Background
Condomínio do Edifício Porto Reserva sought to pursue a special appeal before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ). The decision denying admission of that appeal rested on two grounds: rejection of an alleged violation of Article 1,022 of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and application of STJ Precedent No. 7 to the claims under Articles 1,245 and 1,336(I) of the Civil Code.
The STJ Presidency declined to hear the condominium’s interlocutory appeal seeking admission of the special appeal because the condominium had not specifically challenged the inadmissibility grounds. The condominium then filed an internal appeal, asserting that it had addressed those grounds and repeating its arguments on the merits. Kelly Rejane Silva de Assis opposed the appeal and requested the penalty prescribed by Article 1,021(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and upheld the Presidency’s decision. Although the condominium had mentioned STJ Precedent No. 7 in its filing, it offered only general assertions. It did not explain, with reference to the facts established by the lower court and its appellate theories, why the requested relief would not require reexamination of the evidence.
The court held that an interlocutory appeal seeking admission of a special appeal must specifically and substantively contest every ground supporting the denial of admission, whether or not those grounds are independent. Failure to do so violates the requirement of appellate dialectics and warrants nonconsideration under Article 932(III) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules. Repeating merits arguments in a later internal appeal cannot cure the earlier omission.
The panel declined to impose the requested Article 1,021(4) penalty. It explained that a unanimous denial does not automatically justify a fine; the internal appeal must be manifestly inadmissible, plainly unfounded, abusive, or dilatory. The court found that this appeal did not have those characteristics.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal seeking STJ review must specifically challenge every ground on which the special appeal was denied admission.
- Merely mentioning STJ Precedent No. 7 or repeating merits arguments does not show why the requested review can proceed without reassessing evidence.
- An internal appeal cannot cure a failure to provide the required specific challenge at the preceding appellate stage.
- A fine under Article 1,021(4) requires a case-specific finding of manifest inadmissibility, evident lack of merit, abuse, or delay; unanimous rejection alone is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the strict briefing requirements governing access to the STJ. Counsel must address each admissibility barrier directly and in detail, including by comparing the facts fixed by the lower court with the legal issues presented when STJ Precedent No. 7 is invoked.
At the same time, the ruling distinguishes procedural noncompliance from sanctionable conduct. An unsuccessful internal appeal may be denied without automatically exposing the appellant to a statutory fine.