JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)December 5, 2000

T-1669 de 2000

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

Reporting justice Carlos Gaviria Díaz

✓Claimant Elizabeth Tabares Orozco Vs. Hospital Timothy Britton De San Andres Isla

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho Al Trabajo Y Minimo Vital. Pago De Acreencias Laborales. 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.

Empleador
  • Falta de presupuesto o insolvencia para pago oportuno de salarios no es razón suficiente
3 topics · 3 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 (5 points)
  1. Primero. Revocar las sentencias adoptadas por los Juzgados Promiscuo Municipal y Civil del Circuito de San Andrés Islas en el trámite de este proceso y, en su lugar, tutelar los derechos al trabajo y al sustento mínimo vital de Elizabeth Tabares Orozco.
  2. Segundo. Ordenar al Hospital Timothy Britton de San Andrés Islas que, si aún no lo ha hecho, dentro de las cuarenta y ocho (48) horas siguientes a la notificación de esta providencia, cancele a la señora Tabares Orozco los salararios que le adeude.
  3. Tercero. Prevenir al Hospital Timothy Britton de San Andrés Islas para que se abstenga de incurrir en omisiones como las que originaron la presente tutela, so pena de las sanciones contempladas en el Decreto 2591 de 1991 para el desacato.
  4. Cuarto. Por Secretaría, líbrese la comunicación prevista en el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991.
  5. Comuníquese, notifíquese, cúmplase e
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

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