Background
Banco Safra S.A. filed an internal appeal (agravo interno) challenging the Superior Tribunal de Justiça’s rejection of its special appeal (AREsp) on admissibility grounds. The lower decision had cited three independent bases for inadmissibility: Súmula nº 7/STJ (regarding allegations of statutory violation), Súmula nº 284/STF (regarding jurisprudential disagreement), and Súmula nº 13/STJ.
Banco Safra contended in its internal appeal that it had specifically challenged these grounds and that the matter was purely legal in nature, not dependent on factual re-examination. The bank argued that mere assertion that a question is legal rather than factual should be sufficient to overcome the admissibility barriers cited by the court.
The Court’s Holding
The STJ’s Third Panel unanimously rejected the appeal. The court clarified that while the failure to challenge all autonomous grounds of a decision does not render the entire appeal inadmissible—resulting instead only in preclusion of the unchallenged ground—Article 1.021, § 1º of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC/2015) and STJ Súmula nº 182 do apply when: (1) there is an absence of specific impugnation in a decision with a single ground or with chapters dependent upon one another, or (2) there is partial impugnation of an autonomous chapter.
Critically, the court held that “the generic allegation that the issue discussed in the special appeal represents a matter of law and not factual-probationary is not apt to specifically challenge the basis of the attacked decision. Rather, the appealing party must refute such an obstacle through articulated exposition of the legal thesis developed in the special appeal and demonstration of the facts as they were presented in the ordinary instances.” Banco Safra’s arguments failed this test—it offered only generic assertions rather than specific rebuttal of each admissibility ground. The court therefore applied the preclusion rule and denied the internal appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Appellants before the STJ must specifically address each independent ground cited for denying their appeal, not merely argue that the matter involves legal questions rather than factual ones.
- Generic or conclusory arguments that a matter is purely legal do not satisfy the requirement of specific impugnation under Article 1.021, § 1º of the CPC/2015 and Súmula nº 182.
- When a decision rests on multiple autonomous grounds or interdependent chapters, the failure to specifically challenge even one ground may result in preclusion under the established procedural rules, even if the entire appeal remains technically admissible.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces strict procedural requirements for appellate practice at Brazil’s highest court of ordinary jurisdiction. Attorneys filing internal appeals or special appeals to the STJ must carefully identify and rebut each specific basis on which a lower decision rested, supported by articulated legal reasoning and reference to the factual record as presented in lower courts. Generic characterizations of disputed matters as “purely legal” will not overcome formal defects in appeal drafting.
The ruling is significant for corporate litigants like banks that regularly appear before the STJ. It establishes that procedural compliance cannot be bypassed through broad assertions, and that appellate advocacy at this level demands precise attention to the technical grounds cited by the court and careful, point-by-point refutation of each such ground.