Background
Cyrano Alvarenga and Tonyato Alvarenga filed an internal appeal from a decision by the President of the Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ) that had declined to consider their appeal seeking review of the refusal to admit a special appeal. The presidential decision concluded that they had failed to challenge specifically the grounds on which the special appeal had been denied admission.
The appellants contended that they had adequately addressed those grounds and also repeated their arguments on the merits. The opposing party, although properly notified, filed no response. The relevant inadmissibility ruling had found that the decision under review accorded with the STJ’s settled case law and therefore invoked STJ Precedent No. 83 as a bar to the special appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal. It held that the appellants had not specifically and consistently challenged the application of STJ Precedent No. 83 to their case. Their generic assertion that the precedent did not apply was insufficient to overcome the stated ground for refusing admission.
The court explained that the principle of appellate dialectics requires an appellant to identify why the challenged ruling is wrong, whether because of a procedural error or an error in the judgment itself. A party seeking to overturn the refusal to admit a special appeal must specifically attack every ground supporting that refusal, whether or not the grounds are independent. Failure to do so requires nonconsideration of the appeal under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, item I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules.
The court also emphasized that repeating arguments about the underlying merits does not cure the omission, and an internal appeal cannot supply a specific challenge that was missing from the earlier appeal. It therefore left the President’s decision intact without reaching the merits of the special appeal.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal challenging the refusal to admit a special appeal must address every ground supporting the inadmissibility ruling.
- A generic statement that an STJ precedent does not apply is insufficient; the appellant must explain specifically why it does not govern the case.
- Merits arguments and a later internal appeal cannot cure a failure to make the required specific challenge at the proper appellate stage.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the STJ’s strict approach to appellate admissibility. Counsel must respond concretely and individually to each obstacle identified by the lower court or the STJ, including precedent-based barriers, before the court will consider the substantive issues raised in a special appeal.
The ruling also confirms that this requirement extends to all grounds in the inadmissibility decision, regardless of whether each ground independently supports the result. Failure to satisfy that threshold ends the appeal without a determination of its merits.