A BROU employee had requested a loan from COFAC. So far, everything was normal, except that when it came time to justify her income, the employee presented an adulterated receipt of her salary: while the receipt presented to COFAC reflected a net salary of $98,014, the truth is that in reality she received a net salary of $24,048, that is, four times less.
The BROU initiated an administrative investigation followed by the corresponding summary, in which the official confessed to the maneuver. But she claimed that she suffered from an illness – “congenital profound bilateral neurosensory hearing loss” – which required an expensive surgical intervention. This circumstance – according to the official – meant an excessive economic demand for her, which she could not cope with, and which led her to do what she did. The summary was concluded with an administrative act that decided the dismissal of the official.
As is often the case in the world of law, the fate was ultimately sealed by considerations that were more procedural and formal than substantial. The case was taken up by the Administrative Litigation Tribunal (the “TCA”); the TCA noticed the shortcomings of the summary, which failed to provide the official with an opportunity to articulate her defenses as the procedure progressed. This extreme, in the opinion of the TCA, determined a violation of the right to defense, generating the defenselessness of the official.
In short, the TCA accepted the claim and therefore annulled the BROU’s act. Even so, the warning in the title remains valid.
_____________________
This communication is for informational purposes only. It cannot and should not be understood as legal advice from this firm.  Bergstein  has a team of specialists who can be contacted to assist you in this matter. For any questions regarding this material, please contact Proc. Sebastián González ( msgonzale z @ bergsteinlaw.com ) and/or Dr. Leonardo Melos ( lmelos@bergsteinlaw.com
