JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)March 13, 2003

T-215 de 2003

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

Reporting justice Alvaro Tafur Galvis

✓Claimant Martrha Lucia Morales Garcia Vs. Davivienda

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho De Peticion. Solicitud Relacion Historica De Pagos Y Copia Pagares De Credito Hipotecario. Respuesta Clara Y Oportuna. Servicio Publico De Actividad Bancaria. Autonomia. Tutela Contra Particulares. 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.

Accion De Tutela Contra Entidad Bancaria
  • Procedencia por prestación de servicio público
Derecho De Peticion Ante Entidad Bancaria
  • Respuesta oportuna sobre pagos efectuados y copias de pagarés
2 topics · 2 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. en nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitucion,
  2. R E S U E L V E:
  3. Primero. REVOCAR la sentencia proferida por el Juzgado Cuarenta y Uno Civil Municipal de Bogota del dia 22 de octubre de 2002, y en su lugar CONCEDER la tutela por violacion del derecho de peticion.
  4. Segundo. ORDENAR al Banco Davivienda dar respuesta a la peticion de la senora Martha Lucia Morales Garcia en el termino maximo de cuarenta y ocho (48) horas, contadas a partir de la notificacion de la presente sentencia.
  5. Tercero. LIBRESE por Secretaria, la comunicacion prevista en 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
ConcurrenceAlvaro Tafur Galvis
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.