Indemnity for irregular contracts by a popular festivities committee: limit on lost profits and absence of moral damagesIndemnización por contrataciones irregulares de una comisión de festejos populares: límite del lucro cesante y ausencia de daño moral

**File: CED60741** **Judgment No. 30-2020-II** **CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY TRIBUNAL, SECOND SECTION. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, at eight hours and ten minutes on the twenty-third of April, two thousand twenty.** **Ordinary proceeding, declared a matter of pure law, filed by [Name81708], also known as [Name81708], identity card number CED60742, against the Municipality of Santa Cruz; José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, identity card number CED60743 (in default); Catalina Dinarte Valle, identity card number CED60744 (in default); Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez, identity card number CED60745 (in default); René Cabalceta Valerín, identity card number CED60746 (in default); and Joaquín Suárez Gómez, identity card number CED60747 (in default). Attorneys Carlos Luis Matarrita Duarte, in his capacity as special judicial representative of the plaintiff, and Giancarlo Hernández Cabalceta, in his capacity as special judicial representative of the defendant entity, are participating. The judgment is hereby issued with the unanimous vote of its members.** **Judge GONZÁLEZ SEGURA writes for the Court.** **WHEREAS** **I.- PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.-** A recount of the procedural history follows:

1.- The plaintiff files suit, requesting that the judgment declare the following: "1. That this lawsuit be granted in its entirety. 2. That the defendants be ordered to pay me the sum of ONE MILLION THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND COLONES corresponding to the second unpaid installment established in the service contract. 3. That the defendants be ordered to pay me the sum of ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND COLONES, corresponding to services contracted verbally, which include Sound services for rehearsals of the festival queen candidates and for providing sound and Backline services for the concerts that took place at the fairgrounds of said festivities. 4. That the defendants be ordered to fully pay all damages caused by the breach of contract, as well as the losses derived from their improper conduct, and the moral damages to be indicated later. 5. That the payment of all parts of this claim be ordered to be included in the municipal budget. 6. That they be ordered to pay interest from the moment the owed amounts should have been paid, or failing that, from the moment this tribunal deems appropriate. 7. That all sums of money forgone due to the defendants' breach be adjusted for inflation from the time they should have been paid. 8. That the defendants be ordered to pay the costs of this action. ANCILLARY CLAIM. The defendants' breach implied unforeseen expenses for me, a situation that was damaging and detrimental from a financial standpoint, as well as the subjective moral damage caused by the emotional distress suffered from all the lived situations, PRUDENTIALLY valued in the following items: Given that the breach by the festival committee defendants and the omissive and unlawful conduct of the Municipal Administration of Santa Cruz caused me economic and emotional instability, manifested by worry, mood disturbances, anger, stress, anguish, mental health, and in general, affecting my intimate sphere, for which reason I request that the defendants be ordered to pay the sum of TEN MILLION COLONES. The time elapsed without the defendants paying me the sums owed caused me emotional and economic instability, since I had to resort to my own savings that I have not been able to recover and to family resources to cover the expenses I incurred to provide good service at these festivities and pay employees; no one expects that once services are rendered, they will not be paid. It is a difficult situation that the municipal administration never understood and resolved my requests in a mocking manner, as it never gave me a solution, agreements came and went and they never did anything, so much so that I had to resort to judicial means. Based on the foregoing and bearing in mind that money will not fully compensate me for everything experienced during this time, I prudentially estimate the moral damage in the sum previously indicated." (Images 2 to 15).

2.- The Municipality of Santa Cruz filed its statement of defense and opposed the defenses of necessary joinder of passive litisconsortium with the members of the Festival Committee, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute of limitations, and lack of legal standing. (Images 125 to 127).

3.- By resolution at 15:52 on October 29, 2018, the Case Management Judge joined as defendants, in their personal capacity, the members of the Popular Festivities Committee of the Municipality of Santa Cruz, Messrs. Jose Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Catalina Dinarte Valle, [Name81709], René Cabalceta Valerín, and Joaquín Suárez Gómez. (Image 139).

4.- By resolution at 10:15 on November 25, 2019, the Case Management Judge declared Jose Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Catalina Dinarte Valle, [Name81709], René Cabalceta Valerín, and Joaquín Suárez Gómez in default, and on their part, the complaint was deemed affirmatively answered regarding the facts. (Images 176 and 177).

5.- The preliminary hearing was held on February 18, 2020. The plaintiff clarified that the moral damages sought are subjective and that the liability claimed is joint and several among all defendants. The defendant withdrew the defense of necessary joinder of passive litisconsortium because the members of the Festival Committee were served with the complaint. The Case Management Judge denied the defenses of failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the statute of limitations. The matter was declared one of pure law, and the parties presented their closing arguments. (Audio file and minute appearing in images 181 to 185).

6.- The proceeding was assigned to the Second Section of this Tribunal, composed of the tenured judges Ronaldo Hernández Hernández, Eduardo González Segura, and [Name41308], who were responsible for rendering judgment, under the second's authorship.

7.- There are no defects or omissions that would cause nullity.

**II- ARGUMENTS OF THE COMPLAINT.-** The plaintiff's representative alleges the following: FACTS. FIRST: The Municipal Council of Santa Cruz, in ordinary session number 21-2015, article 4, subsection 16, on May 19, 2015, unanimously agreed to appoint the Popular Typical Festivities Committee, which was composed of the following persons: Mrs. Catalina Dinarte Valle, Mrs. Fanny Rodríguez Villarreal, Mr. René Cabalceta Valerín, Prof. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, and Mr. Joaquín Suárez. (See Evidence 2). SECOND: That the Popular Civic Festivities Committee awarded me the service bid for Lighting, Sound, and Backline for the cultural, religious, and children's events held in the Carlos Rodríguez Santana amphitheater, all according to the contract signed on December 22, 2015, at 09:50 hours. (See evidence 31). Likewise, I was verbally contracted by committee representatives ([Name81710], Joaquín Suárez Gómez, and Manuel Moraga Moraga) to provide Sound services for rehearsals for the festival queen candidates and to provide sound and Backline services for the concerts held at the Fairgrounds of said festivities. The latter are demonstrated by official letters issued by Mrs. Xinia Aguilar González, Joaquín Suárez Gómez, and José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, dated October 24, 2016. (See Evidence 12 and 13). THIRD: That I fully complied with all obligations and services contracted by said committee, providing quality equipment and the necessary personnel to cover the scheduled events for all activities to be carried out. Furthermore, to fully cover the events, I had to hire more personnel than anticipated, as long-duration sessions required providing good service. There were no setbacks or eventual grounds for termination of the contract, so it is clear that there is a breach by the mentioned Committee and the Municipality of Santa Cruz. [There is no fourth fact in the complaint]. FIFTH: That the amount agreed upon in said contract was TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND COLONES, which would be paid in two installments, the first on January eight, two thousand sixteen, and the second on January eighteenth of the same year. (Evidence 3). SIXTH: Once the events for which I was contracted were concluded, I proceeded to collect the second installment agreed upon in the respective contract; however, I was not paid, on the grounds that they were waiting for the payment of some sponsorships. In addition, I was not paid the amounts corresponding to the services contracted verbally, which consisted of providing sound services for rehearsals of the festival queen candidates and for providing sound and Backline services for the concerts held at the fairgrounds of said Festivities. Given the situation described above, I proceeded to formally undertake collection efforts before the respective Festival Committee, and it was always the same story: "we are waiting for the payment of some sponsorships." Under pressure exerted by the undersigned, committee representatives issued official letters stating that money was owed to me, but they still did not pay me. (See Evidence 12 and 13). SEVENTH: Given that the Festival committee did not pay me what was owed and a long time had passed without a satisfactory solution, I carried out the collection process before the Municipality of Santa Cruz and its Council, without obtaining the desired results. The Council of the Municipality of Santa Cruz heard two requests made by the undersigned in which I requested payment of the amounts owed, and it never took action on the matter as legally required, as stipulated by the manual for this type of activity, as is usual in this municipality, since it is the same every year. (See Evidence 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14). EIGHTH: In addition to all the unlawful conduct of the Festival Committee, it submitted a work report to the Audit Office of the Municipality of Santa Cruz, which was obviously not endorsed by the auditors, since what is required in these cases is the report on the settlement (liquidaciones) of income and expenses, along with supporting documentation, and not what was presented by the aforementioned Festival committee. To date, we do not know if the corresponding respective report was submitted, which is a fundamental requirement according to the respective Manual, for which reason an omissive conduct falls upon this municipality that this tribunal must analyze. Likewise, I do not know if the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) approved said report, since it is their duty to ensure the faithful compliance with public funds invested and collected from this type of activity. LEGAL GROUNDS. I base this action on articles 41 and 49 of the Political Constitution. Furthermore, legal grounds for filing this action are provided by articles 1, 4, 190 of the General Law of Public Administration, articles 1, 2, 37, 31, 35, 42, 49, 58, 60, 82, 98 subsection 2 and following and concordant, article 15 and following and concordant of the Law of Administrative Procurement, 290 subsection 5 of the Civil Procedure Code; for the purpose of economically compensating the damages and losses (daños y perjuicios) generated by the defendant company (sic) to my principal. Operations Manual for the Popular Festivities Committees. Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, and 25 and following and concordant of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 27, 28, 29, 33, 39, 41, and 58 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica. It is clear that the defendant Festival Committee, the Municipality of Santa Cruz, and the Municipal Council of said Municipality acted against the provisions of the respective Manual for this type of event and the regulations applicable to this type of activity. A very important situation to analyze is that the Operations Manual for the Popular Festivities Committees, issued by the Comptroller General of the Republic, published in La Gaceta No. 157 of August 15, 2006, in its chapter 8, article number 8, subsection 8.1, regarding final settlements and expenses, states the following: "Deadlines for preparation of final settlements of income and expenses: The festival committees shall prepare the final settlements of income and expenses and submit them no later than thirty calendar days after the conclusion of the popular festivities to the municipal Internal Audit for review — accompanied by the corresponding records, vouchers, and supporting documents —, which shall have a period of sixty calendar days to forward the settlement to the Municipal Council for approval, which shall rule no later than fifteen calendar days thereafter. Within the period for preparing the settlement, the festival committee must pay all liabilities incurred and carry out what is appropriate in the case of surplus assets, as agreed by the Municipal Council for those purposes." Likewise, Law number 4286 of December 17, 1963, states in its articles 3 and 4 the following: "Article 3. The municipal council shall reject expenses that do not contain complete documentation and those that are not related to the festivities. Expenses rejected by the council shall be assumed proportionally by the committee members and reimbursed within one month from the date of the resolution so ordering; otherwise, the municipality must undertake the corresponding legal actions. Members whose negative vote for the impugned expense appears in the respective committee minutes shall be exempt from this sanction." "Article 4. The Municipality shall be obligated to exercise the necessary administrative actions to establish responsibilities in the case, when inaccuracy or irregularity in the handling of funds is proven; if necessary, it shall refer the matter to the competent judicial authorities." For all the foregoing, it is clear that both the Municipal Administration and the Festival Committee, 2015-2016 term, failed to comply with the provisions of the cited articles, causing me economic damages and losses, as well as moral damage due to their omissive conduct and breach of contracts, both written and verbal. Likewise, according to the criteria issued by the Operational and Evaluative Oversight Division (División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa) of the Comptroller General of the Republic and the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in its vote number 1758-93, it follows that there is a bond of responsibility that operates between the Municipal Council, the Mayor's Office, and the Popular Festivities Committees (Patron Saint Festivities), which is not limited to the simple appointment of members, but rather adequate control of their operation must be exercised, for which the municipality's control system must be articulated. Therefore, as a bond exists between these, the losses must be assumed by the ADMINISTRATION, which in this case would be the Municipality of Santa Cruz. For the reasons stated, and due to the existence of a contractual breach and unlawful and omissive conduct by the Municipal Administration, we come to request that this lawsuit be granted and that the 2015-2016 FESTIVAL COMMITTEE and the MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA CRUZ be ordered to pay the sum owed for the contracted services, damages and losses caused, as well as the moral damage suffered, and the costs of this action.

**III.- ARGUMENTS OF THE DEFENSE STATEMENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA CRUZ.-** The representative of the Municipality of Santa Cruz alleges the following: FACTS. FIRST: It is true. The Municipal Council of Santa Cruz, by agreement made in ordinary session No. 21-2015, agreed to appoint the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee, falling to the following persons: Mrs. Catalina Dinarte Valle, Mrs. Fanny Rodríguez Villarreal, Mr. René Cabalceta Valerín, Prof. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, President, and Mr. Joaquín Suárez. SECOND: I cannot attest to this. THIRD: I defer to the documentary evidence provided. FIFTH: I defer to the documentary evidence, a copy of the contract which, according to the Popular Festivities Law and concordant regulations, responsibilities must be placed on the signatories of all documentation in the Festival Committee's own procedures. SIXTH: I cannot attest to this. SEVENTH: I cannot attest to this. The description of this fact refers to actions taken by the plaintiff before the Municipal Council. EIGHTH: It is true; in this matter, the 2015-2016 Typical Festivals Committee has not submitted a report of its activities to the Municipal Audit Office. DEFENSES. Necessary Joinder of Passive Litisconsortium. Of the members of the 2015-2016 Festivals Committee, in accordance with article 66 subsection e) of the Contentious-Administrative Code (35 and 36). [Resolved interlocutorily]. Lack of Legal Standing. Regarding the collection of a monetary debt, payment for subjective moral damage is not appropriate. Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff filed the lawsuit before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal on May 30, 2018, more than one year after the last action before the Municipal Council on May 24, 2016, in accordance with article 40 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure. [Resolved at the preliminary hearing]. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies. Based on article 66 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure, since the Council only took the Agreement "to refer the collection matter to the Internal Audit but did not take any final act of rejection or payment order." [Resolved at the preliminary hearing]. LEGAL BASIS. I rely on articles 66, 35, and 36 of the Code of Contentious-Administrative Procedure, articles 3 paragraph 2, and article 4 of Law No. 4286 of December 17, 1968, which establishes the responsibility of the members of the Festival Committee and the obligation imposed by law on the Municipality's authorities to undertake the necessary actions, as is the case at this time where the matter is heard by competent authorities. Furthermore, it should be declared an irregular procurement based on article 20 of the Law of Administrative Procurement and article 218 of the Regulation to said Law and the Organization and Procedures Manual for the National Typical Festivals Committee of the Canton of Santa Cruz, which was published in La Gaceta number 57 of March 21, 2014.

**IV.- PROVEN FACTS.-** Of importance for resolving this matter, the following relevant facts are deemed proven:

1.- By means of an agreement adopted in article 4, subsection 16, of the ordinary session number 21-2015, held on May 19, 2015, the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Santa Cruz appointed Messrs. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, René Cabalceta Valerín, and Joaquín Suárez Gómez, and Mesdames Catalina Dinarte Valle and Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez, as members of the Santa Cruz 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee. (Uncontroverted fact, see fact one of the complaint and of the defense statement of the Municipality of Santa Cruz).

2.- On December 22, 2015, the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee of the Municipality of Santa Cruz contracted Mr. [Name81708] to provide illumination, sound, and backline services for the cultural, religious, and children's events to be held at the amphitheater of the House of Culture, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located at [Address8801], in the city of Santa Cruz. The contracted service was provided for the period from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016. The total sum to be paid for this service was agreed upon as two million six hundred thousand colones (2,600,000.00). The contract was signed by Mr. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, president of the Committee, and Mr. [Name81708], contractor. It was also authenticated by Licda. Leidis Peña Zúñiga. (Images 24 to 27 of the judicial file).

3.- On January 18, 2016, the Santa Cruz 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee paid Mr. [Name81708] the sum of one million three hundred thousand colones (1,300,000.00), by means of a cashier's check No. 1665-6 dated January 18, 2016, as payment on account towards the contract indicated in the previous fact. (Image 35 of the judicial file).

4.- The 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee of the Municipality of Santa Cruz additionally contracted Mr. [Name81708] to provide two other services: the sound service for rehearsals of the candidates for the 2016 Santa Cruz national typical festivals, and the sound and backline service for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivals. The first for an amount of eighty-five thousand colones (85,000.00), and the second for an amount of one million one hundred forty thousand colones (1,140,000.00). The total of these two additional contracts amounts to the sum of one million two hundred twenty-five thousand colones (1,225,000.00). (Images 89 and 90 of the judicial file).

5.- On February 1, 2016, Mr. [Name81708], along with other signatory persons, requested from the Santa Cruz 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee that the amount owed for the services rendered be paid. (Images 37 to 53 of the judicial file).

6.- On March 29, 2016, Mr. [Name81708] directly requested the Municipal Council to pay what was owed. (Image 59 of the judicial file).

7.- By means of an agreement adopted in article 2, subsection 2, of the ordinary session number 15-2016, held on April 12, 2016, the Municipal Council of Santa Cruz ordered the following: "...Subsection 02: Mr. [Name81708] is heard, stating the following: He comes so that some arrangement or agreement be made for the 2016 Festivals Committee to pay him (...). He has repeatedly been told that they are waiting for some pending sponsorships to be deposited. Councilman Vallejos Zúñiga says that we must assume responsibility; in May the Committee should have submitted the report. The adoption of the following agreement is proposed: It is unanimously agreed: Given that the deadline for submission of the financial report of the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee has expired, it is agreed to grant them a period of 15 business days from the date of notification of this agreement to submit said report. The Internal Audit Office shall be notified of this agreement." (Images 55 to 57 of the judicial file).

8.- On May 24, 2016, Mr. [Name81708] reiterated his payment request before the Municipal Council. (Images 63 and 66 of the judicial file).

9.- By means of an agreement adopted in article 2, subsection 12, of the extraordinary session number 14-2016, held on May 26, 2016, the Municipal Council of Santa Cruz ordered the following: "It is unanimously agreed: The Municipal Mayor's Office is requested to report on the steps taken for the payment of what is owed by the 2015-2016 Festivals Committee." (Images 61, 62, 64, and 65 of the judicial file).

10.- On October 14, 2016, Mr. [Name81708] reiterated his payment request for the amount owed before the Municipal Council. (Images 81 to 84 of the judicial file).

11.- On December 8, 2016, Mr. [Name81708] presented his payment request for the amount owed before the Municipal Mayor's Office. (Image 93 of the judicial file).

12.- By means of official letter No. AIM-190-2016, dated December 13, 2016, the Internal Audit Office of the Municipality of Santa Cruz informed the Municipal Council and the Municipal Mayor's Office as follows, in pertinent part: "...For the reasons stated above, this Audit Office continues to wait for the Festivals Committee to submit the settlement of accounts (liquidación de cuentas) for the 2015-2016 Typical Festivals and their respective vouchers and supporting documents, as established by articles 1 and 2 of the Law on Appointment of Popular Festivities Committees, Law 4286, to carry out the corresponding review and forward it to the Municipal Council. This Audit Office reiterates to the Municipal Council the recommendation issued through official letter AIM-173-2016 dated October 25, 2016, which states: 1. Consider the advisability of referring the situation occurring with the Santa Cruz 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee, regarding the failure to submit to the Internal Audit the settlement of income and expenses (liquidación de los ingresos y egresos) of the Santa Cruz 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals, to the Municipal Legal Advisory Office, through the Municipal Mayor's Office, so that the corresponding legal actions may be undertaken." (Images 100 to 102 of the judicial file).

13.- By means of an agreement adopted in article 4, subsection 27, of the ordinary session number 51-2016, held on December 13, 2016, the Municipal Council of Santa Cruz ordered the following: "It is unanimously agreed: Official letter AIM-190-2016 from the Municipal Internal Audit Office is referred to the Municipal Mayor's Office so that, in coordination with the Municipal Legal Advisory Office, a report with recommendations for the corresponding legal actions be issued, regarding the failure to submit the settlement of income and expenses of the Santa Cruz 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals to the Internal Audit Office." (Images 104 to 107 of the judicial file).

**V.- UNPROVEN FACTS:** Of importance for resolving this matter, the following relevant facts are deemed not demonstrated:

1.- That the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee of the Municipality of Santa Cruz followed the procedures regulated in the Law of Administrative Procurement and its Regulation for the procurement of the illumination, sound, and backline services for the cultural, religious, and children's events held at the amphitheater of the House of Culture, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located in the Barnabela Ramos park, in the city of Santa Cruz, from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016, agreed between the Committee and Mr. [Name81708] on December 22, 2015; nor for the sound services for rehearsals for the candidates of the Santa Cruz 2016 national typical festivals, and the sound and backline services for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivals. Neither has it been proven that said contracts were exempt from compliance with the procedures of the Law of Administrative Procurement and its Regulation. (No evidence in the case file).

2.- That the Municipality of Santa Cruz or the members of the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee of that local entity have paid Mr. [Name81708] the amounts owed for the contracts indicated in proven facts two and four. (No evidence in the case file).

3.- That Mr. [Name81708] had to resort to his own savings or to loans from family members to cover the expenses of the services provided and pay the employees, due to the Committee's breach. (No evidence in the case file).

4.- That Mr. [Name81708] suffered emotional instability affecting his intimate sphere and mental health, manifested in worry, mood disturbances, anger, stress, and anguish, because the Committee failed to pay for the contracts. (There is no element in the case file that allows inferring that the plaintiff suffered these emotional disturbances).

5.- That Messrs. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, René Cabalceta Valerín, and Joaquín Suárez Gómez and Mesdames Catalina Dinarte Valle and Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez were extended in their appointments as members of the Committee. (No evidence in the case file).

**VI.- ON THE MERITS.-** The lawsuit must be partially granted for the reasons set forth below. In this matter, according to the proven facts, it has been proven that the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Committee of the Municipality of Santa Cruz (hereinafter the Committee), an internal body of said local entity, entered into three contracts with the plaintiff here, [Name81708]. One, with a written contract, consisting of illumination, sound, and backline services for the cultural, religious, and children's events held at the amphitheater of the House of Culture, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located at [Address8801], in the city of Santa Cruz, during the days from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016, for the sum of two million six hundred thousand colones (2,600,000.00), of which one million three hundred thousand colones (1,300,000.00) were paid.

The other two, additional ones, without a written contract, consisted of the sound service for rehearsals of the candidates of the 2016 Santa Cruz national typical fiestas, for the sum of eighty-five thousand colones (85,000.00) and the sound and backline service for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said fiestas, for the sum of one million one hundred forty thousand colones (1,140,000.00). The first contracting derives from the contract signed between the Commission and the plaintiff on December 22, 2015; the other two additional contracts arise from the private document signed by Messrs. Joaquín Suárez Gómez and José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Secretary and President of the Commission respectively, and defendants in this proceeding, dated October 24, 2016, in which they expressly acknowledge the same as well as all amounts owed to Mr. Nombre81708 up to that date, for the three contracts. It is noted that the latter is a private document and not a public one, because in accordance with Article 5 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the Commission of the National Typical Fiestas of the Canton of Santa Cruz (approved by agreement of the Municipal Council adopted in Article 6, subsection 1, of ordinary session number 21-2011, of May 24, 2011), the appointment of the Commission members is annual and takes place in the first ordinary session of the Council in the month of May. In this case, the Commission members were appointed on May 19, 2015, so their investiture as persons participating in public management, on behalf and on account of the Municipal Administration, under the terms of Articles 111 and 112 of the General Law of Public Administration, concluded on May 20, 2016, such that the aforementioned document dated October 24, 2016, having been signed by Messrs. Joaquín Suárez Gómez and José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, on a date after the term of their appointment, renders it a document of a private nature, as the extension of their appointments was not proven. It is important to bring up that the Civil Procedure Code (Law No. 9342), in its provision 45.1, provides that private documents, tacitly or expressly admitted, are presumed authentic and valid unless proven otherwise. In concordance, Article 45.3 of that legal body indicates that the acknowledgment of private documents may be express or tacit; in the latter case, it occurs when the party does not challenge them at the appropriate time. In that regard, provision 45.5 establishes that the challenge of documents presented with the complaint and the counterclaim must be made in the answer and the reply. This clarification is made in this case because both documents presented by the plaintiff to support the three contracts agreed with the Commission and the debt for their provision, i.e., the contract signed on December 22, 2015, and the letter signed by the secretary and president of the Commission on October 24, 2016, are private documents, which were not challenged by the representation of the Municipality of Santa Cruz in this proceeding and, in that sense, have been tacitly acknowledged in application of the procedural rules already referred to, a circumstance that, in turn, establishes their authenticity and validity for the purposes of what is intended to be accredited with them. This is equally applicable to the other co-defendants in this proceeding, the former members of the Commission, for logical reasons, given their state of default. Well then, once the contracts and the debts of the Municipality to the plaintiff by reason thereof have been accredited, the appropriate course, in principle, would be to order the local entity to pay the outstanding balances on the obligations contracted with the claimant at the time. However, it is necessary to specify that the contracts subject to this proceeding must be considered irregular contracts, in accordance with Articles 21 of the Law of Administrative Contracting and 210 of its Regulation in force at the time of the facts. In effect, Article 10 of the Law on the Appointment of Popular Festivities Commissions (No. 4286), the special law that regulates the economic activity of these municipal Commissions, expressly provides that the contracts promoted by the Popular Festivities Commissions are governed by the Law of Administrative Contracting and its Regulation. For its part, provision 40 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the Commission of the National Typical Fiestas of the Canton of Santa Cruz (referenced above), indicates that the contracting procedure carried out by the Commission shall be determined in accordance with Article 27 of the Law of Administrative Contracting and based on the authorized budget to support the contracting of goods and services by the Comptroller General of the Republic to the Municipality of Santa Cruz. Article 27 of the Law of Administrative Contracting orders the type of procedure that the Public Administration must implement for the acquisition of its goods and services, by categories of amounts that are determined, in turn, based on the amount of the authorized budget. Thus, the option of direct contracting is always reserved for the lower amounts within that classification, regardless of the authorized budget. Under that logic, regardless of the budget authorized for the Municipality of Santa Cruz for fiscal year 2016, by reason of the amount contracted with Mr. Nombre81708, given its limited volume, it necessarily had to follow the direct contracting procedure regulated for that type of acquisition, provided for in Article 2, subsection h) of the Law of Administrative Contracting and developed in precept 136 of the Regulation to the Law of Administrative Contracting in force at the time of the facts, which to that effect establishes: "Article 136.-Limited volume. Contracts that, due to their limited volume and economic significance, in accordance with the amounts established in Article 27 of the Law of Administrative Contracting, may be processed following the procedure indicated in this Regulation. Once it has been determined that a direct contract of limited volume is appropriate, a simple set of specifications must be prepared describing the contractual object, the term and manner of delivery, and the time and date for the receipt of proposals must also be set. In these cases, the lowest-priced offer shall be awarded, without prejudice to evaluating other relevant factors, when so defined in the invitation. The entity shall provide a minimum period of one day and a maximum of five business days for the submission of quotations. In accredited urgent cases, quotations may be requested with at least four hours' notice prior to their receipt; in this scenario, there must be a document signed by an official who takes responsibility for this decision, who shall be the same person issuing the award act. The Administration shall invite no fewer than three potential offerors from the Supplier Registry established in this Regulation, although it is obligated to study all offers submitted regardless of whether they come from offerors who have been invited or not. Registration in the supplier registry is not a requirement to participate. In the event that the number of registered suppliers is less than three, others who are not registered may be invited. For the validity of the procedure, it shall not be necessary to actually have three quotations, but the invitees must be companies dedicated to the line of business of the specific contractual object; in which case, the procedure followed contrary to this provision shall also be considered a serious fault. Offers may be submitted by fax or email, in accordance with what the solicitation document establishes, and the validation of the best-positioned one from the evaluation carried out must be performed before issuing the award act. In those cases where a system exists that guarantees the guiding principles of the use of electronic means, offers may be received by said means. The award act must be issued within a maximum period of ten business days, extendable for an equal period in duly justified cases, counted from the day of the opening of offers, and shall be immediately communicated to the participants, who may file a motion to revoke, within the period of two business days following its notification. If the motion is admissible, a hearing shall be granted to the awardee for a period of two business days, after which the Administration must resolve within the following three business days. In cases declared urgent, there shall be no motion whatsoever. Likewise, regarding the invitation to participate, the Administration must consider the provisions of Executive Decree number 33305-MEIC-H, 'Special Regulation for the Promotion of SMEs in the Procurement of Goods and Services of the Administration'." As can be observed, even in the case of a direct contract of limited volume, which by itself excludes subjection to the particularities of ordinary legal procedures, it presupposes compliance with a minimum regulated procedure that must be fully respected by the Public Administration for that administrative contract to achieve conformity with the legal order. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that this procedure was followed to formalize the contracts with the plaintiff here, which is even more evident with respect to the services that were requested from him via informal means—sound for rehearsals of the candidates of the 2016 Santa Cruz national typical fiestas and sound and backline for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said fiestas. By reason of this circumstance, as warned before, these contracts must be considered irregular, as the Commission omitted compliance with the applicable procedure for their materialization, despite being subject to it, not only because the Commission is a collegiate body attached to the Municipal Council (Articles 13, subsection n, and 34, subsection g, of the Municipal Code, 1 of Law No. 4286, and 4 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the Commission of the National Typical Fiestas of the Canton of Santa Cruz) and, therefore, part of the organization of the Municipality as a public entity subject to the block of legality of the administrative legal order, but also because the legislator so established by express mandate, under the terms of Law No. 4286, which regulates the economic activity of the mentioned collegiate bodies. In relation to irregular contracts, precept 210 of the Regulation to the Law of Administrative Contracting, in force at the time of the facts, provides thus: "Article 210.-Duty of verification. It is the contractor's responsibility to verify the correctness of the administrative contracting procedure and contractual execution. By virtue of this obligation, to substantiate claims for compensation, it may not allege ignorance of the applicable legal order or the consequences of the administrative conduct. The contract shall be considered irregular when serious and evident defects are incurred in its processing, of easy verification, such as omission of the corresponding procedure or illegitimate recourse to some exception. In these cases, no payment may be recognized to the interested party, except in qualified cases, in which it proceeds in accordance with general principles of law, regarding supplies, works, services, and other objects, executed with evident benefit to the Administration. In that case, the foreseen profit shall not be recognized, and if it is unknown, a 10% reduction of the total amount shall be applied for that purpose. The same solution shall be applied to those contracts executed without legal endorsement or internal approval, when this is required. Non-formalization of the contract shall not be an impediment to applying this provision as pertinent." In accordance with the cited canon, in an irregular contract, the contractor would have the right to receive their payment, in application of the general principles of law, when there has been a benefit to the Public Administration; however, they are penalized by not recognizing lost profits, that is, the foreseen profit margin, as a sanction for not verifying the correctness of the procedure, that being their obligation according to the administrative contracting regime. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, developing the administrative jurisprudence of the Comptroller General of the Republic, defined that, in reality, in these cases, a payment is not made to the interested party, as it is not a validly awarded contract, but rather compensation, under the principles of equity and unjust enrichment. In that respect, it has stated: "...In resolution of this Chamber no. 001112-S1-F-2009 of 15 hours 15 minutes of October 30, 2009, regarding the subject under analysis, citing various criteria of the CGR, it was indicated that, in cases of irregular contracts: 'for example, one carried out without complying with the due procedure (as a rule, the public tender), if we assume that the Administration is obligated to recognize payment, and not compensation for the benefit it may have obtained, the general administrative contracting regime could be disregarded without consequence or sanction whatsoever for anyone. Therefore, the recognition made by the Administration in such cases is merely compensatory, motivated by principles of equity and avoiding unjust enrichment; it is thus not the payment of a contract validly awarded to the private party (...). In conclusion, the basis for compensating private parties for the execution of irregular contracts is founded on the legal principles of equity and the prohibition of unjust enrichment, applicable in the specific case, by integration of the administrative legal order, as provided for in provision 7 in relation to 16.1 of the General Law of Public Administration…' (Official Communications 13023 DAGJ-297-99 of November 12, 1999, and 4414-DCGA-457-97 of April 15, 1997, both from the CGR). The legislator proceeded to positivize the pronouncements issued by the controlling body regarding irregular contracts, through the partial reform introduced by Law No. 8511 of May 16, 2006, previously indicated (effective from 2007), to canon 21 of the LCA, to which a paragraph was added, at the end, stating the following: 'The Regulation to this Law shall define the circumstances and the manner in which it is appropriate to compensate the irregular contractor. Likewise, the official who has promoted an irregular contract shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of Article 96 bis of this Law.' Consequently, the Regulation to the cited Law, which entered into force on the same date, in provision 210, second and third paragraphs, determined the following: 'The contract shall be considered irregular when serious and evident defects are incurred in its processing, of easy verification, such as omission of the corresponding procedure or illegitimate recourse to some exception. In these cases, no payment may be recognized to the interested party, except in qualified cases, in which it proceeds in accordance with general principles of law, regarding supplies, works, services, and other objects, executed with evident benefit to the Administration. In that case, the foreseen profit shall not be recognized, and if it is unknown, a 10% reduction of the total amount shall be applied for that purpose. The same solution shall be applied to those contracts executed without legal endorsement or internal approval, when this is required. Non-formalization of the contract shall not be an impediment to applying this provision as pertinent.' In accordance with the doctrine issued by the CGR, embodied in those norms (21 of the LCA and 210 of its Regulation), which this Chamber shares, it is possible to recognize the payment of compensation in irregular contracts, based on the principles of equity and unjust enrichment. (...)" (Judgment No. 926-F-S1-2016, of 12:00 hours on September 8, 2016). As clearly deduced from the cited ruling, in application of the applicable regulations and the administrative jurisprudence of the Comptroller General of the Republic, what is appropriate in an irregular contract is to compensate the contractor but without recognizing the foreseen profit, and in case the specific amount of that item cannot be determined, a 10% reduction must be applied to the total amount of the contract. As explained previously, in this matter it is clear that the plaintiff's claims are based on the collection of unpaid balances for the execution of three contracts of an irregular nature, due to the omission of compliance with the applicable contracting procedure. Consequently, what is appropriate in this lawsuit is to partially grant the petition of the complaint, with the legal limitations set forth above, recognizing to Mr. Nombre81708, as compensation, the amount agreed upon with the Commission for the three irregular contracts executed, less 10% of those total amounts, given that the profit margin he incorporated therein is unknown. In summary, and by way of corollary, based on the reasoning expressed, the complaint must be partially granted in the terms indicated below.

**VII.- ON THE CLAIMS.-** It is appropriate to resolve the aspects of the claim as follows: Claims that are granted: The defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of one million forty thousand colones (1,040,000.00), as compensation for the contracting of the lighting, sound, and backline service for the cultural, religious, and children's events held in the amphitheater of the Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located in Barnabela Ramos park, in the city of Santa Cruz, from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016. The indicated sum corresponds to the total agreed minus 10% for profit (2,600,000.00 - 260,000 (10%) = 2,340,000.00), and taking into account that the plaintiff was already paid a credit of one million three hundred thousand colones, this latter amount was deducted (2,340,000.00 - 1,300,000.00 = 1,040,000.00), resulting in the final amount of one million forty thousand colones (1,040,000.00). Likewise, the defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of one million one hundred two thousand five hundred colones (1,102,500.00), as compensation for the two additional contracts corresponding to the sound service for rehearsals of the candidates of the 2016 Santa Cruz national typical fiestas and the sound and backline service for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said fiestas. The indicated sum corresponds to the total agreed minus 10% for profit ([85,000.00 - 8,500.00 (10%) = 76,500.00] + [1,140,000.00 - 114,000.00 (10%) = 1,026,000.00] = 1,102,500.00), resulting in the final amount of one million one hundred two thousand five hundred colones (1,102,500.00). In accordance with Article 123 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, as payment of a monetary obligation has been ordered, its indexation is appropriate, which shall be done in the judgment enforcement stage. Claims that are rejected: The claim for damages for breach of contract is rejected, as these are irregular contracts, as already decided. The claim for subjective moral damages is rejected, given that the plaintiff has not proven that, due to the breach of contract, he had to resort to his own savings or loans from relatives to be able to cover the expenses of the services provided and pay the employees, nor has he provided any element that allows inferring that he suffered emotional instability affecting his intimate sphere and his mental health, manifested in worry, mood disturbances, anger, stress, and anguish, for said reason. The claim to order the inclusion, within the municipal budget, of the payment of the granted aspects is rejected as premature, as such power is reserved for the judgment enforcement stage (Article 168 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code). The claim for the payment of interest on the amounts owed is rejected, as these are irregular contracts, as already decided. The accessory claim for the recognition of material damage and moral damages in the sum of ten million colones is rejected, based on the same reasoning set forth above.

**VIII.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES.-** For the reasons expressed in the preceding recital, the defense of lack of right must be partially granted regarding the aspects of the claim that are rejected.

**IX.- ON COSTS.-** By express provision of Article 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, it is appropriate to jointly and severally order the defendants to pay both costs of this action for the mere fact of having been defeated in this proceeding, without the existence of reasons given by the defendants or determined by this Court that justify their exoneration according to subsections a) and b) of the cited provision 193. Costs shall accrue interest once their amount is determined and payable.

**X.-** In accordance with Articles 10, 22, and 67 et seq. of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic, this judgment shall be communicated to the Comptroller General of the Republic for its appropriate action.

**THEREFORE** The defense of lack of right raised by the Municipality of Santa Cruz is partially granted. Consequently, the filed complaint is partially granted, it being understood as denied in whatever is not expressly granted. The Municipality of Santa Cruz, José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, René Cabalceta Valerín, Joaquín Suárez Gómez, Catalina Dinarte Valle, and Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez are jointly and severally ordered to pay the plaintiff the sums of one million forty thousand colones (1,040,000.00) and one million one hundred two thousand five hundred colones (1,102,500.00). Said sums must be indexed in the judgment enforcement stage. The defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay both costs of this action, as well as any eventual interest that may accrue on them once their amount is determined and payable. This judgment shall be communicated to the Comptroller General of the Republic for its appropriate action.

RONALDO HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ EDUARDO GONZÁLEZ SEGURA Nombre41308 *WZ2STWJCY1061* Signed document by:

EDUARDO GONZÁLEZ SEGURA, JUDGE Nombre41308 , JUDGE RONALDO HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ, JUDGE All sums of money left uncollected due to the defendants' non-performance, from the moment they should have been paid, are indexed. 8. The defendant is ordered to pay both costs of this action.

ACCESSORY CLAIM. The defendants' non-performance caused me unforeseen expenses, a situation that proved harmful and detrimental from a financial standpoint, as well as the subjective moral damages (daño moral subjetivo) caused by the emotional distress suffered from all the situations experienced, CONSERVATIVELY valued under the following headings: Whereas the non-performance by the defendant festival commission and the omissive and unlawful conduct of the Municipal Administration of Santa Cruz caused me economic and emotional instability, manifested as worry, mood disturbances, anger, stress, anxiety, mental health issues, and generally, affecting my intimate sphere, therefore I request that the defendants be ordered to pay the sum of TEN MILLION COLONES. The time elapsed without the defendants paying me the sums owed caused me emotional and economic instability, since I had to resort to my own savings, which I have been unable to recoup, and to family resources to cover the expenses I incurred to provide good service to these festivals and pay employees. No one expects that once services are rendered they will not be paid; it is a difficult situation that the municipal administration never understood and resolved my requests in a mocking way, as it never gave me a solution, agreements came and went and they never did anything, so much so that I had to resort to the courts. In light of the above and considering that money will not fully repay everything I have lived through during this time, I conservatively estimate the moral damages (daño moral) at the sum previously indicated." (Images 2 to 15).

**2.-** The Municipality of Santa Cruz answered the complaint and raised the defenses of joinder of necessary passive litisconsorcio (litisconsorcio pasivo necesaria) with the members of the Festival Commission, failure to exhaust administrative remedies (falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa), statute of limitations (prescripción), and lack of right (falta de derecho). (Images 125 to 127).

**3.-** By resolution at 3:52 p.m. on October 29, 2018, the Processing Judge joined as defendants, in their personal capacity, the members of the Popular Festivities Commission of the Municipality of Santa Cruz, Messrs. Jose Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Catalina Dinarte Valle, Nombre81709 , René Cabalceta Valerín and Joaquín Suárez Gómez. (Image 139).

**4.-** By resolution at 10:15 a.m. on November 25, 2019, the Processing Judge declared Jose Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Catalina Dinarte Valle, Nombre81709 , René Cabalceta Valerín and Joaquín Suárez Gómez in default (rebeldía), and on their part, the complaint was deemed admitted as to the facts. (Images 176 and 177).

**5.-** The preliminary hearing was held on February 18, 2020. The plaintiff clarified that the moral damages (daño moral) requested are subjective and that the liability claimed is joint and several (solidaria) among all the defendants. The defendant withdrew the defense of necessary passive litisconsorcio (litisconsorcio pasivo necesaria) on the grounds that the complaint had been served on the members of the Festival Commission. The Processing Judge denied the defenses of failure to exhaust administrative remedies (falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa) and statute of limitations (prescripción). The matter was declared to be one of pure law and the parties presented their conclusions. (Audio file and minute shown in images 181 to 185).

**6.-** The case was assigned to the Second Section of this Tribunal, composed of the presiding judges Ronaldo Hernández Hernández, Eduardo González Segura and Nombre41308 , who were responsible for issuing the judgment, under the reporting of the second.

**7.-** There are no defects or omissions that cause nullity.

**II- ARGUMENTS OF THE COMPLAINT.-** The plaintiff's representative alleges the following: **FACTS.** FIRST: The Municipal Council of Santa Cruz, in ordinary session number 21-2015, article 4, subsection 16, on May 19, 2015, unanimously agreed to appoint the Typical Popular Festivals Commission, which was constituted by the following persons: Ms. Catalina Dinarte Valle, Ms. Fanny Rodríguez Villarreal, Mr. René Cabalceta Valerín, Prof. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, and Mr. Joaquín Suárez. (See Evidence 2). SECOND: That the Civic Popular Festivals Commission awarded me the service offer for Lighting, Sound and Backline for the cultural, religious and children's events, held in the Carlos Rodríguez Santana amphitheater, all according to the contract signed on December 22, 2015, at 9:50 a.m. (See evidence 31). Likewise, I was verbally contracted by representatives of the commission (Nombre81710, Joaquín Suárez Gómez and Manuel Moraga Moraga), to provide Sound services for rehearsals of the festival candidates and to provide sound and Backline services for the concerts held at the fairgrounds for said festivals. The latter are demonstrated by official letters issued by Ms. Xinia Aguilar González, Joaquín Suárez Gómez and José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, dated October 24, 2016. (See Evidence 12 and 13). THIRD: That I fully complied with all the obligations and services contracted by said commission, providing quality equipment and the necessary personnel to cover the events scheduled for all the activities to be held. Furthermore, to fully cover the events I had to hire more personnel than anticipated, since carrying out long-duration workdays required providing good service. There were no setbacks or eventual grounds for termination of the contract, so it is clear that there is non-performance by the aforementioned Commission and the Municipality of Santa Cruz. [There is no fourth fact in the complaint]. FIFTH: That the amount agreed upon in said contract was TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND COLONES, which were to be paid in two installments, the first on January eighth, two thousand sixteen and the second on the eighteenth day of January of the same year. (Evidence 3). SIXTH: Once the events for which I was contracted concluded, I proceeded to collect the second installment agreed in the respective contract; however, I was not paid, with the claim that they were awaiting payment of some sponsorships; furthermore, I was not paid for the verbally contracted services, which consisted of providing sound services for rehearsals of the festival candidates and providing sound and Backline services for the concerts held at the fairgrounds of said Festivals. Given the aforementioned situation, I formally pursued collection procedures before the respective Festival Commission and it was always the same story: "we are waiting for payment of some sponsorships". Under pressure exerted by the undersigned, the Commission's representatives issued official letters attesting that money was owed to me, but they still did not pay me. (see Evidence 12 and 13). SEVENTH: Because the Festival Commission did not pay me what was owed and too much time had passed without a satisfactory solution, I carried out the collection process before the Municipality of Santa Cruz and its Council, without achieving the desired results. The Council of the Municipality of Santa Cruz heard two requests made by the undersigned in which I requested payment of the amounts owed and never took action as required by law and as dictated by the manual for this type of activities, as is usual in this municipality, since it is the same every year. (See Evidence 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14). EIGHTH: In addition to all the unlawful conduct of the Festival Commission, it presented a work report to the Internal Audit department of the Municipality of Santa Cruz, which was obviously not endorsed by the auditors, since what is required in these cases is the report on settlements (liquidaciones) of revenues and expenses, along with supporting documentation, and not what was presented by the aforementioned Festival Commission. To date, we do not know if the respective corresponding report was submitted, which is a fundamental requirement according to the respective Manual, thus an omissive conduct falls upon this municipality that this tribunal must analyze. Likewise, I do not know if the Contraloría General de la República approved said report, as it is their duty to ensure scrupulous compliance for the public funds invested and collected in this type of activities. **LEGAL GROUNDS.** I base this action on articles 41 and 49 of the Political Constitution. Furthermore, legal grounds for filing this action are provided by articles 1, 4, 190 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de Administración Pública), article 1, 2, 37, 31, 35, 42, 49, 58, 60, 82, 98 subsection 2 and following and concordant articles, article 15 following and concordant of the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), 290 subsection 5 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil); for the purpose of economically compensating the damages and losses (daños y perjuicios) caused by the defendant company to my principal. Operating Manual for Popular Festivities Commissions. Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17 and 25 following and concordant of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 27, 28, 29, 33, 39, 41 and 58 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica. It is clear that the defendant Festival Commission, the Municipality of Santa Cruz and the Municipal Council of said Municipality, acted contrary to what is established in the respective Manual for this type of events and the regulations applicable to this type of activities. A very important point to analyze is that the Operating Manual for Popular Festivities Commissions, issued by the Contraloría General de la República, published in La Gaceta No. 157 of August 15, 2006, in its chapter 8, article number 8, subsection 8.1, regarding final settlements (liquidaciones) and expenses, states the following: "Deadlines for preparing final settlements of revenues and expenses: The festivity commissions must prepare the final settlements of revenues and expenses and submit them no later than thirty calendar days after the conclusion of the popular festivities to the municipal Internal Audit for review—accompanied by the corresponding records, vouchers and supporting documents—which will have a period of sixty calendar days to forward the settlement to the Municipal Council for its approval, which will rule no later than fifteen calendar days thereafter. Within the settlement preparation period, the festivity commission must pay all incurred liabilities and address any surplus assets, as agreed by the Municipal Council for those purposes." Likewise, Law number 4286 of December 17, 1963, states in its articles 3 and 4 the following: "Article 3. The municipal council must reject expenses lacking complete documentation and those not related to the festivities. Expenses rejected by the council shall be borne proportionally by the commission members and reimbursed within one month from the date of the resolution ordering it; otherwise, the municipality must pursue the corresponding legal actions. Members whose dissenting vote on the challenged expenditure is recorded in the respective commission minutes are exempt from this sanction." "Article 4. The Municipality is obligated to exercise the necessary administrative actions to establish responsibilities in the case, when incorrectness or irregularity in fund management is proven; if necessary, it must refer the matter to the competent judicial authorities." For all the foregoing, it is clear that both the Municipal Administration and the Festival Commission, 2015-2016 term, failed to comply with the cited articles, causing me economic damages and losses (daños y perjuicios), as well as moral damages (daño moral) due to their omissive conduct and breach of contracts, both written and verbal. Likewise, according to the criteria issued by the Division of Operational and Evaluative Oversight of the Contraloría General de la República and the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) in its vote number 1758-93, it follows that a nexus of liability exists among the Municipal Council, Mayor's Office and the Popular Festivities Commissions (Patron Saint Festivals), which is not limited to the mere appointment of members, but requires adequate control of their operation, for which the municipality's control system must be articulated. Therefore, given the nexus among these, the losses must be borne by the ADMINISTRATION, which in this case would be the Municipality of Santa Cruz. For the reasons stated, and because there is a contractual breach and unlawful and omissive conduct by the Municipal Administration, we come to request that this complaint be upheld and that the FESTIVAL COMMISSION for the 2015-2016 term and the MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA CRUZ be ordered to pay the sum owed for the contracted services, damages and losses caused, as well as the moral damages (daño moral) suffered and both costs of this action.

**III.- ARGUMENTS OF THE ANSWER BY THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA CRUZ.-** The representation of the Municipality of Santa Cruz alleges the following: **FACTS.** FIRST: It is correct. The Municipal Council of Santa Cruz, by agreement adopted in ordinary session No. 21-2015, agreed to appoint the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Commission, naming the following persons: Ms. Catalina Dinarte Valle, Ms. Fanny Rodríguez Villarreal, Mr. René Cabalceta Valerín, Prof. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, President, Mr. Joaquín Suárez. SECOND: I cannot attest to it. THIRD: I rely on the documentary evidence provided. FIFTH: I rely on the documentary evidence, a copy of the contract which, according to the Popular Festivities Law (Ley de Festejos Populares) and concordant regulations, responsibilities must be assigned to the signatories of all documentation in management specific to the Festival Commission. SIXTH: I cannot attest to it. SEVENTH: I cannot attest to it. The description of this fact refers to actions taken by the plaintiff before the Municipal Council. EIGHTH: It is correct, in this fact the 2015-2016 Typical Festival Commission has not submitted a work report to the Municipal Internal Audit department. **DEFENSES. Joinder of Necessary Passive Litisconsorcio (Integración de la Litis Consorcio Pasivo Necesaria).** To the members of the 2015-2016 Festival Commission, pursuant to article 66 subsection e) of the Contentious-Administrative Code (Código Contencioso Administrativo) (35 and 36). [Resolved interlocutorally]. **Lack of Right (Falta de Derecho).** In the case of collection of a monetary debt, payment of subjective moral damages (daño moral subjetivo) is not applicable. **Statute of Limitations (Prescripción).** The plaintiff filed the complaint before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal on May 30, 2018, more than one year since the last action before the Municipal Council on May 24, 2016, the foregoing according to article 40 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). [Resolved at the preliminary hearing]. **Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies (Falta de Agotamiento Vía Administrativa).** By reason of article 66 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, since the Council only adopted the Agreement "to refer the collection matter to the Internal Audit but did not take any final act of rejection or payment order." [Resolved at the preliminary hearing]. **LEGAL BASIS.** I rely on articles 66, 35 and 36 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, articles 3 paragraph 2, and article 4 of Law No. 4286 of December 17, 1968, which establishes the liability of the members of the Festival Commission and the obligation that the law imposes on the Municipality authorities to exercise the necessary actions, as is this opportunity in which competent authorities are hearing the matter; furthermore, that it be declared an irregular contracting by reason of article 20 of the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) and article 218 of the Regulation to the cited Law, and the Organization and Procedures Manual for the national typical festivals commission of the canton of Santa Cruz, which was published in La Gaceta number 57 of March 21, 2014.

**IV.- PROVEN FACTS (HECHOS PROBADOS).-** Of importance for resolving this matter, the following relevant facts are deemed proven:

**1.-** By agreement adopted in article 4, subsection 16, of ordinary session number 21-2015, held on May 19, 2015, the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Santa Cruz appointed Messrs. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, René Cabalceta Valerín and Joaquín Suárez Gómez, and Mses. Catalina Dinarte Valle and Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez, as members of the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Commission of Santa Cruz. (Uncontested fact, see first fact of the complaint and of the answer by the Municipality of Santa Cruz).

**2.-** On December 22, 2015, the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Commission of the Municipality of Santa Cruz contracted Mr. Nombre81708 to provide lighting, sound and backline services for the cultural, religious and children's events to be held at the amphitheater of the Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located at Dirección8801 , in the city of Santa Cruz. The contracted service was provided for the period from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016. The sum to be paid for this service was agreed upon at a total of two million six hundred thousand colones (2.600.000,00). The contract was signed by Mr. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, president of the Commission, and Mr. Nombre81708 , contractor. Likewise, it was authenticated by Licda. Leidis Peña Zúñiga. (Images 24 to 27 of the judicial file).

**3.-** On January 18, 2016, the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Commission of Santa Cruz paid Mr. Nombre81708 the sum of one million three hundred thousand colones (1.300.000,00), via payee-only check No. 1665-6 dated January 18, 2016, in partial payment for the contracting indicated in the previous fact. (Image 35 of the judicial file).

**4.-** The 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Commission of the Municipality of Santa Cruz additionally contracted Mr. Nombre81708 to provide two other services: the sound service for rehearsals of the candidates for the 2016 national typical festivals of Santa Cruz and the sound and backline service for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivals. The first for an amount of eighty-five thousand colones (85.000,00) and the second for an amount of one million one hundred forty thousand colones (1.140.000,00). The total of these two additional contracts amounts to the sum of one million two hundred twenty-five thousand colones (1.225.000,00). (Images 89 and 90 of the judicial file).

**5.-** On February 1, 2016, Mr. Nombre81708 , jointly with other signatories, requested the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Commission of Santa Cruz to pay him the amounts owed for the services rendered. (Images 37 to 53 of the judicial file).

**6.-** On March 29, 2016, Mr. Nombre81708 directly requested the Municipal Council to pay him the amount owed. (Image 59 of the judicial file).

**7.-** By agreement adopted in article 2, subsection 2, of ordinary session number 15-2016, held on April 12, 2016, the Municipal Council of Santa Cruz ordered the following: "...Subsection 02: Mr. Nombre81708 is heard, he states the following: He comes seeking an arrangement or agreement, so that the 2016 Festival Commission pays him (...). He has repeatedly been told that they are awaiting the deposit of some pending sponsorships. Councilmember Vallejos Zúñiga says that we must assume responsibility; in May the Commission should have submitted the report. The adoption of the following agreement is proposed: It is unanimously agreed: Given that the deadline for submitting the economic report of the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivals Commission is overdue, it is agreed to grant them a period of 15 business days from the notification date of this agreement to submit said report. The Internal Audit department is to be informed of this agreement." (Images 55 to 57 of the judicial file).

**8.-** On May 24, 2016, Mr. Nombre81708 reiterated his request for payment before the Municipal Council. (Images 63 and 66 of the judicial file).

**9.-** By agreement adopted in article 2, subsection 12, of extraordinary session number 14-2016, held on May 26, 2016, the Municipal Council of Santa Cruz ordered the following: "It is unanimously agreed: The Municipal Mayor's Office is requested to report on the actions taken for payment of the amounts owed by the 2015-2016 Festival Commission." (Images 61, 62, 64, and 65 of the judicial file).

**10.-** On October 14, 2016, Mr. Nombre81708 reiterated his request for payment of the debt before the Municipal Council. (Images 81 to 84 of the judicial file).

**11.-** On December 8, 2016, Mr. Nombre81708 submitted his request for payment of the debt to the Municipal Mayor's Office. (Image 93 of the judicial file).

**12.-** By official letter No. AIM-190-2016, dated December 13, 2016, the Internal Audit Office of the Municipality of Santa Cruz informed the Municipal Council and the Municipal Mayor's Office of the following, as relevant: *"...Based on the foregoing, this Audit Office continues to await the Festival Commission's presentation of the liquidation of accounts for the 2015-2016 Typical National Festivals and their respective vouchers and supporting documents, as established in articles 1 and 2 of the Law on the Appointment of Popular Festival Commissions, Ley 4286, in order to conduct the corresponding review and submit it to the Municipal Council. This Audit Office reiterates to the Municipal Council the recommendation issued through official letter AIM-173-2016, dated October 25, 2016, which states: 1. Evaluate the advisability of referring the situation that is occurring with the Santa Cruz 2015-2016 Typical National Festivals Commission, regarding the failure to submit the liquidation of revenues and expenses of the Santa Cruz 2015-2016 Typical National Festivals to the Internal Audit Office, to the Municipal Legal Advisory Office, through the Municipal Mayor's Office, so that the corresponding legal actions are pursued."* (Images 100 to 102 of the judicial file).

**13.-** Through an agreement adopted in Article 4, subsection 27, of Ordinary Session number 51-2016, held on December 13, 2016, the Municipal Council of Santa Cruz resolved as follows: *"It is unanimously agreed: Official letter AIM-190-2016 from the Municipal Internal Audit Office is referred to the Municipal Mayor's Office so that, in coordination with the Municipal Legal Advisory Office, it issues a report with recommendations for the corresponding legal actions regarding the failure to submit the liquidation of revenues and expenses of the Santa Cruz 2015-2016 Typical National Festivals to the Internal Audit Office."* (Images 104 to 107 of the judicial file).

**V.- UNPROVEN FACTS:** Of importance for resolving this matter, the following relevant facts are deemed not demonstrated:

**1.-** That the 2015-2016 Typical National Festivals Commission of the Municipality of Santa Cruz followed the procedures regulated in the Public Procurement Law and its Regulations for the procurement of lighting, sound, and backline services for the cultural, religious, and children's events held at the amphitheater of the Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located in Parque Barnabela Ramos, in the city of Santa Cruz, from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016, agreed upon between the Commission and Mr. Nombre81708 on December 22, 2015; nor for the sound services for rehearsals of the candidates for the 2016 Santa Cruz typical national festivals and the sound and backline services for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivals. Nor has it been proven that said procurements were exempt from compliance with the procedures of the Public Procurement Law and its Regulations. (There is no evidence in the record).

**2.-** That the Municipality of Santa Cruz or the members of the 2015-2016 Typical National Festivals Commission of that local entity have paid Mr. Nombre81708 the amounts owed for the procurements indicated in proven facts two and four. (There is no evidence in the record).

**3.-** That Mr. Nombre81708 had to resort to his own savings or loans from family members to cover the expenses of the services provided and pay his employees, due to the Commission's breach. (There is no evidence in the record).

**4.-** That Mr. Nombre81708 suffered emotional instability that affected his personal life and mental health, manifested as worry, mood disturbances, anger, stress, and anguish, due to the Commission's failure to pay for the procurements. (There is no element in the record that allows an inference that the plaintiff suffered these emotional disturbances).

**5.-** That Messrs. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, René Cabalceta Valerín, and Joaquín Suárez Gómez, and Mses. Catalina Dinarte Valle and Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez, had their appointments as members of the Commission extended. (There is no evidence in the record).

**VI.- ON THE MERITS.-** The claim must be partially granted for the reasons set forth below. In this matter, according to the proven facts, it has been established that the Typical National Festivals Commission of the Municipality of Santa Cruz 2015-2016 (hereinafter the Commission), an internal body of said local entity, entered into three procurements with the plaintiff herein, Nombre81708. One, with a written contract, consisting of lighting, sound, and backline services for the cultural, religious, and children's events held at the amphitheater of the Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located at Dirección8801, in the city of Santa Cruz, during the days from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016, for the sum of two million six hundred thousand colones (2,600,000.00), of which one million three hundred thousand colones (1,300,000.00) were paid. The other two, additional, without a written contract, consisting of sound services for rehearsals of the candidates for the 2016 Santa Cruz typical national festivals, for the sum of eighty-five thousand colones (85,000.00), and sound and backline services for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivals, for the sum of one million one hundred forty thousand colones (1,140,000.00). The first procurement derives from the contract signed between the Commission and the plaintiff on December 22, 2015; the other two additional procurements derive from the private document signed by Messrs. Joaquín Suárez Gómez and José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Secretary and President of the Commission, respectively, and defendants in this proceeding, dated October 24, 2016, in which they expressly acknowledge said procurements and all amounts owed to Mr. Nombre81708 up to that date for the three procurements. It is noted that the latter is a private document and not a public one, because according to Article 5 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the commission of the typical national festivals of the canton of Santa Cruz (approved by agreement of the Municipal Council adopted in Article 6, subsection 1, of Ordinary Session number 21-2011, of May 24, 2011), the appointment of the Commission members is annual and takes place at the first ordinary session of the Council in the month of May. In this case, the members of the Commission were appointed on May 19, 2015, so their investiture as persons participating in public management, on behalf and account of the municipal Administration, under the terms of articles 111 and 112 of the General Public Administration Law, concluded on May 20, 2016; thus, the aforementioned document dated October 24, 2016, having been signed by Messrs. Joaquín Suárez Gómez and José Enrique Aguilar Obregón on a date after the validity period of their appointment, renders it one of a private nature, as the extension of their appointments has not been proven. It is important to note that the Civil Procedure Code (Law No. 9342), in its numeral 45.1, provides that private documents, admitted tacitly or expressly, are presumed authentic and valid unless proven otherwise. Concurrently, Article 45.3 of that legal body states that the acknowledgment of private documents may be express or tacit; in the latter case, it occurs when a party does not challenge it in a timely manner. In this regard, numeral 45.5 establishes that the challenge of documents submitted with the claim and counterclaim must be made in the response and reply. This clarification is made in this case because both documents presented by the plaintiff to support the three procurements agreed upon with the Commission and the debt for their provision—namely, the contract signed on December 22, 2015, and the letter signed by the secretary and president of the Commission on October 24, 2016—are private documents, which were not challenged by the legal representation of the Municipality of Santa Cruz in this proceeding and, in that sense, have been tacitly acknowledged in application of the procedural rules already cited, a circumstance that configures, in turn, their authenticity and validity for the purposes of what is sought to be proven with them. This is equally applicable to the other co-defendants in this proceeding, the former members of the Commission, for logical reasons, given their default status. Having thus established the procurements and the debts of the Municipality to the plaintiff by reason thereof, the appropriate course, in principle, would be to order the local entity to pay the outstanding balances on the obligations contracted with the claimant at the time. However, it is necessary to specify that the procurements subject to this proceeding must be considered irregular contracts, in accordance with Article 21 of the Public Procurement Law and Article 210 of its Regulations in force at the time of the facts. Indeed, Article 10 of the Law on the Appointment of Popular Festival Commissions (No. 4286), the special law regulating the economic activity of these municipal commissions, expressly provides that the procurements promoted by the Popular Festival Commissions are governed by the Public Procurement Law and its Regulations. For its part, numeral 40 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the commission of the typical national festivals of the canton of Santa Cruz (referred to above), indicates that the procurement procedure carried out by the Commission shall be determined in accordance with Article 27 of the Public Procurement Law and based on the budget authorized to support the procurement of goods and services by the Comptroller General of the Republic for the Municipality of Santa Cruz. Article 27 of the Public Procurement Law orders the type of procedure that the Public Administration must implement for the acquisition of its goods and services, by categories of amounts that are determined, in turn, based on the amount of the authorized budget. Thus, the option of direct procurement is always reserved for the lower amounts within that classification, regardless of the authorized budget. Under this logic, regardless of the budget that may have been authorized for the Municipality of Santa Cruz for fiscal year 2016, given the amount of what was contracted with Mr. Nombre81708, given its small sum, it necessarily had to follow the direct procurement procedure governed for this type of acquisition, provided for in Article 2, subsection h) of the Public Procurement Law and developed in precept 136 of the Regulations to the Public Procurement Law in force at the time of the facts, which to that effect establishes: *"Article 136—Small sum. Procurements that, due to their limited volume and economic significance, in accordance with the amounts established in Article 27 of the Public Procurement Law, may be processed following the procedure indicated in these Regulations. Once it has been determined that a direct procurement of a small sum is appropriate, a simple set of specifications must be prepared describing the contractual object, the term and form of delivery, as well as setting the time and date for the receipt of proposals. In these cases, the lowest-priced offer shall be awarded, without prejudice to the evaluation of other relevant factors when so defined in the invitation. The entity shall grant a minimum period of one day and a maximum of five business days for the presentation of quotes. In cases proven to be urgent, quotes may be requested with at least four hours' notice prior to their receipt; in this case, a document signed by an official who takes responsibility for this decision must exist, who shall be the same person who issues the award act. The Administration shall invite no fewer than three potential offerors from the Supplier Registry established in these Regulations, although it is obligated to study all offers submitted, regardless of whether they come from offerors who have been invited or not. Registration in the supplier registry is not a requirement for participation. Should the number of registered suppliers be less than three, others who are not registered may be invited. For the validity of the procedure, it will not be necessary to actually have the three quotes, but the invitees must be companies dedicated to the specific line of business of the contractual object; in which case, processing contrary to this provision shall also be considered a serious fault. Offers may be submitted by fax or email, in accordance with what is established in the bidding terms, and the validation of the best-positioned offer from the evaluation conducted must be carried out before issuing the award act. In cases where a system is available that guarantees the guiding principles of the use of electronic means, offers may be received by such means. The award act must be issued within a maximum period of ten business days, extendable for an equal period in duly justified cases, counted from the day of the opening of offers, and shall be immediately communicated to the participants, who may file an appeal for revocation within the two business days following notification. If the appeal is admissible, the awardee shall be granted a hearing within a period of two business days, after which the Administration must resolve the matter within the next three business days. In cases declared urgent, no appeal shall be allowed. Likewise, regarding the invitation to participate, the Administration must consider the provisions of Executive Decree number 33305-MEIC-H, 'Special Regulation for the Promotion of SMEs in the Procurement of Goods and Services by the Administration'."* As can be observed, even in the case of a direct procurement of a small sum, which in itself excludes subjection to the particularities of ordinary legal procedures, it entails compliance with a minimum regulated procedure that must be fully respected by the Public Administration for that administrative contract to achieve conformity with the legal system. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that this procedure was followed to configure the procurements with the plaintiff herein, which is even more evident with respect to the services that were requested informally, i.e., sound for rehearsals of the candidates for the 2016 Santa Cruz typical national festivals, and sound and backline for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivals. Because of this circumstance, as previously noted, these procurements must be considered irregular, as the Commission omitted compliance with the applicable procedure for their materialization, despite being subject to it, not only because the Commission is a collegial body attached to the Municipal Council (Articles 13, subsection n, and 34, subsection g, of the Municipal Code, 1 of Law No. 4286, and 4 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the commission of the typical national festivals of the canton of Santa Cruz) and, therefore, part of the organization of the Municipality as a public entity subject to the block of legality of the administrative legal system, but also because the legislator so established by express mandate, under the terms of Law No. 4286, which regulates the economic activity of the aforementioned collegial bodies. In relation to irregular contracts, precept 210 of the Regulations to the Public Procurement Law, in force at the time of the facts, provides as follows: *"Article 210—Duty of verification. It is the contractor's responsibility to verify the correctness of the administrative procurement procedure and the contractual execution. By virtue of this obligation, to support claims for compensation, the contractor may not allege ignorance of the applicable rules or the consequences of the administrative conduct. The contract shall be considered irregular when serious and evident defects occur in its processing, of easy verification, such as the omission of the corresponding procedure or when an exception has been illegitimately resorted to. In such cases, no payment whatsoever may be recognized to the interested party, except in qualified cases, where it proceeds in accordance with general principles of law, regarding supplies, works, services, and other objects executed with evident benefit to the Administration. In that case, the expected profit shall not be recognized, and if it is unknown, a reduction of 10% of the total amount shall be applied for that concept. The same solution shall be given to those contracts executed without the required countersignature or internal approval. Failure to formalize the contract shall not be an impediment to applying this provision as relevant."* In accordance with the cited canon, in an irregular contract, the contractor would be entitled to receive payment, in application of general principles of law, when there has been a benefit to the Public Administration; however, they are penalized by not recognizing lost profits, that is, the expected profit margin, as a sanction for not verifying the correctness of the procedure, that being their obligation under the public procurement regime. The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, developing the administrative case law of the Comptroller General of the Republic, defined that, in reality, in these cases, no payment is made to the interested party, as it is not a validly awarded contract, but rather an indemnity, under the principles of equity and unjust enrichment. In this regard, it has stated: *"...In this Chamber's resolution no. 001112-S1-F-2009, at 3:15 p.m. on October 30, 2009, regarding the topic under analysis, citing several criteria of the CGR, it was indicated that, in cases of irregular procurements: 'for example, one carried out without complying with the due procedure (the tendering process, as a rule), if we assumed that the Administration is obligated to recognize payment, and not an indemnity for the benefit it may have obtained, the general administrative procurement regime could be ignored without any consequence or sanction for anyone. Therefore, the recognition made by the Administration in such cases is only compensatory, motivated by principles of equity and not enriching itself without cause; it is not, therefore, the payment of a contract validly awarded to the individual (...). In conclusion, the basis for compensating individuals for the execution of irregular procurements is founded on legal principles of equity and that of unjust enrichment, applicable in the case, by integration of the administrative legal system, as provided in numeral 7 in relation to 16.1 of the General Public Administration Law…' (Official Letters 13023 DAGJ-297-99 of November 12, 1999, and 4414 -DCGA-457-97 of April 15, 1997, both from the CGR). The legislator proceeded to codify the pronouncements issued by the controlling body regarding irregular procurement through the partial reform introduced by Law No. 8511 of May 16, 2006, previously indicated (effective from 2007), to canon 21 of the LCA, to which a final paragraph was added, stating the following: 'The Regulations to this Law shall define the cases and the manner in which it is appropriate to compensate the irregular contractor. Likewise, the official who promoted an irregular procurement shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of Article 96 bis of this Law.' Consequently, the Regulation to said Law, which came into effect on the same date, in numeral 210, second and third paragraphs, determined the following: 'The contract shall be considered irregular when serious and evident defects occur in its processing, of easy verification, such as the omission of the corresponding procedure or when an exception has been illegitimately resorted to. In such cases, no payment whatsoever may be recognized to the interested party, except in qualified cases, where it proceeds in accordance with general principles of law, regarding supplies, works, services, and other objects executed with evident benefit to the Administration. In that case, the expected profit shall not be recognized, and if it is unknown, a reduction of 10% of the total amount shall be applied for that concept. The same solution shall be given to those contracts executed without the required countersignature or internal approval. Failure to formalize the contract shall not be an impediment to applying this provision as relevant.' According to the doctrine issued by the CGR, embodied in those rules (21 of the LCA and 210 of its Regulation), which this Chamber shares, it is possible to recognize the payment of compensation in irregular procurements, based on the principles of equity and unjust enrichment. (...)"*. (Judgment No. 926-F-S1-2016, at 12:00 p.m. on September 8, 2016). As clearly emerges from the cited ruling, in application of the applicable rules and the administrative case law of the Comptroller General of the Republic, what is appropriate in an irregular contract is to compensate the contractor but without recognizing the expected profit, and if the specific amount of that item cannot be determined, the total amount of the procurement must be reduced by 10%. As explained above, in this matter, it is clear that the plaintiff's claims are based on the collection of unpaid balances for the execution of three contracts of an irregular nature, by virtue of the omission to comply with the applicable procurement procedure. Consequently, what is appropriate in this dispute is to partially grant the petition of the claim, with the legal limitations set forth above, recognizing to Mr. Nombre81708, as an indemnity, the amount agreed upon with the Commission for the three irregular procurements executed, less 10% of those total amounts, given that the profit margin he incorporated into them is unknown. In summary, and by way of corollary, based on the reasoning expressed, the claim must be partially granted in the terms that will be indicated below.

**VII.- ON THE PRAYERS FOR RELIEF.-** It is appropriate to resolve the elements of the claim as follows: *Prayers for relief that are granted:* The defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of one million forty thousand colones (1,040,000.00), as an indemnity for the procurement of lighting, sound, and backline services for the cultural, religious, and children's events held at the amphitheater of the Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located in Parque Barnabela Ramos, in the city of Santa Cruz, from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016.

The indicated sum corresponds to the total agreed upon less 10% for profit (2,600,000.00 - 260,000 (10%) = 2,340,000.00), and considering that the plaintiff has already been paid a partial payment of one million three hundred thousand colones, this latter amount was deducted (2,340,000.00 - 1,300,000.00 = 1,040,000.00), thus resulting in the final amount of one million forty thousand colones (1,040,000.00). Likewise, the defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline">one million one hundred two thousand five hundred colones (1,102,500.00),</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> as compensation for the two additional contracts for the sound service for rehearsals of the candidates of the 2016 Santa Cruz national traditional festivities and the sound and backline service for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivities. The indicated sum corresponds to the total agreed upon less 10% for profit ([85,000.00 - 8,500.00 (10%) = 76,500.00] + [1,140,000.00 - 114,000.00 (10%) = 1,026,000.00] = 1,102,500.00), thus resulting in the final amount of one million one hundred two thousand five hundred colones (1,102,500.00). Pursuant to Article 123 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, as the payment of a monetary obligation has been ordered, its indexation is applicable, which shall be carried out in the judgment enforcement stage. </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline">Claims that are rejected:</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> The claim for damages (daños y perjuicios) for contractual breach is rejected, as these are irregular contracts as already decided. The claim for subjective moral damages (daño moral subjetivo) is rejected, given that the plaintiff has not proven that, due to the contractual breach, he had to resort to his own savings or loans from relatives to cover the expenses of the services provided and pay his employees, nor has he provided any element that allows inferring that he suffered emotional instability affecting his intimate sphere and mental health, manifested in worry, mood disturbances, anger, stress, and anguish, for said reason. The claim seeking to order the inclusion of the granted amounts in the municipal budget is rejected as premature, given that this power is reserved for the judgment enforcement stage (Article 168 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). The claim seeking the payment of interest on the amounts owed is rejected, as these are irregular contracts as already decided. The </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline">ancillary</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> claim seeking recognition of material damages (daño material) and moral damages (daño moral) in the sum</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> of ten million colones is rejected, based on the same reasoning previously set forth.

</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">VIII.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES.- </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">For the reasons expressed in the preceding recital (considerando), the defense of lack of right must be partially upheld regarding the rejected portions of the claim. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">IX.- ON COSTS.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">By express provision of Article 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, it is appropriate to order the defendants jointly and severally to pay both sets of costs of this action by the mere fact of having been the losing party in this proceeding, without there being reasons provided by the defendants or determined by this Court that justify their exoneration pursuant to subsections a) and b) of the aforementioned Article 193. The costs shall accrue interest once their amount has been determined and is payable.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">X.- </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">Pursuant to Articles 10, 22, and 67 et seq. of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, this judgment shall be communicated to the Contraloría General de la República for its pertinent action.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">POR TANTO</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">The defense of lack of right asserted by the Municipalidad de Santa Cruz is partially upheld. Consequently, the filed claim is declared partially with merit, being understood as denied in all matters not expressly granted. The Municipalidad de Santa Cruz, José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, René Cabalceta Valerín, Joaquín Suárez Gómez, Catalina Dinarte Valle, and Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez are jointly and severally ordered to pay the plaintiff the sums of one million forty thousand colones (1,040,000.00) and one million one hundred two thousand five hundred colones (1,102,500.00). Said sums shall be indexed in the judgment enforcement stage. The defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay both sets of costs of this action, as well as any interest that may accrue thereon once their amount has been determined and is payable. This judgment shall be communicated to the Contraloría General de la República for its pertinent action.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">RONALDO HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> EDUARDO GONZÁLEZ SEGURA</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">Nombre41308</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:12pt"><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:14pt"><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:'Arial Unicode'; font-size:10pt">- Código Verificador -</span><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'\">*WZ2STWJCY1061*</span><br /><span style="line-height:150%; font-family:'Arial Unicode'; font-size:8pt">WZ2STWJCY1061</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><br /><br /><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="width:400pt; padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'\">Documento firmado por:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'\">EDUARDO GONZÁLEZ SEGURA, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span><br /><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'\">Nombre41308</span><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'\">, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span><br /><span style="font-family:'Arial Unicode'\">RONALDO HERNANDEZ HERNANDEZ, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span></p></div></body></html> For its part, numeral 40 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the commission of the national typical fiestas of the canton of Santa Cruz (referred to above), indicates that the contracting procedure carried out by the Commission shall be determined in accordance with Article 27 of the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) and based on the budget authorized to support the procurement of goods and services by the Contraloría General de la República for the Municipalidad de Santa Cruz. Article 27 of the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) orders the type of procedure that the Public Administration must implement for the acquisition of its goods and services, by categories of amounts that are determined, in turn, based on the amount of the authorized budget. Thus, the option of direct procurement (contratación directa) is always reserved for the lower amounts within that classification, regardless of the authorized budget. Under that logic, beyond the budget that may have been authorized for the Municipalidad de Santa Cruz for the 2016 fiscal year, by reason of the amount contracted with Mr. Nombre81708, given its meager sum, it necessarily had to follow the direct procurement procedure for a minimal amount (contratación directa de escasa cuantía), regulated for that type of acquisition, provided for in Article 2, subsection h) of the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) and developed in precept 136 of the Regulations to the Administrative Contracting Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa) in force at the time of the events, which to that effect establishes: "Article 136.-Minimal amount (Escasa cuantía). Procurement actions that, due to their limited volume and economic significance, in accordance with the amounts established in Article 27 of the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), may be processed following the procedure indicated in these Regulations. Once it has been determined that a direct procurement for a minimal amount (contratación directa de escasa cuantía) is applicable, a simple set of conditions (pliego de condiciones) must be prepared describing the contractual object, the term and form of delivery, as well as setting the time and date for the receipt of proposals. In these cases, the lowest price offer shall be awarded, without prejudice to evaluating other relevant factors when so defined in the invitation. The entity shall grant a minimum period of one day and a maximum of five business days for the submission of quotations. In cases accredited as urgent, quotations may be requested with at least four hours' notice prior to their receipt; in this event, there must be a document signed by an official who takes responsibility for this decision, who shall be the same person issuing the award decision (acto de adjudicación). The Administration shall invite no fewer than three potential offerors from the Registry of Suppliers (Registro de Proveedores) established in these Regulations, although it is obligated to study all offers submitted regardless of whether they come from offerors who have been invited or not. Registration in the registry of suppliers is not a requirement to participate. In the event that the number of registered suppliers is fewer than three, others who are not registered may be invited. For the validity of the procedure, it will not be necessary to actually have the three quotations, but it is necessary that the invitees are companies dedicated to the specific line of business of the contractual object; in which case, processing contrary to this provision shall equally be considered a serious fault. Offers may be submitted by fax or electronic mail, in accordance with the terms established in the invitation (cartel), with the validation of the best-positioned offer from the evaluation performed being required before issuing the award decision. In those cases where a system exists that guarantees the guiding principles for the use of electronic means, offers may be received by such means. The award decision must be issued within a maximum period of ten business days, extendable for an equal period in duly justified cases, counted from the day of the opening of offers, and shall immediately be communicated to the participants, who may file an appeal for revocation (recurso de revocatoria) within the period of two business days following its notification. If the appeal is admissible, a hearing shall be granted to the successful bidder for a period of two business days, after which the Administration must resolve within the following three business days. In cases declared urgent, there shall be no appeal whatsoever. Likewise, regarding the invitation to participate, the Administration must consider the provisions of Executive Decree number 33305-MEIC-H, "Special Regulations for the Promotion of SMEs in the Procurement of Goods and Services of the Administration" (Reglamento Especial para la Promoción de las PYMES en las Compras de Bienes y Servicios de la Administración). As can be observed, even in the case of a direct procurement for a minimal amount (contratación directa de escasa cuantía), which excludes by itself subjection to the particularities of ordinary legal procedures, it entails compliance with a minimum regulated procedure that must be fully respected by the Public Administration so that this administrative contract achieves its conformity with the legal system. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that this procedure was followed to configure the procurement actions with the plaintiff here, which is even more evident with respect to the services that were requested from him through informal channels, for sound for rehearsals of the candidates for the 2016 national typical fiestas of Santa Cruz and for sound and backline for the concerts held at the fairgrounds (campo ferial) during said fiestas. By reason of this circumstance, as was previously warned, these procurement actions must be considered as irregular (irregulares), as the Commission omitted to comply with the procedure applicable for their materialization, despite being subject to it, not only because the Commission is a collegiate body attached to the Municipal Council (articles 13 subsection n and 34 subsection g of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), 1 of Law No. 4286 (Ley N°4286) and 4 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the commission of the national typical fiestas of the canton of Santa Cruz) and, therefore, part of the organization of the Municipality as a public entity subject to the legality block of the administrative legal system, but also because the legislator so established by express mandate, in the terms of Law No. 4286 (Ley N°4286), which regulates the economic activity of the aforementioned collegiate bodies. In relation to irregular contracts (contratos irregulares), precept 210 of the Regulations to the Administrative Contracting Law (Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa), in force at the time of the events, provides thus: "Article 210.-Duty of verification. It is the contractor's responsibility to verify the correctness of the administrative procurement procedure (procedimiento de contratación administrativa) and contractual execution. By virtue of this obligation, to support claims for compensation, he may not allege ignorance of the applicable legal system nor of the consequences of the administrative conduct. The contract shall be considered irregular when in its processing serious and evident defects are incurred, of easy verification, such as omission of the corresponding procedure or having illegitimately resorted to some exception. In those cases, no payment whatsoever may be recognized to the interested party, except in qualified cases, where it proceeds in accordance with general principles of Law, regarding supplies, works, services, and other objects, executed with evident benefit to the Administration. In that event, the anticipated profit (lucro previsto) shall not be recognized and if this is unknown, a reduction of 10% of the total amount shall be applied for that concept. The same solution shall apply to those contracts executed without the required countersignature or internal approval, when this is required. The non-formalization of the contract shall not be an impediment to applying this provision to the extent pertinent." In accordance with the cited canon, in an irregular contract (contrato irregular) the contractor would have the right to receive his payment, in application of the general principles of law, when there has been a benefit to the Public Administration; however, he is penalized by the non-recognition of lost profit (lucro cesante), that is, the expected profit margin, as a sanction for not verifying the correctness of the procedure, that being his obligation under the administrative procurement regime (régimen de contratación administrativa). The First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia), developing the administrative jurisprudence of the Contraloría General de la República, defined that, in reality, in these cases no payment is made to the interested party, as it is not a validly awarded contract, but rather an indemnity, under the protection of the principles of equity and unjust enrichment (no enriquecimiento sin causa).

In this regard, it has stated:

"...In the decision of this Chamber no. 001112-S1-F-2009 of 15:15 hours on October 30, 2009, regarding the topic under analysis, citing various criteria of the CGR, it was indicated that, in cases of irregular procurement actions (contrataciones irregulares): 'for example, one that is carried out without complying with the due procedure (generally the public tender (licitación)), if we assumed that the Administration is obligated to recognize the payment, and not an indemnity for the benefit it may have obtained, the general administrative procurement regime could be disregarded without consequence or sanction whatsoever for anyone. Therefore, the recognition made by the Administration in such cases is only indemnificatory, motivated by principles of equity and of not enriching oneself without cause; it is not, therefore, the payment of a contract validly awarded to the private party (...). In conclusion, the basis for indemnifying private parties for the execution of irregular procurement actions is founded on the legal principles of equity and unjust enrichment (no enriquecimiento sin causa), applicable in the specific case, by integration of the administrative legal system, as provided for in numeral 7 in relation to 16.1 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)...' (Official Letters 13023 DAGJ-297-99 of November 12, 1999, and 4414 -DCGA-457-97 of April 15, 1997, both from the CGR). The legislator proceeded to codify the pronouncements issued by the oversight body regarding irregular procurement (contratación irregular), through the partial reform introduced by Law no. 8511 of May 16, 2006, previously indicated (in force as of 2007), to canon 21 of the LCA, to which a final paragraph was added, which indicates the following: 'The Regulations to this Law shall define the circumstances and the manner in which it is appropriate to indemnify the irregular contractor (contratista irregular). Likewise, the official who has promoted an irregular procurement (contratación irregular) shall be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions of Article 96 bis of this Law.' Consequently, the Regulations to the cited Law, which entered into force on the same date, in numeral 210, second and third paragraphs, determined the following: 'The contract shall be considered irregular when in its processing serious and evident defects are incurred, of easy verification, such as omission of the corresponding procedure or having illegitimately resorted to some exception. In those cases, no payment whatsoever may be recognized to the interested party, except in qualified cases, where it proceeds in accordance with general principles of Law, regarding supplies, works, services, and other objects, executed with evident benefit to the Administration. In that event, the anticipated profit (lucro previsto) shall not be recognized and if this is unknown, a reduction of 10% of the total amount shall be applied for that concept. The same solution shall apply to those contracts executed without the required countersignature or internal approval, when this is required. The non-formalization of the contract shall not be an impediment to applying this provision to the extent pertinent.' According to the doctrine issued by the CGR, embodied in those rules (21 of the LCA and [210] of its Regulations), which this Chamber shares, it is possible to recognize the payment of indemnities in irregular procurement actions (contrataciones irregulares), based on the principles of equity and unjust enrichment (no enriquecimiento sin causa). (...)". (Judgment No. 926-F-S1-2016, of 12:00 hours on September 8, 2016). As is clearly evident from the cited ruling, in application of the applicable regulations and the administrative jurisprudence of the Contraloría General de la República, what is appropriate in an irregular contract (contrato irregular) is to indemnify the contractor but without recognizing the anticipated profit (lucro previsto), and in the event that the specific amount of that item cannot be determined, the total amount of the procurement must be reduced by 10%. As was explained previously, in this matter it is clear that the plaintiff's claims are based on the collection of unpaid balances for the execution of three contracts of an irregular nature, by virtue of the omission of compliance with the applicable procurement procedure. Consequently, what is appropriate in this litigation is to partially grant the petition of the complaint, with the legal limitations set forth above, recognizing to Mr. Nombre81708, by way of indemnity, the amount of what was agreed with the Commission for the three executed irregular procurement actions, less 10% of those total amounts, given that the profit margin he incorporated into them is unknown. In summary, and by way of corollary, based on the grounds expressed, the complaint must be partially upheld in the terms that will be indicated below.

There were no setbacks nor any events that would cause the contract to be terminated, so it is clear that there is a breach by the mentioned Commission and the Municipality of Santa Cruz. [There is no fourth fact in the complaint]. FIFTH: That the amount agreed upon in said contract was TWO MILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND COLONES, which would be paid in two installments, the first on January eighth, two thousand sixteen, and the second on the eighteenth of January of the same year. (Evidence 3). SIXTH: Once the events for which I was contracted were finished, I proceeded to collect the second installment agreed upon in the respective contract; however, I was not paid, with the reason given being that they were waiting for payment of some sponsorships; furthermore, I was not paid for the services contracted verbally, which consisted of providing sound services for the rehearsals of the festivities' candidates and for providing sound and backline services for the concerts that were held at the fairgrounds (campo ferial) of said Festivities. Given the situation described above, I formally proceeded with collection efforts before the respective Festivities Commission and the story was always the same </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"we are waiting for payment of some sponsorships"</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">. Under the pressure exerted by the undersigned, the Commission's representatives issued official letters stating that money was owed to me, but even so they did not pay me. (see Evidence 12 and 13). SEVENTH: Because the Festivities Commission did not pay me the debt and a long time had passed without a satisfactory solution, I carried out the collection process before the Municipality of Santa Cruz and its Council, without obtaining the desired results. The Council of the Municipality of Santa Cruz heard two requests made by the undersigned in which I requested payment of the amounts owed and never took action in the matter as the law and the manual for this type of activities dictates, as is usual in this municipality, since it is the same every year. (See Evidence 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 14). EIGHTH: In addition to all the unlawful conduct of the Festivities Commission, it presented a work report to the Audit Office of the Municipality of Santa Cruz that was obviously not endorsed by the auditors, since what is required in these cases is the report of liquidation of income and expenses, along with the supporting documentation, and not what was presented by the aforementioned Festivities Commission. To date, we do not know if the respective corresponding report was presented, which is a fundamental requirement according to the respective Manual, so an omission by this municipality falls upon it, which this court must analyze. Likewise, I do not know if the General Comptroller of the Republic approved said report, since it is their duty to ensure the faithful compliance of public funds invested and collected for this type of activity. LEGAL GROUNDS. I base this action on numerals 41 and 49 of the Political Constitution. Furthermore, I am given legal grounds for the filing of this action by numerals 1, 4, 190 of the General Law of Public Administration, article 1, 2, 37, 31, 35, 42, 49, 58, 60, 82, 98 subsection 2 and following and concordant, article 15 following and concordant of the Law of Administrative Contracting (Ley de Contratación Administrativa), 290 subsection 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure; for the purpose of economically compensating the damages and losses generated by the defendant society (sic) to my principal. Operations Manual for the Popular Festivities Commissions. Articles 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17, and 25 following and concordant of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 27, 28, 29, 33, 39, 41, and 58 of the Political Constitution of Costa Rica. It is clear that the defendant Festivities Commission, the Municipality of Santa Cruz, and the Municipal Council of said Municipality acted contrary to the provisions of the respective Manual for this type of event and applicable regulations for this type of activity. A very important situation to analyze is that the Operations Manual for the Popular Festivities Commissions, issued by the General Comptroller of the Republic, published in La Gaceta No. 157 of August 15, 2006, in its chapter 8, article number 8, subsection 8.1, regarding final liquidations and expenses, reads as follows: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"Deadlines for preparing final liquidations of income and expenses: The festivities commissions must prepare the final liquidations of income and expenses and present them no later than thirty calendar days after the conclusion of the popular festivities to the Municipal Internal Audit for review—accompanied by the corresponding records, vouchers, and justifications—which will have a period of sixty calendar days to transfer the liquidation to the Municipal Council for its approval, which will rule no later than fifteen calendar days thereafter. Within the period for preparing the liquidation, the festivities commission must pay all liabilities incurred and carry out what is appropriate in the case of remaining assets, as agreed by the Municipal Council for those purposes."</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> Likewise, Law number 4286 of December 17, 1963, reads in its articles 3 and 4 as follows: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"Article 3. The municipal council must reject expenses that do not contain complete documentation and those not related to the festivities. Expenses rejected by the council will be assumed proportionally by the members of the commission and repaid within a period of one month from the date of the resolution that so orders; otherwise, the municipality must file the corresponding legal actions. Members whose negative vote for the contested expense is recorded in the respective minutes of the commission are exempt from this sanction."</span><span> </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"Article 4. The Municipality shall be obligated to exercise the administrative actions required to establish the corresponding responsibilities when incorrectness or irregularity in the handling of funds is proven; if necessary, it must refer the matter to the competent judicial authorities." </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">For all the foregoing, it is clear that both the Municipal Administration and the Festivities Commission, 2015-2016 period, breached the provisions of the cited articles, causing me economic damages and losses, as well as moral damages (daño moral) due to their omission and breach of contracts, both written and verbal. Likewise, according to the criteria issued by the Division of Operative and Evaluative Oversight of the General Comptroller of the Republic and the Constitutional Chamber in its ruling number 1758-93, it is evident that there exists a link of responsibility that operates between the Municipal Council, Mayor's Office, and the Popular Festivities Commissions (Fiestas Patronales), which is not limited to the simple appointment of the members, but rather adequate control of their operation must be exercised, for which the municipality's control system must be articulated. Therefore, since there is a link between them, the losses must be assumed by the ADMINISTRATION, which in this case would be the Municipality of Santa Cruz. For the reasons stated, and because there is a contractual breach and unlawful and omissive conduct on the part of the Municipal Administration, we hereby request that this complaint be declared with merit and that the FESTIVITIES COMMISSION 2015-2016 period and</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA CRUZ be ordered to pay the sum owed for the contracted services, damages and losses caused, as well as the moral damages suffered, and both costs of this action.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">III.- ARGUMENTS OF THE ANSWER BY THE MUNICIPALITY OF SANTA CRUZ.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">The representation of the Municipality of Santa Cruz alleges the following: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">FACTS.</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> FIRST: It is true. The Municipal Council of Santa Cruz, by agreement taken in ordinary session No. 21-2015, agreed upon the appointment of the Commission for the 2015-2016 National Typical Festivities, falling to the following persons: Mrs. Catalina Dinarte Valle, Mrs. Fanny Rodríguez Villarreal, Mr. René Cabalceta Valerín, Prof. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, President, Mr. Joaquín Suárez. SECOND: Not within my knowledge. THIRD: I refer to the documentary evidence provided. FIFTH: I refer to the documentary evidence, copy of the contract which, in accordance with the Law of Popular Festivities and concordant regulations, responsibility must be assigned to the signatories of all documentation in procedures specific to the Festivities Commission. SIXTH: Not within my knowledge. SEVENTH: Not within my knowledge. The description of this fact refers to actions performed by the plaintiff before the Municipal Council. EIGHTH: It is true, in this fact the 2015-2016 Typical Festivities Commission has not presented a report of completed tasks to the Municipal Audit Office. EXCEPTIONS. Joinder of Necessary Passive Litis Consortium. To the members of the 2015-2016 Festivities Commission, pursuant to article 66 subsection e) of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo) (35 and 36). [Resolved interlocutorily]. Lack of Right. When dealing with the collection of a monetary debt, the payment of subjective moral damages is not applicable. Statute of Limitations. The plaintiff filed the complaint before the Contentious Administrative Tribunal on May 30, 2018, more than one year after the last procedure before the Municipal Council on May 24, 2016, the foregoing according to article 40 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure. [Resolved in preliminary hearing]. Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedy. By reason of article 66 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure, since the Council only took the Agreement "to refer the matter of the collection to the Internal Audit but did not take any final act of rejection or payment order." [Resolved in preliminary hearing]. LEGAL BASIS. I am protected by articles 66, 35, and 36 of the Code of Contentious Administrative Procedure, articles 3 paragraph 2, and article 4 of Law No. 4286 of December 17, 1968, which establishes the responsibility of the members of the Festivities Commission and the obligation imposed by law on the authorities of the Municipality to exercise the actions that are necessary, as is this opportunity when the matter is heard by competent authorities; furthermore, it should be declared an irregular contracting (contratación irregular) by reason of article 20 of the Law of Administrative Contracting and article 218 of the Regulations to the cited Law, and the Manual of organization and procedures for the commission of the national typical festivities of the canton of Santa Cruz, which was published in La Gaceta number 57 of March 21, 2014.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">IV.- PROVEN FACTS.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">Of importance for resolving this matter, the following facts of interest are taken as proven: </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">1.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">By agreement adopted in article 4, subsection 16, of ordinary session number 21-2015, held on May 19, 2015, the Municipal Council of the Municipality of Santa Cruz appointed Mr. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Mr. René Cabalceta Valerín, and Mr. Joaquín Suárez Gómez, and Mrs. Catalina Dinarte Valle and Mrs. Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez, as members of the Commission for the National Typical Festivities of Santa Cruz 2015-2016. (Uncontested fact, see first fact of the complaint and of the answer by the Municipality of Santa Cruz).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">2.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">On December 22, 2015, the Commission for the National Typical Festivities 2015-2016 of the Municipality of Santa Cruz contracted Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">to provide the lighting, sound, and backline service for the cultural, religious, and children's acts to be held in the amphitheater of the Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located at Dirección8801</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">, in the city of Santa Cruz. The contracted service was provided for the period from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016. </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline\">The sum to be paid for this service was agreed upon at a total of two million six hundred thousand colones (2,600,000.00).</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> The contract was signed by Mr. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, president of the Commission, and Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">, contractor. Likewise, it was authenticated by Attorney Leidis Peña Zúñiga. (Images 24 to 27 of the judicial case file).</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">3.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">On January 18, 2016, the Commission for the National Typical Festivities Santa Cruz 2015-2016 paid Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">the sum of one million three hundred thousand colones (1,300,000.00), by nominative check No. 1665-6 dated January 18, 2016, as payment toward the contract indicated in the previous fact. (Image 35 of the judicial case file). </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">4.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">The Commission for the National Typical Festivities 2015-2016 of the Municipality of Santa Cruz additionally contracted Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">to provide two other services: the sound service for rehearsals of the candidates of the 2016 national typical festivities of Santa Cruz and the sound and backline service for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivities. The first for an amount of eighty-five thousand colones (85,000.00) and the second for an amount of one million one hundred forty thousand colones (1,140,000.00). </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline\">The total of these two additional contracts amounts to the sum of one million two hundred twenty-five thousand colones (1,225,000.00).</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> (Images 89 and 90 of the judicial case file). </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">5.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">On February 1, 2016, Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">, together with other signing persons, requested from the Commission for the National Typical Festivities Santa Cruz 2015-2016 that the debt owed for the services rendered be paid. (Images 37 to 53 of the judicial case file).</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">6.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">On March 29, 2016, Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">requested directly from the Municipal Council that the debt be paid. (Image 59 of the judicial case file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">7.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">By agreement adopted in article 2, subsection 2, of ordinary session number 15-2016, held on April 12, 2016, the Municipal Council of Santa Cruz ordered the following: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"...Subsection 02: Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">is heard, stating the following: He comes so that some arrangement or agreement is made for the 2016 Festivities Commission to pay him (...). He has been repeatedly told that they are waiting for some pending sponsorships to be deposited. Councilmember Vallejos Zúñiga says that we must assume responsibility; in May, the Commission should have rendered the report. The adoption of the following agreement is proposed: It is agreed unanimously: In view of the fact that the period for the delivery of the financial report of the Commission for the National Typical Festivities 2015-2016 has expired, it is agreed to grant them a period of 15 business days from the date of notification of this agreement to submit the mentioned report. The Internal Audit Office shall be notified of this agreement."</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> (Images 55 to 57 of the judicial case file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">8.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">On May 24, 2016, Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">reiterated his request for payment before the Municipal Council. (Images 63 and 66 of the judicial case file). </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">9.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">By agreement adopted in article 2, subsection 12, of extraordinary session number 14-2016, held on May 26, 2016, the Municipal Council of Santa Cruz ordered the following: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"It is agreed unanimously: The Municipal Mayor's Office is requested to report on the procedures carried out for the payment of the debt (sic) by the 2015-2016 Festivities Commission." </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">(Images 61, 62, 64, and 65 of the judicial case file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">10.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">On October 14, 2016, Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">reiterated his request for payment of the debt before the Municipal Council. (Images 81 to 84 of the judicial case file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">11.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">On December 8, 2016, Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">presented his request for payment of the debt before the Municipal Mayor's Office. (Image 93 of the judicial case file). </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">12.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">By official letter No. AIM-190-2016, dated December 13, 2016, the Internal Audit Office of the Municipality of Santa Cruz informed the Municipal Council and the Municipal Mayor's Office of the following, in the pertinent part: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"...For the foregoing, this Audit Office continues waiting for the Festivities Commission to present the liquidation of accounts of the 2015-2016 Typical Festivities and their respective vouchers and justifications, as established in articles 1 and 2 of the Law on the Appointment of Popular Festivities Commissions, Law 4286, in order to carry out the corresponding review and forward it to the Municipal Council. This Audit Office reiterates to the Municipal Council the recommendation issued through official letter AIM-173-2016 dated October 25, 2016, which indicates: 1. Assess the advisability of referring the situation that is occurring with the Commission for the National Typical Festivities Santa Cruz 2015-2016, regarding the failure to forward the liquidation of income and expenses of the National Typical Festivities Santa Cruz 2015-2016 to the Internal Audit Office, to the Municipal Legal Counsel, through the Municipal Mayor's Office, so that the corresponding legal actions can be pursued."</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> (Images 100 to 102 of the judicial case file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">13.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">By agreement adopted in article 4, subsection 27, of ordinary session number 51-2016, held on December 13, 2016, the Municipal Council of Santa Cruz ordered the following: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"It is agreed unanimously: Official letter AIM-190-2016 from the Municipal Internal Audit Office is forwarded to the Municipal Mayor's Office so that, in coordination with the Municipal Legal Counsel, it issues a report with recommendations on the corresponding legal actions, regarding the failure to forward the liquidation of income and expenses of the National Typical Festivities Santa Cruz 2015-2016 to the Internal Audit Office."</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> (Images 104 to 107 of the judicial case file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">V.- UNPROVEN FACTS: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">Of importance for resolving this matter, the following facts of interest are taken as not proven: </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">1.-</span><span> </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">That the Commission for the National Typical Festivities 2015-2016 of the Municipality of Santa Cruz followed the procedures regulated in the Law of Administrative Contracting and its Regulations for the contracting of the lighting, sound, and backline services for the cultural, religious, and children's acts held in the amphitheater of the Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located in Barnabela Ramos Park, in the city of Santa Cruz, on the days from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016, agreed upon between the Commission and Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">, on December 22, 2015; nor for the sound services for the rehearsals of the candidates of the 2016 national typical festivities of Santa Cruz and the sound and backline for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivities. Neither has it been accredited that said contracts were exempt from compliance with the procedures of the Law of Administrative Contracting and its Regulations. (There is no evidence in the case file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">2.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">That the Municipality of Santa Cruz or the members of the Commission for the National Typical Festivities 2015-2016 of that local entity have paid Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">the amounts owed for the contracts indicated in proven facts two and four. (There is no evidence in the case file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">3.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">That Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">had to resort to his own savings or to loans from relatives to be able to cover the expenses of the services provided and pay the employees, due to the breach by the Commission. (There is no evidence in the case file).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">4.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">That Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces\">&#xa0;&#xa0; </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">has suffered emotional instability that affected his intimate sphere and his mental health, manifested in worry, mood disturbances, anger, stress, and anguish, due to the Commission's failure to pay for the contracts. (There is no element whatsoever in the case file that allows inferring that the plaintiff has suffered those emotional disturbances). </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0\"><span style=\"width:36pt; display:inline-block\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">5.- </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">That Mr. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Mr. René Cabalceta Valerín, and Mr. Joaquín Suárez Gómez, and Mrs. Catalina Dinarte Valle and Mrs. Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez, were extended in their appointments as members of the Commission.</span></p> (There is no evidence in the case file).</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">VI.- ON THE MERITS.- </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">The claim must be partially granted for the reasons set forth below. In this matter, according to the proven facts, it is established that the National Traditional Festivities Commission of the Municipality of Santa Cruz 2015-2016 (hereinafter the Commission), an internal body of said local entity, entered into three contracts with the plaintiff here, Nombre81708</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">. One, with a written contract, consisting of the lighting, sound, and backline service for the cultural, religious, and children's events held in the amphitheater of the Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located at Dirección8801</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">, in the city of Santa Cruz, from January 14, 2016, to January 18, 2016, for the sum of two million six hundred thousand colones (2,600,000.00), of which one million three hundred thousand colones (1,300,000.00) were paid. The other two, additional ones, without a written contract, consisting of the sound service for rehearsals of the candidates for the 2016 Santa Cruz national traditional festivities, for the sum of eighty-five thousand colones (85,000.00), and the sound and backline service for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivities, for the sum of one million one hundred forty thousand colones (1,140,000.00). The first contract derives from the contract signed between the Commission and the plaintiff on December 22, 2015; the other two additional contracts derive from the private document signed by Messrs. Joaquín Suárez Gómez and José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Secretary and President of the Commission respectively, and defendants in this proceeding, dated October 24, 2016, in which they expressly acknowledge them as well as all amounts owed to Mr. Nombre81708</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; -aw-import:spaces"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">up to that date, for the three contracts. It is noted that the latter is a private document and not a public one, because according to Article 5 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the National Traditional Festivities Commission of the Canton of Santa Cruz (Manual de organización y procedimientos para la comisión de las fiestas típicas nacionales del cantón de Santa Cruz) (approved by agreement of the Municipal Council adopted in Article 6, subsection 1, of ordinary session number 21-2011, of May 24, 2011), the appointment of the Commission members is annual and takes place at the first ordinary session of the Council in the month of May. In this case, the members of the Commission were appointed on May 19, 2015; therefore, their investiture as persons participating in public management, on behalf and for the account of the municipal Administration, under the terms of Articles 111 and 112 of the General Public Administration Law (Ley General de la Administración Pública), ended on May 20, 2016. Consequently, the aforementioned document dated October 24, 2016, having been signed by Messrs. Joaquín Suárez Gómez and José Enrique Aguilar Obregón on a date after the validity period of their appointment, makes it one of a private nature, as the extension of their appointments is not proven. It is important to note that the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) (Law No. 9342), in its provision 45.1, states that private documents, tacitly or expressly admitted, are presumed authentic and valid unless proven otherwise. Accordingly, Article 45.3 of that legal body indicates that the recognition of private documents can be express or tacit; in the latter case, it occurs when the party does not challenge it in a timely manner. In this regard, provision 45.5 establishes that the challenge of documents submitted with the claim and the counterclaim must be made in the answer to the complaint and the reply. This clarification is made in this case because both documents submitted by the plaintiff to support the three contracts agreed upon with the Commission and the amounts owed for their provision, namely, the contract signed on December 22, 2015, and the letter signed by the secretary and president of the Commission on October 24, 2016, are private documents, which were not challenged by the representation of the Municipality of Santa Cruz in this proceeding and, in that sense, have been tacitly recognized in application of the procedural rules already mentioned, a circumstance that, in turn, establishes their authenticity and validity for the purposes of what is intended to be proven with them. This is equally applicable to the other co-defendants in this proceeding, the former members of the Commission, for logical reasons, given their default status. Thus, once the contracts and the debts of the Municipality to the plaintiff by reason of them are established, the appropriate course, in principle, would be to order the local entity to pay the outstanding balances on the obligations contracted with the plaintiff at the time. However, it is necessary to specify that the contracts subject to this proceeding must be considered irregular contracts (contratos irregulares), in accordance with Article 21 of the Administrative Procurement Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) and Article 210 of its Regulations in force at the time of the events. Indeed, Article 10 of the Law on the Appointment of Popular Festivities Commissions (Ley de Nombramiento de Comisiones de Festejos Populares) (No. 4286), the special law regulating the economic activity of these municipal Commissions, expressly provides that contracts promoted by the Popular Festivities Commissions are governed by the Administrative Procurement Law and its Regulations. For its part, provision 40 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the National Traditional Festivities Commission of the Canton of Santa Cruz (referenced above), indicates that the procurement procedure carried out by the Commission shall be determined in accordance with Article 27 of the Administrative Procurement Law and based on the budget authorized to support the procurement of goods and services by the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) to the Municipality of Santa Cruz. Article 27 of the Administrative Procurement Law orders the type of procedure that the Public Administration must implement for the acquisition of its goods and services, by categories of amounts that are determined, in turn, based on the amount of the authorized budget. Thus, the option of direct procurement is always reserved for the lower amounts within that classification, regardless of the authorized budget. Under this logic, beyond the budget authorized to the Municipality of Santa Cruz for the 2016 fiscal year, due to the amount contracted with Mr. Nombre81708, given its small amount, it necessarily had to follow the direct procurement procedure regulated for that type of acquisition, provided for in Article 2, subsection h) of the Administrative Procurement Law and developed in precept 136 of the Regulations to the Administrative Procurement Law in force at the time of the events, which to that effect establishes: </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">"Article 136.-Small amount. Procurements that, due to their limited volume and economic significance, in accordance with the amounts established in Article 27 of the Administrative Procurement Law, may be processed following the procedure indicated in these Regulations. Once it has been determined that a direct procurement of a small amount is appropriate, a simple set of specifications must be prepared describing the contractual object, the delivery term and method, and the time and date for receiving proposals must also be set. In these cases, the lowest-priced offer shall be awarded, without prejudice to the evaluation of other relevant factors, when so defined in the invitation. The entity shall provide a minimum term of one day and a maximum of five business days for the submission of quotes. In urgent accredited cases, quotes may be requested at least four hours prior to their receipt; in this scenario, there must be a document signed by an official who takes responsibility for this decision, who will be the same person who issues the award act. The Administration shall invite no fewer than three potential offerors from the Supplier Registry established in these Regulations, although it is obligated to study all offers presented regardless of whether they come from offerors who have been invited or not. Registration in the supplier registry is not a requirement to participate. If the number of registered suppliers is less than three, others who are not registered may be invited. For the validity of the procedure, it will not be necessary to effectively have the three quotes, but the invitees must be companies dedicated to the specific line of business of the contractual object; in which case, processing contrary to this provision shall also be considered a serious fault. Offers may be submitted by fax or email, as established in the invitation, and the convalidation of the one that is best positioned from the evaluation carried out must be performed before issuing the award act. In those cases where a system exists that guarantees the guiding principles for the use of electronic means, offers may be received by that means. The award act must be issued within a maximum period of ten business days, extendable for an equal period in duly justified cases, counted from the day of the opening of offers, and shall be immediately communicated to the participants, who may file a motion to reconsider (recurso de revocatoria) within the term of two business days following its notification. If the motion is admissible, a hearing will be granted to the successful bidder for a period of two business days, after which the Administration must resolve within the following three business days. In cases declared urgent, there shall be no remedy whatsoever. Likewise, regarding the invitation to participate, the Administration must consider the provisions of Executive Decree number 33305-MEIC-H, "Special Regulation for the Promotion of SMEs in the Procurement of Goods and Services by the Administration"</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">. As observed, even in the case of a direct procurement of a small amount, which inherently excludes subjection to the particularities of ordinary legal procedures, it requires compliance with a minimum regulated procedure that must be fully respected by the Public Administration for that administrative contract to achieve conformity with the legal system. In this case, it has not been demonstrated that this procedure was followed to formalize the contracts with the plaintiff here, which is even more evident with respect to the services that were requested informally: sound for rehearsals of the candidates for the 2016 Santa Cruz national traditional festivities and sound and backline for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivities. Due to this circumstance, as previously noted, these contracts must be considered irregular, as the Commission omitted compliance with the applicable procedure for their materialization, despite being subject to it, not only because the Commission is a collegiate body attached to the Municipal Council (Articles 13 subsection n and 34 subsection g of the Municipal Code (Código Municipal), 1 of Law No. 4286, and 4 of the Organization and Procedures Manual for the National Traditional Festivities Commission of the Canton of Santa Cruz) and, therefore, part of the organization of the Municipality as a public entity subject to the legal framework of administrative law, but also because the legislator so established by express mandate, under the terms of Law No. 4286, which regulates the economic activity of the mentioned collegiate bodies. Regarding irregular contracts, precept 210 of the Regulations to the Administrative Procurement Law, in force at the time of the events, provides as follows: </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">"Article 210.-Duty of verification. It is the contractor's responsibility to verify the correctness of the administrative procurement procedure and the contractual execution. By virtue of this obligation, to support claims for compensation, the contractor may not allege ignorance of the applicable legal system or of the consequences of the administrative conduct. The contract shall be considered irregular when serious and evident defects, easily verifiable, occur in its processing, such as omission of the corresponding procedure or illegitimate resort to an exception. In those cases, no payment whatsoever may be recognized to the interested party, except in qualified cases, where it proceeds in accordance with general principles of Law, regarding supplies, works, services, and other objects, executed with evident benefit for the Administration. In that scenario, the anticipated profit shall not be recognized, and if it is unknown, a deduction of 10% of the total amount shall be applied for that concept. The same solution shall be given to those contracts that are executed without having the countersignature or internal approval, when this is required. Non-formalization of the contract shall not be an impediment to applying this provision where pertinent"</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">. In accordance with the cited canon, in an irregular contract, the contractor would be entitled to receive payment, in application of the general principles of law, when there has been a benefit to the Public Administration; however, the contractor is penalized by the non-recognition of lost profits (lucro cesante), that is, the anticipated profit margin, as a sanction for not verifying the correctness of the procedure, that being their obligation according to the administrative procurement regime.</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> The First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), developing the administrative jurisprudence of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, defined that, in reality, in these scenarios, a payment is not made to the interested party, as it is not a validly awarded contract, but rather an indemnity (indemnización), under the principles of equity and unjust enrichment. In this regard, it has stated: </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">"...In resolution of this Chamber No. 001112-S1-F-2009 of 15:15 on October 30, 2009, regarding the topic under analysis, citing various criteria of the CGR, it was indicated that, in cases of irregular procurements: 'for example, one carried out without complying with the due procedure (generally bidding), if we assumed that the Administration is obligated to recognize the payment, and not an indemnity for the benefit it may have obtained, the general administrative procurement regime could be disregarded without consequence or sanction for anyone. Therefore, the recognition made by the Administration in such cases is only indemnificatory (indemnizatorio), motivated by principles of equity and not being unjustly enriched; it is not, therefore, the payment of a contract validly awarded to the individual (…). In conclusion, the basis for indemnifying individuals for the execution of irregular procurements is founded on legal principles of equity and that of unjust enrichment, applicable in this case, by integration of the administrative legal system, as provided for in provision 7 in relation to 16.1 of the General Public Administration Law…' (Official Communications 13023 DAGJ-297-99 of November 12, 1999, and 4414 -DCGA-457-97 of April 15, 1997, both from the CGR). The legislator proceeded to codify the pronouncements issued by the comptroller body regarding irregular procurement, through the partial reform introduced by Law No. 8511 of May 16, 2006, previously indicated (in force as of 2007), to canon 21 of the LCA, to which a final paragraph was added, indicating the following: 'The Regulations to this Law shall define the cases and the manner in which it is appropriate to indemnify the irregular contractor. Likewise, the official who has promoted an irregular procurement shall be sanctioned as provided in Article 96 bis of this Law.' Consequently, the Regulations to the cited Law, which came into force on the same date, in provision 210, second and third paragraphs, determined the following: 'The contract shall be considered irregular when serious and evident defects, easily verifiable, occur in its processing, such as omission of the corresponding procedure or illegitimate resort to an exception. In those cases, no payment whatsoever may be recognized to the interested party, except in qualified cases, where it proceeds in accordance with general principles of Law, regarding supplies, works, services, and other objects, executed with evident benefit for the Administration. In that scenario, the anticipated profit shall not be recognized, and if it is unknown, a deduction of 10% of the total amount shall be applied for that concept. The same solution shall be given to those contracts that are executed without having the countersignature or internal approval, when this is required. Non-formalization of the contract shall not be an impediment to applying this provision where pertinent.' According to the doctrine issued by the CGR, embodied in those norms (21 of the LCA and 210 of its Regulations), which this Chamber shares, it is possible to recognize the payment of indemnities in irregular procurements, based on the principles of equity and unjust enrichment. (...)". </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">(Judgment No. 926-F-S1-2016, of 12:00 noon on September 8, 2016). As clearly emerges from the cited ruling, in application of the applicable regulations and the administrative jurisprudence of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, what is appropriate in an irregular contract is to indemnify the contractor but without recognizing the anticipated profit, and if the specific amount of that item cannot be determined, a 10% reduction must be made to the total amount of the contract. As explained previously, in this matter, it is clear that the plaintiff's claims are based on the collection of unpaid balances for the execution of three irregular contracts, by virtue of the omission of compliance with the applicable procurement procedure. Consequently, what is appropriate in this litigation is to partially grant the petition of the claim, with the legal limitations previously stated, recognizing to Mr. Nombre81708, </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline">as an indemnity, the amount agreed upon with the Commission for the three executed irregular contracts, less 10% of those total amounts,</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> given that the profit margin incorporated into them is unknown. In summary, and by way of a corollary, based on the expressed grounds, the claim must be partially granted under the terms indicated below.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">VII.- ON THE CLAIMS.- </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">It is appropriate to resolve the elements of the claim as follows: </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline">Claims that are granted:</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> The defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the plaintiff </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline">the sum of one million forty thousand colones (1,040,000.00),</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> as an indemnity for the procurement of the lighting, sound, and backline service for the cultural, religious, and children's events held in the amphitheater of the Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, located in Barnabela Ramos Park, in the city of Santa Cruz, from January 14, 2016</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> to January 18, 2016. The indicated sum corresponds to the total agreed upon less 10% for the concept of profit (2,600,000.00 - 260,000 (10%) = 2,340,000.00), and considering that the plaintiff was already paid an installment of one million three hundred thousand colones, this latter amount was deducted (2,340,000.00 - 1,300,000.00 = 1,040,000.00), resulting in the final amount of one million forty thousand colones (1,040,000.00). Likewise, the defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline">one million one hundred two thousand five hundred colones (1,102,500.00),</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> as an indemnity for the two additional procurements corresponding to the sound service for rehearsals of the candidates for the 2016 Santa Cruz national traditional festivities and the sound and backline service for the concerts held at the fairgrounds during said festivities. The indicated sum corresponds to the total agreed upon less 10% for the concept of profit ([85,000.00 - 8,500.00 (10%) = 76,500.00] + [1,140,000.00 - 114,000.00 (10%) = 1,026,000.00] = 1,102,500.00), resulting in the final amount of one million one hundred two thousand five hundred colones (1,102,500.00). In accordance with Article 123 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), as there has been a judgment ordering the payment of a monetary obligation, its indexation (indexación) is appropriate, which shall be done in the judgment enforcement stage (etapa de ejecución de sentencia). </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline">Claims that are rejected:</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> The claim for damages (daños y perjuicios) for breach of contract is rejected, as these are irregular contracts, as already decided. The claim for subjective moral damages (daño moral subjetivo) is rejected, given that the plaintiff has not proven that, due to the contractual breach, he had to resort to his own savings or loans from family members to cover the expenses of the services provided and pay employees, nor has he provided any element that allows an inference that he suffered emotional instability affecting his intimate sphere and mental health, manifested in worry, mood disturbances, anger, stress, and anguish, for said reason. The claim to order the inclusion in the municipal budget of the payment for the elements granted is rejected as premature, as such power is reserved for the judgment enforcement stage (Article 168 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code). The claim to order the payment of interest on the amounts owed is rejected because these are irregular contracts, as already decided. The </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; text-decoration:underline">accessory</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> claim to recognize material damages and moral damages in the sum</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> of ten million colones is rejected, based on the same reasoning previously stated. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">VIII.- ON THE SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES (EXCEPCIONES DE FONDO).- </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">For the reasons expressed in the preceding considering paragraph, the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) must be partially granted regarding the elements of the claim that are rejected. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">IX.- ON COSTS (COSTAS).-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">By express provision of Article 193 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code, it is appropriate to order the defendants jointly and severally to pay both sets of costs (costas) of this action for the sole fact of having been defeated in this proceeding, without there being reasons given by the defendants or determined by this Court that justify their exoneration pursuant to subsections a) and b) of the cited provision 193. The costs shall generate interest once their amount is determined and enforceable.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">X.- </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">In accordance with Articles 10, 22, and 67 and following of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República), let this judgment be communicated to the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic for its corresponding action.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">THEREFORE (POR TANTO)</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:0; orphans:0"><span style="width:36pt; display:inline-block"> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">The defense of lack of right filed by the Municipality of Santa Cruz is partially granted. Consequently, the filed claim is declared partially granted, it being understood as denied insofar as it is not expressly granted. The Municipality of Santa Cruz, José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, René Cabalceta Valerín, Joaquín Suárez Gómez, Catalina Dinarte Valle, and Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez are jointly and severally ordered to pay the plaintiff the sums of one million forty thousand colones (1,040,000.00) and one million one hundred two thousand five hundred colones (1,102,500.00). Said sums must be indexed in the judgment enforcement stage. The defendants are jointly and severally ordered to pay both sets of costs of this action, as well as any eventual interest that may be generated on them once their amount is determined and enforceable.</span></p> Communicate this judgment to the Comptroller General of the Republic for its corresponding duties.

**RONALDO HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ** **EDUARDO GONZÁLEZ SEGURA** **Nombre41308** *WZ2STWJCY1061* Nombre41308 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A

Sentencia N°30-2020-II TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA, SECCIÓN SEGUNDA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. Goicoechea, a las ocho horas diez minutos del veintitrés de abril de dos mil veinte.- Proceso de conocimiento, declarado de puro derecho, de Nombre81708 , conocido como Nombre81708 , cédula de identidad número CED60742, contra la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz; José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, cédula de identidad número CED60743 (rebelde); Catalina Dinarte Valle, cédula de identidad número CED60744 (rebelde); Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez, cédula de identidad número CED60745 (rebelde); René Cabalceta Valerín, cédula de identidad número CED60746 (rebelde) y Joaquín Suárez Gómez, cédula de identidad número CED60747 (rebelde). Intervienen los abogados Carlos Luis Matarrita Duarte en su calidad de apoderado especial judicial del actor y Giancarlo Hernández Cabalceta en su condición de apoderado especial judicial del ente demandado. A continuación, se emite la sentencia con el voto unánime de sus miembros.

Redacta el Juez GONZÁLEZ SEGURA.-

CONSIDERANDO

I.- ANTECEDENTES PROCESALES.- A continuación se hace un recuento del iter procesal:

1.- El actor demanda solicitando que en sentencia se declare lo siguiente: “1. Se declare con lugar en todos sus extremos la presente demanda. 2. Se obligue a las demandadas a cancelarme la suma de UN MILLÓN TRESCIENTOS MIL COLONES correspondiente al segundo tracto no pagado y establecido en el contrato de servicios. 3. Se obligue a las demandadas a cancelarme la suma UN MILLÓN DOSCIENTOS VEINTICINCO MIL COLONES, correspondiente a los servicios contratados de forma verbal y que corresponde a servicios de Sonido para ensayos de candidatas de las fiestas y para dar servicios de sonido y Backline para los conciertos que se realizaron en el campo ferial de dichas fiestas. 4. Se obligue a los demandados a pago íntegro de todos los daños causados por el incumplimiento del contrato, así como los perjuicios derivados de su conducta indebida, así como al daño moral que se indicará más adelante. 5. Se ordene incluir dentro del presupuesto municipal el pago de todos los extremos de esta demanda. 6. Se condene al pago de intereses desde el momento que debieron ser cancelados los montos adeudados o en su defecto en el momento que este tribunal lo considere. 7. Se indexen todas las sumas de dinero dejas (sic) de percibir por el incumplimiento de las demandadas desde el momento en que tuvieron que ser pagadas. 8. Se condene al demandado al pago de ambas costas de esta acción. PRETENSIÓN ACCESORIA. El incumplimiento de las demandadas implicó para mí gastos no previstos, situación que resultó dañosa y perjudicial, desde el punto de vista patrimonial, así como el daño moral subjetivo causado por el quebranto emocional sufrido de todas las situaciones vividas, valorados PRUDENCIALMENTE en los siguientes rubros: Siendo que el incumplimiento de las demandadas de la comisión de fiestas y conducta omisiva y antijurídica de la Administración Municipal de Santa Cruz, se me ocasionó inestabilidad económica y emocional, manifestada por preocupación, perturbaciones del ánimo, enfado, estrés, angustia, salud mental, y en general, afectándome la esfera íntima, razón por la cual solicito se condene a los demandados a la suma de DIEZ MILLONES DE COLONES. El tiempo transcurrido sin que las demandas (sic) me cancelaran las sumas adeudadas me causó una inestabilidad emocional y económica, ya que tuve que recurrir a recursos propios de ahorro que no he podido recuperar y de familiares para poder cubrir los gastos en el cual incurrí para poder dar un buen servicio a estas fiestas y pago de empleados, nadie se espera que una vez dados los servicios no le paguen, es una difícil situación que la administración municipal nunca comprendió y resolvió mis peticiones de una forma burlesca, ya que nunca me dio una solución, acuerdos iban y venían y nunca hicieron nada, tanto así que tuve que acudir a la vía judicial. En razón de lo anterior y teniendo en cuenta que el dinero no me va a pagar en su totalidad todo lo vivido durante este tiempo, es que estimo prudencialmente el daño moral en la suma antes indicada". (Imágenes 2 a 15).

2.- La Municipalidad de Santa Cruz contestó la demanda y opuso las excepciones de integración de la litisconsorcio pasivo necesaria con los miembros de la Comisión de Fiestas, falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa, prescripción y falta de derecho. (Imágenes 125 a 127).

3.- Por resolución de las 15:52 horas del 29 de octubre de 2018, el Juez Tramitador integró como demandados, en su carácter personal, a los miembros de la Comisión de Festejos Populares de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz, señores Jose Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Catalina Dinarte Valle, Nombre81709 , René Cabalceta Valerín y Joaquín Suárez Gómez. (Imagen 139).

4.- Por resolución de las 10:15 horas del 25 de noviembre de 2019, la Jueza Tramitadora declaró en rebeldía a Jose Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Catalina Dinarte Valle, Nombre81709 , René Cabalceta Valerín y Joaquín Suárez Gómez, y de su parte se tuvo por contestada afirmativamente la demanda en cuanto a los hechos. (Imágenes 176 y 177).

5.- La audiencia preliminar se realizó el 18 de febrero de 2020. La parte actora aclaró que el daño moral solicitado es subjetivo y que la responsabilidad que se reclama es solidaria entre todos los demandados. La parte demandada desistió de la defensa de litisconsorcio pasivo necesaria en razón de que se le dio traslado de la demanda a los integrantes de la Comisión de Fiestas. La Jueza Tramitadora denegó las defensas de falta de agotamiento de la vía administrativa y de prescripción. El asunto fue declarado como de puro derecho y las partes rindieron sus conclusiones. (Archivo de audio y minuta que consta en imágenes 181 a 185).

6.- El proceso fue turnado a la Sección Segunda de este Tribunal, integrada por los jueces titulares Ronaldo Hernández Hernández, Eduardo González Segura y Nombre41308 , a quienes correspondió el dictado de la sentencia, bajo la ponencia del segundo.

7.- No existen defectos u omisiones que provoquen nulidad.

II- ARGUMENTOS DE LA DEMANDA.- El representante del actor alega lo siguiente: HECHOS. PRIMERO: El Concejo Municipal de Santa Cruz, en sesión ordinaria número 21-2015, artículo 4, inciso 16, en fecha 19 de mayo del 2015, acordó por unanimidad nombrar la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Populares, la cual quedó conformada por las siguientes personas: Sra. Catalina Dinarte Valle, Sra. Fanny Rodríguez Villarreal, Sr. René Cabalceta Valerín, Prof. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, y Sr. Joaquín Suárez. (Ver Prueba 2). SEGUNDO: Que la Comisión de Fiestas Cívicas Populares me adjudicó la oferta de servicio de Iluminación, Sonido y Backline para los actos culturales, religiosos e infantiles, realizados en el anfiteatro Carlos Rodríguez Santana, todos según el contrato suscrito al día 22 de diciembre del 2015, al ser las 09 horas 50 minutos. (Ver prueba 31). De igual forma, se me contrató de forma verbal por personeros de la comisión (Nombre81710 , Joaquín Suárez Gómez y Manuel Moraga Moraga), para dar los servicios de Sonido para ensayos de candidatas de las fiestas y para dar servicios de sonido y Backline para los conciertos que se realizaron en el campo Ferial de dichas fiestas. Estos últimos se demuestran con los oficios emitidos por la señora Xinia Aguilar González, Joaquín Suárez Gómez y José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, con fecha 24 de octubre del 2016. (Ver Prueba 12 y 13). TERCERO: Que cumplí a cabalidad con todas las obligaciones y servicios contratados por dicha comisión, aportando equipo de calidad y el personal necesario para cubrir los eventos programados para todas las actividades a realizar. Además, para cubrir a cabalidad los eventos tuve que contratar más personal de lo previsto, ya que realiza (sic) jornadas de larga duración se debía brindar un buen servicio. No existieron contratiempos ni eventuales causales resolutorias del contrato, por lo que es claro que existe un incumplimiento por parte de la Comisión mencionada y la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz. [No existe un hecho cuarto en la demanda]. QUINTO: Que el monto pactado en dicho contrato fue de DOS MILLONES SEISCIENTOS MIL COLONES, los cuales serían cancelados en dos tractos, el primero el ocho enero del dos mil dieciséis y el segundo el día dieciocho de enero del mismo año. (Prueba 3). SEXTO: Una vez finalizados los eventos para los cuales fui contratado, procedí a realizar el cobro del segundo tracto pactado en el contrato respectivo, sin embargo, no se me canceló aduciendo que estaban a la espera del pago de unos patrocinios; además no se me canceló lo correspondiente a los servicios contratados de forma verbal, los cuales consistieron en dar los servicios de sonido para ensayos de candidatas de las fiestas y para dar servidos de sonido y Backline para los conciertos que se realizaron en el campo ferial de dichas Fiestas. Ante la situación antes indicada procedí a realizar formalmente las gestiones de cobro ante la Comisión de fiestas respectiva y siempre era la misma historia "estamos esperando el pago de unos patrocinios". Ante la presión ejercida por el suscrito, los personeros de la Comisión emitieron oficios en los cuales se hacía constar que se me adeudaban dinero pero aun así no me pagaron. (ver Prueba 12 y 13). SÉTIMO: En razón de que la Comisión de fiestas no me pagó lo adeudado y había pasado mucho tiempo sin una solución satisfactoria, realicé el proceso de cobro ante la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz y su Concejo, sin obtener los resultados deseados. El Concejo de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz conoció de dos solicitudes realizadas por el suscrito en los cuales solicitaba el pago de los rubros adeudados y nunca tomó cartas en el asunto como en derecho correspondía lo dicta el manual para este tipo de actividades, tal y como es usual en esta municipalidad, ya que todos los años es la mismo. (Ver Prueba 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 y 14). OCTAVO: Aunado a todas las conductas antijurídicas de la Comisión de Fiestas, ésta presentó a la Auditoría de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz, un informe de labores que no fue obviamente avalado por los auditores, ya que lo que se solicita en estos casos es el informe de liquidaciones de ingresos y egresos, junto con la documentación de respaldo, y no lo presentado por la susodicha Comisión de fiestas. Hasta la fecha desconocemos si se presentó el respectivo informe correspondiente, lo cual es un requisito fundamental según al Manual respectivo, por lo que recae en esta municipalidad una conducta omisiva que debe analizar este tribunal. De igual forma, desconozco si la Contraloría General de la República aprobó dicho informe, ya que es deber de estos velar por el fiel cumplimiento de los fondos públicos invertidos y recaudados por este tipo de actividades. FUNDAMENTOS DE DERECHO. Fundamento esta acción en las numerales 41 y 49 de la Constitución Política. Además, me otorgan fundamento legal para la interposición de esta acción los numerales 1, 4, 190 de la Ley General de Administración Pública, artículo 1, 2, 37, 31, 35, 42, 49, 58, 60, 82, 98 inciso 2 y siguientes y concordantes, artículo 15 siguientes y concordantes de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, 290 inciso 5 del Código Procesal Civil; a efectos de compensar económicamente los daños y perjuicios generados por la sociedad (sic) demandada a mi poderdante. Manual de Operaciones para las Comisiones de Festejos Populares. Los artículos 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, 17 y 25 siguientes y concordantes de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos. Los artículos 27, 28, 29, 33, 39, 41 y 58 de la Constitución Política de Costa Rica. Que claro que la Comisión de Fiestas demandada, la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz y el Concejo Municipal de dicha Municipalidad, actuaron en contra de lo establecido en el Manual respectivo para este tipo de eventos y normativa aplicable a este tipo de actividades. Situación muy importante de analizar es que, el Manual de Operaciones para las Comisiones de Festejos Populares, emitido por la Contraloría General de la República, publicado un la Gaceta N° 157 del 15 de agosto del 2006, en su capítulo 8, artículo número 8, inciso 8.1, en cuanto a las liquidaciones finales y egresos, reza lo siguiente: "Plazos para elaboración de liquidaciones finales de ingresos y egresos: Las comisiones de festejos deberán elaborar las liquidaciones finales de ingresos y egresos y presentarlas a más tardar treinta días naturales después de la finalización de los festejos populares a la Auditoría interna municipal para su revisión -acompañados de los correspondientes registros, comprobantes y justificantes-, quien contará con un plazo de sesenta días naturales para trasladar la liquidación al Concejo Municipal para su aprobación, el cual se pronunciará a más tardar quince días naturales después. Dentro del plazo de elaboración de la liquidación, la comisión de festejos deberá cancelar todos los pasivos en que se haya incurrido y efectuado lo que corresponda en el caso de los activos sobrantes, según lo acordado por el Concejo Municipal para esos efectos". De igual manera la Ley número 4286 del 17 de diciembre de 1963, reza en sus artículos 3 y 4 lo siguiente: "Artículo 3. El concejo municipal deberá rechazar los egresos que no contengan la documentación completa y los que no se relacionen con los festejos. Los egresos rechazados por el concejo serán asumidos proporcionalmente, por los miembros de la comisión y reintegrados dentro del plazo de un mes a partir de la fecha de resolución que así lo ordene, de lo contrario, la municipalidad deberá gestionar las acciones legales correspondientes. Se exceptúan de esta sanción los miembros cuyo voto negativo para el gasto impugnado conste en el acta respectiva de la comisión". "Artículo 4. La Municipalidad estará obligada a ejercer las acciones administrativas que se requieran para sentar las responsabilidades del caso, cuando se comprueba la incorrección o irregularidad en el manejo de los fondos; de ser necesario, deberá remitir el asunto a las autoridades judiciales competentes". Por todo lo anteriormente expuesto, es claro que tanto la Administración Municipal como la Comisión de Fiestas, período 2015-2016, incumplieron con lo previsto en los artículos citados, causándome daños y perjuicios económicos, así como un daño moral por su conducta omisiva e incumplimiento de contratos, tanto escrito como verbales. Asimismo, de acuerdo con los criterios emitidos por la División de Fiscalización Operativa y Evaluativa de la Contraloría General de la República y la Sala Constitucional en su voto número 1758-93, se desprende que existe un ligamen de responsabilidad que opera entre el Concejo Municipal, Alcaldía y las Comisiones de Festejos Populares (Fiestas Patronales), que no se limita al simple nombramiento de los miembros, sino que debe ejercerse un adecuado control de su operación, para lo cual debe articularse el sistema de control del municipio. Por lo tanto, al existir un ligamen entre estos, las pérdidas deben ser asumidas por la ADMINISTRACIÓN, que en este caso sería la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz. Por las razones expuestas, y por existir un incumplimiento contractual y una conducta antijurídica y omisiva por parte de la Administración Municipal, es que venimos a solicitar se declare con lugar la presente demanda y se condene a la COMISIÓN DE FIESTAS período 2015-2016 y MUNICIPALIDAD DE SANTA CRUZ, al pago de la suma adeudada por los servicios contratados, daños y perjuicios causados, así como el daño moral sufrido y ambas costas de esta acción.

III.- ARGUMENTOS DE LA CONTESTACIÓN DE LA MUNICIPALIDAD DE SANTA CRUZ.- La representación de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz alega lo siguiente: HECHOS. PRIMERO: Es cierto. El Concejo Municipal de Santa Cruz mediante acuerdo tomado en la sesión ordinaria N° 21-2015 acordó el nombramiento de la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales 2015-2016, recayendo en las siguientes personas: Sra. Catalina Dinarte Valle, Sra. Fanny Rodríguez Villarreal, Sr. René Cabalceta Valerín, Prof. José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Presidente, Sr. Joaquín Suárez. SEGUNDO: No me consta. TERCERO: Me atengo a la prueba documental aportada. QUINTO: Me atengo a la prueba documental, copia del contrato el cual de acuerdo con la Ley de Festejos Populares y normativa concordante, deben sentarse las responsabilidades en los firmantes de toda la documentación en gestiones propias de la Comisión de Fiestas. SEXTO: No me consta. SÉTIMO: No me consta. La descripción de este hecho, se refiere a actuaciones realizadas por el actor ante el Concejo Municipal. OCTAVO: Es cierto, en este hecho la Comisión de Fiestas típicas 2015 -2016 no ha presentado a la Auditoría Municipal informe de labores realizadas. EXCEPCIONES. Integración de la Litis Consorcio Pasivo Necesaria. A los miembros de la Comisión de Fiestas 2015-2016, conforme al artículo 66 inciso e) del Código Contencioso Administrativo (35 y 36). [Resuelta interlocutoriamente]. Falta de Derecho. Tratándose del cobro de una deuda pecuniaria no procede el pago de daño moral subjetivo. Prescripción. El actor presentó la demanda ante el Tribunal Contencioso el 30 de mayo de 2018 pasado más de un año desde la última gestión ante el Concejo Municipal el 24 de Mayo de 2016, lo anterior de acuerdo al artículo 40 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo. [Resuelta en audiencia preliminar]. Falta de Agotamiento Vía Administrativa. En razón del artículo 66 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, ya que el Concejo sólo tomó el Acuerdo "de remitir el asunto del cobro a la Auditoría Interna pero no tomó ningún acto final de rechazo o de orden de pago. [Resuelta en audiencia preliminar]. FUNDAMENTO JURÍDICO. Me amparo en los artículos 66, 35 y 36 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, artículos 3 párrafo 2, y artículo 4 de la Ley No. 4286 del 17 de diciembre de 1968, que establece la responsabilidad de los integrantes de la Comisión de Fiestas y la obligación que impone la ley a las autoridades de la Municipalidad a ejercer las acciones que sean necesarias como lo es esta oportunidad en que el asunto lo conocen autoridades competentes, además se declare como contratación irregular en razón del artículo 20 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y el artículo 218 del Reglamento a la citada Ley y el Manual de organización y los procedimientos para la comisión de las fiestas típicas nacionales del cantón de Santa Cruz, el cual fue publicado en la Gaceta número 57 del 21 de Marzo del 2014.

IV.- HECHOS PROBADOS.- De importancia para resolver este asunto, se tienen como probados los siguientes hechos de interés:

1.- Mediante acuerdo adoptado en el artículo 4, inciso 16, de la sesión ordinaria número 21-2015, celebrada el 19 de mayo de 2015, el Concejo Municipal de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz, nombró a los señores José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, René Cabalceta Valerín y Joaquín Suárez Gómez, y a las señoras Catalina Dinarte Valle y Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez, como miembros de la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales de Santa Cruz 2015-2016. (Hecho no controvertido, ver hecho primero de la demanda y de la contestación de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz).

2.- El 22 de diciembre de 2015, la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales 2015-2016 de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz contrató al señor Nombre81708 para dar el servicio de iluminación, sonido y backline para los actos culturales, religiosos e infantiles a realizarse en el anfiteatro de la Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, ubicada en el Dirección8801 , en la ciudad de Santa Cruz. El servicio contratado fue prestado por el período que comprende del 14 de enero de 2016 al 18 de enero de 2016. La suma a pagar por este servicio fue pactada en un total de dos millones seiscientos mil colones (2.600.000,00). El contrato fue firmado por el señor José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, presidente de la Comisión, y el señor Nombre81708 , contratista. Asimismo, fue autenticado por la Licda. Leidis Peña Zúñiga. (Imágenes 24 a 27 del expediente judicial).

3.- El 18 de enero de 2016, la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales Santa Cruz 2015-2016 pagó al señor Nombre81708 la suma de un millón trescientos mil colones (1.300.000,00), mediante cheque nominativo N°1665-6 fechado 18 de enero de 2016, en abono a la contratación indicada en el hecho anterior. (Imagen 35 del expediente judicial).

4.- La Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales 2015-2016 de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz contrató adicionalmente al señor Nombre81708 para dar otros dos servicios: el servicio de sonido para ensayos de las candidatas de las fiestas típicas nacionales de Santa Cruz 2016 y el servicio de sonido y backline para los conciertos que se realizaron en el campo ferial en dichas fiestas. El primero por un monto de ochenta y cinco mil colones (85.000,00) y el segundo por un monto de un millón ciento cuarenta mil colones (1.140.000,00). El total de estas dos contrataciones adicionales asciende a la suma de un millón doscientos veinticinco mil colones (1.225.000,00). (Imágenes 89 y 90 del expediente judicial).

5.- El 1 de febrero de 2016, el señor Nombre81708 , en conjunto con otras personas firmantes, solicitó a la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales Santa Cruz 2015-2106 que se le cancelara lo adeudado por los servicios prestados. (Imágenes 37 a 53 del expediente judicial).

6.- El 29 de marzo de 2016, el señor Nombre81708 solicitó directamente al Concejo Municipal que se le pagara lo adeudado. (Imagen 59 del expediente judicial).

7.- Mediante acuerdo adoptado en el artículo 2, inciso 2, de la sesión ordinaria número 15-2016, celebrada el 12 de abril de 2016, el Concejo Municipal de Santa Cruz dispuso lo siguiente: "...Inciso 02: Se atiende al señor Nombre81708 manifiesta lo siguiente: Viene a que se tome algún arreglo o algún acuerdo, para que la Comisión de fiestas del 2016, le pague (...). Reiteradamente se me ha dicho que están a la espera de que les depositen unos patrocinios pendientes. Dice el regidor Vallejos Zúñiga, que debemos de asumir una responsabilidad, en mayo la Comisión tenía que haber rendido el informe. Se propone la toma del siguiente acuerdo: Se acuerda por unanimidad: En vista de que el período para la entrega del informe económico de la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales 2015-2016, está vencido, se acuerda concederles un plazo de 15 días hábiles a partir de la fecha de notificación de este acuerdo, para que se sirvan presentar el informe mencionado. Se comunique a la Auditoría Interna de este acuerdo". (Imágenes 55 a 57 del expediente judicial).

8.- El 24 de mayo de 2016, el señor el señor Nombre81708 reiteró su solicitud de pago ante el Concejo Municipal. (Imágenes 63 y 66 del expediente judicial).

9.- Mediante acuerdo adoptado en el artículo 2, inciso 12, de la sesión extraordinaria número 14-2016, celebrada el 26 de mayo de 2016, el Concejo Municipal de Santa Cruz dispuso lo siguiente: "Se acuerda por unanimidad: Se solicita a la Alcaldía Municipal, informe sobre las gestiones realizadas para el pago de lo adeuda (sic) por la Comisión de Fiestas 2015-2016". (Imágenes 61, 62, 64 y 65 del expediente judicial).

10.- El 14 de octubre de 2016, el señor el señor Nombre81708 reiteró su solicitud de pago de lo adeudado ante el Concejo Municipal. (Imágenes 81 a 84 del expediente judicial).

11.- El 8 de diciembre de 2016, el señor Nombre81708 presentó su solicitud de pago de lo adeudado ante la Alcaldía Municipal. (Imagen 93 del expediente judicial).

12.- Mediante oficio N°AIM-190-2016, del 13 de diciembre de 2016, la Auditoría Interna de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz le informó al Concejo Municipal y a la Alcaldía Municipal, lo siguiente, en lo conducente: "...Por lo anterior expuesto, esta Auditoría continúa en espera de que la Comisión de fiestas presente la liquidación de cuentas de las Fiestas Típicas 2015-2016 y sus respectivos comprobantes y justificantes, conforme lo establecen los artículos 1 y 2 de la Ley de Nombramiento de Comisiones de Festejos Populares, Ley 4286, para hacer la revisión correspondiente y remitirla al Concejo Municipal. Esta Auditoría reitera al Concejo Municipal la recomendación emitida a través del oficio AIM-173-2016 de fecha 25 de octubre de 2016, que indica: 1. Valorar la conveniencia de remitir a la Asesoría Jurídica Municipal, por medio de la Alcaldía Municipal, la situación que se está presentando con la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales Santa Cruz 2015-2016, respecto al incumplimiento de remitir a la Auditoría Interna la liquidación de los ingresos y egresos de las Fiestas Típicas Nacionales Santa Cruz 2015-2016, para que se gestionen las acciones legales correspondientes". (Imágenes 100 a 102 del expediente judicial).

13.- Mediante acuerdo adoptado en el artículo 4, inciso 27, de la sesión ordinaria número 51-2016, celebrada el 13 de diciembre de 2016, el Concejo Municipal de Santa Cruz dispuso lo siguiente: "Se acuerda por unanimidad: Se remite el oficio AIM-190-2016 de la Auditoría Interna Municipal a la Alcaldía Municipal para que en coordinación con la Asesoría Jurídica Municipal emita informe con recomendaciones de las acciones legales correspondientes, respecto al incumplimiento de remitir a la Auditoría Interna la liquidación de los ingresos y egresos de las Fiestas Típicas Nacionales Santa Cruz 2015-2016". (Imágenes 104 a 107 del expediente judicial).

V.- HECHOS NO PROBADOS: De importancia para resolver este asunto, se tienen como no demostrados los siguientes hechos de interés:

1.- Que la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales 2015-2016 de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz haya seguido los procedimientos regulados en la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y su Reglamento, para la contratación de los servicios de iluminación, sonido y backline para los actos culturales, religiosos e infantiles realizados en el anfiteatro de la Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, ubicada en el parque Barnabela Ramos, en la ciudad de Santa Cruz, los días del 14 de enero de 2016 al 18 de enero de 2016, pactada entre la Comisión y el señor Nombre81708 , el 22 de diciembre de 2015; así como para los servicios de sonido para ensayos de las candidatas de las fiestas típicas nacionales de Santa Cruz 2016 y de sonido y backline para los conciertos que se realizaron en el campo ferial en dichas fiestas. Tampoco se ha acreditado que dichas contrataciones estuvieren dispensadas del cumplimiento de los procedimientos de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y su Reglamento. (No hay prueba en autos).

2.- Que la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz o los miembros de la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales 2015-2016 de ese ente local, hayan cancelado al señor Nombre81708 los montos adeudados por las contrataciones indicadas en los hechos probados dos y cuatro. (No hay prueba en autos).

3.- Que el señor Nombre81708 tuviera que recurrir a ahorros propios o a préstamos de familiares para poder cubrir los gastos de los servicios brindados y pagarle a los empleados, a causa del incumplimiento de la Comisión. (No hay prueba en autos).

4.- Que el señor Nombre81708 haya padecido inestabilidad emocional que afectara su esfera íntima y su salud mental, manifestada en preocupación, perturbaciones del ánimo, enfado, estrés y angustia, a causa de que la Comisión haya incumplido el pago de las contrataciones. (No hay ningún elemento en autos que permita inferir que el actor haya sufrido esas perturbaciones emocionales).

5.- Que los señores José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, René Cabalceta Valerín y Joaquín Suárez Gómez y las señoras Catalina Dinarte Valle y Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez, fueran prorrogados en su nombramientos como miembros de la Comisión. (No hay prueba en autos).

VI.- SOBRE EL FONDO.- La demanda debe ser declarada parcialmente con lugar por las razones que de seguido se exponen. En este asunto, de acuerdo con los hechos probados, se tiene acreditado que la Comisión de Fiestas Típicas Nacionales de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz 2015-2016 (en adelante la Comisión), órgano interno de dicho ente local, realizó tres contrataciones con el aquí actor Nombre81708 . Una, con contrato escrito, consistente en el servicio de iluminación, sonido y backline para los actos culturales, religiosos e infantiles realizados en el anfiteatro de la Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, ubicada en el Dirección8801 , en la ciudad de Santa Cruz, durante los días del 14 de enero de 2016 al 18 de enero de 2016, por la suma de dos millones seiscientos mil colones (2.600.000,00), de los cuales se pagaron un millón trescientos mil colones (1.300.000,00). Las otras dos, adicionales, sin contrato escrito, consistentes en el servicio de sonido para ensayos de las candidatas de las fiestas típicas nacionales de Santa Cruz 2016, por la suma de ochenta y cinco mil colones (85.000,00) y el servicio de sonido y backline para los conciertos que se realizaron en el campo ferial en dichas fiestas, por la suma de un millón ciento cuarenta mil colones (1.140.000,00). La primera contratación se deriva del contrato suscrito entre la Comisión y el actor, el 22 de diciembre de 2015; las otras dos contrataciones adicionales, se desprenden del documento privado suscrito por los señores Joaquín Suárez Gómez y José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, Secretario y Presidente de la Comisión respectivamente, y demandados en este proceso, de fecha 24 de octubre de 2016, en el que reconocen expresamente las mismas así como todos los montos adeudados al señor Nombre81708 hasta esa fecha, por las tres contrataciones. Se indica que éste último es un documento privado y no uno público, porque de acuerdo con el artículo 5 del Manual de organización y procedimientos para la comisión de las fiestas típicas nacionales del cantón de Santa Cruz (aprobado por acuerdo del Concejo Municipal adoptado en el artículo 6, inciso 1, de la sesión ordinaria número 21-2011, del 24 de mayo de 2011), el nombramiento de los integrantes de la Comisión es anual y se realiza en la primera sesión ordinaria del Concejo en el mes de mayo. En este caso, los miembros de la Comisión fueron nombrados el 19 de mayo de 2015, por lo que su investidura como personas que participan de la gestión pública, a nombre y por cuenta de la Administración municipal, en los términos de los artículos 111 y 112 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, culminó el 20 de mayo de 2016, de manera que el mencionado documento de fecha 24 de octubre de 2016, al ser suscrito por los señores Joaquín Suárez Gómez y José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, en fecha posterior al período de vigencia de su nombramiento, lo convierte en uno de naturaleza privada, por no estar comprobada su prórroga en sus nombramientos. Es importante traer a colación que el Código Procesal Civil (Ley N°9342), en su numeral 45.1 dispone que los documentos privados, admitidos tácita o expresamente, se presumen auténticos y válidos mientras no se pruebe lo contrario. En concordancia, el artículo 45.3 de ese cuerpo legal señala que el reconocimiento de los documentos privados puede ser expreso o tácito, en este último caso, ocurre cuando la parte no lo impugne en su oportunidad. En dicho sentido, el ordinal 45.5 establece que la impugnación de los documentos presentados con la demanda y la reconvención debe hacerse en la contestación y la réplica. Se hace esta aclaración en este caso por cuanto ambos documentos presentados por el actor para respaldar las tres contrataciones pactadas con la Comisión y lo adeudado por su prestación, sea, el contrato firmado el 22 de diciembre de 2015 y la carta firmada por el secretario y presidente de la Comisión el 24 de octubre de 2016, son documentos privados, los cuales no fueron impugnados por la representación de la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz en este proceso y, en tal sentido, han sido tácitamente reconocidos en aplicación de las normas procesales ya referidas, circunstancia que configura, a su vez, su autenticidad y validez para los efectos de lo que se pretende acreditar con ellos. Esto resulta igualmente aplicable para los otros codemandados en este proceso, los ex miembros de la Comisión, por razones lógicas, en vista de su estado de rebeldía. Pues bien, acreditadas las contrataciones así como los adeudos de la Municipalidad para con el actor por razón de aquellas, lo procedente, en principio, sería ordenar que el ente local pague los saldos insolutos sobre las obligaciones contraídas con el accionante en su oportunidad. Sin embargo, es necesario precisar que las contrataciones objeto de este proceso deben ser tenidas como contratos irregulares, de conformidad con los artículos 21 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y 210 de su Reglamento vigente al momento de los hechos. En efecto, el artículo 10 de la Ley de Nombramiento de Comisiones de Festejos Populares (N°4286), Ley especial que regula la actividad económica de estas Comisiones municipales, expresamente dispone que las contrataciones que promuevan las Comisiones de Festejos Populares se rigen por la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y su Reglamento. Por su parte, el numeral 40 del Manual de organización y procedimientos para la comisión de las fiestas típicas nacionales del cantón de Santa Cruz (referido líneas atrás), indica que el procedimiento de contratación que realice la Comisión se determinará de conformidad con el artículo 27 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y con base en el presupuesto autorizado para respaldar la contratación de bienes y servicios por parte de la Contraloría General de la República a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz. El artículo 27 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa ordena el tipo de procedimiento que debe implementar la Administración Pública para la adquisición de sus bienes y servicios, por categorías de montos que son determinadas, a su vez, en función del importe del presupuesto autorizado. Así, la opción de la contratación directa siempre queda reservada para los montos inferiores dentro de esa clasificación, independientemente del presupuesto autorizado. Bajo esa lógica, más allá del presupuesto que le haya sido autorizado a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz para el ejercicio 2016, en razón del importe de lo contratado con el señor Nombre81708 , habida cuenta su escasa cuantía, necesariamente debía seguir el procedimiento de contratación directa reglado para ese tipo de adquisiciones, previsto en el artículo 2 inciso h) de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa y desarrollado en el precepto 136 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa vigente para el momento de los hechos, que al efecto establece: "Artículo 136.-Escasa cuantía. Las contrataciones que por su limitado volumen y trascendencia económica, de conformidad con los montos establecidos en el artículo 27 de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, podrán tramitarse siguiendo el procedimiento que se indica en este Reglamento. Una vez que se ha determinado que procede una contratación directa de escasa cuantía, se ha de confeccionar un pliego de condiciones sencillo en donde se describa el objeto contractual, el plazo y forma de la entrega, así como también se debe fijar la hora y fecha para la recepción de las propuestas. En estos casos se adjudicará la oferta de menor precio, sin perjuicio de que se valoren otros factores relevantes, cuando así haya sido definido en la invitación. La entidad dará un plazo mínimo de un día y un máximo de cinco días hábiles para la presentación de las cotizaciones. En casos acreditados como urgentes se pueden solicitar las cotizaciones con, al menos, cuatro horas de anticipación a su recepción; en este supuesto deberá existir un documento firmado por un funcionario que se haga responsable de esta decisión, quien será el mismo que dicta el acto de adjudicación. La Administración invitará a no menos de tres potenciales oferentes del Registro de Proveedores establecido en este Reglamento, aunque se encuentra obligada a estudiar todas las ofertas presentadas independientemente si provienen de oferentes que han sido invitados o no. Para participar no es requisito estar inscrito en el registro de proveedores. En caso de que el número de proveedores inscritos sea menor a tres, se podrá invitar a otros que no lo estén. Para la validez del procedimiento no será necesario contar efectivamente con las tres cotizaciones, pero sí que los invitados sean empresas dedicadas al giro propio del objeto contractual específico; en cuyo caso igualmente se considerará falta grave el trámite seguido en sentido contrario a esta disposición. Las ofertas podrán ser presentadas por fax o correo electrónico, de acuerdo a lo que establezca el cartel, debiendo realizarse la convalidación de la que resulte mejor posicionada de la evaluación realizada antes de dictar el acto de adjudicación. En aquellos casos donde se cuente con un sistema que garantice los principios rectores del uso de medios electrónicos se podrán recibir las ofertas por dicho medio. El acto de adjudicación, deberá dictarse en un plazo máximo de diez días hábiles, prorrogable por un plazo igual en casos debidamente justificados, contados a partir del día de la apertura de ofertas y de inmediato será comunicado a los participantes, quienes podrá interponer recurso de revocatoria, dentro del plazo de dos días hábiles siguientes a su notificación. Si el recurso es admisible, se concederá audiencia al adjudicatario por el plazo de dos días hábiles, vencido el cual la Administración deberá resolver dentro de los tres días hábiles siguientes. En los casos declarados urgentes no habrá recurso alguno. Asimismo en cuanto a la invitación a participar, la Administración deberá considerar lo establecido en el Decreto Ejecutivo número 33305-MEIC-H, "Reglamento Especial para la Promoción de las PYMES en las Compras de Bienes y Servicios de la Administración". Como se observa, aún en el caso de una contratación directa de escasa cuantía, que excluye por sí la sujeción a las particularidades de los procedimientos legales ordinarios, supone el cumplimiento de un mínimo procedimiento normado que debe ser respetado a cabalidad por la Administración Pública para que ese contrato administrativo alcance su conformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico. En este caso, no se ha demostrado que ese procedimiento se haya seguido para configurar las contrataciones con el aquí actor, lo que es incluso más evidente con respecto a los servicios que le fueron requeridos por la vía informal, de sonido para ensayos de las candidatas de las fiestas típicas nacionales de Santa Cruz 2016 y de sonido y backline para los conciertos que se realizaron en el campo ferial en dichas fiestas. En razón de esta circunstancia, como se advertía antes, estas contrataciones deben ser consideradas como irregulares, al haberse omitido por parte de la Comisión el cumplimiento del procedimiento aplicable para su materialización, a pesar de encontrarse sujetas al mismo, no sólo porque la Comisión es un órgano colegiado adscrito al Concejo Municipal (artículos 13 inciso n y 34 inciso g del Código Municipal, 1 de la Ley N°4286 y 4 del Manual de organización y procedimientos para la comisión de las fiestas típicas nacionales del cantón de Santa Cruz) y, por ende, parte de la organización de la Municipalidad como ente público sometido al bloque de juridicidad del ordenamiento jurídico administrativo, sino además porque así lo estableció el legislador por mandato expreso, en los términos de la Ley N°4286, que regula la actividad económica de los mencionados órganos colegiados. En relación con los contratos irregulares, el precepto 210 del Reglamento a la Ley de Contratación Administrativa, vigente al momento de los hechos, dispone así: "Artículo 210.-Deber de verificación. Es responsabilidad del contratista verificar la corrección del procedimiento de contratación administrativa, y la ejecución contractual. En virtud de esta obligación, para fundamentar gestiones resarcitorias, no podrá alegar desconocimiento del ordenamiento aplicable ni de las consecuencias de la conducta administrativa. El contrato se tendrá como irregular, cuando en su trámite se incurra en vicios graves y evidentes, de fácil constatación, tales como, omisión del procedimiento correspondiente o se haya recurrido de manera ilegítima a alguna excepción. En esos casos, no podrá serle reconocido pago alguno al interesado, salvo en casos calificados, en que proceda con arreglo a principios generales de Derecho, respecto a suministros, obras, servicios y otros objetos, ejecutados con evidente provecho para la Administración. En ese supuesto, no se reconocerá el lucro previsto y de ser éste desconocido se aplicará por ese concepto la rebaja de un 10% del monto total. Igual solución se dará a aquellos contratos que se ejecuten sin contar con el refrendo o aprobación interna, cuando ello sea exigido. La no formalización del contrato no será impedimento para aplicar esta disposición en lo que resulte pertinente". De conformidad con el canon de cita, en un contrato irregular el contratista tendría derecho a recibir su pago, en aplicación de los principios generales del derecho, cuando ha habido un aprovechamiento de la Administración Pública, sin embargo, se le castiga a aquel el reconocimiento del lucro cesante, es decir, del margen de ganancia previsto, como sanción por no verificar la corrección del procedimiento, siendo esa su obligación conforme al régimen de contratación administrativa. La Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, desarrollando la jurisprudencia administrativa de la Contraloría General de la República, definió que, en realidad, en estos supuestos no se hace un pago al interesado, al no ser un contrato válidamente atribuido, sino más bien de una indemnización, al amparo de los principios de equidad y no enriquecimiento sin causa. Al respecto ha señalado: "...En la resolución de esta Cámara no. 001112-S1-F-2009 de las 15 horas 15 minutos del 30 de octubre de 2009, a propósito del tema en análisis, citando varios criterios de la CGR, se indicó que, ante casos de contrataciones irregulares: “por ejemplo la que se realiza sin cumplir con el procedimiento debido (por regla la licitación), asumiéramos que la Administración está obligada a reconocer el pago, y no una indemnización por el provecho que pueda haber obtenido, el régimen de contratación administrativa general podría ser inobservado sin consecuencia ni sanción alguna para nadie. Por ello, el reconocimiento que haga la Administración en tales casos es sólo indemnizatorio, motivado en principios de equidad y de no enriquecerse incausadamente; no se trata así, del pago de un contrato válidamente atribuido al particular (…). En conclusión, el fundamento para indemnizar a particulares por la ejecución de contrataciones irregulares está fundado en principios jurídicos de equidad y el de no enriquecimiento sin causa, aplicables en la especie, por integración del ordenamiento jurídico administrativo, según lo previsto en el numeral 7º en relación con el 16.1. De la Ley General de la Administración Pública…” (Oficios 13023 DAGJ-297-99 del 12 de noviembre de 1999 y 4414 -DCGA-457-97 del 15 de abril de 1997, ambos de la CGR). El legislador, procedió a positivizar los pronunciamientos emitidos por el órgano contralor, respecto a la contratación irregular, mediante la reforma parcial introducida por la Ley no. 8511 de 16 de mayo de 2006 anteriormente indicada (vigente a partir de 2007), al canon 21 de la LCA, al cual se le adicionó un párrafo, al final, que indica lo siguiente: “El Reglamento de esta Ley definirá los supuestos y la forma en que proceda indemnizar al contratista irregular. Asimismo, el funcionario que haya promovido una contratación irregular será sancionado conforme a lo previsto en el artículo 96 bis de esta Ley.” Consecuentemente, el Reglamento a la citada Ley, el cual entró a regir en la misma fecha, en el numeral 210, párrafos segundo y tercero, determinó lo siguiente: “El contrato se tendrá como irregular, cuando en su trámite se incurra en vicios graves y evidentes, de fácil constatación, tales como, omisión del procedimiento correspondiente o se haya recurrido de manera ilegítima a alguna excepción. En esos casos, no podrá serle reconocido pago alguno al interesado, salvo en casos calificados, en que proceda con arreglo a principios generales de Derecho, respecto a suministros, obras, servicios y otros objetos, ejecutados con evidente provecho para la Administración. En ese supuesto, no se reconocerá el lucro previsto y de ser éste desconocido se aplicará por ese concepto la rebaja de un 10% del monto total. Igual solución se dará a aquellos contratos que se ejecuten sin contar con el refrendo o aprobación interna, cuando ello sea exigido. La no formalización del contrato no será impedimento para aplicar esta disposición en lo que resulte pertinente”. Acorde a la doctrina emitida por la CGR, plasmada en esas normas (21 de la LCA y 2010 de su Reglamento), la cual comparte esta Sala, es posible reconocer el pago de indemnizaciones en contrataciones irregulares, con base en los principios de equidad y de no enriquecimiento sin causa. (...)". (Sentencia N°926-F-S1-2016, de las 12:00 horas del 8 de setiembre de 2016). Como se desprende con claridad del fallo citado, en aplicación de la normativa aplicable y de la jurisprudencia administrativa de la Contraloría General de la República, lo que procede en un contrato irregular es indemnizar al contratista pero sin reconocerle el lucro previsto, y en caso de que no se pueda determinar el importe específico de ese rubro, se debe reducir un 10% el monto total de la contratación. Como se explicaba anteriormente, en este asunto es claro que las pretensiones del actor están fundadas en el cobro de saldos impagos por la ejecución de tres contratos de carácter irregular, en virtud de la omisión de cumplimiento del procedimiento de contratación aplicable. Consecuentemente, lo que procede en esta litis es acceder parcialmente a la petición de la demanda, con las limitaciones legales antes expuestas, reconciéndole al señor Nombre81708 , a título de indemnización, el monto de lo pactado con la Comisión por las tres contrataciones irregulares ejecutadas, menos un 10% de esos montos totales, dado que se desconoce cuál era el margen de ganancia que incorporó en las mismas. En suma, y a modo de corolario, con base en el fundamento expresado, se deberá acoger parcialmente la demanda en los términos que se indicará a continuación.

VII.- SOBRE LAS PRETENSIONES.- Procede resolver los extremos de la pretensión así: Pretensiones que se otorgan: Se condena solidariamente a los demandados a pagar a favor del actor la suma de un millón cuarenta mil colones (1.040.000,00), a título de indemnización por la contratación del servicio de iluminación, sonido y backline para los actos culturales, religiosos e infantiles realizados en el anfiteatro de la Casa de la Cultura, Carlos Rodríguez Santana, ubicada en el parque Barnabela Ramos, en la ciudad de Santa Cruz, los días 14 de enero de 2016 al 18 de enero de 2016. La suma indicada corresponde al total de lo pactado menos un 10% por concepto de lucro (2.600.000,00 - 260.000 (10%) = 2.340.000,00), y tomando en cuenta que al actor ya se le canceló un abono de un millón trescientos mil colones, se dedujo este último monto (2.340.000,00 - 1.300.000,00 = 1.040.000,00), resultando así la cantidad final de un millón cuarenta mil colones (1.040.000,00). Asimismo, se condena solidariamente a los demandados a pagar a favor del actor de la suma de un millón ciento dos mil quinientos colones (1.102.500,00), a título de indemnización por las dos contrataciones adicionales correspondientes al servicio de sonido para ensayos de las candidatas de las fiestas típicas nacionales de Santa Cruz 2016 y el servicio de sonido y backline para los conciertos que se realizaron en el campo ferial en dichas fiestas. La suma indicada corresponde al total de lo pactado menos un 10% por concepto de lucro ([85.000,00 - 8.500,00 (10%) = 76.500,00] + [1.140.000,00 - 114.000,00 (10%) = 1.026.000,00] = 1.102.500,00), resultando así la cantidad final de un millón ciento dos mil quinientos colones (1.102.500,00). De conformidad con el artículo 123 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, por haberse condenado al pago de una obligación dineraria, procede su indexación, lo cual se hará en etapa de ejecución de sentencia. Pretensiones que se rechazan: Se rechaza la pretensión de daños y perjuicios por el incumplimiento contractual, por tratarse de contratos irregulares como ya se resolvió. Se rechaza la pretensión de daño moral subjetivo, dado que el actor no ha acreditado que, a causa del incumplimiento contractual, tuviera que recurrir a ahorros propios o a préstamos de familiares para poder cubrir los gastos de los servicios brindados y pagarle a los empleados, y tampoco ha proporcionado ningún elemento que permita inferir que haya sufrido inestabilidad emocional que afectara su esfera íntima y su salud mental, manifestada en preocupación, perturbaciones del ánimo, enfado, estrés y angustia, por dicho motivo. Se rechaza la pretensión para que se ordene incluir dentro del presupuesto municipal el pago de los extremos otorgados, por prematuro, siendo que tal facultad esta reservada para la etapa de ejecución de sentencia (artículo 168 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo). Se rechaza la pretensión para que se condene al pago de intereses sobre los montos adeudados, por tratarse de contratos irregulares como ya se resolvió. Se rechaza la pretensión accesoria para que se reconozca daño material y daño moral en la suma de diez millones de colones, con fundamento en los mismos razonamientos antes expuestos.

VIII.- SOBRE LAS EXCEPCIONES DE FONDO.- Por las razones expresadas en el considerando precedente, se debe acoger parcialmente la excepción de falta de derecho respecto de los extremos de la pretensión rechazados.

IX.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS.- Por expresa disposición del artículo 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procede condenar a los demandados solidariamente al pago de ambas costas de esta acción por el solo hecho de haber resultado vencidos en este proceso, sin que medien razones dadas por los demandados o determinadas por este Tribunal, que justifiquen su exoneración conforme los incisos a) y b) del numeral 193 citado. Las costas generarán intereses una vez que sea determinado y exigible su monto.

X.- De conformidad con los artículos 10, 22 y 67 y siguientes de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, comuníquese esta sentencia a la Contraloría General de la República para lo de su cargo.

POR TANTO

Se acoge parcialmente la excepción de falta de derecho opuesta por la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz. En consecuencia, se declara parcialmente con lugar la demanda interpuesta, entendiéndose denegada en lo que no se concede expresamente. Se condena solidariamente a la Municipalidad de Santa Cruz, a José Enrique Aguilar Obregón, a René Cabalceta Valerín, a Joaquín Suárez Gómez, a Catalina Dinarte Valle y a Fanny Rodríguez Rodríguez, a pagar a favor del actor las sumas de un millón cuarenta mil colones (1.040.000,00) y un millón ciento dos mil quinientos colones (1.102.500,00). Dichas sumas deberán ser indexadas en etapa de ejecución de sentencia. Se condena solidariamente a los demandados a pagar ambas costas de esta acción, así como los eventuales intereses que pudieren generarse sobre las mismas una vez que sea determinado y exigible su monto. Comuníquese esta sentencia a la Contraloría General de la República para lo de su cargo.

RONALDO HERNÁNDEZ HERNÁNDEZ EDUARDO GONZÁLEZ SEGURA Nombre41308 *WZ2STWJCY1061* Nombre41308 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A