Background
The Union of Federal Public Service Workers in the State of Santa Catarina (Sintrafesc) brought a public civil action against the federal Union on behalf of represented employees. It sought recognition that the employees’ functional-progression periods should run for 12 months beginning on the dates they entered their respective positions.
The Federal Regional Court of the Fourth Region partially granted Sintrafesc’s appeal and held that attorney fees were payable when a public civil action succeeded. The Union filed a special appeal challenging both that fee award and aspects of the functional-progression ruling. The Superior Court of Justice selected the appeal as a representative repetitive case under Topic 1,177 to decide whether the Union may be ordered to pay prevailing-party attorney fees in a public civil action.
The Court’s Holding
By majority, the First Section held that Article 18 of Law No. 7,347/1985, interpreted under the principle of symmetry, prevents an award of prevailing-party attorney fees against the Union when it loses a public civil action, unless bad faith is proved. The statute’s specific costs-and-fees regime for public civil actions controls over the general rules of the Code of Civil Procedure. Because a plaintiff union is not liable for fees when it loses absent bad faith, the majority reasoned that it likewise does not receive fees when it wins.
The court distinguished recent Special Court decisions allowing fees against defendants in public civil actions brought by private associations or foundations. Those decisions were expressly limited to those private entities and did not encompass unions. The court partially entertained the Union’s appeal and, as to the portion considered, granted relief by vacating the attorney-fee award. It declined to consider the Union’s statutory arguments concerning functional progression because the issues had not been properly preserved in the lower court.
Justice Paulo Sérgio Domingues dissented. He reasoned that Article 18 expressly protects plaintiffs but does not exempt defendants, that unions should receive treatment comparable to private associations pursuing collective interests, and that ordinary causation principles should require a losing defendant to pay fees.
Key Takeaways
- Under STJ Repetitive Topic 1,177, the Union ordinarily cannot be ordered to pay prevailing-party attorney fees when it loses a public civil action brought by a union.
- The exemption does not apply if the Union acted in proven bad faith.
- The majority declined to extend to unions the separate rule allowing fee awards against defendants in actions brought by private associations or foundations.
Why It Matters
As a repetitive-case ruling, the decision establishes the STJ’s governing rule for the recurring fee question presented in public civil actions against the Union. It removes the prospect of a prevailing-party fee award for unions that successfully litigate such actions, unless they can establish bad faith.
The decision also preserves a categorical distinction between unions and private associations or foundations for this purpose. That distinction—and whether it is justified by the text and access-to-justice purpose of Article 18—was the central point of disagreement between the majority and the dissent.