Statute of limitations on civil liability of an employee of a publicly owned pension fund management companyPrescripción de responsabilidad civil de un empleado de una operadora de pensiones constituida como sociedad anónima de capital público

Documento PJEDITOR  Res. 000135-F-TC-2022 CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE AND CIVIL TREASURY COURT OF CASATION. San José, at nine hours fifty minutes on the twenty-ninth of June of two thousand twenty-two.

Proceedings for a declaratory judgment brought by MAX ALBERTO AVENDAÑO CHAVERRI, represented by his special judicial attorney-in-fact Luis Casafont Terán, against BN VITAL OPERADORA DE PLANES DE PENSIONES COMPLEMENTARIAS S.A., represented by its special judicial attorney-in-fact Hilel Zomer Befeler.

Drafted by Judge Jiménez Ramírez

CONSIDERING

I.It has been established as proven in this proceeding that, at the session of the Board of Directors of BN Vital Operadora de Planes de Pensiones Complementarias S.A. (hereinafter the Operadora) of August 13, 2009, minute 214, said body ordered in its article fourteen the initiation of an administrative proceeding and the establishment of a directing body against the officials of said Operadora: Ernesto Hip Ureña (General Manager), Eida Ocampo Rojas (Financial Manager), and Max Avendaño Chaverri (Head of Accounting), for facts related to the asset account 14102 of the managed funds denominated "Income Tax Receivable" ("Impuesto sobre la Renta por cobrar"). The purpose of that proceeding was to verify the real truth of the Statement of Facts BNVI-AI-RH-01-2009 and the external audit report of Grupo Camacho dated June 17, 2009. This action was notified to the interested parties in the month of May 2010 by the Directing Body (resolution assuming jurisdiction issued at 10 hours 40 minutes on May 6, 2010). The investigated parties Hip Ureña and Ocampo Rojas filed appeals against the order of initiation, which were rejected by the Directing Body, and the matter was elevated to the Board of Directors to resolve the appeals. The directors requested an opinion on the point from the Legal Department of the Banco Nacional, which was provided through official letter DJ/1950-2010 of October 14, 2010, where they indicated that, in accordance with the provisions of articles 203 and 204 of the General Law of Public Administration (LGAP), it was illogical “...to initiate an administrative proceeding to assign a civil liability that has not been determined, for the simple fact that it might not exist, a situation that destroys the entire argument of the Order Assuming Jurisdiction over the initiated processes and necessarily causes nullity...". They recommended that the Board of Directors declare the absolute nullity of the order assuming jurisdiction over the proceedings and that the Administration determine the damage caused before initiating a proceeding to obtain compensation. They warned the Board of Directors that if the recommendation provided was accepted, the Administration should be urged to develop the damage determination processes within the statute of limitation periods established by the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic in its article 71, which is five years from the date the head of the entity was notified of the audit report detailing the investigated conducts. However, the Board of Directors of the Operadora did not resolve the appeals filed within the timeframes indicated in the LGAP, as it postponed them according to agreements of Board of Directors' sessions 241 of November 22, 2010, and 266 of March 26, 2012. It was not until session 304 of March 12, 2014, that they took into account the legal opinion from 2010, in addition to opinion no. DJ/442-2014 of February 28, 2014, and declared the appeals admissible, annulling the resolution assuming jurisdiction of May 6, 2010, and also declared ex officio the expiration (caducidad) due to the effect of the paralysis of the proceeding (i.e., the Administration accepted and declared the expiration applying article 340 of the LGAP, due to inactivity attributable to the Administration for more than six months). Subsequently, during session no. 306 of April 7, 2014, taking into account those legal opinions (1950-2010 and 442-2014), as well as the Statement of Facts 01-2009, the Board of Directors ordered the initiation of a new administrative proceeding in accordance with the provisions of article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic, forming a directing body, and it was indicated on that new occasion that the amount of the damage was not known until official letter BN Vital-GG-124 of March 12, 2014. In this way, it was on that date when the administrative proceeding ODBNVITAL-01-2014 was initiated, which culminated with the agreement of the Board of Directors of the Operadora adopted in session 317 of September 9, 2014. In that session, they accepted the recommendation of the Directing Body of the proceeding, which was the resolution issued at 9 hours 30 minutes on September 1, 2014, which suggested carrying out the corresponding administrative and judicial collection steps against Messrs. Hip Ureña, Ocampo Rojas, and Avendaño Chaverri; so that BN Vital could be compensated for the sums paid by the Operadora for the economic damage caused by the irregular management of the income tax account, which, in accordance with the certification dated July 28, 2014, issued by the General Manager of the Operadora, amounts to the sum of ¢4,300,479,264 and must be borne jointly and severally by those responsible.

II.For these reasons, in this proceeding, Mr. Avendaño Chaverri sued the Operadora, seeking a declaration in the judgment of the following: a) Annulment, for being contrary to the legal system, of article three of the session of the Board of Directors of the Operadora no. 317 of September 9, 2014, and article five of the session of the Board of Directors of the Operadora 331 of April 14, 2015 (Corrected in AP of 8-10-16), the latter being a confirmatory act that resolves the motion to reconsider filed against the former. Both issued as part of the sanctioning administrative proceeding, and which respectively accepted the recommendation of the Directing Body issued at 9 hours 30 minutes on September 1, 2014, expanded by resolution issued at 9 hours 30 minutes on September 8, 2014; as well as opinion D.J./661-2015 of March 23, 2015, from the Legal Directorate of Banco Nacional. b) As a consequence of such nullity, that the non-existence of the plaintiff's obligation to pay the sum of ¢4,300,479,264 to the defendant company be declared. c) As it is a matter of public interest, that the instauration of an administrative proceeding be ordered to investigate whether it is possible to establish some type of liability against those who ordered and executed the payment on the part of the defendant Operadora of ¢3,634,465,255.43. d) That the defendant entity be ordered to pay the personal and procedural costs of this proceeding. In its claim, as well as during the oral and public trial, the plaintiff argued prescription (prescripción) regarding the power to initiate the administrative proceeding in application of article 198 of the LGAP. The defendant responded negatively and raised the defense of lack of right. The Court rejected the objection of lack of right and consequently declared the claim admissible. Due to the manner in which it ruled, it upheld the claim only regarding the prescription of the administration's right to initiate administrative proceedings against the plaintiff, thus not addressing the other points alleged by the parties. It ordered the defendant to pay both costs, which would be settled during the judgment enforcement phase. Disagreeing, the Operadora files a cassation appeal.

III.GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL. Sole ground. Alleges direct violation. First, it provides a broad recount of the liability attributed to the plaintiff. It recalls that all findings of irregularities in the management of the "income tax receivable account and its auxiliary record" were initially made by the External Auditor, by the Corporate Audit Department of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, as well as the specialized accounting and audit firm contracted for the study of the management of said account and its auxiliary record (Grupo Camacho). Additionally, these findings led to a Special Visit and Inspection by the Superintendence of Pensions - a visit conducted from September 23 to October 9, 2009 - which resulted in Report SP-025 of January 7, 2010, which it transcribes. It argues that, although there were precise findings of irregularities in the management of the "Income Tax Receivable account and its auxiliary record," what existed from that moment on was an order to follow up on such findings and the mandate to proceed with the implementation of an action plan for the Operadora to assume the responsibility - meaning the financial cost. In its view, it is the report "Costos del Proyecto de Impuesto sobre la Renta" (Income Tax Project Costs), and its annexes, that gave rise to the administrative proceeding for civil liability. It states that, contrary to what the Judges indicated, any act, official letter, procedure, or action prior to that report lacks relevance, as they are all acts or facts that occurred before the reality or the real truth of what was happening in the company was discovered - such as the absorption of an economic loss before its affiliates, which was determined to be the sum of ¢4,300,479,264.00. It insists that any fact prior to discovering the reality or the real truth of what was happening in the company lacks relevance; because it is not until the "informe Costos del Proyecto de Impuesto sobre la Renta, y anexos" (Income Tax Project Costs report, and annexes) (folios 1145 to 1280 of the administrative file) existed that the Operadora had full and exact knowledge of the harm caused by its former administrators. It recalls that, by virtue of the findings related to the management and recording of the "income tax receivable account and its auxiliary record" by the top management of the Operadora, through minute of session 214 of August 13, 2009, it was agreed to open and process an ordinary administrative proceeding against Messrs. Max Alberto Avendaño Chaverri (Chief Accountant), Eida Ocampo Rojas (Financial Manager), and Ernesto Hip Ureña (General Manager). However, it acknowledges that said administrative proceeding could not be carried out, because, by virtue of the ordinary motions for revocation and appeal in subsidy filed by the investigated parties Ocampo Rojas and Hip Ureña, the matter was ordered to be archived (official letter D.J./1950-2010 visible on folios 1128 to 1131 of the administrative file); for at that moment, it was determined that the ordinary administrative proceeding for civil liability could not be pursued until the material damage produced to the managed funds and that the Operadora had to cover was duly quantified. It maintains that the ordinary administrative proceeding for civil liability truly began when the administration became aware of the damage caused, as recorded in the agreement of article three of session number 306 held on April 7, 2014, of the Board of Directors of BN Vital. In other words, it repeats, the correct starting point is constituted by the "Informe: Costos de Proyecto de Impuesto sobre la Renta" (Report: Income Tax Project Costs), as observed in the Certification of article three of session 306, held on April 7, 2014, of the Board of Directors of the Operadora (folios 1114 to 1115 of the administrative file). The foregoing, it argues, pursuant to article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic and/or article 198 of the General Law of Public Administration. Thus, it claims that the claim was erroneously declared admissible by the Court upon considering that the Operadora's right to take action against the plaintiff for the acts imputed to him had prescribed. In its view, the judgment makes an incorrect analysis of the computation of the statute of limitations, damaging article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic.

IV.For the appellant, it was unavoidable, according to subparagraph b) of article 71 of the LOCGR, to determine the amount of the alleged damage inflicted on the OPC; otherwise, it could not initiate the administrative proceeding for civil liability and, therefore, nor could the prescriptive period begin. First, it is necessary to clarify that for the majority of this Court of Cassation, in this matter, the limitation period established in article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic, Law 7428, which establishes the following: “Article 71.-Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria” (Prescription of disciplinary liability), nor article 198 of the General Law of Public Administration, is applicable. This, in light of what has been indicated by the Constitutional and First Chambers, that Pension Operators created under the protection of article 30 of the Law for Worker Protection, regardless of whether the capital is public or private, by the mere fact of being constituted as a corporation (sociedad anónima), its nature is that of a legal person governed by Private Law, which participates in a commercial economic activity, so the employment relationship between it and its workers is also subject to common Labor Law and not to the public service regime. See votes no. 2016010115 of 9 hours 20 minutes on July 15, 2016, no. 2016004518 of 14 hours 30 minutes on April 5, 2016, from the Constitutional Chamber, and 1274-C-S1-2013 of 12 hours 5 minutes on September 26, 2013, from the First Chamber, and 383-C-S1-2017 of 11 hours 35 minutes on March 30, 2017. In this sense, it has stated that article 30 of Law no. 7983, Law for Worker Protection “...allows the creation and operation of two types of operators. On one hand, those constituted under private law, with private capital, which necessarily implies that there is no state participation regarding the capital that backs them or constitutes their equity; Pension Operators created by private Banks or non-state financial entities; and, on the other hand, those with public capital constituted for that purpose as corporations. Regarding the latter, we are, then, before a State Corporation (Sociedad Anónima del Estado). Now, to understand the scope of this figure, we must examine its dual constitution; companies of this type will have a public character, first because of the purpose that eventually the Law entrusts to them and, second, because of the capital that comprises them. In the case of pension operators whose capital is public, contributed by the State as the majority and sole shareholder, then they will be public corporations due to the assets that make up their share capital. On the other hand, the activity they carry out, which will not always be public, will determine the purpose. In this case, Pension Operators constituted as Corporations with public capital carry out commercial activities such as the sale and placement of pension plans, an activity that generates commission income for administering such services, deriving a benefit for the Operadora, a benefit that is ultimately the same as that obtained by private law and private capital Operators, so the line of business or activity they develop is purely commercial and governed by private law. Likewise, the employment relationships generated between the State Corporation and its employees or workers are not a statutory or special relationship, as is the case for public officials governed by the Civil Service Regime….” The defendant here is a Pension Operator that belongs to a state bank and is constituted as a corporation. In application of the constitutional precedents and the effect that article 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction provides for them, it must be concluded, first, that the plaintiff here did not have a statutory relationship with the corporation for which he performed the position of Head of Accounting. Therefore, the regime that linked him with the Operadora is the ordinary one. Thus, article 71 previously referenced, in the opinion of the majority of this Chamber, is not applicable to set the limitation period for the proceedings brought by the defendant against the plaintiff. In this sense, this Chamber already ruled in its vote no. 220-F-TC-2021 at nine hours forty minutes on October 28, 2021. On that occasion, analyzing a case very similar to the one presented on this occasion, filed by one of the other persons investigated for these same facts, it was determined that what the Operadora had done - against the responsible persons - sought to establish patrimonial liability - not disciplinary - so that, in light of the common regime - not statutory - that linked them with the Operadora, the conducted "administrative proceeding" was unnecessary, so instead of resorting to it, the collection should have been filed in a judicial venue. Likewise, due to what is stipulated in subsection 2 of canon 3 of the LGAP, in the sense that private law will regulate the activity, in this case, of BN Vital, due to its overall regime and the requirements of its line of business, it is a common commercial company. Furthermore, in the present matter, it is pertinent to note, in article three of the referenced session no. 306, held on April 7, 2014, the Board of Directors of BN Vital, in what is of interest, agreed: “BY NOMINAL AND UNANIMOUS VOTE, IT WAS FIRMLY AGREED: 1) in accordance with the Statement of Facts report BNVI-AI-RH-01-2009 relating to the accounting record of the account IMPUESTO DE LA RENTA POR COBRAR and its auxiliary record, as well as the recommendations indicated in the official letters of the Legal Directorate of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica D.J./1950-2010 of October 12, 2010, and D.J./442-2014 of February 28, 2014, to constitute a directing body for the administrative proceeding, in order to initiate the due administrative process against the former officials ERNESTO HIP UREÑA, EIDA OCAMPO ROJAS and MAX AVENDAÑO CHAVERRI, for the determination of the potential civil liabilities for the accounting correction of the account IMPUESTO DE LA RENTA POR COBRAR and its auxiliary record, in order to collect the damages allegedly caused to the Operadora. 2) To appoint as members of the Directing Body Messrs. […] The directing body will be responsible for issuing the act of summons and imputation of the agreed proceeding; for the entire investigation thereof, and for issuing a recommendation to this Board of Directors regarding the facts it manages to establish as proven. 3) […]”. (Emphasis in original). For its part, by resolution at 9 hours 30 minutes on September 1, 2014, supplemented by a resolution at 9 hours 30 minutes on the 8th of the same month and year, the directing body of the proceeding recommended: “[…] to carry out the corresponding administrative and judicial collection steps against Messrs. Ernesto Hip Ureña, Eida Ocampo Rojas, and Max Avendaño Chaverri so that BN Vital can be compensated for the sums paid by the Operadora for the economic damage caused by the irregular management of the Income Tax account, an economic loss that, in accordance with a certification dated July twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, issued by the General Manager of BN Vital Operadora de Planes de Pensiones Complementarias, amounts to the sum of ₡4,300,479,264 (four billion three hundred million four hundred seventy-nine thousand two hundred sixty-four colones), which must be borne jointly and severally by those responsible.” (Emphasis in original). The Board of Directors of BN Vital, in article three of session no. 317, held on the 9th of that month and year, made the following agreement: “… BY NOMINAL AND UNANIMOUS VOTE, IT WAS FIRMLY AGREED: 1) to accept the final resolution of the Directing Body of the Administrative Proceeding, created to analyze the potential liabilities of various former officials of BN Vital for the alleged irregularities in the accounting record of the income tax receivable account and its auxiliary record, which was expanded by means of the document dated September 8, 2014, signed by Messrs. […], in their capacity as members of said body.” (Emphasis in original). In accordance with the above, the proceeding followed against the plaintiff's side had the objective of determining its eventual civil liability, not disciplinary or sanctioning. What was sought was the compensation of the sums paid by the OPC for the economic damage caused by the irregular management of the account denominated “Impuesto de Renta por cobrar”, due to not having an accounting auxiliary. Furthermore, the appellant itself, throughout the appeal, accepts that the plaintiff was subjected to a civil liability process, as is easily inferred from what is noted in considering III of this resolution. However, the support with which it backs its thesis of the necessity to verify a prior investigation to determine the amount of the damage (vote no. 295-2005 of Section IV of the Labor Court and PGR Opinion no. 388-2007) refers to disciplinary processes, a nature that the one followed against the plaintiff does not have, which is, it is insisted, one of civil liability. For this reason, the indicated article 71 of the LOCGR, which regulates the prescription of disciplinary liability, is not applicable to this litigation.

V.Following this line of thought, as indicated in section IV of this resolution, the administrative proceeding followed against the plaintiff had the objective of determining its eventual civil liability, not disciplinary or sanctioning. What was sought was to determine the civil liability of the plaintiff and, as a consequence thereof, the compensation of the sums paid by the OPC for the economic damage caused by the irregular management of the account denominated “Impuesto de Renta por cobrar”, due to not having an accounting auxiliary. This was acknowledged by the appellant itself throughout the appeal. Therefore, considering the legal nature of BN Vital and the employment relationship between it and its workers (who do not hold the status of public officials, but rather private workers, as indicated by the Constitutional and First Chambers), the administrative proceeding followed against the plaintiff, typical of Public Law, was not only unnecessary; but also improper for determining or establishing its civil liability. Mr. Max Alberto Avendaño Chaverri, it is insisted, was not a public official; but rather an employee or worker of the Operadora. This is why BN Vital, once it became aware of the irregular situation or fact that occurred in the indicated account, should have gone directly to the judicial venue to determine his civil liability and, as a consequence thereof, to set the amount of the inflicted damage or to defer that aspect to the judgment enforcement stage. Consequently, the applicable regulations to this litigation are not those of Public Law (LGAP or LOCGR), as the parties alleged and the Court applied; but rather those of common law, in accordance with the commercial line of business of the OPC. Therefore, the prescriptive period applicable to this litigation is the four-year period provided in article 984 of the Commercial Code; but, it is repeated, not for the OPC to initiate any internal proceeding; but rather for it to file the corresponding process in the judicial venue. In this sense, this Chamber agrees with what was stated in the appealed judgment, regarding that the Board of Directors of BN Vital had full knowledge that an irregularity was occurring in the aforementioned account since its extraordinary session no. 181 held on February 19, 2008, when it became aware of the Management Letter issued by the external audit firm Despacho Lara Eduarte Sc (proven fact preceded by no. 5, not challenged by the appellant). Consequently, it is from that moment that the four-year period for BN Vital to file the respective judicial process for civil liability began to run, which it did not do. Ergo, pursuant to the provisions of the aforementioned canon 984 of the Commercial Code, both the right and the corresponding action to claim any civil liability from the plaintiff became time-barred. In this manner, the alleged direct violation is not conceivable, i.e., the same conclusion as the lower court instance body would be reached regarding the claim of invalidity - of the plaintiff - due to its unnecessary and, consequently, invalid nature of that procedure. Indeed, for these reasons - and not for those indicated by the Court - the Operadora's criticism regarding the moment from which the statute of limitations period for the possibility of collecting through administrative channels begins to run must be denied, as that procedure was concluded to be unnecessary, hence the nullity ordered in the prior instance, for the reasons stated, remains unscathed.

VI.Thus, it will proceed to declare the appeal without merit, and to impose the costs generated by its exercise on the appellant in accordance with article 150, subsection 3) of the CPCA.

VII.Dissenting vote of Judge Rojas Morales. I depart from the majority opinion and believe the appeal must be rejected, but for the following reasons: The Political Constitution establishes a specific administrative organization that permeates the entire legal system. The fundamental administrative structure is comprised of the State Branches, the decentralized entities, within which are located territorial entities like municipalities; the autonomous institutions - which require a qualified majority in the Legislative Assembly for their creation and are provided for in canon 188 of the Supreme Charter -. The State Banks, within the cited constitutional scheme, are public enterprises created under the modality of autonomous institutions - article 189 - and, it goes without saying, that they have a public regime regarding the administration, organization, and functioning of their essential structure, therefore, their various deconcentrated bodies will have the organizational base indicated by the Political Constitution - autonomous institution, Public Law enterprise -. The state-owned corporations (sociedades anónimas del Estado) do not form part of that public business structure regulated by the fundamental order; however, for the purposes of resolving this matter, and without entering into the analysis of its possible unconstitutionality, we must start from the premise that Law no. 4123 states that pension operators are state-owned corporations, which - interpreted in light of the fundamental order - cannot distort their essentially public nature, as that would imply emptying the essential administrative structure that governs us of its content. With full clarity, article 188 provides, in relation to autonomous institutions, and within them the State banks, that “Their directors are responsible for their management.” Note, in addition, that article 55 of the Securities Market Law authorizes Public Banks to establish companies, which implies changing the administrative scheme of a deconcentrated body regulated by Public Law - LGAP - for a figure typical of private law; however, in accordance with the norms, values, and principles of the Fundamental Charter, the legislative regulation cannot be interpreted as an abandonment of Public Law for the essential structure of corporations. It is precisely for this reason that, regarding the acquisition of securities - public assets -, the provisions of the Administrative Procurement Law apply - third paragraph of article 55 of the cited law. For its part, Regulation No. 27503-H regulates the scope of commercial law by providing in canon 2, last paragraph, “…these companies shall be governed by the Commercial Code regarding asset autonomy and mergers and absorptions between them…”. Canon 4 ibidem states that “the Board of Directors of the Bank or public entity - autonomous institution -, will be the supreme body of the company and as such will have the powers that the Commercial Code grants to the shareholders’ assembly (…)” . Canon 6 provides, of interest, “the companies shall have a manager, appointed by the Board of Directors of each company, with the powers that it defines.” Of utmost importance is the content of article 7 of the regulatory body under study, as it indicates “the audit department of the bank or public entity - understood as decentralized entity - holding the share capital of each company shall oversee the work of the established companies and shall have the powers conferred upon it by the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (…)”. In full harmony with the public regime governing its essential structure, article 8 states that the procurement of goods and services shall be governed by the provisions of the Law and Regulations of Administrative Procurement.

Regarding the employment and wage policy, paragraph 9 states “in employment matters, they shall be subject to what is decided by the Board of Directors of the Bank or Public Entity, owner of the share capital.” Just as with the principal entity, pursuant to Article 10 ibidem, the companies must submit their budgets for approval to the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Law of the latter. Finally, paragraph 11 establishes the subjection of the companies to the principle of legality and to the regulations governing the activity of the Bank or public entity that owns the share capital. There is no doubt, then, that the corporations (sociedades anónimas), formed by public banks, are new forms of administrative deconcentration (desconcentraciones administrativas) of those banks, which operate in their ordinary activity—the raising of pension funds and their administration—under a framework of private law (derecho privado), but in their essential administrative and managerial structure under Public Law (Derecho Público). In full consonance with the previous affirmation, Article 111 of the LGAP only excludes from the consideration of public official the worker of the corporation-type enterprise who does not participate in the essential public or administrative management of the company; that is, those who participate in the essential administration and organization must be considered public officials by legal provision, as is the case of the plaintiff in the case under review. As indicated, only those who perform the functions inherent to the ordinary commercial activity that originated its creation shall have the status of private employees, a condition not applicable to the plaintiff. It should be borne in mind that the LGAP clearly establishes that public enterprises—in all their fields, including the labor field—shall have the legal or regulatory provisions of Public Law applied to their collaborators, which are necessary to guarantee administrative legality and morality. In the case under review, the function performed by the plaintiff is undoubtedly governed by the norms, principles, and values of Public Law. The Internal Control Law, in its Article 4, clearly indicates that “private law subjects that, by any title, are custodians or administrators of public funds, must apply in their management the principles and technical standards of internal control issued for this purpose by the Comptroller General of the Republic (….) apart from the other sanctions that the legal system may establish, private law subjects that keep custody of or administer, by any title, public funds or receive patrimonial benefits from state entities or bodies, may be sanctioned, as provided in Article 7 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller …..” II.- Regarding the statute of limitations on civil liability, I believe the appellant is correct. According to the factual framework of the case file, there was improper handling of the fund account called “sales tax receivable and its auxiliary record,” detected by three technical studies. These findings led to the visit of the special inspection of the Superintendency of Pensions (Superintendencia de Pensiones) -SUPEN-, which provided its final report on January 7, 2010, and, from the knowledge of the same, the operator—and therefore its beneficiaries and owners—had to implement an action plan to assume the financial cost that was determined in the so-called “Report: Income Tax Project Costs.” That report was brought to the attention of the competent body, and it determined to initiate the civil collection procedure in order to recover the amounts detailed in the report. The actions taken by the defendants conform to a detailed technical report that specifically establishes the extent of the damage caused and that had to be recovered in accordance with numeral 71.b of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic. It is not possible to conceive a statement of charges that does not specify the amount sought to be recovered, and this occurs, as the appellant correctly points out, from the moment when the damage inflicted upon BN Vital was administratively quantified. Consequently, the action brought by the defendant has not prescribed, and therefore the defense raised must be upheld, and, as a result, its articulation must be declared with merit.

POR TANTO

By majority, the appeal (recurso de casación) filed is declared without merit, with costs to be borne by the appellant. Judge Rojas Morales dissents. GDALEY  LUIS GUILLERMO RIVAS LOAICIGA - MAGISTRADO/A  IRIS ROCIO ROJAS MORALES - MAGISTRADO/A  JESSICA JIMÉNEZ RAMÍREZ - MAGISTRADO/A Telephones: (506) 2295-3658 or 2295-3659, e-mail [email protected] At that session, they accepted the recommendation of the Directing Body of the proceeding, which was a resolution issued at 9:30 a.m. on September 1, 2014, which suggested carrying out the corresponding administrative and judicial collection proceedings against Messrs. Hip Ureña, Ocampo Rojas, and Avendaño Chaverri; so that BN Vital can recover the sums paid by the Operating Company for the economic damage (daño económico) generated in the irregular management of the income tax account, which, according to the certification dated July 28, 2014, issued by the General Manager of the Operating Company, amounts to the sum of ¢4,300,479,264, which must be borne jointly and severally by those responsible.

**II.** For these reasons, in this proceeding, Mr. Avendaño Chaverri sued the Operating Company, requesting that the judgment declare the following: **a)** The annulment, for being contrary to the legal system, of article three of the Operating Company's Board of Directors session no. 317 of September 9, 2014, and article five of the Operating Company's Board of Directors session 331 of April 14, 2015 (Corrected in AP of 8-10-16), the latter as a confirmatory act that resolved the appeal for reconsideration filed against the former. Both issued as part of the administrative sanctioning procedure, and which accepted, respectively, the recommendation of the Directing Body at 9:30 a.m. on September 1, 2014, expanded by resolution at 9:30 a.m. on September 8, 2014; as well as opinion D.J./661-2015 of March 23, 2015, from the Legal Directorate of Banco Nacional. **b)** As a consequence of such annulment, the non-existence of the plaintiff's obligation to pay the sum of ¢4,300,479,264 to the defendant company be declared. **c)** As it is a matter of public interest, the initiation of an administrative procedure be ordered to investigate whether it is possible to establish any type of liability against those who ordered and executed the payment by the defendant Operating Company of ¢3,634,465,255.43. **d)** The defendant entity be ordered to pay the personal and procedural costs of this proceeding. In its lawsuit, as well as in the oral and public trial, the plaintiff argued the statute of limitations (prescripción) on the power to initiate the administrative procedure in application of article 198 of the LGAP. The defendant answered negatively and raised the defense of lack of right. The Court rejected the defense of lack of right and consequently declared the lawsuit partially granted. Given the manner in which it resolved, it granted the lawsuit solely regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción) of the administration's right to initiate an administrative procedure against the plaintiff, and therefore did not address the other claims alleged by the parties. It ordered the defendant to pay both costs, which would be liquidated in the sentence execution phase. Disagreeing, the Operating Company files a cassation appeal.

**III. GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL.** **Sole.** It alleges a direct violation. First, it provides a broad recount of the liability attributed to the plaintiff. It recalls that all findings of irregularities in the management of the *"income tax account receivable and its auxiliary record"* were initially made by both the External Auditor, the Corporate Audit Department of Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, and the specialized accounting and auditing firm hired to study the management of said account and its auxiliary record (Grupo Camacho). Additionally, these findings led to a Special Visit and Inspection by the Superintendence of Pensions - a visit conducted from September 23 to October 9, 2009 - which resulted in Report SP-025 of January 7, 2010, which is transcribed. It affirms that although there were precise findings on irregularities in the management of the *"Income Tax Receivable and its auxiliary record"* account, what existed from that moment on was an order to follow up on such findings and a mandate to proceed with the implementation of an action plan for the Operating Company to assume the responsibility - meaning the financial cost. In its understanding, the Income Tax Project Costs report, and annexes, is what gave rise to the administrative civil liability proceeding. It states that, contrary to what the Judges indicated, any act, official communication, proceeding, or action prior to said report lacks relevance, as they are all acts or events prior to the discovery of the reality or the real truth of what was happening in the company - such as the assumption of an economic loss (perjuicio económico) against its affiliates, which was determined to be the sum of ¢4,300,479,264.00. It insists that any event prior to the discovery of the reality or real truth of what was happening in the company lacks relevance; since it was not until the *“Income Tax Project Costs report, and annexes”* exists (folios 1145 to 1280 of the administrative file) that the Operating Company had full and accurate knowledge of the loss caused by its former administrators. It recalls that it was by virtue of the findings related to the management and recording of the *"income tax account receivable and its auxiliary record"* by the top management of the Operating Company, through the minutes of session 214 of August 13, 2009, that it was agreed to open and process an ordinary administrative proceeding against Messrs. Max Alberto Avendaño Chaverri (Chief Accountant), Eida Ocampo Rojas (Financial Manager), and Ernesto Hip Ureña (General Manager). However, it acknowledges that said administrative proceeding could not be carried out, because by virtue of the ordinary motions for revocation and appeal in the alternative filed by the investigated parties Ocampo Rojas and Hip Ureña, the archiving of the matter was ordered (official communication D.J./1950-2010 visible at folios 1128 to 1131 of the administrative file); since at that time, it was determined that the ordinary administrative civil liability proceeding could not continue until the material damage caused to the administered funds, which the Operating Company had to cover, was duly quantified. It maintains that the ordinary administrative civil liability proceeding truly began when the administration became aware of the damage caused, as stated in the agreement of article three of session number 306 held on April 7, 2014, of the Board of Directors of BN Vital. In other words, it repeats, the correct starting point is the "Report: Income Tax Project Costs", as seen in the Certification of article three of session 306, held on April 7, 2014, of the Operating Company's Board of Directors (folios 1114 to 1115 of the administrative file). The foregoing, it argues, is in accordance with article 71 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic and/or article 198 of the General Law of Public Administration. Thus, it claims that the lawsuit was improperly granted when the Court estimated that the right of the Operating Company to bring action against the plaintiff for the acts imputed to him had fallen under a statute of limitations (prescripción). In its understanding, the judgment makes an incorrect analysis of the computation of the statute of limitations (prescripción) violating article 71 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic.

**IV.** For the appellant, it was unavoidable, in accordance with subsection b) of article 71 of the LOCGR, to determine the amount of the alleged damage inflicted on the OPC; otherwise, it could not initiate the administrative civil liability proceeding and, therefore, neither could the prescriptive period. First, it is necessary to clarify that for the majority of this Cassation Court, in this matter, neither the statute of limitations (prescripción) period established in article 71 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, Law 7428, which states the following: “Article 71.-Statute of limitations (Prescripción) of disciplinary liability” nor article 198 of the General Law of Public Administration are applicable. This is in light of what has been indicated by the Constitutional and First Chambers, that Pension Operating Companies created under article 30 of the Worker Protection Law, regardless of whether they are of public or private capital, by the mere fact of being incorporated as a corporation (sociedad anónima), their nature is that of a private law legal entity that participates in a commercial economic activity, and therefore the employment relationship between it and its workers is also subject to common Labor Law and not to the public service regime. The rulings no. 2016010115 of 9:20 a.m. on July 15, 2016, no. 2016004518 of 2:30 p.m. on April 5, 2016, from the Constitutional Chamber, and 1274-C-S1-2013 of 12:05 p.m. on September 26, 2013, from the First Chamber, 383-C-S1-2017 of 11:35 a.m. on March 30, 2017, can be consulted; in that sense, it has stated that article 30 of Law no. 7983, Worker Protection Law, *“…allows the creation and operation of two types of operating companies. On the one hand, those constituted under private law, with private capital, which necessarily implies that there is no state participation regarding the capital that backs them or constitutes their equity; Pension Operating Companies created by private Banks or non-state financial entities; and, on the other hand, those of public capital constituted for this purpose as corporations (sociedades anónimas). Regarding these latter, we are, then, before a State Corporation. Now, to understand the scope of this figure, we must examine its dual constitution; companies of this type will be public in character, first because of the purpose eventually entrusted to them by Law and, second, because of the capital that makes them up. In the case of pension operating companies whose capital is public, contributed by the State as the majority and sole partner, they will then be public corporations due to the assets that make up their social capital.* On the other hand, the activity carried out, which will not always be public, will determine the purpose. In this case, the Pension Operators (Operadoras de Pensiones) constituted as publicly traded corporations (Sociedades Anónimas de capital público) engage in commercial activities such as the sale and placement of pension plans, an activity that generates income from commissions for the administration of such services, resulting in a benefit for the Operator, a benefit that is ultimately the same as that obtained by privately-held and privately funded Operators, meaning that the line of business or activity they carry out is purely commercial and governed by private law. Similarly, the employment relationships generated between the State-owned Corporation (Sociedad Anónima del Estado) and its employees or workers are not statutory or special in nature, as is the case for public officials who are subject to the Civil Service Regime (Régimen de Servicio Civil).... The defendant here is a Pension Operator belonging to a state bank and is constituted as a corporation (sociedad anónima). In application of constitutional precedents and the effect that Article 13 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) provides for them, it must be concluded, first of all, that the plaintiff here did not have a statutory relationship with the corporation for which he held the position of Accounting Manager (Jefe de Contabilidad). Therefore, the regime that bound him to the Operator is the ordinary one. This being the case, precept 71 previously referred to, in the opinion of the majority of this Chamber, is not applicable to set the statute of limitations period for the procedures dispensed by the defendant against the plaintiff. In this regard, this Chamber already ruled in its vote no. 220-F-TC-2021 of nine hours forty minutes on October 28, 2021. On that occasion, analyzing a case very close to the one raised here, filed by one of the other persons investigated for these same facts, it was determined that the actions taken by the Operator—against the responsible persons—sought to establish patrimonial liability—not disciplinary—so that, in light of the common—not statutory—regime that bound them to the Operator, the "administrative procedure" dispensed was unnecessary, and therefore, instead of resorting to it, the claim should have been filed in court. Likewise, by what is prescribed in subsection 2 of canon 3 of the LGAP, in the sense that private law shall regulate the activity, in this case of BN Vital, due to its overall regime and the requirements of its line of business, it is a common commercial enterprise. Furthermore, in the present matter, it is pertinent to note that in the third article of the aforementioned session no. 306, held on April 7, 2014, the Board of Directors of BN Vital, regarding the matter of interest, agreed: "BY NOMINAL AND UNANIMOUS VOTE IT WAS FIRMLY AGREED: 1) in accordance with the Statement of Facts Report BNVI-AI-RH-01-2009 relating to the accounting record of the INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE account and its auxiliary record, as well as the recommendations indicated in the official letters from the Legal Directorate of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica D.J./1950-2010 of October 12, 2010, and D.J./442-2014 of February 28, 2014, to constitute a directing body of the administrative procedure, for the purpose of initiating the due administrative process against the former officials ERNESTO HIP UREÑA, EIDA OCAMPO ROJAS and MAX AVENDAÑO CHAVERRI, for the determination of eventual civil liabilities for the accounting correction of the INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE account and its auxiliary record, with the aim of collecting the damages allegedly caused to the Operator. 2) Appoint as members of the Directing Body the gentlemen [...] The directing body shall be responsible for issuing the act of notification and imputation of the agreed procedure; for the entire investigation thereof; and for issuing a recommendation to this Board of Directors regarding the facts it manages to deem proven. 3) [...]”. (Highlighting is from the original). For its part, by resolution of 9 hours 30 minutes on September 1, 2014, supplemented by resolution of 9 hours 30 minutes on the 8th of the same month and year, the directing body of the procedure recommended: “[...] carry out the corresponding administrative and judicial collection efforts, against Messrs. Ernesto Hip Ureña, Eida Ocampo Rojas and Max Avendaño Chaverri, so that BN Vital may be compensated for the sums paid by the Operator for economic damage generated in the irregular management of the Income Tax account, economic loss which, according to certification dated July twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, issued by the General Manager of BN Vital Operadora de Planes de Pensiones Complementarias, amounts to the sum of ₡4,300,479,264 (four billion three hundred million four hundred seventy-nine thousand two hundred sixty-four colones), which must be defrayed by those responsible on a joint and several basis.” (Highlighting is from the original). The Board of Directors of BN Vital, in the third article of session no. 317, held on the 9th of that month and year, adopted the following agreement: “… BY NOMINAL AND UNANIMOUS VOTE IT WAS FIRMLY AGREED: 1) accept the final resolution of the Directing Body of the Administrative Procedure, created to analyze the eventual liabilities of several former officials of BN Vital for the alleged irregularities in the accounting record of the Income tax receivable account and its auxiliary record, which was expanded by the document dated September 8, 2014, signed by Messrs. [...], in their capacity as members of said body.” (Highlighting is from the original). In accordance with the foregoing, the procedure followed against the plaintiff had as its object the determination of his eventual civil, not disciplinary or punitive, liability. What was sought was compensation for the sums paid by the OPC for economic damage generated by the irregular management of the account called “Income Tax Receivable”, due to the lack of an accounting auxiliary. Furthermore, the appellant himself, throughout the appeal, accepts that a civil liability process was followed against the plaintiff, as can be easily inferred from what is noted in Considerando III of this resolution. However, the basis upon which he supports his thesis of the need for a prior investigation to determine the amount of the damage (vote no. 295-2005 of Section IV of the Labor Court and PGR Opinion no. 388-2007) refers to disciplinary processes, a nature not held by the one followed against the plaintiff, which is, it is insisted, one of civil liability. For this reason, the indicated precept 71 of the LOCGR, which regulates the statute of limitations for disciplinary liability, is not applicable to this litigation.

V.Following this line of thought, as indicated in section IV of this resolution, the administrative procedure followed against the plaintiff had as its object the determination of his eventual civil, not disciplinary or punitive, liability. What was sought was to determine the civil liability of the plaintiff and, as a consequence thereof, compensation for the sums paid by the OPC for economic damage generated by the irregular management of the account called “Income Tax Receivable”, due to the lack of an accounting auxiliary. This was recognized by the appellant himself throughout the appeal. Therefore, considering the legal nature of BN Vital and the employment relationship between it and its workers (they do not hold the status of public officials, but rather of private workers, as indicated by the Constitutional and First Chambers), the administrative procedure followed against the plaintiff, characteristic of Public Law, was not only unnecessary but improper for determining or establishing his civil liability. Mr. Max Alberto Avendaño Chaverri, it is insisted, was not a public official but an employed part or worker of the Operator. That is why BN Vital, once it became aware of the irregular situation or event that occurred in the indicated account, should have resorted directly to the judicial venue to determine his civil liability and, as a consequence thereof, establish the amount of the damage inflicted or defer that aspect to the judgment execution stage. Consequently, the legislation applicable to this litigation is not that of Public Law (LGAP or LOCGR), as alleged by the parties and applied by the Tribunal, but rather that of common law, in accordance with the commercial line of business of the OPC. Therefore, the prescriptive period applicable to this litigation is the four-year period provided for in Article 984 of the Code of Commerce (Código de Comercio); but, it is repeated, not for the OPC to initiate any internal procedure, but for it to file the corresponding process in court. In this sense, this Chamber agrees with what was stated in the appealed judgment, regarding the fact that the Board of Directors of BN Vital had full knowledge that an irregularity was occurring in the aforementioned account since its extraordinary session no. 181 held on February 19, 2008, when it was informed of the Management Letter issued by the external auditing firm Despacho Lara Eduarte Sc (proven fact preceded by no. 5, not challenged by the appellant). Consequently, it is from that moment that the four-year period for BN Vital to file the respective judicial process for civil liability began to run, which it did not do. Ergo, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned canon 984 of the Commercial Code, both the right and the corresponding action to claim any civil liability from the plaintiff expired. Thus, the direct violation pointed out is not conceived, meaning the same conclusion as the lower court body would be reached regarding the plaintiff's claim of invalidity—due to the unnecessary nature and, consequently, invalidity of that proceeding.

Indeed, for these reasons—and not for those indicated by the Court—the Operator's objection regarding the moment from which the statute of limitations for the possibility of collecting in the administrative venue begins to run must be denied, since that procedure was concluded as unnecessary, and therefore the nullity ordered in the prior venue, on the grounds stated, remains intact.

**VI.** This being the case, the appeal shall be declared without merit, and the costs generated by its filing shall be imposed on the appealing party pursuant to precept 150(3) of the CPCA.

**VII. Dissenting vote of Magistrate Rojas Morales.** I depart from the majority opinion and believe the appeal should be rejected, but for the following reasons: The Political Constitution establishes a specific administrative organization that permeates the entire legal system. The fundamental administrative structure is composed of the Branches of Government, the decentralized entities, within which it places territorial ones such as municipalities; the autonomous institutions—which require a qualified majority in the Legislative Assembly for their creation and are provided for in canon 188 of the Supreme Charter. The State Banks, within the cited constitutional framework, are public enterprises created under the modality of autonomous institutions—article 189—and, it goes without saying, have a public regime regarding the administration, organization, and operation of their essential structure; therefore, their various deconcentrated organs shall have the organizational basis indicated by the Political Constitution—autonomous institution, Public Law enterprise. State-owned corporations (sociedades anónimas del Estado) do not form part of that public enterprise structure regulated by the fundamental order; however, for the purposes of resolving this matter, and without entering into an analysis of their possible unconstitutionality, we must start from the premise that Law No. 4123 indicates that pension operators are State-owned corporations (sociedades anónimas del Estado), which—interpreted in light of the fundamental order—cannot denature their essentially public structure, as this would imply emptying the essential administrative structure that governs us of its content. With complete clarity, numeral 188 provides, in relation to autonomous institutions, and within them the State Banks, that *“Their directors are liable for their management.”* Note, in addition, that Article 55 of the Securities Market Law authorizes Public Banks to establish corporations (sociedades), which entails changing the administrative framework of a deconcentrated organ regulated by Public Law—LGAP—to a figure typical of private law; nevertheless, in accordance with the norms, values, and principles of the Fundamental Charter, the legislative regulation cannot be interpreted as an abandonment of Public Law for the essential structure of the corporations (sociedades anónimas). It is precisely for this reason that, in matters of acquisition of securities—public assets—the provisions of the Administrative Contracting Law apply (third paragraph of Article 55 of the cited law). For its part, Regulation No. 27503-H regulates the scope of commercial law by providing in canon 2, last paragraph, *“…these corporations (sociedades) shall be governed by the Commercial Code with regard to patrimonial autonomy and mergers and absorptions between them…”*. Numeral 4 ibidem indicates that *“the Board of Directors of the Bank or public entity—autonomous institution—shall be the supreme organ of the corporation (sociedad) and as such shall have the powers that the Commercial Code provides for the shareholders' meeting (…)”*. Numeral 6 provides, as relevant, *“the corporations (sociedades) shall have a manager, appointed by the Board of Directors of each corporation (sociedad), with the powers defined by it.”* Of utmost importance is the content of Article 7 of the regulatory body under study, as it indicates *“the internal audit of the bank or public entity—meaning decentralized entity—holding the share capital of each corporation (sociedad) shall oversee the work of the established corporations (sociedades) and shall have the powers conferred upon it by the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (…)”*. In full harmony with the public regime governing its essential structure, numeral 8 indicates that the procurement of goods and services shall be governed by the provisions of the Administrative Contracting Law and its Regulations. Regarding employment and salary policy, numeral 9 states: *“in employment matters, they shall be subject to what is provided by the Board of Directors of the Bank or Public Entity holding the share capital.”* As is the case with the parent entity, pursuant to Article 10 ibidem, the corporations (sociedades) must submit their budgets for approval by the Comptroller General of the Republic in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Law of the latter. Finally, numeral 11 establishes the subjection of the corporations (sociedades) to the principle of legality and to the regulations governing the activity of the Bank or public entity holding the share capital. There is no doubt, then, that the corporations (sociedades anónimas) formed by public banks are new forms of administrative deconcentration of those banks, operating in their ordinary activity—collection of pension funds and their administration—under the private law framework, but in their essential administrative and managerial structure, under Public Law.

In full consonance with the foregoing statement, Article 111 of the LGAP only excludes from the consideration of public official the worker of the corporation (sociedad anónima) who does not participate in the essential public or administrative management (gestión pública) of the company; that is, those who participate in the essential administration and organization must be considered public officials by provision of law, as is the case of the plaintiff in the case under examination. As indicated, only those who perform the functions proper to the ordinary commercial activity that gives rise to its creation shall have the status of private employees, a condition not applicable to the plaintiff. It should be noted that the LGAP establishes, with complete clarity, that the legal or regulatory provisions of Public Law necessary to guarantee administrative legality and morality (legalidad y moralidad administrativa) shall apply to public companies—in all their fields, including labor—with respect to their collaborators. In the case under examination, the function performed by the plaintiff is undoubtedly governed by the norms, principles, and values of Public Law. The Internal Control Law clearly states in its Article 4 that “private law subjects who, by any title, are custodians or administrators of public funds, must apply in their management the principles and technical norms of internal control issued by the Contraloría General de la República (…) apart from the other sanctions that the legal system may establish, private law subjects who hold in custody or administer, by any title, public funds or receive patrimonial benefits from state entities or bodies, may be sanctioned, as provided in Article 7 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría …..” II.- Regarding the prescription of civil liability, I believe the appellant is correct. According to the factual record of the expediente, there was improper handling of the fund account called “sales tax receivable and its auxiliary record,” detected by three technical studies. These findings led to the special inspection visit by the Superintendencia de Pensiones -SUPEN-, which provided its final report on January 7, 2010, and, from knowledge thereof, the operator—and therefore its beneficiaries and owners—had to implement a plan of action to assume the financial cost that was determined in the so-called “Report: Income Tax Project Costs.” That report was brought to the attention of the competent body, and it determined to initiate the civil collection procedure in order to recover the amounts detailed in the report. The conduct of the defendants conforms to a detailed technical report that establishes, in a concrete manner, the extent of the damage caused and that had to be recovered pursuant to Article 71.b of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República. It is not possible to conceive of a statement of charges that does not specify the amount sought to be recovered, and this occurs, as the appellant rightly points out, from the moment the damage inflicted on BN Vital was administratively quantified. Consequently, the action brought by the defendant has not prescribed, so the defense raised must be upheld and, therefore, its filing must be granted.

POR TANTO

By majority, the appeal filed is declared without merit, with costs to be borne by the appellant. Judge Rojas Morales dissents.

</span><span style="font-size:8pt">GDALEY</span> <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="-aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="" width="196" height="64" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'"></span><br /><span style="font-size:8pt">Y247TVRVBE0S61</span><br /><span style="font-size:8pt">LUIS GUILLERMO RIVAS LOAICIGA - MAGISTRADO/A</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="-aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'"></span><br /><span style="font-size:8pt">ZX5E1IUW0BO61</span><br /><span style="font-size:8pt">IRIS ROCIO ROJAS MORALES - MAGISTRADO/A</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="-aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="" width="200" height="65" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /><br /><span style="font-family:'WASP 39 L'"></span><br /><span style="font-size:8pt">DPWIEQL43LCG61</span><br /><span style="font-size:8pt">JESSICA JIM</span><span style="font-size:8pt">É</span><span style="font-size:8pt">NEZ RAM</span><span style="font-size:8pt">Í</span><span style="font-size:8pt">REZ - MAGISTRADO/A</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:10pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="-aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span></p><div style="-aw-headerfooter-type:footer-primary; clear:both"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">EXP: 15-009123-1027-CA</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:1pt; text-align:center; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; background-color:#ffffff; -aw-border-bottom:0pt single"><span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">Tel</span><span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">é</span><span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">fonos: (506) 2295-3658 o 2295-3659, correo electr</span><span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">ó</span><span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">nico [email protected]</span></p></div> **IV.** For the appellant, it was unavoidable, pursuant to subsection b) of Article 71 of the LOCGR, to determine the amount of the alleged damage inflicted on the OPC; otherwise, the administrative procedure for civil liability could not be initiated and, therefore, neither could the prescriptive period.

First, it is necessary to clarify that for the majority of this Court of Cassation (Tribunal de Casación), in this matter, the statute of limitations (prescripción) established in article 71 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República), Ley 7428, which establishes the following: “Article 71.-Statute of limitations for disciplinary liability (Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria)” nor article 198 of the General Law on Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) are applicable. This, in light of what has been indicated by the Constitutional and First Chambers, that Pension Operators created under article 30 of the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador), regardless of whether they are of public or private capital, by the mere fact of being incorporated as a corporation (sociedad anónima), their nature is that of a legal entity under Private Law, which participates in a commercial economic activity, so the employment relationship between it and its workers is also subject to common Labor Law and not to the public service regime. The decisions (votos) no. 2016010115 of 9 hours 20 minutes of July 15, 2016, no. 2016004518 of 14 hours 30 minutes of April 5, 2016, of the Constitutional Chamber and 1274-C-S1-2013 of 12 hours 5 minutes of September 26, 2013 of the First Chamber 383-C-S1-2017 of 11 hours 35 minutes of March 30, 2017, can be consulted; in that sense, it has referred that article 30 of Law no. 7983, Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador) “...allows the creation and operation of two types of operators. On one hand, those incorporated under private law, with private capital, which necessarily implies that there is no state participation in terms of the capital that backs them or constitutes their assets; Pension Operators created by private Banks or non-state financial entities; and, on the other hand, those of public capital incorporated for this purpose as corporations (sociedades anónimas). Regarding these latter ones, we are then in the presence of a State Corporation (Sociedad Anónima del Estado). Now, to understand the scope of this figure, we must examine its dual constitution; corporations of this type will have a public character, first due to the purpose that the Law eventually entrusts to them and, second, due to the capital that comprises them. In the case of pension operators whose capital is public, contributed by the State as the majority and sole partner, they will then be public corporations by the assets that make up their share capital. On the other hand, the activity they carry out, which will not always be public, will determine the purpose. In this case, the Pension Operators incorporated as Public Capital Corporations (Sociedades Anónimas de capital público), carry out commercial activities such as the sale and placement of pension plans, an activity that generates income for them through commissions for the administration of such services, deriving a benefit for the Operator, a benefit that is ultimately the same as that obtained by private law and private capital Operators, meaning that the line of business or activity they develop is purely commercial and governed by private law. Likewise, the employment relationships generated between the State Corporation (Sociedad Anónima del Estado) and its employees or workers is not a relationship of a statutory or special nature, as is that of public officials who are assigned to the Civil Service Regime (Régimen de Servicio Civil)…”. The defendant herein is a Pension Operator that belongs to a State bank and is incorporated as a corporation (sociedad anónima).

In application of the constitutional precedents and the effect that numeral 13 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional provides for them, it must be concluded, first of all, that the plaintiff here did not have a statutory relationship with the corporation for which he held the position of Chief of Accounting. Therefore, the regime that bound him to the Operator is the ordinary one. Thus, provision 71 previously referenced, in the opinion of the majority of this Chamber, is not applicable to set the statute of limitations (prescripción) period for the proceedings afforded by the defendant against the plaintiff. This Chamber already ruled in this sense in its vote no. 220-F-TC-2021 at nine hours forty minutes on October 28, 2021. On that occasion, analyzing a case of enormous proximity to the one raised on this occasion, filed by one of the other persons investigated for these same facts, it was determined that the Operator's actions against the responsible persons sought to establish patrimonial liability (responsabilidad patrimonial) —not disciplinary— so that, in light of the common —not statutory— regime that bound them to the Operator, the “administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo)” afforded was unnecessary, and instead of resorting to it, the claim should have been brought in court. Likewise, by what is prescribed in subsection 2 of canon 3 of the LGAP, in the sense that private law will regulate the activity, in this case of, BN Vital, due to its overall regime and the requirements of its line of business, it is an ordinary commercial company. Furthermore, in the present matter, it is pertinent to note, in article three of the referenced session no. 306, held on April 7, 2014, the Board of Directors of BN Vital, in what is of interest, agreed: “POR VOTACIÓN NOMINAL Y UNÁNIME SE ACORDÓ EN FIRME: 1) en concordancia con el informe de Relación de Hechos BNVI-AI-RH-01-2009 relativo al registro contable de la cuenta IMPUESTO DE LA RENTA POR COBRAR y su registro auxiliar, así como las recomendaciones indicadas en los oficios de la Dirección Jurídica del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica D.J./1950-2010 del 12 de octubre del 2010 y D.J./442-2014 del 28 de febrero del 2014, constituir un órgano director del procedimiento administrativo, con el fin de iniciar el debido proceso administrativo a los exfuncionarios ERNESTO HIP UREÑA, EIDA OCAMPO ROJAS y MAX AVENDAÑO CHAVERRI, para la determinación de las eventuales responsabilidades civiles por la corrección contable de la cuenta IMPUESTO DE LA RENTA POR COBRAR y su registro auxiliar, con el fin de cobrar los daños supuestamente ocasionados a la Operadora. 2) Nombrar como miembros del Órgano Director a los señores […] El órgano director será el encargado de la emisión del acto de intimación e imputación del procedimiento acordado; de toda la instrucción del mismo y de emitir una recomendación a esta Junta Directiva respecto de los hechos que logre tener por demostrados. 3) […]”. (The highlighting is from the original).

For its part, by resolution at 9:30 a.m. on September 1, 2014, supplemented by resolution at 9:30 a.m. on the 8th of the same month and year, the directing body of the proceeding recommended: “[…] carry out the corresponding administrative and judicial collection efforts against Messrs. Ernesto Hip Ureña, Eida Ocampo Rojas, and Max Avendaño Chaverri, so that BN Vital can recover the sums paid by the Operator for economic damage (daño económico) arising from the irregular handling of the Income Tax account, economic damage (daño económico) which, according to certification dated July twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, issued by the General Manager of BN Vital Operadora de Planes de Pensiones Complementarias, amounts to the sum of ¢4,300,479,264 (four billion three hundred million four hundred seventy-nine thousand two hundred sixty-four colones), which must be borne by those responsible on a joint and several basis.” (Emphasis in original). The Board of Directors of BN Vital, in article three of session no. 317, held on the 9th of that month and year, adopted the following agreement: “… BY NOMINAL AND UNANIMOUS VOTE IT WAS FIRMLY AGREED: 1) to accept the final resolution of the Directing Body of the Administrative Proceeding, created to analyze the eventual liability of various former officials of BN Vital for the alleged irregularities in the accounting record of the Income Tax receivable account and its subsidiary record, which was expanded by the document dated September 8, 2014, signed by Messrs. […], in their capacity as members of said body.” (Emphasis in original). In accordance with the foregoing, the proceeding brought against the plaintiff was intended to determine her eventual civil liability, not disciplinary or punitive liability. What was sought was the recovery of the sums paid by the OPC for economic damage (daño económico) generated by the irregular handling of the account called “Impuesto de Renta por cobrar,” due to the lack of an accounting subsidiary ledger. Moreover, the appellant herself, throughout the appeal, accepts that the plaintiff was subjected to a civil liability process, as can be readily deduced from what is noted in Considerando III of this resolution. However, the support on which the appellant bases her thesis of the need to verify a prior investigation to determine the amount of damage (daño) (Voto no. 295-2005 of Section IV of the Labor Tribunal and PGR Opinion no. 388-2007) refers to disciplinary processes, a nature not applicable to the proceeding brought against the plaintiff, which, it is insisted, is one of civil liability. For this reason, the aforementioned precept 71 of the LOCGR, which regulates the statute of limitations for disciplinary liability, is not applicable to this lite.

V.Following this line of thought, as indicated in section IV of this resolution, the administrative proceeding brought against the plaintiff was intended to determine her eventual civil liability, not disciplinary or punitive liability. What was sought was to determine the plaintiff’s civil liability and, as a consequence thereof, the recovery of the sums paid by the OPC for economic damage (daño económico) generated by the irregular handling of the account called “Impuesto de Renta por cobrar,” due to the lack of an accounting subsidiary ledger. This was recognized by the appellant herself throughout the appeal. Therefore, given the legal nature of BN Vital and the employment relationship between it and its workers (they do not hold the status of public officials, but rather that of private workers, as noted by the Constitutional and First Chambers), the administrative proceeding brought against the plaintiff, typical of Public Law, was not only unnecessary but improper for the purpose of determining or establishing her civil liability. Mr. Max Alberto Avendaño Chaverri, it is insisted, was not a public official, but rather an employee or worker of the Operator. That is why BN Vital, once it became aware of the situation or irregular act occurring in the aforementioned account, should have gone directly to the judicial venue in order to determine his civil liability and, as a consequence thereof, to set the amount of the damage (daño) inflicted or to defer that aspect to the judgment enforcement stage.

Consequently, the regulations applicable to this litigation are not those of Public Law (LGAP or LOCGR), as the parties alleged and the Tribunal applied; but rather those of common law, in accordance with the commercial line of business of the OPC. Therefore, the prescriptive period applicable to this litigation is the four-year period provided for in article 984 of the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio); but, it is repeated, not for the OPC to initiate any internal procedure, but rather for it to file the corresponding action in court. In this regard, this Chamber agrees with what was stated in the appealed judgment, regarding the fact that the Board of Directors of BN Vital had full knowledge that an irregularity was occurring in the aforementioned account since its extraordinary session no. 181 held on February 19, 2008, when it learned of the Management Letter (Carta de Gerencia) issued by the external auditing firm Despacho Lara Eduarte Sc (proven fact preceded by no. 5, not challenged by the appellant). Consequently, it is from that moment that the four-year period for BN Vital to file the respective judicial process for civil liability began to run, which it did not do. Ergo, pursuant to the provisions of the aforementioned canon 984 of the Commercial Code (Código Mercantil), both the right and the corresponding action to claim any civil liability from the plaintiff were time-barred. In this way, the claimed direct violation is not conceivable, that is, the same conclusion would be reached as the lower instance body regarding the plaintiff's invalidity claim—due to its unnecessary nature and, consequently, the invalidity of that proceeding. Indeed, for these reasons—and not for those indicated by the Tribunal—the Operator's reproach regarding the moment from which the prescriptive period for the possibility of collecting in administrative proceedings begins to run must be denied, since that proceeding was concluded as unnecessary, hence the nullity ordered in the lower instance, for the stated reasons, remains intact." I depart from the majority opinion and consider that the appeal must be rejected, but for the following reasons: The Political Constitution establishes a specific administrative organization that permeates the entire legal system. The fundamental administrative structure is composed of the Branches of Government, the decentralized entities, among which it places territorial ones such as the municipalities; the autonomous institutions—which require a qualified majority in the Legislative Assembly for their creation and are provided for in canon 188 of the Supreme Charter—. The State Banks, within the cited constitutional scheme, are public enterprises created under the modality of autonomous institutions—Article 189—and, it goes without saying, they have a public regime regarding the administration, organization, and functioning of their essential structure; therefore, their various deconcentrated bodies will have the organizational basis indicated by the Political Constitution—autonomous institution, public law enterprise—. The state-owned corporations (sociedades anónimas del Estado) are not part of that public business structure regulated by the fundamental order; however, for the purposes of resolving this matter, and without entering into the analysis of their possible unconstitutionality, we must start from the fact that Law No. 4123 indicates that pension operators are state-owned corporations (sociedades anónimas del Estado), which—interpreted in light of the fundamental order—cannot denature their essentially public structure, since that would imply emptying the essential administrative structure that governs us of its content. With full clarity, numeral 188 provides, in relation to autonomous institutions, and within them the State Banks, that “Their directors are liable for their management”.

Take into account, moreover, that Article 55 of the Securities Market Law (Ley del Mercado de Valores) authorizes Public Banks to form companies, which entails changing the administrative scheme of a deconcentrated organ regulated by Public Law – LGAP –, for a figure typical of private law; however, in accordance with the norms, values, and principles of the Fundamental Charter, the legislative regulation cannot be interpreted as an abandonment of Public Law for the essential structure of the public limited companies (sociedades anónimas). It is precisely for this reason that, regarding the acquisition of titles -public property (patrimonio público)-, the provisions of the Administrative Contracting Law (Ley de Contratación Administrativa) apply -third paragraph of Article 55 of the cited law. For its part, Regulation N. 27503-H regulates the scope of commercial law by providing in the last paragraph of canon 2 “…these companies shall be governed by the Commercial Code (Código de Comercio) regarding patrimonial autonomy and functions and absorptions among them…”. Numeral 4 ibidem indicates that “the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of the Bank or public entity -autonomous institution-, shall be the supreme organ of the company and as such shall have the powers that the Commercial Code provides for the shareholders’ meeting (asamblea de accionistas) (…)” .

Numeral 6 provides, with respect to interest, “the companies shall have a manager, appointed by the Board of Directors of each company, with the powers defined by the latter.” Of great significance is the content of Article 7 of the regulatory body under review, as it indicates “the audit office of the bank or public entity—understood as a decentralized entity—holding the share capital of each company shall oversee the work of the established companies and shall have the powers conferred upon it by the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República) (…).” In full harmony with the public regime governing its essential structure, numeral 8 indicates that the procurement of goods and services shall be governed by the provisions of the Law and Regulation on Administrative Procurement (Ley y el Reglamento de Contratación Administrativa). Regarding the policy on employment and salaries, numeral 9 states “in matters of employment, they shall be subject to what is provided by the Board of Directors of the Bank or Public entity, holder of the share capital.” As occurs with the larger entity, according to the provisions of Article 10 ibidem, the companies must submit their budgets for approval by the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República) in accordance with the provisions of the Organic Law of the latter. Finally, numeral 11 establishes the companies’ subjection to the principle of legality and to the regulations governing the activity of the Bank or public entity holding the share capital.

There is no doubt, then, that the anonymous companies, formed by the public banks, are new forms of administrative deconcentration of the latter, which operate in their ordinary activity—captation of pension funds and their administration—under the private law scheme, but in their essential administrative and managerial structure, under Public Law (Derecho Público).

In full consonance with the foregoing statement, Article 111 of the LGAP only excludes from the consideration of public official the employee of the corporation (sociedad anónima) who does not participate in the essential public or administrative management of the company; that is, those who participate in the essential administration and organization must be considered public officials by provision of law, as is the case of the plaintiff in the case under review. As indicated, only private employees who perform the functions inherent to the ordinary commercial activity that gave rise to its creation will have that status, a condition not applicable to the plaintiff. It must be borne in mind that the LGAP establishes, with complete clarity, that public enterprises—in all their fields, including labor—will apply to their collaborators the legal or regulatory provisions of Public Law that are necessary to guarantee administrative legality and morality. In the case under review, the function performed by the plaintiff is undoubtedly governed by the norms, principles, and values of Public Law. The Internal Control Law diaphanously indicates in its Article 4 that “subjects of private law that, by any title, are custodians or administrators of public funds, shall apply in their management the principles and technical standards of internal control that the Contraloría General de la República issues for that purpose (…) apart from the other sanctions that the legal system may establish, subjects of private law that safeguard or administer, by any title, public funds or receive patrimonial benefits from state entities or organs, may be sanctioned, according to the provisions of Article 7 of the Organic Law of the Contraloría …..” II.- As to what concerns the statute of limitations (prescripción) of civil liability, I believe the appellant is correct.

According to the factual record of the case file, there was improper management of the fund account called "sales tax receivable and its auxiliary record" (impuesto de ventas por cobrar y su registro auxiliar), detected by three technical studies. These findings led to a special inspection visit by the Superintendency of Pensions (Superintendencia de Pensiones) —SUPEN—, which issued its final report on January 7, 2010, and upon becoming aware of it, the operator —and therefore its beneficiaries and owners— had to implement an action plan to assume the financial cost that was determined in the so-called "Report: Income Tax Project Costs" (Informe: Costos del Proyecto de Impuesto sobre la Renta). That report was brought to the attention of the competent body, and it decided to initiate a civil collection procedure in order to recover the amounts detailed in the report. The actions taken by the defendants are in accordance with a detailed technical report that establishes, in a concrete manner, the extent of the damage caused and that had to be recovered pursuant to numeral 71.b of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República). It is not possible to conceive of a statement of charges that does not specify the amount sought to be recovered, and this occurs, as the appellant rightly points out, from the moment the damage inflicted on BN Vital was administratively quantified. Consequently, the action brought by the defendant has not prescribed, so the defense raised must be upheld and, therefore, its filing declared with merit.

The directors requested a legal opinion on the point from the Legal Department of the Banco Nacional, which was provided through official letter DJ/1950-2010 of **October 14, 2010,** where they indicated that pursuant to the provisions of numerals 203 and 204 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP), it was illogical *“…to initiate an administrative procedure to assign a civil liability that has not been determined, for the simple fact that it might not exist, a situation that undermines the entire argumentation of the Avocation Order of the initiated processes and necessarily causes nullity..."*. They recommended to the Board of Directors that the absolute nullity of the avocation order of the procedures be declared and that the Administration determine the damage caused prior to initiating a procedure to seek compensation. They warned the Board of Directors that if the recommendation provided was accepted, the Administration must be urged to develop the damage determination processes within the statute of limitations (plazos de prescripción) established by the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República in its article 71, which is five years from the date the head of the entity is made aware of the audit report detailing the investigated conduct. However, the Board of Directors of the Operator did not resolve the appeals (recursos de apelación) filed within the timeframes indicated in the LGAP, as it postponed them according to agreements of Board of Directors sessions 241 of November 22, 2010, and 266 of March 26, 2012. It was not until session 304 of **March 12, 2014**, that they took into account the legal opinion from 2010, in addition to no. DJ/442-2014 of February 28, 2014, and granted the appeals, annulling the avocation resolution of May 6, 2010, and furthermore, declared of its own motion the expiration (caducidad) due to the paralysis of the procedure (that is, the Administration accepted and declared the expiration applying numeral 340 of the LGAP, due to inactivity attributable to the Administration for more than six months). Then, in session no. 306 of **April 7, 2014**, taking into account those legal opinions (1950-2010 and 442-2014), as well as the Fact Report 01-2009, the Board of Directors ordered the initiation of a new administrative procedure in accordance with the provisions of numeral 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, forming a directing body (órgano director), it being indicated on that new occasion that the amount of the damage became known only through Official Letter BN Vital-GG-124 of March 12, 2014. Thus, it was on that date, when administrative procedure ODBNVITAL-01-2014 began, which concluded with the agreement of the Board of Directors of the Operator adopted in session 317 of **September 9, 2014.** In that session, they accepted the recommendation of the Directing Body (Órgano Director) of the procedure, which was a resolution at 9:30 a.m. on September 1, 2014, which suggested carrying out the corresponding administrative and judicial collection diligences against Messrs. Hip Ureña, Ocampo Rojas, and Avendaño Chaverri; so that BN Vital could recover the sums paid by the Operator for economic damage generated in the irregular management of the income tax account, which, according to the certification dated July 28, 2014, issued by the General Manager of the Operator, amounts to the sum of ¢4,300,479,264, to be borne jointly and severally by those responsible.

**II.** For these reasons, in this proceeding, Mr. Avendaño Chaverri sued the Operator, seeking a judgment declaring the following: **a)** The annulment, as contrary to the legal system, of article three of the Board of Directors of the Operator session no. 317 of September 9, 2014, and article five of the Board of Directors of the Operator session 331 of April 14, 2015 (Corrected in AP of 8-10-16), the latter as a confirmatory act resolving the appeal for reconsideration (recurso de reposición) filed against the former. Both issued as part of the administrative sanctioning procedure, and which respectively accepted the recommendation of the Directing Body at 9:30 a.m. on September 1, 2014, expanded by resolution at 9:30 a.m. on September 8, 2014; as well as legal opinion D.J./661-2015 of March 23, 2015, from the Legal Directorate of Banco Nacional. **b)** As a consequence of such nullity, a declaration of the non-existence of the plaintiff's obligation to pay the sum of ¢4,300,479,264 to the defendant company. **c)** Because it is a matter of public interest, be ordered the establishment of an administrative procedure to investigate whether it is possible to assign any type of liability against those who ordered and executed the payment by the defendant Operator of ¢3,634,465,255.43. **d)** The defendant entity be ordered to pay the personal and procedural costs of this proceeding. In her lawsuit, as well as in the oral and public trial, the plaintiff alleged the statute of limitations (prescripción) on the power to initiate the administrative procedure in application of article 198 of the LGAP. The defendant answered negatively and raised the defense of lack of right. The Court rejected the defense of lack of right and consequently granted the lawsuit. In the manner it resolved, it granted the lawsuit solely regarding the statute of limitations on the administration's right to initiate an administrative procedure against the plaintiff, and therefore did not address the other arguments alleged by the parties. It ordered the defendant to pay both costs, which would be settled in the judgment execution phase. Disagreeing, the Operator files this appeal (recurso de casación).

**III. GROUNDS FOR THE APPEAL. Sole.** Alleges direct violation. First, it provides a broad recount of the liability attributed to the plaintiff. It recalls that all findings of irregularities in the management of the *"income tax receivable account and its auxiliary record"* were initially made by the External Auditor, by the Corporate Audit of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, as well as the specialized accounting and auditing firm contracted for the study of the management of said account and its auxiliary record (Grupo Camacho). Additionally, said findings prompted a Special Visit and Inspection by the Superintendence of Pensions - a visit carried out from September 23 to October 9, 2009 - which gave rise to Report SP-025 of January 7, 2010, which it transcribes. It affirms that, although there were precise findings about irregularities in the management of the *"Income Tax Receivable and its auxiliary record"* account, what existed from that moment on was an order to follow up on such findings and the mandate to proceed with the implementation of an action plan so that the Operator would assume the liability - understood as the financial cost. In its view, it is the report Costs of the Income Tax Project, and annexes, that gave rise to the administrative procedure for civil liability. It says, contrary to what the Judges indicated, any act, official communication, effort, or action prior to said report lacks relevance, as they are all acts or facts prior to the discovery of the reality or the true truth of what was happening in the company - such as the assumption of an economic loss to its affiliates, which was determined in the sum of ¢4,300,479,264.00. It insists that any fact prior to the discovery of the reality or the true truth of what was happening in the company lacks relevance; for it was not until the *“Costs of the Income Tax Project report, and annexes”* (folios 1145 to 1280 of the administrative file) existed that the Operator had full and exact knowledge of the harm caused by its former directors. It recalls that it was by virtue of the findings related to the management and recording of the *"income tax receivable account and its auxiliary record"* by the top management of the Operator, through the minutes of session 214 of August 13, 2009, when it was agreed to open and substantiate an ordinary administrative proceeding against Messrs. Max Alberto Avendaño Chaverri (General Accountant), Eida Ocampo Rojas (Financial Manager), and Ernesto Hip Ureña (General Manager). However, it acknowledges, said administrative procedure could not be carried out, because by virtue of the ordinary appeals for revocation and appeal in subsidy filed by the investigated parties Ocampo Rojas and Hip Ureña, the archiving of the matter was ordered (official letter D.J./1950-2010 visible at folios 1128 to 1131 of the administrative file); for at that time, it was determined that the ordinary administrative procedure for civil liability could not continue until the material damage caused to the managed funds and that the Operator had to cover was duly quantified. It maintains that the ordinary administrative procedure for civil liability truly began when the administration became aware of the damage caused, as evidenced in the agreement of article three of session number 306 held on April 7, 2014, of the Board of Directors of BN Vital. In other words, it repeats, the correct starting point is the "Report: Costs of Income Tax Project", as observed in the Certification of article three of session 306, held on April 7, 2014, of the Board of Directors of the Operator (folios 1114 to 1115 of the administrative file). The foregoing, it argues, according to section 71 of the Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República and/or article 198 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. Thus, it claims that the lawsuit was improperly granted because the Court estimated that the Operator's right to take action against the plaintiff for the acts attributed to him had expired under the statute of limitations.

In its understanding, the judgment makes an incorrect analysis of the calculation of the statute of limitations (prescripción), infringing article 71 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República).

**IV.** For the appellant, it was unavoidable, in accordance with subsection b) of article 71 of the LOCGR, to determine the amount of the alleged harm (daño) inflicted on the OPC; otherwise, it could not initiate the administrative proceeding for civil liability (responsabilidad civil) and, therefore, neither could the statutory limitation period (plazo prescriptivo). First, it is necessary to clarify that for the majority of this Court of Cassation (Tribunal de Casación), in this matter, the statute of limitations period (plazo de prescripción) established in article 71 of the Organic Law of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic, Law 7428 (Ley 7428), which establishes the following: "Article 71.-Statute of limitations for disciplinary liability (Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria)" nor article 198 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) are applicable. This is in light of what was indicated by the Constitutional and First Chambers, that the Pension Operators (Operadoras de Pensiones) created under the protection of article 30 of the Law for the Protection of Workers (Ley de Protección al Trabajador), regardless of whether they are of public or private capital, by the mere fact of being constituted as a corporation (sociedad anónima), their nature is that of a legal entity governed by Private Law (persona jurídica de Derecho Privado), which participates in a commercial economic activity, so the labor relationship between it and its workers is also subject to common Labor Law and not to the public service regime. Votes no. 2016010115 of 9 hours 20 minutes on July 15, 2016, no. 2016004518 of 14 hours 30 minutes on April 5, 2016, from the Constitutional Chamber, and 1274-C-S1-2013 of 12 hours 5 minutes on September 26, 2013, from the First Chamber 383-C-S1-2017 of 11 hours 35 minutes on March 30, 2017, may be consulted. In that sense, it has stated that article 30 of Law no. 7983, Law for the Protection of Workers, *“...allows the creation and operation of two types of operators. On one hand, those constituted under private law, with private capital, which necessarily implies that there is no state participation in terms of the capital that backs them or constitutes their equity; Pension Operators created by private banks or non-state financial entities; and, on the other hand, those of public capital, constituted for this purpose as corporations (sociedades anónimas). Regarding the latter, we find ourselves, then, before a State Corporation (Sociedad Anónima del Estado). Now, to understand the scope of this figure, we must examine its dual constitution; companies of this type will have a public character, first due to the purpose that the Law eventually entrusts to them and, second, due to the capital that composes them. In the case of pension operators whose capital is public, contributed by the State as the majority and sole partner, then they will be public corporations (sociedades anónimas públicas) due to the equity that makes up their share capital. On the other hand, the activity they carry out, which will not always be public, will determine the purpose. In this case, the Pension Operators constituted as Public Capital Corporations (Sociedades Anónimas de capital público) carry out commercial activities such as the sale and placement of pension plans, an activity that generates income through commissions for the administration of such services, deriving a benefit for the Operator from this, a benefit that in the end is the same as that which Operators of private law and private capital will obtain, so the line of business or the activity they develop is purely commercial and governed by private law. Similarly, the labor relations generated between the State Corporation and its employees or workers are not a statutory or special relationship, as is that of public officials being assigned to the Civil Service Regime (Régimen de Servicio Civil)…”*. The defendant herein is a Pension Operator (Operadora de Pensiones) that belongs to a state bank and is constituted as a corporation (sociedad anónima). In application of the constitutional precedents and the effect that article 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) provides for them, it must be concluded, first, that the plaintiff herein did not have a statutory relationship with the corporation (sociedad anónima) for which he held the position of Chief of Accounting (Jefe de Contabilidad). Therefore, the regime that bound him to the Operator is the ordinary one. This being the case, in the opinion of the majority of this Chamber, the previously referenced article 71 is not applicable to set the statute of limitations period (plazo de prescripción) for the procedures afforded by the defendant against the plaintiff. In that sense, this Chamber already ruled in its vote no. 220-F-TC-2021 at nine hours forty minutes on October 28, 2021. On that occasion, analyzing a case of enormous proximity to the one raised on this occasion, filed by one of the other persons investigated for these same facts, it was determined that the actions taken by the Operator -against the responsible persons- sought to establish patrimonial liability (responsabilidad patrimonial) -not disciplinary- so that, in light of the common regime -not statutory- that bound them to the Operator, the afforded "administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo)" was unnecessary, and therefore, instead of resorting to it, the collection should have been filed in a judicial venue. Likewise, due to what is prescribed in subsection 2 of article 3 of the LGAP, in the sense that private law shall regulate the activity, in this case of BN Vital, due to its overall regime and the requirements of its line of business, it is a common mercantile company. Furthermore, in the present matter, it is pertinent to note that in article three of the referenced session no. 306, held on April 7, 2014, the Board of Directors of BN Vital, in what is of interest, agreed: *“BY NOMINAL AND UNANIMOUS VOTE, IT WAS FIRMLY AGREED: 1) in accordance with the Statement of Facts Report BNVI-AI-RH-01-2009 regarding the accounting record of the account INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE (IMPUESTO DE LA RENTA POR COBRAR) and its auxiliary record, as well as the recommendations indicated in the legal opinions of the Legal Directorate (Dirección Jurídica) of the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica D.J./1950-2010 of October 12, 2010, and D.J./442-2014 of February 28, 2014, to constitute a directing body of the administrative procedure (órgano director del procedimiento administrativo), in order to initiate the due administrative process against the former officials ERNESTO HIP UREÑA, EIDA OCAMPO ROJAS, and MAX AVENDAÑO CHAVERRI, for the **determination of the eventual civil liabilities (responsabilidades civiles) for the accounting correction of the account INCOME TAX RECEIVABLE** and its auxiliary record, in order to collect the damages (daños) allegedly caused to the Operator. 2) Appoint as members of the Directing Body (Órgano Director) the gentlemen […] The directing body shall be in charge of issuing the act of notification and imputation of the agreed procedure; of all the investigation of the same, and of issuing a recommendation to this Board of Directors regarding the facts it may manage to have as proven. 3) […]”*. (The emphasis is from the original). For its part, through a resolution at 9 hours 30 minutes on September 1, 2014, supplemented by a resolution at 9 hours 30 minutes on the 8th day of the same month and year, the directing body of the procedure (órgano director del procedimiento) recommended: *“[…] **carry out the corresponding administrative and judicial collection measures**, against Messrs. Ernesto Hip Ureña, Eida Ocampo Rojas, and Max Avendaño Chaverri, so that BN Vital can recover the sums paid by the Operator for the concept of economic damage (daño económico) generated in the irregular handling of the Income Tax account, economic injury (perjuicio económico) that, in accordance with a certification dated July twenty-eighth, two thousand fourteen, issued by the General Manager of BN Vital Operator of Complementary Pension Plans, amounts to the sum of ₡4,300,479,264 (four billion three hundred million four hundred seventy-nine thousand two hundred sixty-four colones), which must be borne by those responsible jointly and severally (de forma solidaria).”* (The emphasis is from the original). The Board of Directors of BN Vital, in article three of session no. 317, held on the 9th day of that month and year, adopted the following agreement: *“… BY NOMINAL AND UNANIMOUS VOTE, IT WAS FIRMLY AGREED: 1) to accept the final resolution of the Directing Body of the Administrative Procedure (Órgano Director del Procedimiento Administrativo), created to analyze the eventual liabilities (responsabilidades) of several former officials of BN Vital for the alleged irregularities in the accounting record of the account Income tax receivable (Impuesto de la renta por cobrar) and its auxiliary record, which was expanded by the document dated September 8, 2014, signed by Messrs. […], in their capacity as members of said body.”* (The emphasis is from the original). In accordance with the above, the procedure followed against the plaintiff was aimed at determining its eventual civil liability (responsabilidad civil), not disciplinary or sanctioning. What was sought was the compensation of the sums paid by the OPC for the concept of economic damage (daño económico) generated by the irregular handling of the account named *“Income Tax Receivable”*, due to not having an accounting auxiliary. Furthermore, the appellant himself, throughout the appeal, accepts that a civil liability (responsabilidad civil) process was followed against the plaintiff, as can be easily inferred from what is noted in Considerando III of this resolution. However, the support with which he supports his thesis of the need to verify a preliminary investigation to determine the amount of the damage (daño) (vote no. 295-2005 of Section IV of the Labor Tribunal and Opinion of the PGR no. 388-2007) refers to disciplinary processes, a nature that the one followed against the plaintiff does not have, which is, it is insisted, for civil liability (responsabilidad civil). For this reason, the indicated article 71 of the LOCGR, which regulates the statute of limitations for disciplinary liability (prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria), is not applicable to this dispute.

**V.** Following this line of thought, as indicated in section IV of this resolution, the administrative procedure (procedimiento administrativo) followed against the plaintiff was aimed at determining its eventual civil liability (responsabilidad civil), not disciplinary or sanctioning.

What was sought was to determine the plaintiff's civil liability and, as a consequence thereof, the compensation of the sums paid by the OPC for economic damage generated by the irregular management of the account called "Income Tax Receivable," due to its lack of an accounting auxiliary ledger. This was acknowledged by the appellant himself throughout the appeal. Therefore, considering the legal nature of BN Vital and the employment relationship between it and its workers (they do not hold the status of public officials, but rather that of private workers, as indicated by the Constitutional Chamber and the First Chamber), the administrative procedure followed against the plaintiff, characteristic of Public Law, was not only unnecessary but also improper for determining or establishing her civil liability. Mr. Max Alberto Avendaño Chaverri, it is reiterated, was not a public official, but rather an employee or worker of the Operator. That is why BN Vital, once it became aware of the irregular situation or event occurring in the indicated account, should have directly resorted to the judicial venue to determine her civil liability and, as a consequence thereof, to set the amount of the damage inflicted or defer that aspect to the sentence execution stage. Consequently, the applicable regulations for this litis are not those of Public Law (LGAP or LOCGR), as the parties alleged and the Tribunal applied, but rather those of common law, in accordance with the commercial line of business of the OPC. Therefore, the prescriptive period applicable to this litis is the four-year period provided for in article 984 of the Code of Commerce; but, it is repeated, not for the OPC to initiate any internal procedure, but rather for it to file the corresponding process in the judicial venue. In this sense, this Chamber agrees with what was stated in the appealed judgment, regarding that BN Vital's Board of Directors had full knowledge that an irregularity was occurring in the aforementioned account since its extraordinary session no. 181 held on 19 de febrero de 2008, when it acknowledged the Management Letter issued by the external auditing firm Despacho Lara Eduarte Sc (proven fact preceded by no. 5, not challenged by the appellant). Consequently, it is from that moment that the four-year period for BN Vital to file the respective judicial process for civil liability began to run, which it failed to do. Ergo, pursuant to the aforementioned canon 984 of the Commercial Code, both the right and the corresponding action to claim any civil liability from the plaintiff prescribed. In this way, the alleged direct violation is inconceivable; that is, the same conclusion as the lower court body would be reached regarding the plaintiff's claim for invalidity—due to its unnecessary nature and, consequently, the invalidity of that procedure. In effect, for these reasons—and not for those indicated by the Tribunal—the Operator's reproach regarding the moment from which the prescriptive period for the possibility of collecting in the administrative venue begins to run must be denied, insofar as that procedure was concluded as unnecessary; hence, the nullity ordered in the lower court, for the reasons stated, remains intact.

VI.This being the case, it will proceed to declare the appeal without merit, and to impose the costs generated by its exercise on the appellant in accordance with precept 150, subsection 3) of the CPCA.

VII.Dissenting vote of Magistrate Rojas Morales. I depart from the majority opinion and believe the appeal should be rejected, but for the following reasons: The Political Constitution establishes a specific administrative organization that permeates the entire legal system. The fundamental administrative structure is composed of the Branches of Government, the decentralized entities, within which it places territorial ones such as municipalities; the autonomous institutions—which require a qualified majority in the Legislative Assembly for their creation and are provided for in canon 188 of the Supreme Charter—. The State Banks, within the cited constitutional scheme, are public enterprises created under the modality of autonomous institutions—article 189— and, it goes without saying, they have a public regime regarding the administration, organization, and functioning of their essential structure; therefore, their various deconcentrated bodies will have the organizational base indicated by the Political Constitution—autonomous institution, public law enterprise—. The state-owned corporations (sociedades anónimas) of the State do not form part of that public enterprise structure regulated by the fundamental order; however, for the purposes of resolving this matter, and without entering into an analysis of their possible unconstitutionality, we must start from the premise that law no. 4123 indicates that pension operators are state-owned corporations (sociedades anónimas) of the State, which—interpreted in light of the fundamental order—cannot denature their essentially public structure, as this would imply emptying the essential administrative structure that governs us of its content. With full clarity, numeral 188 provides, in relation to autonomous institutions, and within them the State banks, that "Their directors are responsible for their management". Consider, furthermore, that article 55 of the Securities Market Law authorizes Public Banks to establish corporations, which supposes changing the administrative scheme of a deconcentrated body regulated by Public Law—LGAP—for a figure typical of private law; nevertheless, in accordance with the norms, values, and principles of the Fundamental Charter, the legislative regulation cannot be interpreted as an abandonment of Public Law for the essential structure of the state-owned corporations (sociedades anónimas). It is precisely for this reason that, in matters of acquiring securities—public assets—, the provisions of the Administrative Contracting Law apply—third paragraph of article 55 of the cited law. For its part, regulation N. 27503-H regulates the scope of commercial law by providing in canon 2, last paragraph, "…these corporations shall be governed by the Code of Commerce with respect to asset autonomy and functions and absorptions among them…". Numeral 4 ibídem indicates that "the Board of Directors of the Bank or public entity—autonomous institution—, shall be the supreme body of the corporation and as such shall have the powers that the Code of Commerce provides for the shareholders' assembly (…)”.

Paragraph 6 provides, in relevant part, *“the corporations shall have a manager, appointed by the Board of Directors of each corporation, with the powers defined by said Board.”* The content of Article 7 of the regulatory body under review is of the utmost importance, as it states *“the internal audit office of the public bank or entity—understood as a decentralized entity—holding the share capital of each corporation shall oversee the work of the established corporations and shall have the powers conferred upon it by the Organic Law of the Contraloría General de la República (…).”* In full accordance with the public regime governing its essential structure, paragraph 8 indicates that the procurement of goods and services shall be governed by the provisions of the Law and the Regulation on Public Procurement (Ley y el Reglamento de Contratación Administrativa). Regarding employment and salary policy, paragraph 9 reads *“in employment matters, they shall be subject to the provisions of the Board of Directors of the Bank or Public Entity holding the share capital.”* Just as with the parent entity, as provided in Article 10 ibidem, the corporations must submit their budgets for approval by the Contraloría General de la República in accordance with the provisions of that entity’s Organic Law. Finally, paragraph 11 establishes the corporations’ subjection to the principle of legality and to the regulations governing the activity of the Bank or public entity holding the share capital.

There is no doubt, then, that the corporations (sociedades anónimas), formed by public banks, are new forms of administrative deconcentrations of those banks, which operate in their ordinary activity—the attraction of pension funds and their administration—under a private law scheme, but in their essential administrative and managerial structure, under Public Law. In full consonance with the preceding statement, Article 111 of the LGAP only excludes from consideration as a public official the employee of a corporation who does not participate in the essential public or administrative management of the corporation; that is, those who participate in the essential administration and organization must be considered public officials by provision of law, as is the case with the plaintiff in the case under review. As indicated, only those performing the functions specific to the ordinary commercial activity that led to its creation shall have the status of private employees, a condition not applicable to the plaintiff. It should be borne in mind that the LGAP establishes, with complete clarity, that the legal or regulatory provisions of Public Law necessary to guarantee administrative legality and propriety (legalidad y moralidad administrativa) shall be applied to public enterprises—in all their fields, including labor—regarding their collaborators. In the case under review, the function performed by the plaintiff is undoubtedly governed by the rules, principles, and values of Public Law. The Internal Control Law (Ley de Control Interno) clearly states in its Article 4 that *“private law subjects who, by any title, are custodians or administrators of public funds, must apply in their management the principles and technical standards of internal control issued for that purpose by the Contraloría General de la República (…) apart from the other sanctions that the legal system may establish, private law subjects who, by any title, have custody of or administer public funds or receive patrimonial benefits from state entities or bodies, may be sanctioned, as provided in Article 7 of the Organic Law of the Contraloría ….”* &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; II.- Regarding the statute of limitations (prescripción) for civil liability, I believe the appellant is correct. According to the factual matrix of the case file, there was improper handling of the funds account called *“sales tax receivable and its auxiliary record,”* detected by three technical studies. These findings led to a special inspection visit by the Superintendencia de Pensiones -SUPEN-, which issued its final report on January 7, 2010, and from the time the operator—and therefore its beneficiaries and owners—became aware of it, they had to implement an action plan to assume the financial cost that was determined in the so-called *“Report: Costs of the Income Tax Project.”* That report was made known to the competent body, which decided to initiate the civil collection procedure in order to recover the amounts detailed in the report. The actions taken by the defendants are in conformity with a detailed technical report that specifically establishes the scope of the damage caused and that had to be recovered in accordance with paragraph 71.b of the Organic Law of the Contraloría General de la República. It is impossible to conceive of a statement of charges that does not specify the amount sought to be recovered, and this occurs, as the appellant correctly points out, from the moment the damage inflicted on BN Vital was administratively quantified. Consequently, the action brought by the defendant has not prescribed, so the defense raised must be upheld and, consequently, its filing must be granted.

**POR TANTO** By majority vote, the appeal (recurso de casación) filed is dismissed, with costs to be borne by the appellant. Judge Rojas Morales dissents.

GDALEY

Documento PJEDITOR  Res. 000135-F-TC-2022 TRIBUNAL DE CASACIÓN DE LO CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO Y CIVIL DE HACIENDA. San José, a las nueve horas cincuenta minutos del veintinueve de junio de dos mil veintidós.

Proceso de conocimiento establecido por MAX ALBERTO AVENDAÑO CHAVERRI, representado por su apoderado especial judicial Luis Casafont Terán, contra BN VITAL OPERADORA DE PLANES DE PENSIONES COMPLEMENTARIAS S.A., representada por su apoderado especial judicial Hilel Zomer Befeler.

Redacta la magistrada Jiménez Ramírez

CONSIDERANDO

I.Se ha tenido por demostrado en este proceso, que en la sesión de la Junta Directiva de BN Vital Operadora de Planes de Pensiones Complementarias S.A. (en lo sucesivo la Operadora), del 13 de agosto de 2009, acta 214, ese órgano ordenó en su artículo catorce, el inicio de un procedimiento administrativo e instauración de un órgano director contra los funcionarios de dicha Operadora: Ernesto Hip Ureña (Gerente General), Eida Ocampo Rojas (Gerente Financiero) y Max Avendaño Chaverri (Jefe de Contabilidad), por hechos relacionados a la cuenta de activo 14102 de los fondos administrados denominada "Impuesto sobre la Renta por cobrar". La finalidad de ese procedimiento, era verificar la verdad real de la Relación de Hechos BNVI-AI-RH-01-2009 y el informe de auditoría externa del Grupo Camacho de 17 de junio de 2009. Actuación notificada a los interesados en el mes de mayo de 2010 por parte del Órgano Director (resolución de avocamiento de las 10 horas 40 minutos del 6 de mayo de 2010). Los investigados Hip Ureña y Ocampo Rojas, plantearon recursos contra el auto de inicio, los cuales fueron rechazados por ese Órgano Director y elevado el asunto a la Junta Directiva para resolver las apelaciones. Los directivos solicitaron al Departamento Legal del Banco Nacional, criterio sobre el punto, el cual fue brindado a través del oficio DJ/1950-2010 del 14 de octubre de 2010, donde indicaron que de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los numerales 203 y 204 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública (LGAP), era ilógico “…iniciar un procedimiento administrativo para asignar una responsabilidad civil que no ha sido determinada, por el simple hecho de que ella podría no existir, situación que da al traste con toda la argumentación del Auto de Avocamiento de los procesos iniciados y necesariamente causa nulidad...". Recomendaron a la Junta Directiva, declarar la nulidad absoluta del auto de avocamiento de los procedimientos y que la Administración determinara el daño causado de previo a iniciar un procedimiento para resarcirse. Advirtieron a la Junta Directiva que de acoger la recomendación brindada, se debía instar a la Administración a desarrollar los procesos de determinación del daño dentro de los plazos de prescripción que fija la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República en su artículo 71, que es de cinco años desde la puesta en conocimiento del jerarca del informe de auditoría en el que se detallan las conductas investigadas. Sin embargo, la Junta Directiva de la Operadora, no resolvió los recursos de apelación planteados en los plazos indicados en la LGAP, ya que los pospuso según acuerdos de las sesiones de Junta Directiva 241 de 22 de noviembre de 2010 y 266 de 26 de marzo de 2012. Es hasta la sesión 304 del 12 de marzo de 2014, cuando toman en cuenta el dictamen legal del año 2010, además del no. DJ/442-2014 de 28 de febrero de 2014, y declararon con lugar las apelaciones, anulando la resolución de avocamiento del 6 de mayo de 2010 y, además, declararon de oficio la caducidad por efecto de la parálisis del procedimiento (es decir, la Administración aceptó y declaró la caducidad aplicando el numeral 340 de la LGAP, por inactividad achacable a la Administración por más de seis meses). Luego, en la sesión no. 306 del 7 de abril de 2014, tomando en cuenta aquellos dictámenes legales (1950-2010 y 442-2014), así como el Informe de Hechos 01-2009, la Junta Directiva ordenó el inicio de un nuevo procedimiento administrativo conforme a lo dispuesto en el numeral 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, conformando órgano director, indicándose en esa nueva oportunidad que se conoció del monto del daño hasta con el Oficio BN Vital-GG-124 de 12 de marzo de 2014. De esa forma, fue en esa fecha, cuando se dio inicio al procedimiento administrativo ODBNVITAL-01-2014, el cual culminó con el acuerdo de la Junta Directiva de la Operadora adoptado en sesión 317 del 9 de setiembre de 2014. En esa sesión, acogieron la recomendación del Órgano Director del procedimiento, que era resolución de las 9 horas 30 minutos del 1 de setiembre de 2014, la cual sugirió realizar las diligencias de cobro administrativas y judiciales correspondientes, a los señores Hip Ureña, Ocampo Rojas y Avendaño Chaverri; a efectos de que BN Vital pueda resarcirse de las sumas canceladas por la Operadora por concepto de daño económico generado en el manejo irregular de la cuenta de impuesto sobre la renta, el cual, de conformidad con la certificación de fecha 28 de julio de 2014, emitida por el Gerente General de la Operadora, asciende a la suma de ¢4.300.479.264 debiendo ser sufragada por los responsables de forma solidaria.

II.Por tales razones, en este proceso, el señor Avendaño Chaverri demandó a la Operadora, para que en sentencia se declare lo siguiente: a) Se anulen por ser contrarios al ordenamiento jurídico, el artículo tercero de la sesión de la Junta Directiva de la Operadora, no. 317 del 9 de setiembre de 2014, y el artículo quinto de la sesión de Junta Directiva de la Operadora 331 del 14 de abril de 2015 (Corregido en AP del 10-8-16), este último, como acto confirmatorio que resuelve el recurso de reposición interpuesto en contra del primero. Ambos dictados como parte del procedimiento administrativo sancionatorio, y que acogieron, respectivamente, la recomendación del Órgano Director de las 9 horas 30 minutos del 1° de setiembre de 2014, ampliada por resolución de las 9 horas 30 minutos del 8 de setiembre de 2014; así como el dictamen D.J./661-2015 del 23 de marzo de 2015 de la Dirección Jurídica del Banco Nacional. b) Consecuencia de tal nulidad, se declare la inexistencia de la obligación de la actora de pagar la suma de ¢4.300.479.264 a la sociedad demandada. c) Por ser de interés público, se ordene la instauración de un procedimiento administrativo que investigue si es posible sentar algún tipo de responsabilidad en contra de quienes hayan ordenado y ejecutado el pago de parte de la Operadora demandada de ¢3.634.465.255,43. d) Se condene a la entidad demandada al pago de las costas personales y procesales de este proceso. En su demanda, así como en el juicio oral y público, la parte actora adujo la prescripción sobre la potestad para iniciar el procedimiento administrativo en aplicación del artículo 198 de la LGAP. La demandada contestó negativamente y opuso la defensa de falta de derecho. El Tribunal rechazó la excepción de falta de derecho y en consecuencia declaró con lugar la demanda. Por la forma como resolvió, acogió la demanda únicamente en cuanto a la prescripción del derecho de la administración de iniciar procedimiento administrativo en contra del actor, por lo que no entró a conocer de los otros extremos alegados por las partes. Condenó al pago de ambas costas a la parte demandada, las cuales se liquidarían en la fase de ejecución de sentencia. Inconforme, la Operadora interpone recurso de casación.

III.MOTIVOS DEL RECURSO. Único. Alega violación directa. En primer término, realiza un amplio recuento de la responsabilidad que se le achaca al actor. Recuerda, todos los hallazgos de las irregularidades en la gestión de la "cuenta de impuesto sobre la renta por cobrar y su registro auxiliar" fueron realizados en una primera instancia tanto por el Auditor Externo, por la Auditoría Corporativa del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, así como la empresa especializada de contabilidad y auditoría contratada para el estudio del manejo de dicha cuenta y su registro auxiliar (Grupo Camacho). Adicionalmente, dichos hallazgos produjeron una Visita e Inspección Especial de la Superintendencia de Pensiones - visita realizada del 23 de setiembre al 9 de octubre del 2009 - que originó el Informe SP-025 del 7 de enero del 2010 el cual transcribe. Afirma, aunque existieron hallazgos precisos sobre irregularidades en el manejo de la cuenta "Impuesto sobre la Renta por Cobrar y su registro auxiliar", lo que existió a partir de ese momento, fue una orden de seguimiento de tales hallazgos y el mandato de proceder a la implementación de un plan de acción para que la Operadora asumiera la responsabilidad - entiéndase el costo financiero-. A su entender, es en el informe Costos del Proyecto de Impuesto sobre la Renta, y anexos, el que dio origen al proceso administrativo de responsabilidad civil. Dice, contrario a lo indicado por los Jueces, cualquier acto, oficio, gestión, u acción previos a dicho informe carecen de relevancia, pues son todos actos o hechos previos a que se descubriera la realidad o la verdad real de lo que sucedía en la empresa - como lo fue la asunción de un perjuicio económico frente a sus afiliados, que se determinó en la suma de ¢4.300.479.264,00-. Insiste, carece de relevancia cualquier hecho previo a que se descubriera la realidad o la verdad real de lo que sucedía en la empresa; pues no es hasta que existe el “informe Costos del Proyecto de Impuesto sobre la Renta, y anexos” (folios 1145 a 1280 del expediente administrativo) que la Operadora tuvo un conocimiento pleno y exacto del perjuicio ocasionado por sus exadministradores. Recuerda, fue en virtud de los hallazgos relacionados con el manejo y registro de la "cuenta de impuesto sobre la renta por cobrar y su registro auxiliar" por parte de los máximos responsables de la administración de la Operadora, mediante el acta de la sesión 214 del 13 de agosto de 2009, cuando se acordó abrir y sustanciar un proceso administrativo ordinario contra los señores Max Alberto Avendaño Chaverri (Contador General), Eida Ocampo Rojas (Gerente Financiera) y Ernesto Hip Ureña (Gerente General). Sin embargo, reconoce, dicho procedimiento administrativo no pudo ser llevado a cabo, pues en virtud de los recursos ordinarios de revocatoria y apelación en subsidio interpuestos por los investigados Ocampo Rojas y Hip Ureña, se ordenó el archivo del asunto (oficio D.J./1950-2010 visible a folios 1128 a 1131 del expediente administrativo); pues en ese momento, se determinó que no podía seguirse con el procedimiento administrativo ordinario de responsabilidad civil hasta que el daño material producido a los fondos administrados y que debía cubrir la Operadora fuera debidamente cuantificado. Sostiene, el procedimiento administrativo ordinario de responsabilidad civil se inició verdaderamente cuando la administración tuvo conocimiento del daño causado, según consta en el acuerdo del artículo tercero de la sesión número 306 celebrada el 07 de abril de 2014 de la Junta Directiva de BN Vital. En otras palabras, repite, el punto de arranque correcto se constituye en el "Informe: Costos de Proyecto de Impuesto sobre la Renta", según se observa en la Certificación del artículo tercero de la sesión 306, celebrada el 07 de abril de 2014, de la Junta Directiva de la Operadora (folios 1114 a 1115 del expediente administrativo). Lo anterior, aduce, según el ordinal 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República y/o el artículo 198 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Así las cosas, reclama que la demanda haya sido declarada con lugar al estimar el Tribunal que el derecho de la Operadora para accionar en contra del actor por los hechos que se le imputaron había prescrito. A su entender, la sentencia hace un análisis incorrecto del cómputo de la prescripción lesionando el ordinal 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República.

IV.Para el casacionista, resultaba ineludible, acorde al inciso b) del precepto 71 de la LOCGR, determinar el monto del supuesto daño infligido a la OPC; de lo contrario, no podía iniciar el procedimiento administrativo de responsabilidad civil y, por ende, tampoco el plazo prescriptivo. En primer término, es necesario aclarar que para la mayoría de este Tribunal de Casación, en este asunto, no resulta aplicable el plazo de prescripción establecido en el ordinal 71 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República, Ley 7428, el cual establece lo siguiente: “Artículo 71.-Prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria” ni el 198 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. Ello, a la luz de lo indicado por las Salas Constitucional y Primera, que las Operadoras de Pensiones creadas al amparo del artículo 30 de la Ley de Protección al Trabajador, independientemente que sea de capital público o privado, por el sólo hecho de estar constituida como sociedad anónima, su naturaleza es de persona jurídica de Derecho Privado, que participa de una actividad económica comercial, por lo que la relación laboral entre ésta y sus trabajadores también está sometida al Derecho Laboral común y no al régimen de servicio público. Pueden consultarse los votos no. 2016010115 de las 9 horas 20 minutos del 15 de julio de 2016. no. 2016004518 de las 14 horas 30 minutos del 5 de abril de 2016, de la Sala Constitucional y 1274-C-S1-2013 de las 12 horas 5 minutos del 26 de setiembre de 2013 de la Sala Primera 383-C-S1-2017 de las 11 horas 35 minutos del 30 de marzo de 2017, en ese sentido ha referido que el artículo 30 de la Ley no. 7983, Ley de Protección al Trabajador “…permite la creación y funcionamiento de dos tipos de operadoras. Por una parte, las constituidas al amparo del derecho privado, con capital privado, lo que implica necesariamente que no existe participación estatal en cuanto al capital que las respalda o que constituye su patrimonio; Operadoras de Pensiones que se crean por parte de los Bancos privados o entidades financieras no estatales; y, por otra parte, aquellas de capital público constituidas al efecto como sociedades anónimas. En cuanto a éstas últimas nos encontramos, entonces, ante una Sociedad Anónima del Estado. Ahora bien, para entender los alcances de esta figura, debemos examinar su doble constitución; sociedades de este tipo tendrán carácter público, primero por el fin que eventualmente la Ley les encomiende y, segundo, por el capital que las compone. En el caso de operadoras de pensiones cuyo capital es público, aportado por el Estado como socio mayoritario y único, entonces serán sociedades anónimas públicas por el patrimonio que conforma su capital social. Por otra parte, la actividad que realice, la cual no siempre será pública, determinará el fin. En este caso, las Operadoras de Pensiones constituidas como Sociedades Anónimas de capital público, realizan actividades comerciales tales como venta y colocación de planes de pensiones, actividad que le genera ingresos por comisiones por la administración de tales servicios, derivándose de ello un beneficio para la Operadora, beneficio que al fin y al cabo es igual al que obtendrán las Operadoras de derecho privado y capital privado, por lo que el giro o la actividad que desarrollan es meramente comercial y regido por el derecho privado. De igual forma, las relaciones laborales que se generen entre la Sociedad Anónima del Estado y sus empleados o trabajadores, no es una relación de carácter estatutario o especial, como sí lo es la de los funcionarios públicos al estar adscritos al Régimen de Servicio Civil….”. La aquí demandada es una Operadora de Pensiones que pertenece a un banco del Estado y está constituida como sociedad anónima. En aplicación de los precedentes constitucionales y el efecto que para ellos dispone el numeral 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, ha de concluirse, en primer término, que el aquí actor no tenía una relación estatutaria con la sociedad anónima para la cual desempeñaba el puesto de Jefe de Contabilidad. Por ello, el régimen que le vinculaba con la Operadora es el ordinario. Así las cosas, el precepto 71 previamente referido, a juicio de la mayoría de esta Cámara no es aplicable para fijar el plazo de prescripción a los procedimientos dispensados por la demandada contra el actor. En tal sentido ya se pronunció esta Cámara en su voto no. 220-F-TC-2021 de las nueve horas 40 minutos del 28 de octubre de 2021. En esa oportunidad, analizando un caso de enorme proximidad al planteado en esta ocasión, formulado por una de las otras personas investigadas por estos mismos hechos, se determinó que lo actuado por la Operadora -contra las personas responsables- procuraba fijar la responsabilidad patrimonial -no disciplinaria- de modo que, a la luz del régimen común -no estatutario- que les ligaba con la Operadora, el “procedimiento administrativo” dispensado resultaba innecesario, por lo que en vez de acudirse a él, debió plantearse el cobro en sede judicial. Así mismo por lo preceptuado en el inciso 2 del canon 3 de la LGAP, en el sentido que el derecho privado regulará la actividad, en este caso de, BN Vital, por su régimen de conjunto y los requerimientos de su giro, es una empresa mercantil común. Además, en el presente asunto, precisa anotar, en el artículo tercero de la referida sesión no. 306, celebrada el 7 de abril de 2014, la Junta Directiva de BN Vital, en lo de interés, acordó: “POR VOTACIÓN NOMINAL Y UNÁNIME SE ACORDÓ EN FIRME: 1) en concordancia con el informe de Relación de Hechos BNVI-AI-RH-01-2009 relativo al registro contable de la cuenta IMPUESTO DE LA RENTA POR COBRAR y su registro auxiliar, así como las recomendaciones indicadas en los oficios de la Dirección Jurídica del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica D.J./1950-2010 del 12 de octubre del 2010 y D.J./442-2014 del 28 de febrero del 2014, constituir un órgano director del procedimiento administrativo, con el fin de iniciar el debido proceso administrativo a los exfuncionarios ERNESTO HIP UREÑA, EIDA OCAMPO ROJAS y MAX AVENDAÑO CHAVERRI, para la determinación de las eventuales responsabilidades civiles por la corrección contable de la cuenta IMPUESTO DE LA RENTA POR COBRAR y su registro auxiliar, con el fin de cobrar los daños supuestamente ocasionados a la Operadora. 2) Nombrar como miembros del Órgano Director a los señores […] El órgano director será el encargado de la emisión del acto de intimación e imputación del procedimiento acordado; de toda la instrucción del mismo y de emitir una recomendación a esta Junta Directiva respecto de los hechos que logre tener por demostrados. 3) […]”. (Lo resaltado es del original). Por su parte, mediante resolución de las 9 horas 30 minutos del 1 de setiembre de 2014, adicionada por resolución de las 9 horas 30 minutos del día 8 del mismo mes y año, el órgano director del procedimiento recomendó: “[…] realizar las diligencias de cobro administrativos y judiciales correspondientes, a los señores Ernesto Hip Ureña, Eida Ocampo Rojas y Max Avendaño Chaverri a efecto de que BN Vital pueda resarcirse de las sumas canceladas por la Operadora por concepto de daño económico generado en el manejo irregular de la cuenta de Impuesto sobre la Renta, perjuicio económico que de conformidad con certificación de fecha veintiocho de julio de dos mil catorce, emitida por el Gerente General de BN Vital Operadora de Planes de Pensiones Complementarias, asciende a la suma de ₡4.300.479.264 (cuatro mil trescientos millones cuatrocientos setenta y nueve mil doscientos sesenta y cuatro colones), la cual deberá ser sufragada por los responsables de forma solidaria.” (Lo resaltado es del original). La Junta Directiva de BN Vital, en el artículo tercero de la sesión no. 317, celebrada el día 9 de ese mes y año, tomó el siguiente acuerdo: “… POR VOTACIÓN NOMINAL Y UNÁNIME SE ACORDO EN FIRME: 1) acoger la resolución final del Órgano Director del Procedimiento Administrativo, creado para analizar las eventuales responsabilidades de varios exfuncionarios de BN Vital por las supuestas irregularidades en el registro contable de la cuenta Impuesto de la renta por cobrar y su registro auxiliar, la cual fue ampliada mediante el documento de fecha 8 de setiembre del 2014, suscrito por los señores […], en calidad de miembros de dicho órgano.” (Lo resaltado es del original). Acorde a lo anterior, el procedimiento seguido en contra de la parte actora tuvo por objeto determinar su eventual responsabilidad civil, no disciplinaria o sancionatoria. Lo buscado fue el resarcimiento de las sumas canceladas por la OPC por concepto de daño económico generado por el manejo irregular de la cuenta denominada “Impuesto de Renta por cobrar”, al no contar con un auxiliar contable. Además, el propio casacionista, a lo largo del recurso, acepta que a la parte demandante se le siguió un proceso de responsabilidad civil, según se colige con facilidad de lo anotado en el considerando III de esta resolución. No obstante, el sustento con el cual ampara su tesis de la necesidad de verificar una investigación previa para determinar el monto del daño (voto no. 295-2005 de la Sección IV del Tribunal de Trabajo y Dictamen de la PGR no. 388-2007) se refiere a procesos disciplinarios, naturaleza que no reviste el seguido en contra de la parte actora, el cual es, se insiste, de responsabilidad civil. Por esta razón, el indicado precepto 71 de la LOCGR, el cual regula la prescripción de la responsabilidad disciplinaria, no es aplicable a esta lite.

V.Siguiendo esta línea de pensamiento, como se indicó en el apartado IV de esta resolución, el procedimiento administrativo seguido en contra de la parte actora tuvo por objeto determinar su eventual responsabilidad civil, no disciplinaria o sancionatoria. Lo buscado fue determinar la responsabilidad civil de la actora y, como consecuencia de ello, el resarcimiento de las sumas canceladas por la OPC por concepto de daño económico generado por el manejo irregular de la cuenta denominada “Impuesto de Renta por cobrar”, al no contar con un auxiliar contable. Así fue reconocido por el propio casacionista a lo largo del recurso. Por ello, atendiendo a la naturaleza jurídica de BN Vital y a la relación laboral entre ella y sus trabajadores (no ostentan la condición de funcionarios públicos, sino de trabajadores privados, según lo señalado por las Salas Constitucional y Primera), el procedimiento administrativo seguido en contra de la actora, propio del Derecho Público, resultaba no solo innecesario; sino improcedente, a fin de determinar o establecer su responsabilidad civil. El señor Max Alberto Avendaño Chaverri, se insiste, no era funcionario público; sino parte empleada o trabajadora de la Operadora. Es por ello que BN Vital, una vez que tuvo conocimiento de la situación o hecho irregular acaecido en la indicada cuenta, debió acudir directamente a la sede judicial a fin de determinarse su responsabilidad civil y, como consecuencia de eso, se fijara el monto del daño infligido o se difiriera ese aspecto para la etapa de ejecución de sentencia. Consecuentemente, la normativa aplicable a esta lite no es la del Derecho Público (LGAP o LOCGR), según lo alegaron las partes y aplicó el Tribunal; sino la del derecho común, acorde al giro comercial de la OPC. Por ello, el plazo prescriptivo aplicable a esta lite es el de cuatro años previsto en el artículo 984 del Código de Comercio; pero, se repite, no para que la OPC iniciara ningún procedimiento interno; sino para que formulara el correspondiente proceso en sede judicial. En este sentido, esta Cámara concuerda con lo expuesto en la sentencia impugnada, respecto a que la Junta Directiva de BN Vital tuvo pleno conocimiento de que se estaba presentando una irregularidad en la susodicha cuenta desde su sesión extraordinaria no. 181 celebrada el 19 de febrero de 2008, cuando conoció la Carta de Gerencia emitida por la firma auditora externa Despacho Lara Eduarte Sc (hecho probado antecedido con el no. 5, no cuestionado por el casacionista). Por consiguiente, es a partir de ese momento cuando empezó a correr el plazo cuatrienal para que a BN Vital interpusiera el respectivo proceso judicial por responsabilidad civil, lo cual no hizo. Ergo, a tenor de lo dispuesto en el susodicho canon 984 del Código Mercantil, le prescribió tanto el derecho como la correspondiente acción para reclamarle responsabilidad civil alguna a la parte actora. De esta forma, no se concibe la violación directa apuntada, es decir, se llegaría a la misma conclusión que el órgano de la instancia previa respecto a la pretensión de invalidez -del actor- por su carácter innecesario y, en consecuencia, inválido de ese trámite. En efecto, por estas razones -y no por las señaladas por el Tribunal- el reproche de la Operadora en torno al momento a partir del cual corre el plazo de prescripción de la posibilidad de cobrar en sede administrativa, debe denegarse, en tanto ese trámite se concluyó como innecesario, de ahí que la nulidad dispuesta en la sede previa, por los motivos señalados, se mantiene incólume.

VI.Así las cosas, procederá declarar sin lugar el recurso, e imponer las costas generadas con su ejercicio a la parte recurrente conforme al precepto 150 inciso 3) del CPCA.

VII.Voto salvado de la magistrada Rojas Morales. Me aparto del criterio de mayoría y estimo el recurso debe ser rechazado, pero por las siguientes razones: La Constitución Política establece una determinada organización administrativa que permea todo el ordenamiento jurídico. La estructura administrativa fundamental, está conformada por los Poderes del Estado, los entes descentralizados, dentro de los que ubica los territoriales como las municipalidades; las instituciones autónomas -que requieren para su creación de una mayoría calificada en la Asamblea Legislativa y están previstas en el canon 188 de la Carta Suprema-. Los Bancos del Estado, dentro del citado esquema constitucional, son empresas públicas creadas bajo la modalidad de instituciones autónomas -artículo 189- y, va de suyo, que tienen un régimen público en cuanto a la administración, organización y funcionamiento de su estructura esencial, por ello, sus diversos órganos desconcentrados, tendrá la base organizativa que señala la Constitución Política -institución autónoma, empresa de Derecho Público-. Las sociedades anónimas del Estado, no forman parte de aquella estructura empresarial pública regulada por el orden fundamental, sin embargo, a los efectos de resolver este asunto, y sin entrar al análisis de su posible inconstitucionalidad, debemos partir que la ley n. 4123 señala que las operadoras de pensiones son sociedades anónimas del Estado, lo que -interpretado a la luz del orden fundamental-, no puede desnaturalizar su estructura esencialmente pública, pues ello implicaría vaciar de contenido la estructura administrativa esencial que nos rige. Con Plena claridad el numeral 188 dispone, en relación con las instituciones autónomas, y dentro de ellas los bancos del Estado que “Sus directores responden por su gestión”. Téngase en cuenta, además, el artículo 55 de la Ley del Mercado de Valores autoriza a los Bancos Públicos para constituir sociedades, lo que supone cambiar el esquema administrativo de órgano desconcentrado regulado por el Derecho Público - LGAP -, por una figura típica del derecho privado; no obstante, conforme a las normas, valores y principios de la Carta Fundamental, la regulación legislativa no puede interpretarse como un abondono del Derecho Público, para la estructura esencial de las sociedades anónimas. Es precisamente por este motivo que, en materia de adquisición de títulos -patrimonio público-, aplican las disposiciones de la Ley de Contratación Administrativa -párrafo tercero del artículo 55 de la ley de cita. Por su parte, el reglamento N. 27503-H regula el alcance del derecho mercantil al disponer en el canon 2 párrafo último “…estas sociedades se regirán por el Código de Comercio en lo referente a la autonomía patrimonial y funciones y absorciones entre ellas…”. El numeral 4 íbidem señala que la “la Junta Directiva del Banco o ente público -institución autónoma-, será el órgano supremo de la sociedad y como tal tendrá las atribuciones que el Código de Comercio dispone para la asamblea de accionistas (…)” . El numeral 6 dispone, en lo de interés, “las sociedades tendrán un gerente, nombrado por la Junta Directiva de cada sociedad, con las potestades que ésta defina.” De suma trascendencia resulta el contenido del artículo 7 del cuerpo normativo bajo estudio, en tanto señala “la auditoria del banco o entidad pública -entiéndase ente descentralizado- titular del capital social de cada sociedad fiscalizará la labor de las sociedades establecidas y tendrá las atribuciones que le confiere la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República (…)”. En plena armonía con el régimen público que rige su estructura esencial, el numeral 8 señala que la contratación de bienes y servicios se regirá por lo dispuesto en la Ley y el Reglamento de Contratación Administrativa. Sobre la política de empleo y salarios reza el numeal 9 “en materia de empleo, se sujetarán a lo que disponga la Junta Directiva del Baco o ente Público, titular del capital social “. Al igual que sucede con el ente mayor, conforme lo dispone el artículo 10 ibidem, las sociedades deberán someter sus presupuestos a la aprobación de la Contraloría General de la República de conformidad con lo establecido en la Ley Orgánica de esta última. Finalmente, el numeral 11 establece la sujeción de las sociedades al principio de legalidad y a la normativa que regula la actividad del Banco o entidad pública, titular del capital social. No cabe duda entonces que las sociedades anónimas, conformadas por los bancos públicos, son nuevas formas de desconcentraciones administrativas de aquellas, que operan en su actividad ordinaria -captación de fondos para pensión y su administración- bajo el esquema del derecho privado, pero en su estructura administrativa esencial y gerencial por el Derecho Público. En plena consonancia con la afirmación anterior, el artículo 111 de la LGAP, solo excluye de la consideración de funcionario público al trabajador de la empresa sociedad anónima que no participa de la gestión pública o administrativa esencial de la sociedad; es decir, se deben considerar funcionarios públicos por disposición de ley, quienes participan de la administración y organización esencial como es el caso de la parte actora en el caso bajo examen. Conforme lo indicado tendrán la condición de empleados privados únicamente quienes realizan las funciones propias de la actividad ordinaria mercantil que origina su creación, condición no aplicable a la parte demandante. Téngase en cuenta que la LGAP establece, con toda claridad, que a las empresas públicas -en todos sus campos, incluyendo el laboral- se aplicarán a sus colaboradores las disposiciones legales o reglamentarias de Derecho Público, que resulten necesarias para garantizar la legalidad y moralidad administrativa. En el caso bajo examen, la función realizada por la parte actora está sin duda alguna regida por las normas, principios y valores del Derecho Público. La Ley de Control Interno, de manera diáfana señala en su artículo 4 que “los sujetos de derecho privado que, por cualquier título, sean custodios o administradores de fondos públicos, deberán aplicar en su gestión los principios y las normas técnicas de control interno que a efecto emita la Contraloría General de la República (….)aparte de las otras sanciones que el ordenamiento jurídico pueda establecer, los sujetos de derecho privado que custodien o administren, por cualquier título, fondos públicos o reciban beneficios patrimoniales de entes u órganos estatales, podrán ser sancionados, según lo dispuesto en el artículo 7 de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría …..”

II.- En lo que atañe a la prescripción de la responsabilidad civil, estimo lleva razón el casacionista. De acuerdo al cuadro fáctico del expediente, existía un manejo indebido de la cuenta de fondos denominada “impuesto de ventas por cobrar y su registro auxiliar” , detectado por tres estudios técnicos. Estos hallazgos produjeron la visita de la inspección especial de la Superintendencia de Pensiones -SUPEN-, que brindó su informe final el 7 de enero de 2010 y, a partir del conocimiento del mismo la operadora -y por ende sus beneficiarios y dueños- tenían que implementar un plan de acción para asumir el costo financiero que fue determinado en el denominado “Informe: Costos del Proyecto de Impuesto sobre la Renta”. Ese informe fue puesto en conocimiento del órgano competente y este determinó iniciar el procedimiento civil de cobro a efecto de recuperar los montos que el informe detalló. Lo actuado por los accionados se ajusta a un informe técnico detallado que establece, de manera concreta, el alcance del daño causado y que debía ser recuperado conforme al numeral 71.b de la Ley Orgánica de la Contraloría General de la República. No es posible concebir un traslado de cargos que no concrete el monto que se pretende recuperar y esto ocurre, como bien lo señala el casacionista, a partir del momento en que administrativamente se cuantificó el daño infligido a BN Vital. Consiguientemente, no ha prescrito la acción incoada por el demandado por lo que debe acogerse la defensa interpuesta y, en consecuencia, declarar con lugar su articulación.

POR TANTO

Por mayoría, se declara sin lugar el recurso de casación interpuesto, con las costas a cargo de la parte recurrente. La Magistrada Rojas Morales salva el voto. GDALEY  LUIS GUILLERMO RIVAS LOAICIGA - MAGISTRADO/A  IRIS ROCIO ROJAS MORALES - MAGISTRADO/A  JESSICA JIMÉNEZ RAMÍREZ - MAGISTRADO/A