Background
Pilar Empreendimentos sought special-review relief, but the lower court refused to admit its special appeal on three grounds: failure to demonstrate the asserted statutory violations, application of STJ Precedent No. 7 barring reexamination of evidence, and failure to establish a conflict in case law.
The STJ Presidency declined to consider Pilar’s ensuing appeal because it did not specifically challenge every ground supporting inadmissibility. Pilar filed an internal appeal, arguing that it had adequately addressed those grounds and again advancing its merits arguments. Raimunda Abou Gebran opposed the appeal and requested a penalty under Article 1,021(4) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and an increase in appellate attorney fees.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal. It held that an appeal seeking admission of a special appeal must specifically, concretely, and individually contest every ground supporting the refusal of admission, whether or not those grounds are independent. Pilar mentioned STJ Precedent No. 7 but offered only generic arguments and did not explain how its requested relief could be granted without revisiting the factual record established by the lower court.
That omission violated the principle of appellate dialectics and made the appeal inadmissible under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, I, of the STJ Internal Rules. Repeating merits arguments in the internal appeal could not cure the earlier deficiency. The court declined to impose the requested Article 1,021(4) penalty because the internal appeal was not manifestly inadmissible, abusive, or dilatory; it also did not award an additional appellate-fee increase.
Key Takeaways
- An appeal from a decision refusing admission of a special appeal must specifically challenge every ground supporting that decision.
- Merely mentioning STJ Precedent No. 7 or repeating merits arguments is insufficient; the appellant must show why the requested review would not require reexamining evidence.
- Unanimous denial of an internal appeal does not automatically justify a penalty under Article 1,021(4); the appeal must be manifestly inadmissible or plainly abusive or dilatory.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that access to special-review proceedings before the STJ depends on precise engagement with each admissibility obstacle. A party cannot preserve review through general assertions or by concentrating on the underlying merits while leaving one procedural ground unanswered.
It also confirms that sanctions are not an automatic consequence of losing an internal appeal unanimously. The court must separately determine, with reasons tied to the particular case, that the filing was plainly inadmissible or abusive.