-54- 204(13) On February 6, 1997 the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Chamber Specializing in Public Law) rendered a judgment wherein it found “Mayoral Resolution No. 033-A-96 […] of January 16, 1996 to be non-applicable to the applicants” (supra para. 204(4)). The above Chamber based its decision on the grounds that […] the failure to publish Attachment 01 to the Mayoral Resolution examined, which [..] contained the adopted bases of the Staff Assessment Program is a violation of […] the principle of publicity […;] the respondent has not proven that the workers have otherwise been informed of such bases [… f]rom which it is derived that the right of the applicants to be duly informed of any act which may affect in any way their right to stay in the jobs 50 they have freely chosen should be protected […]. 204(14) On June 13, 1997 the Juzgado Especializado en lo Civil (Court Specializing in Civil Matters) of the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (High Court of Justice of Lima) issued an Order wherein it requested the legal representative of the Municipality of Lima “that the effects of Mayoral Resolution No. 0-33 of January 16, 1996 regarding the members of such Municip[ality] workers union who were affected by the aforementioned municipal order be set aside and that, had such workers been dismissed, they be reinstated to their jobs within three days under the same conditions and in identical situation as they were before the violation which is the subject matter of the claim.”51 The respondent Municipality filed an objection to such request based on the grounds that “the 1997 Public Sector Budget Law forbids, as a rule of public spending abatement, appointments [and …], the creation, modification or reclassification of positions […]”52. In judgment rendered on March 31, 1998 the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) declared groundless the objection filed by the Municipality of Lima on basis that the Municipality cannot allege the prohibitions set forth by the 1997 Budget Law to decline the compliance with a judicial decision having the authority of a final pronouncement […;] it has been recognized by doctrine that the conduct established by the Res Judicata principle prevails on the conduct established by law [; otherwise] legal 53 certainty would simply not exist […]. The above mentioned Chamber ordered “that the respondent reinstate the applicant workers to their jobs in compliance with the judgment.”54 April 9, 1999 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendixes 20 and 21, folios 1272 and 1320). 50 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Chamber Specializing in Public Law on February 6, 1997 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 17, folios 861-868). 51 Cf. Order issued by the Juzgado Especializado en lo Civil (Court Specializing in Civil Matters) of the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (High Court of Justice of Lima) on June 13, 1997 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 17, folio 863). 52 Cf. Judgment rendered by the ProvisionalSala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on March 31, 1998 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 17, folio 868). 53 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Provisional Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on March 31, 1998 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 17, folio 868). 54 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Provisional Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on March 31, 1998 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 17, folio 869).