JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)February 22, 2000

T-149 de 2000

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

Reporting justice José Gregorio Hernández Galindo

✓Claimant Francisco Jose Ruiz Restrepo

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho Al Minimo Vital. Mora En El Pago De Mesadas Pensionales. Acerias Paz Del Rio. Concedida.
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.

Derecho Al Pago Oportuno De La Pension
  • Ingreso fundamental para la subsistencia del trabajador y la familia
Empleador
  • Situación económica o presupuestal no es óbice para desconocer obligaciones laborales
4 topics · 4 subtopics · source: case-law reporter's topic index
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.

See the operative part (3 points)
  1. Primero. REVOCAR el fallo proferido por el Juzgado 11 Laboral del Circuito de Santa Fe de Bogotá, D.C., mediante la cual se negó la protección solicitada por Francisco José Ruiz Restrepo.
  2. Segundo. En su lugar, CONCEDER la protección solicitada y ORDENAR a la empresa "Acerías Paz del Río S.A." que, si todavía no lo ha hecho, en el término de cuarenta y ocho (48) horas, contadas a partir de la notificación del presente fallo, proceda a cancelar las mesadas pensionales que se le adeuden al actor con su correspondientes adiciones, y continuar pagándolas en adelante cumplidamente. Si no lo hiciere, incurrirá en desacato, sancionable como lo previene el artículo 52 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
  3. Tercero. Por Secretaría, LÍBRESE la comunicación prevista en el artículo 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.

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
Cites0
It cites no recorded decisions.

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