Citas bibligráficas
Iturrizaga, K., (2023). EXP. N° 01899-2013-0-0401-JR-CI-10. EXP. N° 01774-2017-0-0401-JR-LA-08 [Trabajo de suficiencia profesional, Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)]. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/668317
Iturrizaga, K., EXP. N° 01899-2013-0-0401-JR-CI-10. EXP. N° 01774-2017-0-0401-JR-LA-08 [Trabajo de suficiencia profesional]. PE: Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC); 2023. http://hdl.handle.net/10757/668317
@misc{renati/1294468,
title = "EXP. N° 01899-2013-0-0401-JR-CI-10. EXP. N° 01774-2017-0-0401-JR-LA-08",
author = "Iturrizaga Palomino, Keyla Graciela",
publisher = "Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC)",
year = "2023"
}
This report will analyze two judicial files with legal relevance that deal with a demand for annulment of a legal act of inheritance advance, private file, and a demand for reinstatement for fraudulent dismissal, public file. File No. 01899-2013-0-0401-JR-CI-10, tackle a dispute in the private sphere, which is about a claim for annulment of advance on inheritance for having an illegal purpose and contravene laws that are of interest to public order and good customs, since it is argued that having been transferred of the donor’s only asset the legitimate interest of one of his forced heirs has been harmed, likewise, due to subsequent celebration of the reversal of the advance on inheritance, there are also discussion about the conclusion of the process without pronouncement on the merits because the claim has been removed from the jurisdictional scope the demanded claim, and the admissibility or inadmissibility of co-defendants acquiescence (Poder Judicial, 2013). File No. 01774-2017-0-0401-JR-LA-08, public file, is about a demand through which dispute the dismissal of a worker who was separated from his workplace for having incurred in the serious misconduct regulated in paragraph a) of article 25 of the Orderly Unique Text of Legislative Decree No. 728, approved for the Supreme Decree N° 003-97-TR for attending to work under the influence of alcohol, since the worker indicates that he has been the victim of a fraudulent dismissal due to the assumption of an offense not provided for by law, violation the principle of typicality. The main controversy in the file is to determine if a dismissal has been carried out in compliance with the regulations or, on the contrary, a fraudulent dismissal has been incurred (Poder Judicial, 2017).
Este ítem está sujeto a una licencia Creative Commons Licencia Creative Commons