{"id":58199,"date":"2024-05-17T20:42:44","date_gmt":"2024-05-17T20:42:44","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/2024\/05\/17\/atc1622-2021\/"},"modified":"2024-05-17T20:42:44","modified_gmt":"2024-05-17T20:42:44","slug":"atc1622-2021","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/2024\/05\/17\/atc1622-2021\/","title":{"rendered":"ATC1622 2021"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>ATC1622-2021<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Rad. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;n.\u00b0 11001-02-04-000-2021-00615-01 &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>\u00c1LVARO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;FERNANDO GARC\u00cdA RESTREPO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Magistrado &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Ponente &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>ATC1622-2021 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Radicaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;n.\u00b0 11001-02-04-000-2021-00615-01 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>(Aprobado &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;en sesi\u00f3n virtual de veintisiete de octubre &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;dos mil veintiuno) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Bogot\u00e1, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;D.C., veintisiete &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(27) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de octubre &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de dos mil veintiuno (2021).- &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Se &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;resuelve lo correspondiente a la solicitud de \u00abnulidad &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;sentencia\u00bb &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;y la \u00abrecusaci\u00f3n\u00bb, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;presentadas por Hernando Mej\u00eda Bonilla, \u00abobrando &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;en nombre propio y de [su] &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;compa\u00f1era Mar\u00eda Patricia Rojas de Londo\u00f1o\u00bb, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;en contra del suscrito Magistrado Ponente y de la Sala de Casaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Civil de esta Corte, respectivamente, dentro de la acci\u00f3n de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;tutela que promovi\u00f3 contra la Sala de Casaci\u00f3n Laboral &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de la misma Corporaci\u00f3n. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>ANTECEDENTES &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>1. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; La Sala de Casaci\u00f3n Penal neg\u00f3 por improcedente la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;solicitud de protecci\u00f3n de la referencia, al encontrar que en &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la decisi\u00f3n cuestionada a la Sala de Casaci\u00f3n Laboral, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;no se configur\u00f3 ninguna de las causales de procedencia del &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;amparo contra decisi\u00f3n judicial. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>2. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Impugnada &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la anterior decisi\u00f3n por el aqu\u00ed interesado, arrib\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;a esta Sala donde el pasado 29 de septiembre se dict\u00f3 el &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;prove\u00eddo STC12767-2021, que confirm\u00f3 lo definido en &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;primer grado, tras constatarse que la vulneraci\u00f3n de derechos &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;superiores alegada era inexistente. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>3. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;En &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;esta oportunidad, el gestor formula \u00abrecusaci\u00f3n\u00bb &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;contra el suscrito y la Sala de Casaci\u00f3n Civil, \u00abde &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;acuerdo al art. 141 del C\u00f3digo General del Proceso que reza &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;\u201ccausales de recusaci\u00f3n\u201d art\u00edculo 2\u00ba, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;\u201chaber conocido del proceso o realizado cualquier actuaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;en instancia anterior\u2026\u201d\u00bb, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ya que esta Sala conoci\u00f3 en primera instancia de la acci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de tutela identificada con el radicado No. 2020-02046-00, presentada &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;por el aqu\u00ed interesado contra la Sala Civil Familia del &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Tribunal Superior de Buga, tr\u00e1mite que posteriormente arrib\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;a la Sala de Casaci\u00f3n Laboral para tramitar la impugnaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;presentada contra la sentencia de primera instancia, donde, seg\u00fan &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;aleg\u00f3 el gestor en la tutela de la referencia, la prenombrada &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;autoridad omiti\u00f3 manifestarse sobre unas peticiones que le &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;elev\u00f3, por lo que \u00abla &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Sala Civil estaba actuando como \u201cjuez\u201d y \u201cparte\u201d &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;en la segunda instancia (\u2026) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;pues se acusaba a la susodicha Sala de no Pronunciarse sobre la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;petici\u00f3n de \u201cNulidad absoluta\u201d planteada en tres &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(3) oportunidades como fueron: septiembre 2 de 2020, noviembre 19 de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;2020 y diciembre 1 de 2020\u00bb. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>4. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Adicionalmente, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;el actor reclama que se declare la nulidad del fallo STC12767-2021 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;que &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;profiri\u00f3 esta Sala como conclusi\u00f3n de la segunda &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;instancia del tr\u00e1mite de la referencia &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;porque, dice, carec\u00eda de competencia para ello, por no ser &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;\u00absuperior\u00bb &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de la Sala de Casaci\u00f3n Penal. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>CONSIDERACIONES &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>1. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Lo &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;pretendido por el gestor es recusar a la Sala de Casaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Civil de esta Corte, por el conocimiento que tuvo de la acci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de tutela identificada con el radicado No. 2020-022046-00, promovida &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;por aquel contra la Sala Civil Familia del Tribunal Superior de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Buga. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Al &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;respecto el art\u00edculo 39 del Decreto 2591 de 1991 establece &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;que, en el tr\u00e1mite de la tutela \u00aben &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ning\u00fan caso ser\u00e1 procedente la recusaci\u00f3n. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;El juez deber\u00e1 declararse impedido cuando concurran las &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;causales de impedimento del C\u00f3digo &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de Procedimiento Penal so &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;pena de incurrir en la sanci\u00f3n disciplinaria correspondiente. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;El juez que conozca de la impugnaci\u00f3n del fallo de tutela &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;deber\u00e1 adoptar las medidas procedentes para que se inicie el &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;procedimiento disciplinario, si fuere el caso\u00bb &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(se subraya). &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>2. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Corresponde &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;entonces &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;rechazar por improcedente la recusaci\u00f3n presentada, ya que &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;los impedimentos que eventualmente afectan al Juez o Magistrado que &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;conoce de un asunto del anotado linaje, son los fundados en el &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;art\u00edculo 56 del C\u00f3digo de Procedimiento Penal, ninguno &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de los cuales fue invocado por el memorialista, o se observa &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;configurado. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Amerita &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;precisar que, en el tr\u00e1mite de la referencia, el censor pidi\u00f3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la protecci\u00f3n de sus derechos fundamentales, porque en el &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;curso de la segunda instancia de la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;acci\u00f3n de tutela identificada con el radicado No. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;2020-02046-00, la Sala de Casaci\u00f3n Laboral de esta Corte &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;supuestamente omiti\u00f3 pronunciarse sobre unas solicitudes que &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;\u00e9ste le elev\u00f3 para que se declarara la nulidad de todo &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;lo actuado, con fundamento en que esta Sala decidi\u00f3 la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;primera instancia del mismo decurso \u00abcon &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;objeto y causa il\u00edcita para favorecer a un tercero\u00bb, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;situaci\u00f3n que no encuadra en la causal de impedimento del &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;numeral 6\u00ba del art\u00edculo 56 del C\u00f3digo de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Procedimiento Penal, que se configura cuando \u00abel &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;funcionario haya dictado la providencia de cuya revisi\u00f3n se &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;trata, o hubiere participado dentro del proceso\u2026\u00bb, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ya que, como qued\u00f3 evidenciado, la queja del presente &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;resguardo apunt\u00f3 a que se exigiera a la Sala Hom\u00f3loga &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Laboral el pronunciamiento frente a unas \u00abpeticiones\u00bb &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;hechas dentro del aludido tr\u00e1mite tutelar, m\u00e1s no a &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;cuestionar lo que esta Sala defini\u00f3 dentro del mismo, cuando &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;tramit\u00f3 su primera instancia. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Al &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;respecto ha precisado la Sala que \u00abla &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;causal prevista en el numeral 6\u00ba del art\u00edculo 99 del &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;C\u00f3digo de Procedimiento Penal, aqu\u00ed invocada, refiere &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;que el funcionario haya dictado la providencia cuya revisi\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;se trata o hubiere participado dentro del proceso, caso \u00e9ste &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;\u00faltimo en que ha de entenderse que no es cualquier &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;participaci\u00f3n en el mismo, sino una que haya reca\u00eddo &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;sobre aspectos esenciales del caso debatido, pues lo que se pretende &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;es impedir que quien ha actuado con efectos vinculantes en el &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;respectivo tr\u00e1mite procesal pueda posteriormente participar &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;en su revisi\u00f3n\u00bb. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(auto &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de 25 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de marzo de 2004, rad. 2004-00006-01, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;citado el 25 de julio de 2011, rad., 2011-01388-00 y reiterado en &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ATC677-2021) &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>3. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Por &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;\u00faltimo, debe rechazarse la nulidad alegada con fundamento en &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;que esta Sala carec\u00eda de competencia para surtir la segunda &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;instancia de este asunto, de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;conformidad con lo dispuesto en el inciso 4\u00b0 del art\u00edculo &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;135 del C\u00f3digo General del Proceso aplicable a este tipo de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;tr\u00e1mite en virtud del art\u00edculo 4\u00ba del Decreto 306 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de 1992, puesto que, las causales de nulidad son taxativas, y la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;aqu\u00ed alegada se fundamenta en conjeturas que de ninguna &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;manera encuadran en alguno de los supuestos de invalidaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;previstos en el art\u00edculo 133 ib\u00eddem. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Con &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;todo, se le aclara al censor, que el fundamento para que esta Sala &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;haya conocido de la impugnaci\u00f3n formulada contra la sentencia &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de tutela que profiri\u00f3 el 1 de junio pasado la Sala de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Casaci\u00f3n Penal de esta Corte, se encuentra en el numeral 7\u00ba &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;del Decreto 333 de 2021, ya que la protecci\u00f3n supralegal se &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;enfil\u00f3 respecto de una supuesta omisi\u00f3n de la Sala de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Casaci\u00f3n Laboral, y \u00ablas &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;acciones de tutela dirigidas contra la Corte Suprema de Justicia y &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;el Consejo de Estado ser\u00e1n repartidas, para su conocimiento &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;en primera instancia, a la misma Corporaci\u00f3n y se resolver\u00e1 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;por la Sala de Decisi\u00f3n, Secci\u00f3n o Subsecci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;que corresponda, de conformidad con el reglamento al que se refiere &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;el art\u00edculo 2.2.3.1.2.4. del presente decreto\u00bb, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;y dicho reglamento, que corresponde al Acuerdo No. 006 de 2002, &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;se\u00f1ala en su art\u00edculo 44 que \u00abla &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;acci\u00f3n de tutela dirigida contra uno o varios Magistrados de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la misma Sala de Casaci\u00f3n Especializada, o contra la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;respectiva Sala, se repartir\u00e1 a la Sala de Casaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;que siga en orden alfab\u00e9tico. La &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;impugnaci\u00f3n contra la sentencia se repartir\u00e1 a la Sala &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de Casaci\u00f3n Especializada restante &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(\u2026)\u00bb &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;(se resalta). &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>DECISI\u00d3N &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Por &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;lo expuesto, la Sala de Casaci\u00f3n Civil de la Corte Suprema de &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Justicia, RESUELVE: &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>1\u00ba. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;RECHAZAR &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;recusaci\u00f3n formulada por Hernando Mej\u00eda Bonilla. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>2\u00ba. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;RECHAZAR &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;DE PLANO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;la solicitud de nulidad formulada por el prenombrado. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>3\u00ba. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Comun\u00edquese &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;lo aqu\u00ed resuelto a los interesados mediante telegrama y &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;l\u00edbrense las dem\u00e1s comunicaciones pertinentes. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>FRANCISCO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;TERNERA BARRIOS &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Presidente &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;de Sala &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>\u00c1LVARO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;FERNANDO GARC\u00cdA RESTREPO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>HILDA &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;GONZ\u00c1LEZ NEIRA &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>AROLDO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;WILSON QUIROZ MONSALVO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>LUIS &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;ALONSO RICO PUERTA &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>OCTAVIO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;AUGUSTO TEJEIRO DUQUE &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>3 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>ATC1622-2021 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Rad. &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;n.\u00b0 11001-02-04-000-2021-00615-01 &nbsp; &nbsp; \u00c1LVARO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;FERNANDO GARC\u00cdA RESTREPO &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Magistrado &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Ponente &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; ATC1622-2021 &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Radicaci\u00f3n &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;n.\u00b0 11001-02-04-000-2021-00615-01 [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[41],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58199","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-octubre"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58199","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58199"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58199\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58199"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58199"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dmsjuridica.com\/buscador_20179478954\/salacivil\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58199"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}