‎Brazil News

 

TST: Surety bond does not replace prior deposit in rescission action

The Board reaffirmed the importance of this deposit to avoid unfounded disputes and guarantee the integrity of the procedural system.

From the Editors

 

Tuesday, December 17, 2024

 

Updated at 12:51

 

To share

 

The TST plenary decided, by majority, that judicial surety insurance cannot replace the mandatory prior deposit in rescission actions. The panel understood that, unlike other procedural situations, such as in the appeal deposit, the replacement by an alternative guarantee is not permitted in this type of action.

 

The rescissory action is a procedural instrument that seeks to invalidate final judicial decisions, when there are no further appeals. It is used in exceptional circumstances, such as in cases of material error, coercion, falsification, fraud, simulation or literal violation of the law.

 

In the judgment, the prevailing understanding was that the prior deposit has the essential function of discouraging the filing of rescission actions without legitimate grounds, avoiding reckless litigation and unnecessary prolongation of proceedings. The requirement serves as a safeguard for the procedural system, preserving its integrity and avoiding overloading the Judiciary with unfounded actions.

 

 

The Board reinforced the mandatory nature of the advance deposit to avoid litigation and prohibits replacement by other guarantees in rescission actions. 

Minister Maria Helena Mallmann, who inaugurated the divergence, argued that the initial deposit of the rescission action (provided for in art. 968, item II, of the CPC and in art. 836 of the CLT ) has a unique and exceptional nature, aiming to guarantee legal certainty and dissuade unfounded actions.

 

For the minister, allowing replacement by judicial guarantee insurance would represent a disincentive to compliance with the rule and could encourage undue prolongation of the process, contradicting the principles of speed and efficiency.

 

The winning party reiterated the need for strict compliance with the requirement of prior deposit in rescission actions. Consequently, in the case in question, a period was granted for the party to make the payment of the prior deposit in order to proceed with the rescission action.

 

Case : RO-50-36.2018.5.05.0000

 

 link: https://www.migalhas.com.br/quentes/421738/tst-seguro-garantia-nao-substitui-deposito-previo-em-acao-rescisoria