se le cancelaba 20 %, y de acuerdo a la Ley 8422 corresponde al 65% por lo que ordenó cancelar el porcentaje indicado a partir del 01/01/2010, según oficio DAM-ALCAOSA-0070-2010 (ver prueba 4 del disco de prueba y folio 38 del expediente administrativo tomo I); 12- La anterior acción de personal fue suscrita por el señor Nombre111673 y una funcionaria de recursos humanos (ver folios 38 del tomo I del expediente administrativo y prueba # 4 del disco); 13- El 29 de enero de 2010 la Contadora Municipal remite a la encargada de Recursos Humanos de la Municipalidad de Osa, misiva en la que indica que previa discusión sobre el tema con funcionarios de la Contraloría General de la República debe aplicarse el pago de prohibición al Alcalde en un porcentaje de un 65 %, para lo cual el señor Alcalde deberá solicitar el estudio correspondiente a ese Departamento de Recursos Humanos a fin de que se determine el cumplimiento de los requisitos legales y académicos (folios 40 y 41 del expediente administrativo Tomo I, 185 y 186 del expediente judicial); 14- La oficina de Recursos Humanos de la Municipalidad de Osa, emitió el 15 de febrero de 2010 criterio técnico sobre el pago de la prohibición y el porcentaje a cancelar correspondiente a un 65 % respecto al señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde Municipal (ver oficio PRH- oficio 15-2010, folios 48 a 53 del expediente administrativo tomo I); 15- El señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Osa, procedió a firmar en tal condición la Nómina de orden de pago número 009654 fechada 14 de abril de 2010, mediante la cual se autoriza el pago del retroactivo por concepto de prohibición en su favor (ver folio 49 del Tomo II del expediente administrativo); 16- Nombre111673 se encuentra autorizado por el Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos bajo el código TEC- 1221 como Tecnólogo en Procedimientos Radiológicos desde el 18 de agosto de 1987, y debe ejercer su profesión bajo la supervisión de un médico especialista (ver prueba numerada 6, oficio emitido por el fiscal general del Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos en disco de prueba); 17- El co-demandado Nombre111673 labora para la Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social desde el 8 de junio de 1980, y para el mes de marzo de 2012 ocupa un puesto en propiedad con permiso sin goce de salario, como Técnico Profesional 1 en el servicio de Radiodiagnóstico (ver folio 259 del expediente judicial); 18- Que el señor Nombre111673 en el desempeño como Técnico en la Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social ha laborado sin supervisión porque en el servicio médico no se cuenta por falta de recurso humano con Médico en Radiología (ver folio 259 del expediente principal); 19- La representación de la Contraloría General de la República, formuló ante la Municipalidad de Osa, Recurso extraordinario de Revisión contra los actos aquí cuestionados en el mes de mayo de 20118 (ver folios 139 a 149 del tomo II del expediente administrativo); 20- La presente acción Contenciosa fue presentada ante este despacho el día 4 de noviembre de 2011 (ver folio 1 del expediente judicial); 21- El anterior Recurso Extraordinario de Revisión fue resuelto por la Municipalidad de Osa en fecha 21 de diciembre de 2011 y comunicado el 22 de diciembre de 2011 (ver folios 160 a 170 del expediente administrativo tomo II); 22- Al señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde Municipal de Osa, se le cancela la prohibición desde el mes de mayo de 2008, y se le han cancelado por tal concepto hasta la primera quincena del mes de octubre de 2014, la suma de Ciento veintiún millones quinientos cincuenta y dos mil quince trece colones con sesenta y cuatro céntimos (C 121,552,513.64), desglosados de la siguiente forma: Ochenta y dos millones cuatrocientos cinco mil ochocientos quince colones con ocho céntimos (C 82,405,815,08) por concepto de pago de prohibición; quince millones setecientos ochenta y cinco mil setecientos setenta y un colones con setenta y seis céntimos (c 15,785.771.76) por concepto de cargas sociales pagados por el patrono generadas del pago de la prohibición; cinco millones doscientos sesenta y nueve mil ciento noventa y cinco colones con cinco céntimos (C 5,269,195.05) por concepto de los aguinaldos provenientes del pago de la prohibición; dos millones novecientos setenta y tres mil doscientos treinta y dos colones con ochenta y tres céntimos (C 2,973,323.83) por concepto de salario escolar provenientes del pago de la prohibición; y quince millones ciento dieciocho mil cuatrocientos noventa y ocho colones con noventa y dos céntimos (C 15,118,498.92) que corresponde al pago retroactivo cancelado en el año 2010 por la diferencias de la prohibición cancelada en los años 2008 y 2009 al pasar de un 20 % al 65 % (ver folios 367 a 370 del expediente principal); II- SOBRE LOS HECHOS INDEMOSTRADOS 1- Que el señor Nombre111673 se haya separado del conocimiento o aprobación de la prohibición y/o sus diferencias en su propio beneficio (los autos); 2- Que el señor Nombre111673 se haya abstenido de conocer en su condición de Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Osa de la incorporación en su propio salario de los rubros correspondientes a la prohibición (los autos); 3- Que se haya trasladado al Alcalde suplente o a los Vicealcaldesa de la Municipalidad de Osa, el conocimiento de la procedencia del rubro por prohibición en caso del señor Alcalde Nombre111673 o bien la firma de las acciones de personal que dispusieran en pago de dichos rubros en favor del señor Nombre111673 (los autos); 4- Que el señor Nombre111673 cuando fue nombrado como Alcalde en la Municipalidad de Osa ejerciera una profesión liberal (los autos) III- SOBRE EL OBJETO DEL PROCESO Y ALEGACIONES DE LAS PARTES La representación del Órgano Contralor reclama a la Municipalidad de Osa otorgar mediante las acciones de Personal N° 269-2008 y N° 062-2010 el reconocimiento al señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde Municipal el pago correspondiente a la prohibición sin que se haya realizado el estudio mínimo de los requisitos académicos y profesionales necesarios. Respecto al co-demandado Nombre111673 se le demanda en su condición personal y se pretende el reintegro patrimonial de los dineros recibidos por concepto de prohibición, afirmando que el señor Nombre111673 tenía conocimiento de que carece de los requisitos para su procedencia. Argumenta que la prohibición al ejercicio liberal de la profesión constituye una restricción que se impone legalmente a algunos funcionarios públicos, a fin de que no ejerzan sus profesiones y se dediquen de forma completa a sus tareas y responsabilidad públicas. Que a través del pago de la prohibición se pretende evitar el surgimiento real o potencial de conflictos de intereses, y tal restricción de la libertad fundamental solo puede ser dispuesta por ley. Respecto a las profesionales liberales señala como aquellas que se ejercen en el mercado de servicios, por lo que debe contarse con un grado académico que otorgue esa condición profesional en una rama del conocimiento, así como la incorporación al Colegio Profesional respectivo. En el caso concreto refiere que remitieron ante el ente Municipal una serie de disposiciones y recomendaciones que debían ser tomadas en cuenta para la procedencia del pago de la prohibición de lo cual en su criterio hizo caso omiso la Municipalidad reconociendo desde el mes de mayo de 2008 el pago por dicho concepto al señor Nombre111673 quien no cuenta con unos de los requisitos esenciales para gozar del pago " cuál es la tenencia de un grado académico que lo acredite como profesional y, en esa medida con la aptitud académica y profesional suficiente para poder ejercer de manera liberal una profesión" . Reclama que fue el mismo Alcalde quien aprobó tal beneficio en su favor, sin que cumpliera con los requisitos para tal beneficio. Indica que la Contraloría en momento alguno indujo a error a la Administración Municipal, que fue el criterio equivocado de la Municipalidad que ocasionó tal pago y que la Contraloría emite criterio en casos generales, no concretos, que cuando se dio la aprobación del presupuesto se indicó que el pago de la prohibición al Alcalde empero en forma general, la determinación si le correspondía en tal condición al señor Nombre111673 le corresponde al ente Municipal no a la Contraloría, que es claro que en este caso el señor Nombre111673 no cumple con los requisitos ni académicos ni profesionales. Pretende la nulidad de las acciones de personal mediante las cuales se reconoció y ordenó el pago al señor Nombre111673 , así como todas las subsiguientes que mes a mes han permitido la continuación de su pago, así como la devolución a la Hacienda Pública del dinero pagado por tal concepto. Por su parte la representación del co-demandado Nombre111673 , rechaza la demanda, e indica que el planteamiento realizado por el funcionario fiscalizador de la Contraloría General de la República es incorrecto, impreciso y carente de fundamentación técnico-legal. Se alega que el reconocimiento de la prohibición se realizó por el asesoramiento del ente contralor, así como de los estudios previos realizados de los órganos internos de la Municipalidad, tales como Recursos Humanos y la Asesoría Legal), además que nunca influyó en la decisión del pago, sino que se limitó a realizar la gestión pertinente y que solo él podía firmar, ya que para la época en que se aprobó el pago los rangos de vicealcalde no existían a tiempo completo. Que contrario a lo afirmado con la Contraloría General de la República cuenta con los requisitos exigidos por la normativa para el reconocimiento de la prohibición, ya que la Universidad de Costa Rica le extendió un título académico, lo cual le permitió colegiarse y trabajar en la Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social, y que no hubo ni dolo ni culpa grave en su conducta, además que es claro que es un profesional, que debe seguir la solicitud del médico en la práctica de su trabajo, pero en el desarrollo del mismo, es él quien tiene en conocimiento para ello. Manifiesta que no es la acción de personal N° 269-2008 la autoriza el pago de la prohibición de un 20%, sino mediante el documento FOE-SM-0754, la aprobación parcial del presupuesto extraordinario N° 2-2008 de la Municipalidad de Osa que realizó la Contraloría. Afirma que el reconocimiento le fue aprobado previo estudios, y que tiene el grado académico conforme lo estableció el mismo criterio de la Contraloría, como técnico-radiólogo, y que el presupuesto normativo que permite el pago de la prohibición no tiene nada que ver que requiera supervisión de otro profesional para ejercer. En las conclusiones del juicio, la representación del señor Nombre111673 indica que debe tomarse en cuenta que al momento de graduarse en el año de 1987 solo se contaba con grado técnico, conforme se desprende el numeral 1 del Reglamento y el artículo 4 de la Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Médicos y que conforme el numeral 33 de la normativa que lo rige, el ejercicio de la tecnicidad puede hacerlo de la forma en que considere. La representación Municipal en su contestación reconoce que es mediante la acción de personal N° 00269-2008 que se le autoriza el pago de reconocimiento de la prohibición de un 20 % al señor Nombre111673 , atendiendo al documento FOE-SM-0754 emitido por la Contraloría General de la República mediante el cual aprueba parcialmente el presupuesto extraordinario 2-2008 de la Municipalidad de Osa y que si bien posteriormente se emitió el oficio 10455 por parte de la Contraloría, nunca se dijo que los títulos de diplomado o técnicos no eran tomados en cuenta como títulos profesionales, y que su recomendación fue que el funcionario contara con grado académico universitario, y que en su criterio el Título Universitario extendido por la Universidad de Costa Rica posee carácter de título profesional. Respecto al reconocimiento del 65 % por medio de la acción de personal n° 62-2010 fue consecuencia de un estudio de fiscalización del que fue objeto el ente Municipal por parte de la Contraloría. Respecto a que el señor Nombre111673 debía ejercer su profesión bajo supervisión de un médico especialistas desde su criterio no desvirtúa que el mismo pueda ejercer su profesión de forma liberal, ya que lo que ostenta el señor Nombre111673 es un grado universitario denominado pregrado que consiste en un diplomado en radio tecnología. En resumen indica que el señor Nombre111673 cumple con los requisitos para que se le reconozca la prohibición y se encuentra afectado por la Ley de Enriquecimiento ilícito, tiene grado académico universitario, e incorporado al Colegio respectivo y que tal condición se determinó de los estudios técnicos que se realizaron previo al otorgamiento de la prohibición, solicita se declare sin lugar la demanda.

IV- SOBRE LA CADUCIDAD ALEGADA.

El representante de la parte actora opuso al inicio del juicio oral y público la excepción de Caducidad conforme el numeral 67 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. Fundamenta su alegato señalando que la parte actora interpuso el proceso pasado el año como lo dispone el ordinal 39 del citado cuerpo normativo. La representación de la Contraloría General de la República, se opone a dicha defensa, e indica que por el contrario, en razón de que la Municipalidad de Osa en sede administrativa no se pronunció sobre el recurso de revisión presentado por ese Órgano contralor, por lo que debieron interponer ante este Tribunal un amparo de legalidad para obtener respuesta. Indica además que los actos que se pretenden declarar nulos son de efecto continuado, dado que la primera acción de personal fue dictada el 16 de mayo de 2008 y mes a mes han continuado sus efectos en razón del pago que se realiza por concepto de prohibición al señor Nombre111673 , mismo que ha estado como Alcalde en el período del 2007 al 2011 y del 2011 al 2016 porque fue reelecto. En atención a dicha defensa, efectivamente el numeral 67 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo posibilita en el proceso la interposición de la Caducidad antes de concluido el juicio oral y público, por lo que habiéndose interpuesto por parte de la representación del señor Nombre111673 al inicio de la audiencia oral y pública, resulta admisible su interposición y de seguido se procede al análisis de dicha excepción. Los actos que se pretenden nulos de parte del ente Contralor datan -acción de personal número 00269- del 16 de mayo de 2008 y - acción de personal 062- del 29 de enero de 2010-, el primero de ellos mediante el cual se le reconoce al señor Nombre111673 el 205 por concepto de prohibición y el segundo donde se reconoce el aumento del porcentaje del 20 % al 65 %, dichos actos fueron impugnados en sede administrativa en fecha 5 de mayo de 2011 (folio 139 del tomo II del admvo) y fue resuelto por la Municipalidad el 21 de diciembre de 2011, fecha en la cual ya inclusive se había presentado por parte de la Contraloría General de la República la presente acción Contenciosa Administrativa, en consecuencia de la revisión de las fechas no había transcurrido el año dispuesto en el numeral 39 del CPCA, nótese que al momento de la interposición de la demanda en estrados judiciales, las conductas que aquí se pretenden anular, no se encontraban firmes, por pender la atención de un recurso extraordinario de revisión en sede administrativa. Así las cosas la acción en estrados Judiciales si se presentó por parte del ente Contralor dentro del plazo que establece el numeral 39 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo en consecuencia la excepción de caducidad debe ser rechazada.

V- SOBRE EL PUESTO DE ALCALDE.

Es el funcionario ejecutivo indicado en el artículo 169 de la Constitución Política, asimismo la ley dispone la existencia de dos vicealcaldes municipales: un(a) vicealcalde primero y un(a) vicealcalde segundo. El primero realizará las funciones administrativas y operativas que el alcalde titular le asigne; además, sustituirá, de pleno derecho, al alcalde municipal en sus ausencias temporales y definitivas, con las mismas responsabilidades y competencias de este durante el plazo de la sustitución. En los casos en que el o la vicealcalde primero no pueda sustituir al alcalde, en sus ausencias temporales y definitivas, el o la vicealcalde segundo sustituirá al alcalde, de pleno derecho, con las mismas responsabilidades y competencias de este durante el plazo de la sustitución. En los consejos municipales de distrito, el funcionario ejecutivo indicado en el artículo 7 de la Ley N.° 8173, es el intendente distrital quien tendrá las mismas facultades que el alcalde municipal. Además, existirá un(a) viceintendente distrital, quien realizará las funciones administrativas y operativas que le asigne el o la intendente titular; también sustituirá, de pleno derecho, al intendente distrital en sus ausencias temporales y definitivas, con las mismas responsabilidades y competencias de este durante el plazo de la sustitución. Todos los cargos de elección popular a nivel municipal que contemple el ordenamiento jurídico serán elegidos popularmente, por medio de elecciones generales que se realizarán el primer domingo de febrero, dos años después de las elecciones nacionales en que se elija a las personas que ocuparán la Presidencia y las Vicepresidencias de la República y a quienes integrarán la Asamblea Legislativa. Tomarán posesión de sus cargos el día 1º de mayo del mismo año de su elección, por un período de cuatro años, y podrán ser reelegidos. (Así reformado por el artículo 310 aparte a) del Código Electoral, Ley N° 8765 del 19 de agosto de 2009) Interpretado por Resolución del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones N° 405 de 8 de febrero de 2008 de la siguiente forma: “Se interpreta el artículo 14 del Código Municipal en el sentido que, en las elecciones de diciembre del 2010, se escogerán los cargos de alcaldes, vicealcaldes, intendentes y viceintendentes, síndicos, concejales de distrito propietarios y suplentes y miembros propietarios y suplentes de los consejos municipales de distrito y el nombramiento de estos funcionarios se extenderá hasta que los electos en febrero del 2016 asuman el cargo, sea hasta el 30 de abril del 2016. Asimismo, para armonizar el régimen electoral municipal a efecto que todos los cargos se elijan a la mitad del período presidencial y legislativo, los regidores que resulten electos en febrero del 2010 continuarán en sus cargos hasta el 30 de abril del 2016, fecha en que serán sustituidos por los regidores electos en febrero del 2016”.... (artículo 14 del Código Municipal) la anterior cita vino a reformar el numeral 14 respecto a la introducción de la figura del Vicealcalde primero y segundo, que originalmente antes de la reforma del mes de setiembre de 2009, establecía la existencia de los Alcaldes Suplentes, quienes sustituirían al Alcalde Municipal en sus ausencias temporales y definitivas, los cuales también eran elegidos popularmente. En conclusión el Alcalde es un funcionario electo en forma popular y directa, por el voto mayoritario de los vecinos de su cantón, para encabezar y dirigir el gobierno de ese municipio. Es el principal funcionario ejecutivo de la Municipalidad, institución a la cual constitucionalmente se le otorga autonomía para atender sus asuntos y cumplir con sus funciones. Al ser un servidor público y el más relevante en materia administrativa dentro de la Municipalidad debe llevar a cabo su trabajo teniendo en cuenta el bien común y la solución de los problemas de su cantón. Corresponden al Alcalde Municipal las siguientes atribuciones y obligaciones entre otras: a) Ejercer las funciones inherentes a la condición de administrador general y jefe de las dependencias municipales, vigilando la organización, el funcionamiento, la coordinación y el fiel cumplimiento de los acuerdos municipales, las leyes y los reglamentos en general. b) Delegar las funciones encomendadas por esta ley, con base en los artículos 89 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (...)

VI- SOBRE EL TEMA DE LA COMPETENCIA Si bien la Contraloría General de la República como accionante este proceso, acusa de nulas las actuaciones administrativas, alegando vicios en el motivo y en consecuencia del fin por apartarse de la satisfacción del interés público, este Colegio de Jueces procede a realizar análisis de la Competencia del señor Alcalde de la Municipalidad de Osa en el dictado de las actuaciones administrativas adoptadas por él mismo en su propio beneficio. Sobre el tema de la Competencia, la parte actora de este proceso, no alega directamente vicio por tal elemento, aún cuando en los hechos de su demanda afirma que el señor Nombre111673 procedió un auto reconocimiento del pago por concepto de prohibición. Resulta esencial a fin de justificar por parte de ésta Cámara de jueces, el entrar a analizar el tema de la competencia no alegado formalmente por la parte actora, la Sala Primera en reiterados fallos entre estos el 775-A-S1-2013 de las 16 horas 5 minutos del 13 de junio de 2013, dispuso:

“ III.- A partir de un nuevo análisis del tema, en concreto, replanteado respecto al órgano competente para declarar la lesividad del acto complejo que otorgó la pensión al demandado en el Régimen de Pensiones y Jubilaciones del Magisterio Nacional, y a los efectos de una correcta solución del asunto, resulta necesario precisar los siguientes aspectos: 1) El tema de la competencia del órgano o ente para declarar lesivo el acto, como condición previa a la interposición del proceso de lesividad, es un aspecto de naturaleza eminentemente procesal, previsto por la normativa vigente para este tipo de conflicto jurisdiccional. Por ello, la Administración que pretenda la anulación de su propio acto, debe actuar conforme lo regula el Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (CPCA). 2) Declaratoria de oficio de la invalidez de un acto en virtud de una infracción sustancial. Deber del juez. La Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP) establece que el acto debe dictarse por el órgano competente y por el servidor regularmente designado al momento de dictarlo, “…previo cumplimiento de todos los trámites sustanciales previstos al efecto…” y de los requisitos indispensables para el ejercicio de la competencia (artículo 129). También, que el juez no podrá declarar de oficio la invalidez del acto “…salvo que se trate de infracciones sustanciales relativas al sujeto, al procedimiento o a la forma, casos en los cuales deberá hacerlo . / Para efectos de este artículo, el sujeto se entenderá como elemento comprensivo de la existencia del ente y su capacidad, de la existencia del órgano y su competencia, de los requisitos necesarios para el ejercicio de ésta y de la regular investidura del servidor público. / El juez podrá controlar de oficio la existencia de todos los extremos dichos en relación con el sujeto del acto, con la excepción contenida en el párrafo siguiente. / La incompetencia relativa no podrá ser declarada ni hecha valer de oficio.” (canon 182, inciso 1) (El subrayado no es del original). De interés, esa disposición determina la obligación del juzgador de declarar de oficio la invalidez de un acto cuando se presente una infracción sustancial relativa al sujeto, es decir, respecto de quien adopta el acto. Sobre el particular, esta Sala ha señalado que “…De la lectura de la norma recién transcrita se desprenden diversos elementos importantes a considerar en el presente caso. En primer lugar, y según se adelantó, no se trata de una facultad del juez, sino que su acatamiento resulta preceptivo. La actuación del juzgador se encuentra vinculada a lo dispuesto por el ordenamiento jurídico, no sólo en cuanto a su aplicación al caso que las partes someten a su conocimiento, sino también, en cuanto a la actividad jurisdiccional que este desarrolla. En este sentido, le resulta imperativo pronunciarse sobre los aspectos indicados al momento de resolver cualquier asunto….” (Resolución no. 804-F-S1-2008 de las 9 horas 30 minutos del 4 de diciembre de 2008). 3) El CPCA, promulgado mediante Ley no. 8508 de 28 de abril de 2006, entró a regir a partir del 1° de enero de 2008. En el mandato 34, inciso 3), expresamente se establece que: “Corresponderá al Consejo de Gobierno la declaratoria de lesividad de los actos administrativos dictados por dos o más ministerios, o por estos con algún ente descentralizado. En tales supuestos, no podrán ser declarados lesivos por un ministro de distinto ramo.” Ante la existencia de una regulación específica que obliga revisar de oficio los vicios esenciales referidos al sujeto y a la competencia, esta Sala no puede obviar la existencia de la patología en cuestión.” Conforme lo anterior, este Tribunal se encuentra habilitado para la revisión del elemento competencia en las actuaciones administrativas cuestionadas. El numeral 129 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, establece que el acto deberá dictarse por el órgano competente y por el servidor regularmente designado al momento de dictado, previo cumplimiento de todos los trámites sustanciales previstos al efecto y de los requisitos indispensables para el ejercicio de la competencia. De los hechos tenidos por demostrados y de interés para este tema, tenemos que el señor Nombre111673 fue nombrado como Alcalde de la Municipalidad del Cantón de Osa en los períodos 2007 al 2011 y reelecto del 2011 al 2016 cargo que ocupa en la actualidad. Los actos que se cuestionan por parte del ente Contralor fueron dictados el 16 de mayo de 2008 (acción de personal 00269) y el 29 de enero de 2010 (acción de personal 0062). De la revisión del primero de ellos visible a folio 3 del tomo I del expediente administrativo, se desprende el formulario de la Acción de Personal de la Municipalidad de Osa, que el trámite es a nombre del Servidor Nombre111673 con un rige desde el 16 de mayo de 2008, puesto Alcalde Municipal, que se dispone un aumento de sueldo, y en las Observaciones "Pago del reconocimiento de la Proibicion (sic) de un 20%, según oficio FOE-SM-0754 con base en la Ley 8422 contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento ilícito en la función Pública" documento suscrito por el señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde Municipal, en el segundo documento visible a folio 38 del expediente administrativo del tomo I, se observa Acción de Personal de la Municipalidad de Osa, nombre del servidor Nombre111673 , puesto Alcalde Municipal, por concepto de aumento de salario y en observaciones " Reconocimiento de la diferencia de la prohibición 45% ya que según acción de personal N° 00269, se le cancelada 20%, y de acuerdo a la Ley 8422 corresponde el 65% por lo que se le cancela a partir del 01/01/2010 dicho porcentaje, según oficio DAM-ALCAOSA-0070-2010" documento suscrito por Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde Municipal, expuesto lo anterior, se encuentra acreditado que el señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde Municipal procedió a aprobar en su propio beneficio los aumentos de salario por concepto de pago de prohibición primero por el 20 % y luego por el 65% que corresponde a las acciones de personas aquí cuestionadas 00269-2008 de mayo de 2008 y 062 de enero de 2010, resta por establecer si el señor Alcalde estaba en condiciones de suscribir actos administrativos que le conferían derechos como funcionario de la Municipalidad o debía abstenerse de participar en el trámite, aprobación y orden de pago en su propio beneficio. Al respecto en su demanda el señor Nombre111673 indica que para el momento de dictado de los actos, solo él podía firmarlos, porque para la época en que aprobó"los rangos de vicealcalde no existían a tiempo completo." Ha de indicarse que los actos se dieron en momentos diferentes, el primero de ellos en el 2008 cuando lo que establecía la norma (ordinal 14) era la figura del Alcalde Suplente y para el 2010 la Figura del Vicealcalde, no obstante lo anterior, para ambos momentos el numeral 17 establecía las atribuciones que le correspondían al señor Alcalde, el inciso a) lo relativo a la condición de Administrador General y Jefe de las dependencias municipales, vigilando la organización, el funcionamiento, la coordinación y el fiel cumplimiento de los acuerdos municipales, las leyes y los reglamentos en general y la posibilidad de b) Delegar las funciones encomendadas por esta ley, con base en los artículos 89 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (...). De lo anterior se deduce que el otorgamiento de competencias es expreso y por medio de la ley, sin embargo el mismo ordenamiento brinda la posibilidad de que operen cambios en la competencia dada por medio de las transferencias establecidas en la ley con los presupuestos y las limitaciones particulares de cada figura. Cierto es que para el dictado de ambos actos administrativos, el señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde Municipal tenía como atribución la de Administrador general y jefe de dependencias Municipales por lo que le correspondía aprobar una vez realizado los estudios correspondientes cuando fueren necesarios las gestiones administrativas de la Municipalidad entre estas el pago de la prohibición a quien le correspondiere por ley, pero precisamente por su atribución debía para autorizar tal pago realizar la revisión del cumplimiento de los requisitos correspondientes para ese o cualquier otro trámite que implique la disposición de dinero de la Hacienda Pública, y es precisamente lo que tutela el inciso b) ya citado, la posibilidad de delegar las funciones encomendadas por ley conforme los numeres 89 y siguientes de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. El citado cuerpo normativo en su ordinal 70, impone que la competencia será ejercida por el titular del órgano respectivo, salvo casos de delegación, avocación, sustitución, subrogación y en concordancia con lo anterior, el numeral 230 impone que serán motivo de abstención los mismos de impedimento y recusación que se establezcan en la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial y además de los resulten del artículo 102 de la Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República, acudiendo a tales citas la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial. En el artículo 31 impone que a falta de regla expresa sobre impedimentos, excusas y recusaciones, se estará a lo dispuesto por el Código Procesal Civil y en revisión de tal cuerpo normativo se establece en el inciso 1) del numeral 49, que habrá impedimento para conocer en asuntos en que tenga interés directo, aplicado tal supuesto al que aquí se analiza de forma evidente para esta Cámara de Jueces, el señor Nombre111673 debió abstenerse y excusarse de conocer y autorizar una actuación administrativa que le otorgaba derechos a sí mismo. No es válida la excusa del señor Nombre111673 que no había funcionario nombrado a tiempo completo, y esto para el primer acto porque para la fecha del dictado el segundo ya se había previsto la figura del Vicealcalde, por lo que su justificación no encuentra para este Colegio de Jueces asidero alguno, el señor Alcalde tenía la obligación legal y ética como funcionario público y más aún de elección popular de ser transparente en sus actuaciones, y esto lo obligado a separarse del conocimiento de condiciones que pudieren otorgar beneficios propios como en el caso concreto. Considera éste Tribunal que el mismo Código Municipal le otorgada en el inciso b) del numeral 17, la vía legal para abstenerse de conocer los actos aquí impugnados, no obstante, por el contrario el señor Nombre111673 procedió a aprobar derechos y pagos de dineros de la Hacienda Pública a su favor, lo anterior, sin que ésta cámara haya emitido criterio sobre la legalidad del motivo de los mismos, concluye que los actos administrativos cuestionados, conforme a la doctrina de los numerales 129 y 166 de la Ley General de la Administrativa Pública impone un vicio de nulidad absoluta en los actos cuestionados, en razón del sujeto que lo dictó, en este caso el señor Nombre111673 y en consecuencia por mismos se encuentran viciados y deben ser declarados nulos.

VII- SOBRE EL PAGO DE LA PROHIBICIÓN A LOS ALCALDES MUNICIPALES.

La ley 8422 denominada “ Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública” se encuentra vigente desde el 29 de octubre de 2014, dispone en su Capítulo Segundo del Régimen Preventivo, artículo 14: “Prohibición para ejercer profesiones liberales. No podrán ejercer profesiones liberales, el presidente de la República, los vicepresidentes, los magistrados del Poder Judicial y del Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones, los ministros, el contralor y el subcontralor generales de la República, el defensor y el defensor adjunto de los habitantes, el procurador general y el procurador general adjunto de la República, el regulador general de la República, el fiscal general de la República, los viceministros, los oficiales mayores, los presidentes ejecutivos, los gerentes y los directores administrativos de entidades descentralizadas, instituciones autónomas, semiautónomas y empresas públicas, los superintendentes de entidades financieras, de valores y de pensiones, sus respectivos intendentes, así como los alcaldes municipales (negrita y subrayado no corresponden al original) y los subgerentes y los subdirectores administrativos, los contralores y los subcontralores internos, los auditores y los subauditores internos de la Administración Pública, así como los directores y subdirectores de departamento y los titulares de proveeduría del Sector Público. Dentro del presente artículo quedan comprendidas las otras profesiones que el funcionario posea, aunque no constituyan requisito para ocupar el respectivo cargo público.” Se establece una retribución económica por la prohibición de ejercer profesiones liberales. “Salvo que exista un régimen especial de remuneración para el funcionario público, la compensación económica por la aplicación del Artículo anterior será equivalente a un sesenta y cinco por ciento (65%) sobre el salario base fijado para la categoría del puesto respectivo”. Posteriormente se dicta el decreto ejecutivo 32333 Reglamento a la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la Función Pública vigente a partir del 29 de abril de 2005, en el que se desarrolla en el inciso 39 del artículo primero lo que constituye la “Prohibición: Para efectos del artículo 14 de la Ley contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento Ilícito en la función pública, se entenderá por prohibición la obligación de no ejercer la profesión objeto de contratación en forma liberal o de manera particular. Dentro de esta prohibición se entenderán comprendidas las otras profesiones que el funcionario posea, aunque no constituyan requisito para ocupar el respectivo cargo público” Por su parte sobre el tema de la prohibición, la Sala Constitucional ha señalado: "(...) los funcionarios o empleados sujetos a prohibición, están imposibilitados en forma absoluta no sólo para el ejercicio de otros cargos públicos, sino también para desempeñar, en la empresa privada, actividades relativas a los puestos que ocupan en el Estado, salvo claro está, en las excepciones que la propia norma establece, fundadas bien en la naturaleza de la actividad –docencia- o cuando se trata de la defensa de intereses personales o de sus parientes cercanos. Dicha limitación se impone (...) cuando el ejercicio liberal de la profesión o actividad sea incompatible con el cargo público que se desempeña, es decir, cuando pueda generar perjuicios graves a los intereses de la Administración Pública (...) Resulta claro, a partir de lo dicho, que sólo aquellas actividades cuyo ejercicio privado resulte incompatible con la función que el servidor desempeña, están sujetas a la prohibición (...) La inexistencia de dicha incompatibilidad, por el contrario, faculta al servidor público para ejercer privadamente su profesión u oficio, sujeto a las responsabilidades del caso si por ello incurriere en laguna falta laboral (...)" (Sentencia Nº 3369-96 de las 10:27 horas del 5 de julio de 1996). Expuesto lo anterior, no cabe la menor duda que el Legislador impuso a la figura de los Alcaldes Municipales una prohibición para ejercer profesiones liberales e impuso la indemnización de un 65 % sobre el salario por la limitación que efectivamente se impone al ejercicio liberal de la profesión. En Concreto sobre el tema de a Libertad profesional la Sala Constitucional ha desarrollado: “III.-SOBRE LA LIBERTAD PROFESIONAL. La Constitución Política no consagra expresamente la libertad profesional, sin embargo, esta libertad fundamental puede deducirse de la interpretación armónica de varios derechos constitucionales, concretamente, de los numerales 46 y 56 de la Carta Política que garantizan en nuestro ordenamiento el derecho al trabajo y la libertad empresarial. El contenido esencial de la libertad profesional comprende el derecho de elección de la profesión y el libre ejercicio de la actividad profesional. Si bien estos dos conceptos se encuentran estrechamente relacionados, las intervenciones estatales en cada de una de esas facetas se presentan con distinta intensidad. Así pues, la elección de la profesión debe ser un acto de autodeterminación de la libre voluntad del individuo y debe permanecer, en lo posible, resguardado de toda intervención del poder público. Por su parte, mediante el ejercicio de la profesión, el individuo interviene directamente en la vida social, por consiguiente, se le puede imponer restricciones en interés de los demás. De esa forma, la no afectación a terceros, la protección de la moral y el orden público son condiciones que justifican el establecimiento de limitaciones al ejercicio de la actividad profesional (artículo 28 constitucional). Ahora bien, aquí se aplica el principio de reserva de ley que determina que sólo mediante una norma con rango de ley - en sentido formal y material - es posible restringir los derechos fundamentales. Asimismo, se aplica el principio “pro libertatis” que dispone que toda norma jurídica debe ser interpretada en forma que favorezca la libertad. Sin embargo, se reitera, la libertad de ejercer una profesión se puede restringir por medio de ley en la medida que consideraciones razonables sobre el interés público lo demanden, mientras que la libertad de elegir la profesión, por el contrario, sólo puede ser restringida en la medida que la protección de un bien común especialmente importante lo justifique. Desde esa perspectiva, la protección de valores tan diversos como la salud, la educación, el bienestar y la seguridad, fundamenta la intervención del Estado -por medio de ley - en el ejercicio de las profesiones liberales, a efectos de garantizar la calidad y confiabilidad de los servicios que se brinden, así como la no afectación de terceros y el respeto de la moral y el orden público”. (Énfasis agregado) voto 1819-2005 del 25 de febrero de 20005 de la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, resulta además de importancia mencionar algunas consideraciones que ha emitido el Órgano Constitucional: "V.- DIFERENCIA ENTRE EL EJERCICIO DE UNA PROFESIÓN LIBERAL Y UNA ACTIVIDAD LUCRATIVA. Tradicionalmente, dentro de las profesiones liberales se aglutinan aquellas que suponen el ejercicio de una actividad de orden intelectual o técnico, mediante la aplicación de ciertas reglas científicas y técnicas que deben ser manejadas con suma propiedad por su titular, previa habilitación para ejercerla a través de la obtención de un título idóneo y adecuado y, eventualmente, la incorporación al colegio profesional respectivo. La singularidad de las profesiones liberales surge de la inexistencia de una relación de dependencia con su clientela, de modo que el profesional liberal tiene autonomía e independencia plena en la forma de prestar los servicios profesionales -horario, lugar, etc.- dado que lo hace por cuenta propia, razón por la cual sus servicios son remunerados mediante honorarios. El profesional liberal aplica, para un caso concreto, sus conocimientos científicos o técnicos sin someterse a ninguna dirección y bajo su exclusiva responsabilidad, esto es, de acuerdo a su leal saber y entender. Es menester señalar que el ejercicio de una profesión liberal, está íntimamente ligado a la libertad profesional, la cual incluye la de elegir libremente la profesión que se pretende ejercer y, una vez obtenida ésta a través de una titulación adecuada y la correspondiente colegiatura, la de ejercerla libremente sin otros límites que los necesarios para garantizar la corrección, supervisión y fiscalización en su ejercicio y la protección del interés público y, en particular, de los consumidores de los servicios profesionales. El ejercicio de una profesión liberal tiene por objeto proveer a quien la despliega una remuneración que le asegure una calidad de vida digna, tanto en lo personal como en lo familiar.” voto 18141-2009 de las 11.12 horas del 27 de noviembre de 2009. Una vez allegada la cita de este fallo, del desarrollo que realiza la Sala Constitucional debe determinarse en el caso concreto si al señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Alcalde lo cobija la prohibición y la consecuente indemnización dispuesta en la ley. Como primer tema ha de atenderse los argumentos que ha realizado tanto la representación de la Municipalidad de Osa como la del señor Nombre111673 afirmando que siempre respetaron los criterios de las Contraloría y que estos reclaman, aún cuando fueron quienes inicialmente aprobaron el pago de la prohibición al Alcalde incluso corrigieron el porcentaje de un 20% que recibía inicialmente a un 65%. Del oficio FOE-SM-0754 fechado 16 de mayo de 2008 se desprende que la Contraloría General de la República aprueba parcialmente el presupuesto de la Municipalidad de Osa, y respecto al tema del pago de la prohibición del Alcalde Municipal, se establece en el punto 2 en lo conducente “Según la justificación de egresos, proponen el pago de prohibición para los ocupantes de los puestos de (…) Alcalde Municipal. Debido a que dicho reconocimiento procede únicamente en los casos en que una ley especial lo autorice, se aprueba el contenido presupuestario para dicho pago en los casos de (…) y Alcalde Municipal con base en la Ley Contra la Corrupción y el Enriquecimiento ilícito (…)”, ambos codemandados alegan que a partir de ese documento consideran ellos que procedía el pago de la prohibición en favor del codemandado Nombre111673 por haberlo así dispuesto la Contraloría, argumento que no comparte este Tribunal. De la revisión en detalle de dicho documento, cierto es que la Contraloría General de la República aprueba el pago de la prohibición para el Alcalde conforme la Ley 8422, pero en momento alguno se extrae que esto fue consecuencia de la revisión de los requisitos que establece la ley para la pertinencia del pago, esencial es acotar, que la aplicación de la norma (ordinal 14) no resulta automática, aún cuando se dispone la prohibición y su consecuente pago a la figura del Alcalde, le corresponde al Municipio determinar si el Alcalde cuenta con los presupuestos de orden técnico-legal para aspirar a dicho pago. Aunado a lo anterior, se evidencia que el órgano Contralor en diferentes ocasiones remitió información al señor Nombre111673 como Alcalde Municipal de Osa en relación a la aplicación de la prohibición de los profesionales liberales, esto mediante el Informe DAG-J-1333-2008, el que además se emplaza al Alcalde para verificar de qué forma se le reconociendo la prohibición y su pago, oficio que inclusive el ente Contralor le notificó personalmente el 22 de octubre de 2008, inclusive señala el citado oficio (folio 34 exp. admvo) que son dos los elementos para el reconocimiento de la prohibición; un acto de nombramiento en propiedad y poseer un título académico universitario “lo cual debe ser valorado en cada caso concreto)” que acredite a la persona como profesional en determinada rama del conocimiento, requerimiento al que se suma la incorporación profesional respectiva, y que su incorporación sea condición necesaria y suficiente para el ejercicio profesional. No obstante lo anterior, no se observa que la Municipalidad para esa fecha emprendiera un proceso de revisión respecto al pago de la prohibición a los funcionarios beneficiados, por el contrario no se evidencia en los expedientes administrativos y la prueba presentadas al proceso que previo al dictado del acto 00269 del 16 de mayo de 2008 la Municipalidad de Osa haya realizado estudio técnico y/o jurídico para adoptar el acto administrativo del 16 de mayo de 2008 a fin de determinar el cumplimiento del presupuestos legales por parte del señor Nombre111673 . Y es hasta el 25 de enero de 2010 que la asesora legal de la Municipalidad emitiera criterio técnico respecto al pago de la prohibición, mediante el Informe MUNOSA –PSJ-02-2010 en el que la Licenciada Leidy Gabriela Martínez González en su condición de Asesora Legal concluye (folio 23 del tomo I del expediente administrativo) que el puesto de Alcalde al ser de elección popular considera que no está sujeto a categoría, estructura y condición académica, por lo que el pago de la prohibición es un aspecto inherente al puesto por estar dispuesto en la Ley 8422, acto seguido el señor Nombre111673 le comunica a la Coordinadora de Recursos Humanos de la Municipalidad sobre el criterio legal vertido y en consecuencia proceda a realizar las gestiones para el pago del 65 % así como de la diferencia. Respecto al segundo acto administrativo la acción de personal 0269, ha indicado el señor Nombre111673 que fue dictado habiendo realizado estudios previos, de la prueba que se hizo llegar al proceso, el criterio legal vertido por la asesora legal municipal lo fue en fecha 25 de enero de 2010 y la acción de personal fue suscrita por el señor Alcalde el 29 de enero de 2010, no obstante en ese misma fecha la Contadora Municipal Gabriela Elizondo Santamaría remite al departamento de Recursos Humanos de la Municipalidad misiva comunicando el criterio legal vertido así como la información recabada con funcionarios de la Contraloría sobre el tema del pago de la prohibición, e indica que los funcionarios que ocupen los puestos sujetos a prohibición en el caso que nos ocupa el Alcalde Municipal deberán hacer la solicitud por escrito a la oficina de Recursos Humanos, quienes deben valorar el cumplimiento de los requisitos legales y académicos para efectuar el pago retroactivo, sin embargo el criterio de las Oficina de Recursos Humanos Municipal se emite mediante oficio PRH-15-2010 fechado 15 de febrero de 2010 y lo citado supra el señor Nombre111673 firmó la orden de pago desde el 29 de enero de 2010, sin esperar que se emitieran la totalidad de los criterios técnicos necesarios para determinar la procedencia del pago, y a mayor abundamiento, el señor Nombre111673 decide como jerarca administrativo ordenar el aumento de su salario por concepto de prohibición aún cuando ya se había puesto bajo su conocimiento personal el oficio DAGJ-133-2008 por parte de la Contraloría General de la República, el cual le fue notificado desde el 22 de octubre de 2008 y se le emplazó para procediera a la verificación de la forma en que se estaba aplicando la prohibición y si ésta se ajustaba a los criterios y parámetros esbozados en dicho oficio y conforme el ordenamiento jurídico, lo que evidencia para este Colegio de Jueces que el señor Nombre111673 tomó la decisión de ordenar su aumento salarial estando debidamente advertido de las normas y criterios establecidos para su procedencia, había sido puesto en conocimiento de los mismos de forma personal, por lo que no es posible aceptar el dicho del co-demandado Nombre111673 que tanto solo se apegó al criterio legal vertido por la asesora Municipal, conocía ya los criterios esbozados por el ente Contralor, los cuales de igual manera como se desprende el informe de la abogada Municipal no fueron tomados en cuenta para la conclusión legal como se extrae de dicho criterio, cuando su conclusión es que el pago de la prohibición es un aspecto inherente al puesto. Dicho lo anterior debe avocarse al examen concreto para determinar si el señor Nombre111673 es un profesional liberal al cual debe reconoce el pago de la prohibición. Se tuvo por acreditado en el proceso que el señor Nombre111673 cursó en la Universidad de Costa Rica estudios y completó una carrera obteniendo el pregrado académico de diplomado en radio-tecnología. Se afirma por parte de los demandados que tal condición permite calificar al señor Nombre111673 como un profesional liberal; al contar con un título universitario. Sobre el tema la accionante allegó al proceso un documento expedido por la Universidad de Costa Rica, donde efectivamente certifica la condición académica obtenida por el señor Nombre111673 y el grado otorgado esto en el año de 1991, e informa que el diplomado es el grado académico que se otorga a las personas que cumplen los requisitos de una programa universitario como así se desprende el Convenio para crear una Nomenclatura de grados y títulos de la Educación Superior Universitaria Estatal, además se aporta un criterio del Colegio de Médicos que informa que el señor Nombre111673 se encuentra autorizado bajo el Código TEC-1221 como Tecnólogo en Procedimientos Radiológicos desde el 18 de agosto de 1987 y debe ejercer su profesión bajo supervisión de un médico especialista. La discusión medular en el proceso versa si la preparación universitaria recibida por el señor Nombre111673 ; le confiere un título profesional y si su condición académico lo hace acreedor al pago del 65 % que cuestiona la Contraloría. por su parte la Ley 3019 del 9 de agosto de 1962, Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos impone en su numeral 4º.- Sin la previa inscripción en el Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos, nadie podrá ejercer en el país las profesiones de médico y cirujano ni sus especialidades. En cuanto a otras ramas dependientes de las ciencias médicas, como la Homeopatía, la Osteopatía, la Técnica Radiológica, la Fisioterapia, la Quinesioterapia, la Optometría, la Psicología Clínica y la Salud Pública, el Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos autorizará su ejercicio, excepto para aquellas personas inscritas en dichas ramas en otros colegios, en su artículo 5º se establece que solamente las personas inscritas en el Colegio o autorizadas por éste, podrán desempeñar las funciones públicas relacionadas con el ejercicio profesional de la medicina o de sus ramas, excepto aquellas personas inscritas en otros colegios profesionales en las ramas citadas en el artículo 4º. Respecto a la condición de Tecnólogo, el Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos de Costa Rica mediante sesión ordinaria 2007-12-12 del 12 de diciembre de 2007, dictó la Normativa del Capítulo de Profesionales en ramas dependientes de las Ciencias Médicas Autorizadas por el Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos de Costa Rica, reconociendo en su artículo primero que el capítulo de Tecnólogos de ramas dependientes de las Ciencias Médicas estará constituido por todos los tecnólogos del sector Salud debidamente autorizados por el Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos de Costa Rica para el ejercicio legal de sus funciones, según se indica en el Artículo Cuatro, de la Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos de Costa Rica y se regirá por este Reglamento. Por su parte el numeral 2 establece que el capítulo de Tecnólogos se regirá por un Comité Coordinador, el cual representará a este Capítulo ante su Asamblea General, la Junta de Gobierno del Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos de Costa Rica y ante las dependencias administrativas del Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos de Costa Rica en el resto del país y demás instituciones nacionales. Posteriormente dicha normativa fue derogada mediante el reglamento dictado el 09 de setiembre de 2012 por la Junta de Gobierno del Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos de Costa Rica, el cual se su numeral 1 establece como su ámbito de aplicación " Son Teconólogos de Ciencias Médicas, las personas cuya preparación técnica les permite ejercer procesos relacionados a las Ramas Dependientes de las Ciencias Médicas, bajo supervisión médica directa o médica especializada según corresponda; los cuales están debidamente autorizados por el Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos de la República de Costa Rica (que en adelante indica en el artículo cuarto, de la Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos de la República de Costa Rica y se regirán por esta Ley, su Reglamento, la siguiente Normativa y otras disposiciones legales vinculantes", por su parte el numeral 2, define al Tecnólogo como el recurso humano con formación y capacitación técnica en Ciencias Médicas, cuya práctica se caracteriza por la aplicación de conocimiento científico, transformado para contribuir al diagnóstico, tratamiento y a la gestión de salud, bajo la supervisión médica directa o médica especializada directa según corresponda, y dentro del ordinal tercero se establece como una de las disciplinas autorizadas la Tecnología en Imágenes médicas. es importante señalar que conforme la normativa de cita, se establecen requisitos para los tecnológos para ser autorizados por el Colegio de Médico para el desarrollo de su tecnicidad, deben demostrar su idoneidad cumplir obligaciones económicas, éticas y profesionales con el Colegio de Médicos, no obstante resulta de importancia resaltar que la Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Médicos hace una diferencias entre la condición de médico y colegiado, a la del tecnólogo y autorizado para el desempeño de sus labores, cierto es que necesitan estar autorizados para su desarrollo, sin embargo tan requisitos no los convierte en profesiones liberales: Es importante establecer que estamos ante Técnicos que por su especialización y conocimiento científico transformado en tecnología en contribuir a la gestión de la salud, lo cual resulta conforme a cada una de las veintitrés disciplinas autorizadas, como se desprende del numeral tres de la citada normativa, son esenciales para determinar el diagnóstico y tratamiento que finalmente dispone el profesional en médica. Se desprende en criterio de este Colegio de jueces, un elemento presente y común, que el desarrollo de la función de los tecnólogos son calificados como ramas dependientes de las ciencias médicas, nunca ejercidos de forma independiente, lo que arroja a todas luces una calificación evidente del desempeño de las labores de los tecnólogos y en concreto en radiología como en el caso del señor Nombre111673 , que aún cuando cuente con un título universitario de diplomado como técnico radiólogo no puede realizar su trabajo en tal campo de forma liberal, véase que la misma constancia extendida por su patrono anterior la Caja Costarricense del Seguro Social informa que el señor Nombre111673 labora como Técnico profesional 1 en el servicio de radiodiagnóstico y que ha labora sin supervisión, lo anterior no porque sea lo procedente o conveniente, sino porque el servicio no cuenta con recurso humano con Médico en Radiología. Debe indicarse que es precisamente el análisis de cada caso concreto el que permite determinar si el pago de la prohibición es conforme con el numeral 14 de la ley de Enriquecimiento ilícito. En el caso del señor Nombre111673 ha de concluirse que conforme a la Ley Orgánica del Colegio de Médicos y su normativa interna, el desarrollo de su labor como Tecnólogo se encuentra sujeta al control y fiscalización del citado Colegio de Médicos, por ser una rama dependiente de la medicina y que debe ser autorizada por el órgano colegiado, ésta surge como un instrumento para establecer hallazgos y diagnósticos que deben ser determinados para que finalmente sea el profesional en medicina el que decida sobre lo adecuado en beneficio de la salud del paciente. Del simple ejercicio de la labor del señor Nombre111673 se desprende que el Tecnólogo en radiología es un auxiliar con conocimientos técnicos especializados que coadyuva al médico, pues es éste quien decide si es necesario exámenes o valoraciones radiológicas para finalmente emitir una diagnóstico y la prescripción de un tratamiento para atender la afectación de salud. Libertad profesional que no tiene el señor Nombre111673 . El co-demandado ha indicado que para el momento en se que llevó a cabo los estudios en la Universidad de Costa Rica, no había especialistas en ese campo, lo cual aún cuando no demostrado resulta un argumento lógico por el espacio temporal en que obtuvo su título en el año de 1987, no obstante no puede perder de vista que no es en aquella época donde se desempeña como Alcalde Municipal sino en el año 2011 a la fecha, y es partir de ese año que debe realizarse el análisis conforme a la realidad imperante, época para la cual ya existen profesionales médicos con especialidades como radiología, y que precisamente son estos los que supervisan labores como la desarrollada por el señor Nombre111673 . En criterio de este Órgano Colegiado no puede el señor Nombre111673 ser considerado como un profesional liberal, sino como una persona con preparación técnica a nivel universitario que le permite desde sus conocimientos coadyuvar a la medicina con la práctica de su tecnicidad. De interés es señalar que se ha denominado como Profesión Liberal: " Aquella de que constituye el ejercicio de una de las carreras seguidas en centros universitarios o en altas escuelas especiales, por lo general de actividad y trabajo tan sólo intelectual, aún cuando no excluya, operaciones manuales; como la del cirujano, y las de los arquitectos e ingenieros al trazar sus planos.(...) La singularidad de la Profesión liberal surge de que no existe relación de dependencia ni permanencia con la clientela, aunque pueda haber habitualidad en el requerimiento de los servicios; además, salvo establecerse aranceles especiales por el Poder público, el profesional liberal determina libremente su remuneración que recibe el nombre de honorarios, respecto al ámbito laboral, tal independencia, sin embargo, se ve comprometida en ciertas modalidades del Derecho Laboral. En principio, la posición de los que ejercen una profesión liberal es de autonomía en la prestación de unos servicios; al que la desempeña no se le considera como trabajador en el concepto restringido de sujeto del contrato de trabajo. La dificultad surge, evidentemente, en ciertos profesionales que ejercen su actividad bajo dependencia ajena y perciben no honorarios, sino un sueldo. El trabajo que presta un médico en los barcos y al servicio de un armador se caracteriza por la independencia técnica del profesional en todo lo relativo a su especialidad, pero está sometido, o puede estarlo, a cierta dependencia jerárquica y económica, que obliga a cumplir determinado horario, a asistir a las personas que se le designan, a comunicar el resultados de sus prestaciones y a observar los reglamentos que se establezcan. Situaciones semejantes caben en las prestaciones de trabajo de otros profesionales, como ingenieros, abogados, químicos, que tienen cierta independencia técnica; pero pueden contratar sus servicios como trabajadores en una empresa y percibir como ellos un salario o un sueldo. Diccionario Enciclopédico del Derecho Usual, página 447, editorial Heliasta, tomo VI P-Q, Edición número 21, Buenos Aires- República Argentina, 1989. En conclusión para efectos de la pertinencia del pago de la prohibición, el profesional no solo debe estar adscrito, colegiado o autorizado, sino que el el servidor esté habilitado para ejercer una profesión liberal. Ello implica que cuente con los requisitos académicos y de cualquier otro tipo que exija el colegio profesional respectivo. En el caso concreto ha quedado claro para éste Tribunal que el Colegio de Médicos y Cirujanos aún cuando autoriza al señor Nombre111673 para el ejercicio de su técnica, lo hace en tal condición, como una rama dependiente de la medicina y siempre bajo supervisión médica, por lo que los alegatos del co-demandado Nombre111673 afirmando lo contrario carecen de sustento ante la contundencia de la normativa que lo rige. En la especie se ha acreditado de manera debida, que el señor Nombre111673 no se encontraba dentro de los diversos supuestos que permitían el pago de ese aspecto conforme a la normativa indicada. Para tales efectos, es necesario indicar que en el ámbito del rubro de prohibición referido en este caso, las normas aludidas establecen con claridad el supuesto de hecho que permite el surgimiento de esa consecuencia jurídica. Desde ese plano, la pertinencia o validez de las actuaciones que dispongan el reconocimiento de este extremo, está condicionada a la concurrencia de los diversos presupuestos que le dan cabida. En este supuesto, la ocupación de un puesto de Alcalde no es suficiente, sino que el pago a quien ostente un cargo de esa naturaleza, será procedente mientras se limite el ejercicio liberal de la profesión, condición de la cual carece el señor Nombre111673 , constituye entonces el elemento motivo en que se fundamento la actuación pública Municipal. En esta línea, el numeral 133.1 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública: “El motivo deberá ser legítimo y existir tal y como ha sido tomado en cuenta para dictar el acto. (…)” Dentro de este ámbito, es evidente que la ausencia del presupuesto jurídico comentado, determina, sin duda, la antijuridicidad de la conducta que desconociendo tal exigencia, o bien, por omisión o defectos interpretativos, considere que el (la) funcionario (a), era de pasible recepción de ese beneficio, lo confiera. Ahora bien, la ausencia de este presupuesto (motivo) determina una invalidez de grado absoluto en la conducta administra, la cual, no puede subsanarse ni sanearse, conforme se desprende del ordinal 172 de la Ley General de referencia previa. El otorgamiento de este beneficio a quien no se encuentra dentro del presupuesto condicionante que establece la fuente legal que justifica el beneficio salarial en concreto, conlleva a una disconformidad sustancial con el Ordenamiento Jurídico (numeral 128 ibídem) que exige, en esa eventualidad, la supresión de las conductas administrativas.

VIII- SOBRE LA DEVOLUCIÓN DEL DINERO Sobre el reintegro de las sumas pagadas por concepto de prohibición. La determinación de nulidad de las conductas cuestionadas en este proceso lleva al examen de la pertinencia o no de imponer a al señor Nombre111673 el deber de devolución de las sumas recibidas por el pago del rubro de prohibición. El señor Nombre111673 alega que nunca intervino, ni presionó para el trámite del pago de la prohibición, sobre este tema en concretó declaró la señora Gabriel Elizondo Santamaría en su condición de contadora Municipal quien informó en el juicio que desde el año 2008, la Contraloría aprobó el pago de la prohibición mediante el presupuesto, y luego por información de la Contraloría se ajustó el monto de un 20% a un 65 % del pago por prohibición, y además se hizo la gestión ante recursos Humanos de la Municipalidad solicitando el estudio, posteriormente le llamaron de la Contraloría en donde le dijeron que iba Ha reabrir el expediente del señor Nombre111673 porque no procedía el pago al Alcalde y que don Nombre111673 debía devolver el dinero. e indica que el señor Alcalde durante el trámite del pago de la prohibición nunca ejerció presión para que se aprobará el pago, realizó las gestiones como cualquier otro empleado de la Municipalidad. Lo analizado en los apartes previos en lo que atina a la invalidez absoluta de las conductas objeto de examen en este proceso, llevan a concluir que las sumas erogadas a favor del demandado no pueden tenerse como bien recibidas o bien, amparadas a lo que se alega como una consecuencia de haber sido inducido a error a la Municipalidad por la misma Contraloría. De la prueba traídaa al proceso se evidencia que el ente Contralor remitió al señor Alcalde informes en los cuales se establecía los parámetros para la pertinencia del pago de la prohibición, e inclusive formuló recurso extraordinario de revisión respecto a la aprobación del pago en su beneficio, aunado a lo anterior del Criterio legal vertido por la asesora legal a él remitido, resulta evidente que no se analizaron las recomendaciones y parámetros determinados por la Contraloría para establecer si procedía el pago de la prohibición en su beneficio. Es importante acotar que ante la existencia de vicios que determinan las nulidad absoluta de las conductas cuestionadas, de conformidad con los ordinales 169 y 171 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, suponen la supresión de sus efectos de manera retroactiva a la fecha de emisión de esas conductas. La presunción de validez del acto administrativo que resulta del numeral 176 del cuerpo legal aludido y que tiene como efecto la protección de los efectos generados por el acto en el curso de su eficacia, solo es aplicable para la nulidad relativa, (en la cual, a tono con el precepto 167 ibídem, no se da la ausencia, sino la imperfección de uno de los elementos constitutivos del acto), no así en la nulidad absoluta, en la que, la acción es declarativa, por tanto, retroactiva a la fecha de emisión del acto. En el caso concreto, se insiste, la invalidez es de grado absoluto, razón por la cual, no puede considerarse que las actuaciones objeto de controversia puedan tener como válidamente incorporadas a la esfera jurídica del señor Nombre111673 , pues en atención a la Ley de Control Interno y en resguardo de la Hacienda Pública el señor Nombre111673 en su condición de Administrador y Jefe Administrativo de la Municipalidad debió ser más acusioso y ante la duda de ser necesario realizar las consultas ante los Órganos administrativos correspondientes, máxime que aprobó en beneficio propio tal plus salarial, en consecuencia resulta procedente la devolución dinero y el correspondiente pago del dinero recibido por tal concepto desde el mes de mayo de 2008, compresiva dicha suma sobre el pago, salarios escolares, aguinaldo y restroactivos recibidos por concepto de prohibición, lo anterior desde el mes de mayo de 2008 hasta la fecha en que continué recibiendo dicho estipendio y hasta la firmeza del fallo. Se rechaza la condenatoria de intereses conforme lo dispuesto en el numeral 173 del Código de Trabajo que impone que no devengarán intereses las sumas de más pagadas por el patrono. Si bien en el juicio oral y público se admitió prueba de la suma que ha recibido el señor Nombre111673 (C 121,552,513.64) la misma corresponde del mes de mayo de 2008 hasta la primera quincena del mes de octubre de 2014, no obstante en la actualidad el señor Alcalde continúa recibiendo el pago del sobresueldo de un 65 %, por lo que será en etapa de ejecución de sentencia que deberá el órgano Contralor demostrar finalmente la cantidad a que asciende la suma cancelada por tal concepto al señor Nombre111673 de forma actualizada.

IX- SOBRE LA SUPRESIÓN DE LAS CONDUCTAS CONEXAS. DE CONFORMIDAD CON LO DISPUESTO EN EL INCISO K) DEL ARTÍCULO 122 DEL CÓDIGO PROCESAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO.

El órgano Contralor solicita que en sentencia conforme el numeral 122 inciso K del CPCA se anulen actuaciones materiales conexas o los actos administrativos formales cuestionados, así como cualquier otro acto formal que tenga relación directa e indirecta con las conductas aquí cuestionadas, que hayan podido mantener de manera continua e ininterrumpida el pago de la prohibición a favor de Nombre111673 . En la audiencia oral y pública el señor representante de la Contraloría General de la República aclara que se refiere a las acciones de personal que permitieron el pago por concepto de prohibición mes a mes, desde el mes de mayo de 2008. Debe indicarse que no se cuentan con las fechas ni detalles que permitan emitir pronunciamiento de nulidad de todos y cada uno de esos actos, no obstante debe tomarse en cuenta que al estarse anulando las conductas administrativas que reconocieron el pago de un 20 % y luego de un 65 % y el retroactivo por concepto de prohibición en favor del señor Nombre111673 , las conductas que resulten conexas con estas actuaciones formales, como los actos de pago quincenal donde se reconocieron porcentajes por concepto de pago de prohibición del mes de mayo de 2008 a la fecha, por la nulidad declarada de las primeras, carecerían de sustento jurídico, no obstante el Tribunal no puede de forma general y en abstracto declarar nulidades.

X- SOBRE LA PRETENSIÓN DECLARATIVA IDENTIFICADA COMO G La parte actora solicita que se ordene a Nombre111673 y a la Municipalidad de Osa abstenerse de realizar en el futuro conductas administrativas similares a la impugnadas en esta demanda. Al respecto debe indicarse que no es posible para este órgano Colegiado pronunciarse en esos términos, tanto la Administración Municipal como el señor Nombre111673 se encuentran en el desarrollo de sus funciones sujetos al Principio de Legalidad, normas de Control Interno que deben hacer cumplir y el Principio de Probidad los cuales se encuentran ya implícitos para el señor Nombre111673 como funcionario nombrado por elección popular, como por el ente Municipal en el desarrollo de sus obligaciones y actuaciones, será en cada una de sus conductas que puede analizarse de ser necesario su legalidad, así las cosa se rechaza tal pretensión.

XI-SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES Respecto a la Caducidad alegada por la representación del señor Nombre111673 ya misma ya fue resuelta y rechazada. Pese a no haberse formulado excepciones de fondo, es deber del Tribunal el examinar de oficio los presupuestos materiales de la acción, como lo son el derecho, la legitimación activa y la pasiva, así como el interés. Es por ello que analizado el derecho se observa que de conformidad con la normativa citada, prueba aportada y los fundamentos de hecho expuestos, le asiste parcialmente el derecho invocado al actor en sustento de sus pretensiones, toda vez que se logró acreditar la nulidad de las conductas administrativas, así como la obligación del señor Nombre111673 de reintegrar a la Hacienda Pública todas sumas recibidas por concepto de pago de prohibición que no le correspondían. Respecto a la legitimación ad causam activa y falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva, de conformidad con los hechos ventilados en esta acción y acorde a la relación jurídico material objeto de análisis, es evidente que el órgano Contralor en el ejercicio de sus competencias de control y Fiscalización tiene la legitimación activa para accionar en este proceso en contra ambos demandados con el objeto de pedir la anulación de las conductas administrativas viciadas y la recuperación del dinero de la Hacienda Pública. En lo referente al interés, existe una necesidad actual vigente y palpable de que el promovente acuda a estrados judiciales a cuestionar las conductas impugnadas que le están causando afectación en sus intereses patrimoniales XII-SOBRE LAS COSTAS Siendo vencidos los codemandados MUNICIPALIDAD DE OSA Y Nombre111673 , y no existiendo mérito para su exoneración, de conformidad con el numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, se condena a ambas al pago de ambas costas del proceso.

POR TANTO

Se rechaza la defensa de Caducidad opuesta por la representación del señor Nombre111673 . En consecuencia, se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda, en los siguientes términos, entendiéndose denegada en lo no otorgado expresamente. 1) Se declaran absolutamente nulos los siguientes actos administrativos de la Municipalidad de Osa, acciones de personal números 00269 del 16 de mayo de 2008 y 062 del 29 de enero de 2010, 2) Debe el señor Nombre111673 reintegrar a la Hacienda Pública, en el caso concreto a la Municipalidad de Osa las sumas indebidamente giradas por concepto de prohibición del mes de mayo de 2008 a la fecha en que continué recibiendo dicho estipendio y hasta la firmeza del fallo, lo cual deberá establecerse en al etapa de ejecución de sentencia. 3) Son ambas costas de la acción a cargo de los codemandados Municipalidad de Osa y Nombre111673 . Notifíquese.

Grace Emilia Loaiza Sánchez Claudia Bolaños Salazar Otto González Vilchez Jueces de juicio

Sección Primera