-57for legal protection [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] filed by the workers admissible on the grounds that: the Municipality has not respected the peremptory time period set forth in Decree-Law 26093, in the sense that the assessments would be carried out every six months, since the assessment carried out in the first semester ended in October and the second one, corresponding to the second semester of 1996, was started in November. 204(23) The Primer Juzgado Corporativo Transitorio Especializado de Derecho Público (First Corporate Provisional Court Specializing in Public Law), in charge of the enforcement of judgments rendered by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on September 23, 1998 and June 23, 1999, by virtue of Orders of November 23, 1998 and October 5, 1999 requested the Municipality of Lima to comply with such judgments.63 204(24) The Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) filed three objections to enforce the judgment rendered on September 23, 1998, which were found to be groundless by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) in the judgments rendered on June 4 and 11, and August 6, 1999.64 Such Chamber based its decision, inter alia, on the grounds that: the Municipality cannot allege the prohibition in the 1998 Budget Law to be excused from complying with a court order 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 the law that would render Res Judicata invalid. in order to restore the situation back to its former state the workers who acted as plaintiffs should be reinstated to their jobs and the failure to comply with this on the grounds of the objection based on reasons of austerity cannot be admitted, since such impossibility would only take place when the aggression becomes irreparable, which has not occurred, for if that had been the case, the claim would have become unsustainable, something that would have been noted by the judges. 204(25) On July 4, 1997 the Municipality of Lima issued Ordinance No. 117 “which regulates the assessment and reinstatement of the staff of the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) and the district Municipalities of the province of Lima,” whose Article 4 provided that “the municipal staff who start an administrative career for any reason or motive, including the reinstatement to their jobs by virtue of a court order and who were not assessed pursuant to Decree-Law No. 26093 in 1996 or whose assessment was set aside, should be assessed, wherefore the authorities will issue the pertinent regulations […].” By Resolution No. 3746 of October 21, 1997 the Bases for the Staff 63 Cf. Orders issued by the Primer Juzgado Corporativo Transitorio Especializado de Derecho Público (First Corporate Provisional Court Specializing in Public Law)Provisional November 23, 1998 and October 5, 1999 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendixes 22 and 23, folios 1344 and 1369). 64 Cf. Judgments rendered by the Provisional Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on June 4 and 11 and on August 6, 1999 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 22, folios 1345 to 1351).