Denial of precautionary measure for lack of proof of periculum in mora in municipal collectionRechazo de medida cautelar por falta de prueba del periculum in mora en cobro municipal

PROCEEDING OF IMPROPER HIERARCHY APPELLANT: Nombre105813 and Nombre105814 RESPONDENT: MUNICIPALIDAD DE CARTAGO No. 10-2018 CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRD SECTION, SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ, at thirteen hours on the twenty-second of January of two thousand eighteen.

This Tribunal hears, as a non-hierarchical comptroller of legality, the precautionary measure requested in connection with the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by Mrs. Nombre105813, identity card number CED82679, and Mr. Nombre105814, identity card number CED82680, against the resolution issued at 13:00 hours on the eleventh of January 2018, by the Municipal Mayor's Office (Alcaldía Municipal).

Drafted by Judge Rojas Ortega.

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- PROVEN FACTS: Of importance for the resolution of this matter, the following facts are deemed duly accredited: 1) In official communication No. LB-226-2016 at 07:49 hours on the 11th of August 2016, the Environmental Unit of the Municipality of Cartago determined a debt of two million one hundred thirty thousand six hundred ninety-two colones and fifty céntimos against the appellants. (Digital case file, folio 15); 2) By means of a brief dated 23 August 2016, the appellants filed a motion for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) and an appeal in the alternative (apelación en subsidio) against official communication No. LB-226-2016 at 07:49 hours on the 11th of August 2016. (Digital case file, folio 24); 3) In official communication No. RLB-OF-136-2016 dated 05 September 2016, at 08:00 hours on the 05th of September 2016, the Environmental Unit dismissed the motion for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed by the appellants. (Digital case file, folio 43); 4) By means of a resolution at 11:00 on the 03rd of February 2017, the Municipal Mayor's Office dismissed the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by the appellants (Digital case file, folio 51); 5) By means of resolution No. 419-2017 at 13:34 hours on the 31st of October 2017, this Tribunal partially granted the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by the appellants, solely regarding the amount charged for the construction of the sidewalk in front of their property. (Digital case file, folio 56); 6) By means of a resolution at 08:15 hours on the 1st of December 2017, the Municipal Mayor's Office communicated to the appellants the breakdown of construction costs per square meter used for the construction of the sidewalk in front of their property. (Digital case file, folio 84); 7) In a brief filed before the local Government, the appellants filed a motion for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) with an appeal in the alternative (apelación en subsidio), against the resolution at 08:15 hours on the 1st of December 2017, issued by the Municipal Mayor's Office. (Digital case file, folio 92); 8) By resolution at 13:00 hours on the eleventh of January 2018, the Municipal Mayor's Office dismissed the motion for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed by the appellants. (Digital case file, folio 94); 9) In a brief filed before this Tribunal on the 19th of January 2018, the appellants appeared before this Tribunal, by virtue of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed, and requested, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of the charge made by the respondent Municipality. (Digital case file, no folio number).

II.REGARDING THE GROUNDS FOR THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE. The precautionary measure filed before this Tribunal is processed by virtue of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed against the resolution at 13:00 hours on the eleventh of January 2018, issued by the Municipal Mayor's Office, through which, in turn, said territorial entity dismissed the motion for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) filed by the appellants against the resolution at 08:15 hours on the 1st of December 2017, issued by the same Municipal Mayor's Office. In their brief appearing before this Tribunal and, with regard specifically to their request for a precautionary measure, the appellants only make a series of substantive considerations, through which they state their position regarding the cost breakdown communicated by the Municipality, in relation to the sidewalk built by said Municipality in front of the appellants' property. In this regard, the appellants allege as defects of the indicated resolution its lack of reasoning (falta de motivación), as well as its lack of publicity, based on which they request the suspension of the charge made by the respondent Municipality.

III- REGARDING THE RIGHT TO PRECAUTIONARY JUSTICE. Precautionary justice arises from the general content of the constitutional guarantee to prompt and complete justice (article 41 of the Magna Carta) and encompasses the right to request from the jurisdictional body all those precautionary measures that are necessary, suitable, and pertinent to guarantee the effectiveness of the judgment on the merits, as well as the early and provisional satisfaction of the substantial legal situations of the litigants. Precautionary justice seeks to moderate or temper the effects of the normal duration of the judicial process, so that the legal situations of persons are not damaged, diminished, or harmed by the effect of the duration of the process itself. Hence, the principle Nombre10740 is fully applicable when it states that "The need to use the process to obtain the reason must not be a harm to him who probably has the reason." Correlatively, the Judge is obligated to order or adopt the precautionary measures that are adequate and necessary for such purposes. Thus, precautionary protection is demandable when there is a risk that, in an effectively or potentially certain manner, the substantial legal situations alleged by the petitioner may disappear, be damaged or harmed, seriously or even irremediably. In these terms, it is clear that precautionary justice facilitates the proper exercise of the prompt and complete jurisdictional function and, in parallel, keeps intact both the object of the process, that is, the claim, as well as the respective substantial legal situation sought to be protected, during the time necessary for the merits process to develop properly.

IV- REGARDING THE PREREQUISITES FOR GRANTING PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES. The essential and indispensable prerequisites for the granting of a precautionary measure are (i) The appearance of a good right (apariencia de buen derecho), (ii) The danger in delay (peligro en la demora), and (iii) the balancing of the interests at stake (ponderación de los intereses en juego); let us examine: a) The appearance of a good right or fumus boni iuris: It consists of a hypothetical judgment of probability or verisimilitude derived not only from the seriousness of the claim, but also from the probability of the success of the principal matter; in this sense, it is considered that this initial appearance of seriousness is sufficient for this requirement to be deemed fulfilled. The fumus boni iuris seeks the verification of a lack of temerity of the claim and an indication, at least initial and reasonable, of the seriousness of the claim. The Court of Cassation of contentious-administrative matters in its ruling No. 96-F-TC-2009, referred to this prerequisite also as fumus non mali iuris, that is, as the appearance that a bad right is not being exercised. b) Danger in delay or periculum in mora: It consists of the objectively verifiable fear or danger that the delay in developing the principal process may entail the loss, deterioration, or frustration of the substantial legal situation alleged, which would be linked to the uselessness of the judgment on the merits in such cases. In this regard, numeral 148 of the General Law of Public Administration indicates that granting a precautionary measure is appropriate when the administrative conduct may cause serious harm or harm that is impossible or difficult to repair. In turn, article 21 of the CPCA (applicable to the administrative venue by virtue of the remission made by ordinal 229.2 of the General Law of Public Administration), indicates that: "The precautionary measure shall be appropriate when the execution or continuance of the conduct subject to process produces serious current or potential damages or harms to the situation alleged (...)". Therefore, whenever there is a danger of damage or harm, current or potential, to the substantial legal situations of the litigants, precautionary protection must serve as a mechanism of protection and guarantee, in order to wholly preserve such legal situations; the foregoing, in addition to the fact that not in all cases does the litigant seek mere compensatory reparation, but primarily and fundamentally, the integrity of their claim and the legal situation that sustains it. c) Balancing of the interests at stake or bilaterality of the periculum in mora: Finally, for a precautionary measure to be appropriately granted, article 22 of the CPCA indicates that "(…) the respective court or judge shall consider, especially, the principle of proportionality, weighing the potential harm to the public interest, the damages and harms caused by the measure to third parties, as well as the characteristics of instrumentality and provisionality, so that the substantive management of the entity is not affected, nor is the legal situation of third parties seriously affected. They shall also take into account the financial possibilities and forecasts that the Public Administration must make for the execution of the precautionary measure." In this way, when the damage that may be caused to the public interest or to the interests of third parties is of greater magnitude than what the petitioner of the precautionary measure could suffer if it is dismissed, it must be rejected.

V.- STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES. Now then, precautionary measures have a series of structural characteristics that distinguish them; let us examine: 1) Instrumentality: Precautionary measures maintain a correspondence of an instrumental nature with the final judgment or with the final act of the proceeding. They never have an independent existence from a process (or proceeding) in which the appropriateness or not of a specific claim is being aired; this, except for the case of precautionary measures ante causam or prejudicial, to which it is not necessary to refer given the object of the litis; 2) Provisionality: Precautionary measures are provisional in that they are transitory and not definitive, that is, they are extinguished upon the issuance of the judgment in the process or even when, by virtue of the principle rebus sic stantibus provided for in article 29 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, a variability of circumstances has been verified that determines their modification or elimination; 3) Urgency: Given an abnormal situation, the legal order makes possible the derogation of the principle of legality by the primacy of the principle of necessity, in order to prevent damage or harm from being caused to the litigants. Given the pressing need to avoid damages or harms, in an abnormal situation, the legal order empowers the issuance of precautionary measures inaudita altera parte, ante causam, and provisionalísimas; and 4) Sumaria cognitio: Precautionary measures must be assessed under a summary analysis of reasonableness, proportionality, suitability, and necessity; although the judge must carefully assess the appropriateness of the precautionary measure, the truth is that the urgency and immediacy that characterizes precautionary measures entails that they must be assessed under a summary analysis, distinct from that which could be granted under the normal course and common timeframes of an ordinary process or proceeding.

VI.REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE. Under the considerations set forth, the corresponding analysis of the present matter will be conducted below, taking into consideration that it is circumscribed solely to the precautionary measure filed and the arguments presented by the appellant, hence no analysis is conducted regarding the merits of the appeal filed. Now then, as specified above, in order to address a request for a precautionary measure, the existence of the essential prerequisites for its granting must be verified, which is done below. Regarding the appearance of a good right (apariencia de buen derecho), this Adjudicator is of the opinion that the verification of the admissibility phase of the appeal (recurso de apelación) entails a certain degree of fulfillment of the prerequisite, however, within it, the analysis of the degree of probability that the appeal will be granted in favor of the appellant is also included. On one hand, it is observed that the appellant comes before this instance by virtue of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed, which originates from the municipal administrative act that is adverse to them, hence the appellant seeks this Tribunal's assessment of the appeal in order to evaluate the variables—arguments presented in the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed—that could tip the balance in their favor, at least in some of their petitions; on the other hand, it is noted that the objection raised by the appellant is duly founded on several arguments that must be assessed by this Tribunal, at which time it will be determined whether the charge under the terms intended by the Municipality conforms or not to the regulations that must be applied in this case, since, as the appellant states in the appearance made before this Tribunal, the present case concerns the validity of the charge made by the Municipality, regarding the cost breakdown communicated by it to the appellants; therefore, this prerequisite is deemed fulfilled. Regarding the danger in delay (peligro en la demora), it must be observed that the appellant argues that the charge entails an impact on their assets, however, it must be specified that, in order to grant the precautionary measure, it must be determined if the execution of the administrative conduct may cause serious current or potential damages or harms to the alleged situation, which consequently implies that not just any damage would permit the adoption of a precautionary measure. Now then, the only way to conduct such an assessment is based on the demonstration of the damage made by the appellant, since it is inherent to the person who suffers it, and it is that person who must prove their claim with relevant and conducent evidence to that end. In this regard, the appellant merely affirms that the charge brings an impact to their assets and that, furthermore, it is confiscatory, however, they neither state nor accredit, through the respective evidentiary means, how and to what extent the charge causes them serious damage or harm, current or potential, nor do they indicate the reasons why they consider that, should the challenged act not be suspended, their legal situation could be impaired. By virtue of this situation, it does not appear in the case file that the appellant has provided any evidence demonstrating the existence of serious damages or harms that would allow this Tribunal to grant the requested precautionary measure, which was their obligation, by virtue of the burden of proof falling upon them (articles 229.2 of the General Law of Public Administration and 317 of the Civil Procedure Code). Under this understanding, it is not enough to allege the existence of serious damage or harm, current or potential, but it must be proven. Finally, with regard to the balancing of interests at stake (bilaterality of the periculum in mora), it tips in favor of the public interest, since the municipal corporation carries out the challenged conduct under the protection of its legal powers to regulate the obligations incumbent upon the residents. However, it must be clarified, this Adjudicator does not enter into the merits of the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed; moreover, given that the party fails to demonstrate the existence of serious damage, it can only be concluded that the private interest must yield to the public interest that the local corporations represent. In this manner, since the material prerequisites necessary for granting a precautionary measure are not met, the analysis of the presence of the structural characteristics of the respective measure becomes unnecessary. Consequently, in accordance with the considerations set forth above, the precautionary measure requested by the appellant is rejected.

VII.REGARDING THE CONTINUATION OF THE PROCEEDING. In accordance with the provisions of Considerando I, in a brief filed before this Tribunal on the 18th of January 2018, the appellant appears, by virtue of the remand granted by the Municipal Mayor's Office, based on the appeal filed against the resolution at 13:00 hours on the eleventh of January 2018. By virtue of the foregoing, in accordance with the provisions of article 257 of the General Law of Public Administration, the grievances phase granted in favor of the appellant is deemed precluded, since they have already presented them before this Tribunal. Thus, given that the precautionary measure requested by the appellant is resolved in this act, and since the case file is complete, it is remanded for its consideration on the merits.

POR TANTO

The requested precautionary measure is rejected. The grievances phase granted in favor of the appellant is deemed precluded, since they have already presented them before this Tribunal. Thus, given that the precautionary measure requested by the appellant is resolved in this act, and since the case file is complete, it is remanded for its consideration on the merits.

Alex Rojas Ortega Judge Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, II Circuito Judicial de San José, Dirección04 . Teléfono: 2545-00-03, Fax: 2545-00-33.

Regarding this matter, the appellants allege that the indicated resolution is flawed due to a lack of reasoning and a lack of publicity, on the basis of which they request the suspension of the charge made by the appellant Municipality.

**III- ON THE RIGHT TO PRECAUTIONARY JUSTICE.** Precautionary justice arises from the general content of the constitutional guarantee to prompt and complete justice (Article 41 of the Constitution) and comprises the right to request from the jurisdictional body all those precautionary measures (medidas cautelares) that are necessary, suitable, and pertinent to guarantee the effectiveness of the judgment on the merits, as well as the anticipated and provisional satisfaction of the parties' substantial legal situations. Precautionary justice seeks to moderate or temper the effects of the normal duration of the judicial process, so that the legal situations of individuals are not damaged, diminished, or harmed by the duration of the process itself. Hence, the principle is fully applicable when it states that "The need to use the process to obtain justice should not be a harm to the one who probably is right." Correlatively, the Judge is obliged to order or adopt the precautionary measures that are adequate and necessary for such purposes. Thus, precautionary protection is required when there is a risk that the substantial legal situations asserted by the petitioner could effectively or potentially disappear, be damaged, or be seriously and even irremediably harmed. In these terms, it is clear that precautionary justice facilitates the adequate exercise of the prompt and complete jurisdictional function and, in parallel, keeps intact both the object of the process—that is, the claim—and the respective substantial legal situation sought to be protected, for the time necessary for the main proceedings to develop adequately.

**IV- ON THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTING PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES.** The essential and indispensable requirements for the granting of a precautionary measure are (i) The appearance of a good right, (ii) The danger in delay, and (iii) The balancing of the interests at stake; let us see: **a) The appearance of a good right or *fumus boni iuris*:** This consists of a hypothetical judgment of probability or likelihood derived not only from the seriousness of the claim but also from the probability of the acceptance of the main issue; in this sense, it is considered that this initial appearance of seriousness will suffice for this requirement to be deemed satisfied. The *fumus boni iuris* seeks verification of the lack of recklessness of the claim and an indication, at least initial and reasonable, of the seriousness of the claim. The Casation Chamber of the Contentious-Administrative Court, in its ruling No. 96-F-TC-2009, also referred to this requirement as the *fumus non mali iuris*, that is, as the appearance that there is no bad right being exercised. **b) Danger in delay or *periculum in mora*:** This consists of the objectively verifiable fear or danger that the delay in developing the main process may cause the loss, deterioration, or frustration of the substantial legal situation asserted, which would be linked to the uselessness of the judgment on the merits in such cases. Regarding this matter, Article 148 of the General Law of Public Administration indicates that granting a precautionary measure is appropriate when the administrative conduct may cause serious harm or harm that is impossible or difficult to repair. In turn, Article 21 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code (CPCA) (applicable to the administrative venue by virtue of the remission made by Article 229.2 of the General Law of Public Administration) indicates that: "The precautionary measure shall be appropriate when the execution or continuation of the conduct subject to process produces serious damages or harms, current or potential, to the situation asserted (...)." Therefore, whenever there is a danger of damage or harm, current or potential, to the substantial legal situations of the parties, precautionary protection must act as a mechanism of protection and guarantee, in order to preserve such legal situations entirely; the foregoing, coupled with the fact that not in all cases does the party seek mere compensatory reparation, but primarily and fundamentally, the integrity of their claim and the legal situation that supports it. **c) Balancing of the interests at stake or bilaterality of the *periculum in mora*:** Finally, for it to be appropriate to grant a precautionary measure, Article 22 of the CPCA states that "(...) the respective court or judge must especially consider the principle of proportionality, weighing the possible injury to the public interest, the damages and harms caused to third parties by the measure, as well as the characteristics of instrumentality and provisionality, so that the substantive management of the entity is not affected, nor is the legal situation of third parties seriously affected. They must also take into account the financial possibilities and forecasts that the Public Administration must make for the execution of the precautionary measure." Thus, when the harm that may be caused to the public interest or the interests of third parties is of greater magnitude than that which the petitioner of the precautionary measure could suffer if it were declared without merit, the measure must be rejected.

**V.- STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES.** Now, precautionary measures have a series of structural characteristics that distinguish them; let us see: **1) Instrumentality:** Precautionary measures maintain a correspondence of an instrumental nature with the judgment on the merits or with the final act of the procedure. They never have an existence independent of a process (or procedure) in which the appropriateness or not of a specific claim is being considered; this, except for the case of *ante causam* or prejudicial precautionary measures, to which it is not necessary to refer given the object of the dispute; **2) Provisionality:** Precautionary measures are provisional insofar as they are transitory and not definitive, that is, they are extinguished upon the issuance of the judgment in the process or even when, by virtue of the *rebus sic stantibus* principle provided for in Article 29 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, a variability of the circumstances determining their modification or elimination has been verified; **3) Urgency:** Given the existence of a situation of abnormality, the legal system enables the derogation of the principle of legality by the primacy of the principle of necessity, in order to prevent damage or harm to the parties. Given the imperative need to avoid damages or harms, in a situation of abnormality, the legal system empowers the issuance of *inaudita altera parte*, *ante causam*, and very provisional precautionary measures; and **4) *Sumaria cognitio*:** Precautionary measures must be considered under a summary analysis of reasonableness, proportionality, adequacy, and necessity; although the judge must moderately assess the appropriateness of the precautionary measure, the truth is that the urgency and immediacy that characterizes precautionary measures entails that they must be assessed under a summary analysis, distinct from the one that could be granted under the normal course and common timeframes of an ordinary process or procedure.

**VI. ON THE SPECIFIC CASE.** Under the considerations set forth, the corresponding analysis of the present matter will be carried out below, taking into consideration that it is limited **solely to the precautionary measure** filed and the arguments presented by the appellant; therefore, no analysis is conducted regarding the merits of the appeal filed. Now, as was specified above, in order to address a request for a precautionary measure, the existence of the essential requirements for its granting must be verified, which is done below. Regarding the **appearance of a good right**, this Judge is of the opinion that the verification of the admissibility phase of the appeal entails a certain degree of compliance with the requirement; however, it also includes the analysis of the degree of probability that the appeal will be upheld in favor of the appellant. On one hand, it is observed that the appellant comes before this instance by virtue of the appeal filed, which originates from the municipal administrative act that is adverse to them; therefore, the appellant requires the assessment of the appeal by this Court, in order to assess the variables—arguments set forth in the formulated appeal—that could tip the balance in their favor, at least in some of their petitions; on the other hand, it is noted that the objection formulated by the appellant is duly based on several arguments that must be assessed by this Court, at which time it will be determined whether the charge, in the terms intended by the Municipality, complies or not with the regulations that must be applied in this case, since, as the appellant points out in the appearance made before this Court, this case concerns the validity of the charge made by the Municipality regarding the cost breakdown communicated by it to the appellants; thus, this requirement is deemed satisfied. Regarding the **danger in delay**, it must be observed that the appellant argues that the charge made entails an impact on their assets; however, it must be specified that, in order to grant the precautionary measure, it must be determined whether the execution of the administrative conduct may cause serious damages or harms, current or potential, to the situation asserted, which consequently implies that not just any harm would allow the adoption of a precautionary measure. Now, the only way to conduct such an assessment is from the demonstration of the harm made by the appellant, since it is inherent to the person who suffers it, and it will be this person who must prove their claim with pertinent and relevant evidence for that purpose. In this regard, the appellant merely affirms that the charge brings an impact on their assets and that it is also confiscatory; however, they neither state nor prove, through the respective evidentiary means, how and to what extent the charge causes them serious, current, or potential damage or harm, nor do they indicate the reasons why they consider that, if the challenged act is not suspended, their legal situation could be impaired. By virtue of this situation, the case file does not contain evidence that the appellant has provided any proof demonstrating the existence of serious damages or harms that would allow this Court to grant the requested precautionary measure, which was their obligation, by virtue of the burden of proof that falls upon them (Articles 229.2 of the General Law of Public Administration and 317 of the Civil Procedural Code). Under this understanding, it is not enough to allege the existence of a serious, current, or potential damage or harm; rather, it must be proven. Finally, in the **balancing of interests at stake (bilaterality of the *periculum in mora*)**, it tilts in favor of the public interest, since the municipal corporation carries out the challenged conduct under the protection of legal powers to regulate the obligations borne by the residents. However, it must be clarified that this Judge does not proceed to hear the merits regarding the appeal filed; furthermore, since the party fails to demonstrate the existence of serious harm, it cannot but be concluded that the private interest must yield to the public interest that local corporations represent. Thus, since the material requirements necessary for the granting of a precautionary measure are not met, the analysis of the presence of the structural characteristics of the respective measure becomes unnecessary. Consequently, in accordance with the considerations set forth above, the precautionary measure requested by the appellant is rejected.

**VII. ON THE CONTINUATION OF THE PROCEDURE.** In accordance with the provisions of Considering I, in a brief filed before this Court on January 18, 2018, the appellant appears by virtue of the transfer granted by the Municipal Mayor's Office, due to the appeal filed against the resolution issued at 1:00 p.m. on January 11, 2018. By virtue of the foregoing, in accordance with the provisions of Article 257 of the General Law of Public Administration, the grievances phase granted in favor of the appellant is deemed precluded, since they have already presented them before this Court. Thus, since the precautionary measure requested by the appellant is resolved in this act, and given that the case file is complete, it is transferred for its consideration on the merits.

**POR TANTO** The requested precautionary measure is rejected. The grievances phase granted in favor of the appellant is deemed precluded, since they have already presented them before this Court. Thus, since the precautionary measure requested by the appellant is resolved in this act, and given that the case file is complete, it is transferred for its consideration on the merits.

**Alex Rojas Ortega** **Judge**

**EXPEDIENTE: 18-000213-1027-CA** **PROCESO DE JERARQUÍA IMPROPIA** **APPELLANTS: Nombre105813 and Nombre105814** **RESPONDENT: MUNICIPALIDAD DE CARTAGO** **No. 10-2018** **TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN TERCERA, II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ**, at thirteen hours on the twenty-second of January of two thousand eighteen.

This Tribunal, as a non-hierarchical controller of legality, hears the precautionary measure requested in connection with the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed by Mrs. **Nombre105813**, identity card number CED82679, and Mr. **Nombre105814**, identity card number CED82680, against the resolution issued at 13:00 hours on January eleventh, 2018, by the Municipal Mayor's Office (Alcaldía Municipal).

**Judge Rojas Ortega writes**.

**CONSIDERING:** **I.- PROVEN FACTS:** The following facts are deemed duly accredited for the resolution of this matter: **1)** In official letter No. LB-226-2016 at 07:49 hours on August 11, 2016, the Environmental Unit of the Municipalidad de Cartago determined a debt of two million one hundred thirty thousand six hundred ninety-two colones and fifty céntimos against the appellants. *(Digital case file, folio 15);* **2)** By means of a brief dated August 23, 2016, the appellants filed a motion for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) and an appeal in subsidy, against official letter No. LB-226-2016 at 07:49 hours on August 11, 2016. *(Digital case file, folio 24);* **3)** In official letter No. RLB-OF-136-2016 of September 5, 2016, at 08:00 hours on September 5, 2016, the Environmental Unit dismissed the motion for revocation filed by the appellants. *(Digital case file, folio 43);* **4)** By resolution at 11:00 on February 3, 2017, the Municipal Mayor's Office dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants (Digital case file, folio 51); **5)** By resolution No. 419-2017 at 13:34 hours on October 31, 2017, this Tribunal partially granted the appeal filed by the appellants, solely regarding the amount charged for the construction of the sidewalk (acera) in front of their property. *(Digital case file, folio 56);* **6)** By resolution at 08:15 hours on December 1, 2017, the Municipal Mayor's Office communicated to the appellants the breakdown of construction costs per square meter that it used for the construction of the sidewalk in front of their property. *(Digital case file, folio 84);* **7)** In a brief filed before the local Government, the appellants filed a motion for revocation with an appeal in subsidy, against the resolution at 08:15 hours on December 1, 2017, issued by the Municipal Mayor's Office. (Digital case file, folio 92); **8)** By resolution at 13:00 hours on January eleventh, 2018, the Municipal Mayor's Office dismissed the motion for revocation filed by the appellants. *(Digital case file, folio 94);* **9)** In a brief filed before this Tribunal on January 19, 2018, the appellants appeared before this Tribunal by virtue of the appeal filed and requested, as a precautionary measure, the suspension of the charge made by the respondent Municipality. *(Digital case file, no folio number).* **II. REGARDING THE GROUNDS FOR THE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURE.** The precautionary measure filed before this Tribunal is managed by virtue of the appeal formulated against the resolution at 13:00 hours on January eleventh, 2018, issued by the Municipal Mayor's Office, by which, in turn, said territorial entity dismissed the motion for revocation filed by the appellants against the resolution at 08:15 hours on December 1, 2017, issued by the same Municipal Mayor's Office. In their appearance brief before this Tribunal and, specifically regarding their request for a precautionary measure, the appellants merely make a series of substantive considerations through which they state their position on the breakdown of costs communicated by the Municipality in relation to the sidewalk built by said Municipality in front of the appellants' property. On this point, the appellants claim as defects of the indicated resolution the lack of reasoning (motivación) and the lack of publicity, based on which they request the suspension of the charge made by the respondent Municipality.

**III- REGARDING THE RIGHT TO CAUTELARY JUSTICE.** Cautelary justice arises from the general content of the constitutional guarantee to swift and complete justice (article 41 of the Magna Carta) and includes the right to request from the jurisdictional body all those precautionary measures that are necessary, suitable, and pertinent to guarantee the effectiveness of the judgment on the merits, as well as the anticipatory and provisional satisfaction of the substantial legal situations of the litigants. Cautelary justice seeks to moderate or temper the effects of the normal duration of the judicial process, so that the legal situations of individuals are not damaged, diminished, or harmed by the duration of the process itself. Hence, the principle Nombre10740 is fully applicable when it states that “*The need to use the process to obtain a favorable ruling must not be a harm to those who are probably in the right.*” Correlatively, the Judge is obliged to order or adopt the precautionary measures that are adequate and necessary for such purposes. Thus, cautelary protection is required when there is a risk that the substantial legal situations claimed by the applicant may effectively or potentially disappear, be damaged, or be harmed in a serious and even irremediable manner. In these terms, it is clear that cautelary justice facilitates the adequate exercise of the swift and complete jurisdictional function and, in parallel, keeps intact both the object of the process—that is, the claim (pretensión)—and the respective substantial legal situation sought to be protected, for the time necessary for the substantive process to develop adequately.

**IV- REGARDING THE PREREQUISITES FOR GRANTING PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES.** The essential and indispensable prerequisites for the granting of a precautionary measure are (i) The appearance of good law, (ii) The danger in delay, and (iii) the balancing of the interests at stake; let us examine them: **a) The appearance of good law or *fumus boni iuris*:** It consists of a hypothetical judgment of probability or verisimilitude derived not only from the seriousness of the claim (demanda), but from the probability of the main issue being granted; in this sense, it is considered that this initial appearance of seriousness is sufficient for this requirement to be deemed fulfilled. The *fumus boni iuris* seeks the verification of a lack of recklessness in the claim and a semblance, at least initial and reasonable, of the seriousness of the claim. The Court of Cassation of the Contentious-Administrative jurisdiction, in its vote No. 96-F-TC-2009, also referred to this prerequisite as the *fumus non mali iuris*, that is, as the appearance that there is no bad law being exercised. **b) Danger in delay or *periculum in mora*:** It consists of the objectively verifiable fear or danger that the delay in developing the main process may entail the loss, deterioration, or frustration of the substantial legal situation claimed, which would be linked to the uselessness of the judgment on the merits in such cases. On this point, numeral 148 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) considers the granting of a precautionary measure to be appropriate when the administrative conduct may cause serious harm or harm that is impossible or difficult to repair. In turn, article 21 of the CPCA (applicable in the administrative venue by virtue of the remission made by ordinal 229.2 of the General Law of Public Administration) indicates that: "*The precautionary measure shall be appropriate when the execution or permanence of the conduct submitted to process produces serious damages or harms, current or potential, to the claimed situation (...)*". Therefore, whenever there is a danger of damage or harm, current or potential, to the substantial legal situations of the litigants, cautelary protection must serve as a protection and guarantee mechanism, in order to preserve such legal situations completely; the foregoing, coupled with the fact that not in all cases does the litigant seek mere compensatory reparation, but primarily and fundamentally, the integrity of their claim and the legal situation that supports it. **c) Balancing of the interests at stake or bilaterality of the *periculum in mora*:** Finally, for the granting of a precautionary measure to be appropriate, article 22 of the CPCA states that "*…the court or the respective judge must especially consider the principle of proportionality, weighing the potential injury to the public interest, the damages and harms caused to third parties by the measure, as well as the characteristics of instrumentality and provisionality, so that the substantive management of the entity is not affected, nor is the legal situation of third parties seriously affected. They must also take into account the financial possibilities and provisions that the Public Administration must make for the execution of the precautionary measure*". Thus, when the damage that may be caused to the public interest or the interests of third parties is of greater magnitude than that which the applicant for the precautionary measure could suffer if it were dismissed, it must be rejected.

**V.- STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES.** Now, precautionary measures have a series of structural characteristics that particularize them; let us examine them: **1) Instrumentality:** Precautionary measures maintain a relationship of an instrumental character with the judgment on the merits or with the final act of the procedure. They never have an existence independent of a process (or procedure) in which the appropriateness of a specific claim is being considered; this is with the exception of the case of precautionary measures *ante causam* or prejudicial measures, to which it is not necessary to refer given the object of the *litis*; **2) Provisionality:** Precautionary measures are provisional insofar as they are transitory and not definitive, that is, they are extinguished upon the issuance of the process judgment or even when, by virtue of the *rebus sic stantibus* principle provided for in article 29 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, a variability of the circumstances that determine their modification or elimination has been verified; **3) Urgency:** Given the existence of an abnormal situation, the legal system enables the derogation of the principle of legality by the primacy of the principle of necessity, in order to prevent damage or harm from being caused to the litigants. Given the imperative need to avoid damages or harms, in an abnormal situation, the system empowers the issuance of precautionary measures *inaudita altera parte*, *ante causam*, and provisionalísimas; and **4) *Sumaria cognitio*:** Precautionary measures must be examined under a summary analysis of reasonableness, proportionality, adequacy, and necessity; although the adjudicator must carefully assess the appropriateness of the precautionary measure, the fact is that the urgency and immediacy characterizing precautionary measures entails that they must be assessed under a summary analysis, different from that which could be granted under the normal course and common timeframes of an ordinary process or procedure.

**VI. REGARDING THE SPECIFIC CASE.** Under the considerations set forth, the analysis corresponding to this matter will be carried out below, taking into consideration that it is circumscribed **solely to the precautionary measure** filed and the arguments put forth by the appellants; hence, no analysis is made regarding the merits of the filed appeal. Now, as was specified earlier, in order to address a request for a precautionary measure, the existence of the essential prerequisites for its granting must be verified, which is done below. Regarding the **appearance of good law**, this Adjudicator is of the opinion that the verification of the admissibility phase of the appeal (recurso de apelación) entails a certain degree of fulfillment of the prerequisite; however, this also includes the analysis of the degree of probability that the appeal will be granted in favor of the appellants. On one hand, it can be seen that the appellants come before this instance by virtue of the appeal filed, which originates from the municipal administrative act that is adverse to them; therefore, the appellants require the assessment of the appeal by this Tribunal in order to evaluate the variables—arguments set forth in the formulated appeal—that could tip the balance in their favor, at least in some of their petitions. On the other hand, it is noted that the objection formulated by the appellants is duly grounded in several arguments that must be assessed by this Tribunal, at which time it will be determined whether the charge, in the terms intended by the Municipality, conforms to the regulations that must be applied in this case, since, as the appellants state in the appearance made before this Tribunal, this case concerns the validity of the charge made by the Municipality regarding the breakdown of costs communicated by it to the appellants; thus, this prerequisite is deemed fulfilled. Regarding the **danger in delay**, it must be observed that the appellants argue that the charge entails an impact on their assets; however, it must be specified that in order to grant the precautionary measure, it must be determined whether the execution of the administrative conduct may cause serious damages or harms, current or potential, to the claimed situation, which consequently implies that not just any damage would permit the adoption of a precautionary measure. Now, the only way to carry out said assessment is based on the demonstration of the damage by the appellants, since it is inherent to the person who suffers it, and it is they who must prove their claim with pertinent and conclusive evidence for that purpose. In this regard, the appellants merely state that the charge brings an impact on their assets and that, furthermore, it is confiscatory; however, they neither state nor prove, through the respective evidentiary means, how and to what extent the charge causes them serious damage or harm, current or potential, nor do they indicate the reasons why they consider that, if the challenged act is not suspended, their legal situation could be diminished. By virtue of this situation, there is no evidence in the case file that the appellants have submitted any proof demonstrating the existence of serious damages or harms that would allow this Tribunal to grant the requested precautionary measure, which was their obligation, by virtue of the burden of proof (carga probatoria) that falls upon them (articles 229.2 of the General Law of Public Administration and 317 of the Código Procesal Civil).

Under this understanding, it is not enough to allege the existence of serious damage or harm, whether actual or potential, but rather it must be proven. Finally, in the balancing of interests at stake (bilaterality of the periculum in mora), it tilts in favor of the public interest, inasmuch as the municipal corporation carries out the challenged conduct under the protection of its legal powers to regulate the obligations incumbent upon the residents. However, it must be clarified that this Judge does not proceed to examine the merits regarding the appeal filed; furthermore, since the party fails to demonstrate the existence of serious damage, one can only conclude that the private interest must yield to the public interest represented by local corporations. In this way, since the material prerequisites necessary for the granting of a precautionary measure are not met, the analysis of the presence of the structural characteristics of the respective measure becomes unnecessary. Consequently, in accordance with the considerations set forth above, the precautionary measure requested by the appellant is denied.

**VII. ON THE CONTINUATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS.** In accordance with the provisions of Considerando I, in a brief filed before this Court on January 18, 2018, the appellant appears, by virtue of the transfer granted by the Municipal Mayor's Office, by virtue of the appeal filed against the resolution issued at 1:00 p.m. on January eleventh, 2018. By virtue of the foregoing, in accordance with the provisions of Article 257 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, the grievance phase granted in favor of the appellant is deemed precluded, inasmuch as the appellant has already presented them before this Court. Thus, since the precautionary measure requested by the appellant is resolved in this act and given that the case file is complete, the same is transferred for a decision on the merits.

POR TANTO

The requested precautionary measure is denied. The grievance phase granted in favor of the appellant is deemed precluded, inasmuch as the appellant has already presented them before this Court. Thus, since the precautionary measure requested by the appellant is resolved in this act and given that the case file is complete, the same is transferred for a decision on the merits.

Alex Rojas Ortega

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, II Circuito Judicial de San José, Dirección04 . Teléfono: 2545-00-03, Fax: 2545-00-33.

PROCESO DE JERARQUÍA IMPROPIA RECURRENTE: Nombre105813 y Nombre105814 RECURRIDA: MUNICIPALIDAD DE CARTAGO No. 10-2018 TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN TERCERA, II CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, a las trece horas del veintidós de enero del dos mil dieciocho.

Conoce este Tribunal, como contralor no jerárquico de legalidad, de la medida cautelar solicitada en atención al recurso de apelación interpuesto por la señora Nombre105813 , cédula de identidad número CED82679 y el señor Nombre105814 , cédula de identidad número CED82680, contra la resolución de las 13:00 horas del once de enero del 2018, dictada por la Alcaldía Municipal.

Redacta el Juez Rojas Ortega.

CONSIDERANDO:

I.- HECHOS PROBADOS: De importancia para la resolución de este asunto, se tienen como debidamente acreditados los siguientes hechos: 1) En el oficio No. LB-226-2016 de las 07:49 horas del 11 de agosto del 2016, la Unidad Ambiental de la Municipalidad de Cartago, determinó la deuda de dos millones ciento treinta mil seiscientos noventa y dos colones con cincuenta céntimos, en contra de los recurrentes. (Expediente digital, folio 15); 2) Mediante escrito de fecha 23 de agosto del 2016, los recurrentes interpusieron recurso de revocatoria y de apelación en subsidio, en contra del oficio No. LB-226-2016 de las 07:49 horas del 11 de agosto del 2016. (Expediente digital, folio 24); 3) En el oficio No. RLB-OF-136-2016 del 05 de setiembre del 2016, de las 08:00 horas del 05 de setiembre del 2016, la Unidad Ambiental declaró sin lugar el recurso de revocatoria interpuesto por los recurrentes. (Expediente digital, folio 43); 4) Mediante resolución de las 11:00 del 03 de febrero del 2017, la Alcaldía Municipal declaró sin lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto por los recurrentes (Expediente digital, folio 51); 5) Mediante resolución No. 419-2017 de las 13:34 horas del 31 de octubre del 2017, este Tribunal declaró parcialmente lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto por los recurrentes, únicamente respecto del monto cobrado por concepto de construcción de la acera frente a su propiedad. (Expediente digital, folio 56); 6) Mediante resolución de las 08:15 horas del 1° de diciembre del 2017, la Alcaldía Municipal comunicó a los recurrentes el desglose de costos de construcción por metro cuadrado, que utilizó para la construcción de la acera frente a su propiedad. (Expediente digital, folio 84); 7) En escrito interpuesto ante el Gobierno local, los recurrentes interpusieron recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio, en contra de la resolución de las 08:15 horas del 1° de diciembre del 2017, emitida por la Alcaldía Municipal. (Expediente digital, folio 92); 8) Por resolución de las 13:00 horas del once de enero del 2018, la Alcaldía Municipal declaró sin lugar el recurso de revocatoria interpuesto por los recurrentes. (Expediente digital, folio 94); 9) En escrito presentado ante este Tribunal, el 19 de enero del 2018, los recurrentes se apersonaron ante este Tribunal, en virtud del recurso de apelación interpuesto y solicitaron, como medida cautelar, la suspensión del cobro efectuado por la Municipalidad recurrida. (Expediente digital, sin número de folio).

II.SOBRE LOS MOTIVOS DE LA CAUTELAR. La medida cautelar interpuesta ante este Tribunal, se gestiona en virtud del recurso de apelación formulado contra la resolución de las 13:00 horas del once de enero del 2018, emitida por la Alcaldía Municipal, mediante la cual, a su vez, dicho ente territorial declaró sin lugar el recurso de revocatoria interpuesto por los recurrentes, en contra de la resolución de las 08:15 horas del 1° de diciembre del 2017, emitida por la misma Alcaldía Municipal. En su escrito de apersonamiento ante este Tribunal y, en lo que puntualmente se refiere a su solicitud de medida cautelar, la parte recurrente únicamente efectúa una serie de consideraciones de fondo, a través de las cuales, expone su posición respecto del desglose de costos comunicado por la Municipalidad, en relación con la acera construida por dicha Municipalidad frente a la propiedad de los recurrentes. Sobre el particular, los recurrentes alegan como vicios de la indicada resolución, la falta de motivación de la misma, así como su falta de publicidad, a partir de lo cual, solicitan la suspensión del cobro efectuado por la Municipalidad recurrida.

III- SOBRE EL DERECHO A LA JUSTICIA CAUTELAR. La justicia cautelar surge del contenido general de la garantía constitucional a una justicia pronta y cumplida (artículo 41 de la Carta Magna) y comprende el derecho de solicitar al órgano jurisdiccional todas aquellas medidas cautelares que resulten necesarias, idóneas y pertinentes, para garantizar la eficacia de la sentencia de mérito, así como la satisfacción anticipada y provisional de las situaciones jurídicas sustanciales de los justiciables. La justicia cautelar busca mesurar o atemperar los efectos de la duración normal del proceso judicial, de modo que las situaciones jurídicas de las personas no se vean dañadas, desmerecidas o perjudicadas por efecto de la duración misma del proceso. De ahí que, sea plenamente aplicable el principio Nombre10740 cuando señala que “La necesidad de servirse del proceso para obtener la razón, no debe ser un daño para quien probablemente tiene la razón.” De forma correlativa, el Juez está en la obligación de ordenar o adoptar las medidas cautelares que sean adecuadas y necesarias para tales efectos. Así, la tutela cautelar es exigible cuando existe riesgo de que, en forma efectiva o potencialmente cierta, puedan desaparecer, dañarse o perjudicarse, en forma grave e incluso, irremediable, las situaciones jurídicas sustanciales aducidas por el promovente. En esos términos, es claro que la justicia cautelar facilita el adecuado ejercicio de la pronta y cumplida función jurisdiccional y de forma paralela, mantiene incólume tanto el objeto del proceso, esto es, la pretensión, así como la respectiva situación jurídica sustancial que se solicita proteger, durante el tiempo necesario para que se desarrolle en forma adecuada el proceso de fondo.

IV- SOBRE LOS PRESUPUESTOS PARA EL OTORGAMIENTO DE LAS MEDIDAS CAUTELARES. Los presupuestos esenciales e indispensables para la procedencia de una medida cautelar son (i) La apariencia de buen derecho, (ii) El peligro en la demora y (iii) la ponderación de los intereses en juego; veamos: a) La apariencia de buen derecho o fumus boni iuris: Consiste en un juicio hipotético de probabilidad o verosimilitud derivada no solo de la seriedad de la demanda, sino de la probabilidad del acogimiento de la cuestión principal; en tal sentido, se considera que bastará con esa apariencia inicial de seriedad, para que se tenga por cumplido con este requisito. El fumus boni iuris, busca la verificación de falta de temeridad de la pretensión y un viso, al menos inicial y razonable, de seriedad de la demanda. El Tribunal de Casación de lo contencioso administrativo en su voto No. 96-F-TC-2009, se refirió a este presupuesto también como el fumus non mali iuris, es decir, como la apariencia de que no hay un mal derecho en ejercicio. b) Peligro en la demora o periculum in mora: Consiste en el temor o peligro, objetivamente constatable, de que la tardanza en desarrollar el proceso principal, apareje la pérdida, desmejoramiento o la frustración de la situación jurídica sustancial aducida, lo cual iría unido a la inutilidad de la sentencia de mérito en tales supuestos. Sobre el particular, el numeral 148 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, señala procedente el otorgamiento de una medida cautelar, cuando la conducta administrativa pueda causar perjuicios graves o de imposible o difícil reparación. A su vez, el artículo 21 del CPCA (aplicable a la sede administrativa en virtud de la remisión que efectúa el ordinal 229.2 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública), indica que: "La medida cautelar será procedente cuando la ejecución o permanencia de la conducta sometida a proceso, produzca graves daños o perjuicios, actuales o potenciales de la situación aducida(...)”. Por ello, siempre que exista peligro de daño o perjuicio, actual o potencial, de las situaciones jurídicas sustanciales de los justiciables, la tutela cautelar debe fungir como mecanismo de protección y de garantía, con el fin de conservar íntegramente tales situaciones jurídicas; lo anterior, aunado a que no en todos los casos el justiciable pretende la mera reparación indemnizatoria, sino primaria y fundamentalmente, la integridad de su pretensión y de la situación jurídica que la sustenta. c) Ponderación de los intereses en juego o bilateralidad del periculum in mora: Finalmente, para que sea procedente otorgar una medida cautelar, el artículo 22 del CPCA señala que “(…) el tribunal o el juez respectivo deberá considerar, especialmente, el principio de proporcionalidad, ponderando la eventual lesión al interés público, los daños y los perjuicios provocados con la medida a terceros, así como los caracteres de instrumentalidad y provisionalidad, de modo que no se afecte la gestión sustantiva de la entidad, ni se afecte en forma grave la situación jurídica de terceros. También deberá tomar en cuenta las posibilidades y previsiones financieras que la Administración Pública deberá efectuar para la ejecución de la medida cautelar". De ese modo, cuando el daño que pueda provocarse al interés público o a los intereses de terceros, sea de mayor envergadura que el que podría sufrir el promovente de la medida cautelar en caso de ser declarada sin lugar, ésta debe ser rechazada.

V.- CARACTERES ESTRUCTURALES DE LAS MEDIDAS CAUTELARES. Ahora bien, las medidas cautelares tienen una serie de características estructurales que las particularizan; veamos: 1) Instrumentalidad: Las medidas cautelares guardan correspondencia de carácter instrumental con la sentencia de fondo o con el acto final del procedimiento. Nunca tienen existencia independiente de un proceso (o procedimiento), en el que se esté ventilando sobre la procedencia o no de una determinada pretensión; ello, salvo el supuesto de las medidas cautelares ante causam o prejudiciales, a las cuales, no es preciso referirse dado el objeto de la litis; 2) Provisionalidad: Las medidas cautelares son provisionales por cuanto, son transitorias y no definitivas, es decir, se extinguen al dictarse la sentencia del proceso o incluso, cuando en virtud del principio rebus sic stantibus previsto en el artículo 29 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, se ha verificado una variabilidad de las circunstancias que determinan su modificación o eliminación; 3) Urgencia: Al existir una situación de anormalidad, el ordenamiento jurídico posibilita la derogación del principio de legalidad por la primacía del principio de necesidad, a efecto de evitar que se cause un daño o un perjuicio a los justiciables. Dada la imperiosa necesidad de evitar daños o perjuicios, ante una situación de anormalidad, el ordenamiento faculta para que se dicten medidas cautelares inaudita altera parte, ante causam y provisionalísimas; y 4) Sumaria cognitio: Las medidas cautelares deben ser conocidas bajo un análisis sumario de razonabilidad, proporcionalidad, adecuación y necesidad; si bien el juzgador debe valorar con mesura la procedencia de la medida cautelar, lo cierto es que la urgencia e inmediatez que caracteriza a las cautelares, apareja que deban ser valoradas bajo un análisis sumario, distinto al propio que podría concederse bajo el cauce normal y los plazos comunes de un proceso o procedimiento ordinario.

VI.SOBRE EL CASO CONCRETO. Bajo las consideraciones expuestas, a continuación se realizará el análisis correspondiente al presente asunto, tomando en consideración que el mismo se circunscribe únicamente a la medida cautelar interpuesta y a los argumentos expuestos por la parte recurrente, de allí que no se realiza ningún análisis en cuanto al fondo del recurso interpuesto. Ahora bien, tal y como se precisó líneas atrás, a efectos de atender una solicitud de medida cautelar, se debe verificar la existencia de los presupuestos esenciales para su otorgamiento, lo cual se realiza a continuación. En cuanto a la apariencia de buen derecho, este Juzgador es del criterio que la verificación de la fase de admisibilidad del recurso de apelación conlleva cierto grado de cumplimiento del presupuesto, no obstante, dentro del mismo, se incluye, además, el análisis del grado de probabilidad de que el recurso sea acogido en favor de la parte recurrente. Por un lado, véase que la parte recurrente acude ante esta instancia en virtud del recurso de apelación interpuesto, el cual se origina en virtud del acto administrativo municipal que le es adverso, de allí que la parte recurrente requiere la valoración del recurso por parte este Tribunal, a efectos de valorar las variables -argumentos expuestos en el recurso de apelación formulado- que podrían inclinar la balanza en su favor, al menos en alguna de sus petitorias; por otro lado, se denota que la objeción formulada por la parte recurrente se encuentra debidamente fundamentada en varios argumentos que deberán ser valorados por este Tribunal, siendo que en ese momento, se determinará si el cobro en los términos en que pretende la Municipalidad, se adecua o no a la normativa que debe de aplicarse en este caso, por cuanto, tal y como lo señala la recurrente en el apersonamiento realizado ante este Tribunal, la presente causa recae sobre la validez del cobro realizado por la Municipalidad, respecto del desglose de costos comunicado por ella misma a los recurrentes; de forma que se tiene por cumplido este presupuesto. En cuanto al peligro en la demora, debe observarse que la parte recurrente argumenta que el cobro realizado apareja una afectación a su patrimonio, no obstante, debe precisarse, para acoger la medida cautelar se debe determinar si la ejecución de la conducta administrativa puede causar graves daños o perjuicios, actuales o potenciales, de la situación aducida, lo cual implica, consecuentemente, que no es cualquier daño el que permitiría la adopción de una medida cautelar. Ahora bien, la única forma de realizar dicha valoración, es a partir de la demostración del daño que realice la parte recurrente, por cuanto, el mismo es inherente a la persona que lo sufre y será ésta quien deberá probar su dicho con prueba pertinente y conducente a tal fin. En este sentido, la parte recurrente, únicamente afirma que el cobro le trae una afectación a su patrimonio y que, además, resulta confiscatorio, sin embargo, no manifiesta ni acredita, a través de los medios probatorios respectivos, cómo y en qué medida el cobro le causa un daño o perjuicio grave, actual o potencial, ni señala las razones por las cuales considera que, de no suspenderse el acto impugnado, su situación jurídica podría verse desmejorada. En virtud de esta situación, no consta en el expediente que la parte recurrente haya aportado prueba alguna que demostrara la existencia de daños o perjuicios graves, que permitieran a este Tribunal acoger la medida cautelar solicitada, lo cual era su obligación, en virtud de la carga probatoria que recae sobre ella (artículos 229.2 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública y 317 del Código Procesal Civil). Bajo este entendido, no basta con alegar la existencia de un daño o perjuicio grave, actual o potencial, sino que el mismo debe probarse. Por último, en la ponderación de intereses en juego (bilateralidad del periculum in mora), la misma se inclina en favor del interés público, por cuanto, la corporación municipal realiza la conducta impugnada al amparo de las potestades legales para regular las obligaciones a cargo de los munícipes. Sin embargo, debe aclararse, este Juzgador no entra a conocer sobre el fondo en cuanto al recurso de apelación interpuesto; además, siendo que la parte no logra demostrar la existencia de un daño grave, no puede más que concluirse que el interés particular debe ceder ante el interés público que representan las corporaciones locales. De esa manera, al no concurrir los presupuestos materiales necesarios para el otorgamiento de una medida cautelar, se hace innecesario el análisis de la presencia de los caracteres estructurales de la respectiva medida. En consecuencia, de acuerdo con las consideraciones antes expuestas, se rechaza la medida cautelar solicitada por la parte recurrente.

VII.SOBRE LA CONTINUACIÓN DEL PROCEDIMIENTO. De conformidad con lo dispuesto en el Considerando I, en escrito presentado ante este Tribunal en fecha 18 de enero del 2018, la parte recurrente se apersona, en virtud del traslado otorgado por la Alcaldía Municipal, en virtud del recurso interpuesto en contra de la resolución de las 13:00 horas del once de enero del 2018. En virtud de lo anterior, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 257 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, se tiene por precluida la fase de agravios concedida en favor de la parte recurrente, por cuanto, ésta ya expuso los mismos ante este Tribunal. De tal modo, siendo que en este acto se resuelve la medida cautelar solicitada por la recurrente y dado que el expediente se encuentra completo, el mismo se traslada para su conocimiento por el fondo.

POR TANTO

Se rechaza la medida cautelar solicitada. Se tiene por precluida la fase de agravios concedida en favor de la parte recurrente, por cuanto, ésta ya expuso los mismos ante este Tribunal. De tal modo, siendo que en este acto se resuelve la medida cautelar solicitada por la recurrente y dado que el expediente se encuentra completo, el mismo se traslada para su conocimiento por el fondo.

Alex Rojas Ortega Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, II Circuito Judicial de San José, Dirección04 . Teléfono: 2545-00-03, Fax: 2545-00-33.