Background
During enforcement of a final judgment, the appellant challenged the calculation of the award. The enforceable judgment had expressly provided for default interest and monetary adjustment using a specified index. The appellant sought instead to apply the SELIC rate, arguing that changing the monetary-adjustment parameter after the judgment became final would not violate res judicata.
The state court rejected that position. It held that computational mistakes may be corrected at any time, but the substantive calculation criteria established by a final judgment—including the adjustment index and the treatment of interest—cannot be changed during enforcement unless the judgment contains an omission or material error. After the special appeal was denied admission, the reporting justice denied the ensuing appeal. The appellant then filed an internal appeal to the STJ’s Fourth Panel.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and left the reporting justice’s decision intact. It found no violation of Articles 489 and 1,022 of Brazil’s Code of Civil Procedure because the state court had clearly and sufficiently addressed the potentially outcome-determinative arguments. A ruling does not constitute a denial of judicial consideration merely because it reaches a result adverse to a party.
The court also held that the monetary-adjustment index and default-interest criteria expressly fixed in the enforceable judgment could not be altered during enforcement. Only an omission or material error could permit modification at that stage, and neither existed here. Changing the established criteria to apply SELIC would violate res judicata. Because the state court’s ruling conformed to the STJ’s prevailing case law, STJ Precedent Statement No. 83 barred the challenge.
Key Takeaways
- A court may correct a genuine computational or material error during enforcement, but it may not use that authority to revise substantive calculation criteria fixed by a final judgment.
- An adjustment index and default-interest rules expressly stated in the enforceable judgment are protected by res judicata and cannot later be replaced with SELIC.
- There is no failure to provide judicial consideration when the lower court addresses the material issues clearly and adequately, even if it rejects a party’s arguments.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the finality of Brazilian judgments at the enforcement stage. Parties generally must challenge monetary-adjustment and interest criteria before the judgment becomes final; they cannot recast disagreement with those criteria as a correctable calculation error afterward.
It also illustrates the force of STJ Precedent Statement No. 83: when the challenged ruling accords with the STJ’s prevailing jurisprudence, an appeal cannot proceed without a concrete showing that the governing case law is materially different or has changed.