They deny guardianships for intervention in Comfamiliar del Huila • La Nación

The two guardianships placed by the directors of the Huila Family Compensation Fund to stop the intervention were declared inadmissible. The refund claimed was left up in the air. Scoop.


The two guardianships placed by the directors of the Family Compensation Fund of Huila, to stop the administrative intervention and ensure their reinstatement, foundered again.

The Civil, Labor and Family Chamber of the Superior Court of Neiva confirmed in second instance the order that rejected the guardianship. Judge Ana Ligia Camacho Noriega left Luis Miguel Losada’s request in the air demanding his return to office and his job security reinforced.

In addition, the Fifth Civil Judge of the Luis Fernando Hermosa Circuit, upon correcting an annulment, rejected another guardianship with the same purpose, raised by the counselors.

On September 2, the Superior Court accepted the arguments of the lawyer Aníbal Charry Bressan, representative of the non-unionized workers, and ordered the correction. The judge also declared the inadmissibility.

In the air

Losada Polanco requested that the first instance ruling be revoked and that the rights claimed be granted protection. In addition, he reiterated the request for the Superior Court to order the immediate suspension of Resolution 0469 issued on July 25, 2022, which ordered the total administrative intervention of the Huila Family Compensation Fund. And therefore, he again demanded his immediate reinstatement as administrative director of the entity.

In his opinion, he currently meets the requirements (1,400 weeks of contributions and age), which gives him the status of pre-pensioner. For this reason, he requested that reinforced job stability be recognized.

However, he argued that an executive process is pending before the Second Labor Court of the Neiva Circuit with which he seeks the transfer of all his contributions and work history to Colpensiones.


Although the transfer of regime was achieved by judicial means, there are currently inconsistencies in the work history compared to the number of weeks quoted. For this reason, despite the fact that he has the required age and number of weeks, he has not been able to access the pension.

In the report of weeks quoted in pensions updated to August 12, 2022 and issued by Colpensiones, a total of 476.86 weeks quoted is foreseen.

That information, according to Losada Polanco, does not correspond to reality.

However, Judge Ana Ligia Camacho Noriega reiterated that the tutela action is inadmissible.


“In this case, -he said- the facts with which the action is based do not allow us to see that the ordinary judicial mechanisms lack the suitability to achieve comprehensive protection, nor was the reasons for which considers that the appropriate judicial means is ineffective to protect their rights.”

Although Losada assured that he had previously appealed the resolution, the magistrate confirmed that “it was not shown that they had exhausted the appeal against the administrative act.”

“Consequently, -he added- the viability of the tutela action is, in this case, subject to the demonstration of irreparable damage.”

In his opinion, the separation from the position does not put his subsistence or his quality as a pre-pensioner at risk. The entity notified that the payment of contributions to social security in health and pension will continue to be executed. “The foregoing indicates that, due to the contributions to access his old-age pension, he would not be affected.”


“Secondly, the Chamber observes that the plaintiff’s pre-pension status is not accredited, since from the work history provided in the Colpensiones and Colfondos guardianship response, it is evident that the plaintiff has 477.14 weeks of contributions, since the year 1995 to 2012. Therefore, the plaintiff does not meet the requirements to determine reinforced labor stability”, specified the Labor Family Civil Chamber.

Therefore, -he underlined- by ​​not verifying the existence of manifest weakness or the occurrence of irremediable damage, because the sole affirmation of the actor is insufficient; The tutela action is inadmissible due to the subsidiarity requirement, since the actor has other procedural mechanisms at his disposal to request the right he considers to be a creditor. In that sense, the Chamber will confirm the decision of the first instance for the reasons stated.”

The decision was supported in addition to the rapporteur Ana Ligia Camacho Noriega by the magistrates Luz Dary Ortega Ortiz and Gilma Leticia Parada Pulido.


The same situation was recorded with the second guardianship promoted by five of the ten directors, including Aníbal Andrés Charry Bressan, José Adán Rodríguez Rojas, Miller Silva Castañeda, José Fernando Lamilla Rincón and Francisco Javier Lozano Solórzano, alleging that they were not duly notified. . In addition, like Losada, they requested the suspension of the total administrative intervention of the Fund and demanded their reinstatement.

The Superior Court agreed with the lawyer Aníbal Charry Bressan and revoked the first instance guardianship due to improper notification.

The Fifth Civil Judge of the Neiva Circuit, Luis Fernando Hermosa Rojas, declared it inadmissible for the second time.

The directors stated that they were separated without just cause from their positions as director and members of the Board of Directors of the Family Compensation Fund.

“However, they did not demonstrate the damage or the affectation generated by the actions carried out” to make the administrative intervention of the entity effective.

According to the judge, it is not enough to mention that there is a possible irremediable damage to resort to tutelary protection. Charry Bressan, challenged again.

conclusive conduct

In addition, the guardianship judge reiterated his position regarding the notification for conclusive conduct, sustained to deny the guardianship in the first instance.

“In the absence or irregularities of the notifications, the administrative act has been notified for conclusive conduct, when the interested party reveals that he is aware of the act, consents to the decision or files legal resources,” he argued.

In his opinion, all the directors admitted that they were aware of the terms of the resolution that ordered the intervention and ordered his replacement. All were notified of the administrative act.

In addition, it confirmed that the authorities are empowered to obtain the electronic addresses of the databases of the different entities, in this case from the Family Subsidy Superintendence, to make personal notifications, as it did.

The plaintiffs insisted that their repeated arguments in the challenge were not taken into account.

They deny guardianships for intervention in Comfamiliar del Huila • La Nación