JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)February 16, 2018

T-043 de 2018

The official text of this ruling is in Spanish and is shown as published by the Colombian authorities.

Reporting justice Gloria Stella Ortiz Delgado

✓Claimant Eduardo Rivero Muñoz·Respondent Inco S.A.S.

✓
Topic · hard data
Accion De Tutela Para Restablecer Acreencias Laborales. Improcedencia,
01

Topics and subtopics of the ruling

✓What the ruling decides and analyzes, as indexed by the Court's case-law reporter's office. Each topic links to every decision that addresses it.

Acción De Tutela Para Reclamar Acreencias Laborales
  • Procedencia excepcional
  • Improcedencia por existir otro medio de defensa judicial y no acreditarse la existencia de un perjuicio irremediable
1 topic · 2 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
Case-law reporter's summary (what was argued and decided, in prose)

Se atribuye a la empresa accionada la vulneración de derechos fundamentales del actor, como consecuencia de la terminación unilateral del contrato de obra después de haber sufrido un accidente laboral.

Luego de evaluar todos los presupuestos establecidos en la jurisprudencia para determinar la procedibilidad de la acción de tutela formulada, concluye la Sala que la misma incumple el requisito de subsidiariedad, por lo que no es posible entrar a estudiarla de fondo.

Se confirma la decisión de instancia que negó el amparo invocado por IMPROCEDENTE.

Case-law reporter's text · normalized for reading (all caps → sentence case)
02

What it decided

This decision records no constitutional review holdings. This is common in tutela rulings and orders, where the decision does not concern a legal provision.
·

Operative part (Resuelve)

✓Verbatim text of the decision, as it appears in the ruling. It complements the structured holdings above.

  1. PRIMERO. CONFIRMAR la decision proferida el 12 de junio de 2017 por el Juzgado 5 Civil Municipal de Ejecucion de Sentencias de Bucaramanga, mediante la cual se resolvio negar el amparo solicitado por improcedente.
  2. SEGUNDO. Por Secretaria General, LIBRESE la comunicacion a que alude el articulo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
Verbatim text · source: operative part of the ruling
03

The bench that decided

We distinguish who appears in the ruling (signature, vote or concurrence) from who probably sat on the Court on that date. The difference is shown by color and shape.

Separate opinions — text available1
DissentJosé Fernando Reyes Cuartas
Official text from the case-law reporter · the most valuable part of the ruling: the positions that did not carry the majority.
04

How it connects

Each decision is a node in the case-law network: it cites some and is cited by others. Follow the threads.

The document’s networkthe most influential links · node size is how often the Court cites it
constitutional review unification tutela

The indexed topics and subtopics of this decision are above, in Topics and subtopics of the ruling.