JurídicoESEN
Tutela ruling (T)August 28, 2003

T-757 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 Cecilia Parra De Gomez Vs. Clinica Bucaramanga Centro Medico Daniel Peralta S.A.

✓
Topic · hard data
Derecho A La Igualdad Y Trabajo De Auxiliar De Enfermeria. Solicitud Asignacion Turnos En Dia Domingo. Controversia De Origen Laboral. Limites A Discrecionalidad En Administracion De Personal En Sector Publico Y Privado. Contrato A Termino Indefinido. Tut
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 A La Igualdad
  • No se probó violación por no asignación de turnos laborales los domingos
Conflicto Laboral
  • Casos en que procede la tutela
Derecho Al Trabajo
  • Casos en que procede la tutela
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 (5 points)
  1. en nombre del pueblo y por mandato de la Constitución,
  2. R E S U E L V E
  3. Primero. CONFIRMAR, por las razones que han sido expuestas en esta providencia, el fallo proferido el día 26 de marzo de 2003 por el Juzgado
  4. Cuarto. Penal del Circuito de Bucaramanga dentro de la acción de tutela instaurada por la Señora Cecilia Parra de Gómez contra la Clínica Bucaramanga Centro Médico Daniel Peralta S.A., mediante el cual se denegó el amparo de los derechos fundamentales de la accionante.
  5. Segundo. Por Secretaría líbrese la comunicación prevista en el artículo 36 del Decreto 2591 de 1.991.
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.