JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)March 11, 2004

T-233 de 2004

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

Reporting justice Alvaro Tafur Galvis

✓Claimant Armando Bautista Rubiano Y Otro Vs Centro Social De Neiva Y Otro

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho Al Trabajo Minimo Vital. Solicitud Pago Oportuno De Acreencias Laborales. Hecho Superado. Negada.
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
  • Procedencia excepcional pago de acreencias laborales
  • Hecho superado por pago de acreencias laborales
1 topic · 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. Primero. CONFIRMAR las sentencias del 1º de agosto de 2003, proferidas por el Juzgado
  2. Décimo. Civil Municipal de Neiva -Expediente T-794.300-, y por el Juzgado
  3. Primero. Civil Municipal de la misma ciudad -Expediente T-797.029-, dentro de las acciones de tutela instauradas separadamente por los ciudadanos Armando Bautista Rubiano y Julio César Herrera Quevedo contra el CENTRO SOCIAL DE NEIVA S.A., CLUB SOCIAL DE NEIVA.
  4. Segundo. DECLARAR que en relación con los salarios reclamados por los actores correspondientes a los meses de mayo, junio y julio del año 2003, hay carencia actual de objeto, por existir un hecho superado.
  5. Tercero. LÍBRENSE por Secretaría las comunicaciones de que trata el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1991, para los efectos allí previstos.
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.