Background
Sul América Companhia de Seguro Saúde sought to pursue a special appeal before Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice. The lower court had refused to admit that appeal on four grounds: two applications of STJ Precedent No. 7, including as to alleged denial of the right to present a defense and provisions of Law No. 9,656/1998; the absence of a violation of federal law; and the absence of factual similarity supporting the asserted precedent.
The STJ Presidency declined to consider Sul América’s interlocutory appeal because it did not specifically challenge every ground supporting the inadmissibility decision. Sul América then filed an internal appeal, arguing that it had addressed all of those grounds. The opposing party filed a response.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Panel unanimously denied the internal appeal and left the Presidency’s decision in place. It held that Sul América had not adequately contested the lower court’s reliance on STJ Precedent No. 7. Although the company mentioned that precedent in its filing, it offered only generic arguments and did not explain, in a particularized way, why the relief sought would not require reconsideration of the evidence reviewed below.
The court held that an interlocutory appeal seeking admission of a special appeal must specifically address every ground for the inadmissibility ruling, whether or not those grounds are independent. Failure to do so makes the appeal inadmissible under Article 932(III) of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and Article 253, sole paragraph, I, of the STJ’s Internal Rules. The court also declined the respondent’s request for a fine under Article 1,021(4), finding that an unsuccessful internal appeal does not automatically warrant a penalty and that this appeal was not shown to be abusive or dilatory.
Key Takeaways
- A party challenging the refusal to admit a special appeal must specifically rebut every ground given for that refusal.
- Merely mentioning STJ Precedent No. 7 is insufficient; the appellant must explain concretely why the requested review does not require reexamining facts or evidence.
- Unanimous denial of an internal appeal does not by itself justify a procedural fine; manifest inadmissibility, evident lack of merit, abuse, or delay must be established in the particular case.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the STJ’s strict application of the principle that appellate arguments must engage directly with the ruling under review. Counsel seeking access to special-appeal review must answer each inadmissibility ground individually and with case-specific reasoning, because omitted or generic arguments can prevent any consideration of the underlying merits.
At the same time, the ruling confirms that losing an internal appeal—even unanimously—does not automatically expose the appellant to sanctions. A fine requires a reasoned, case-specific finding that the appeal was manifestly inadmissible, plainly meritless, abusive, or intended to delay proceedings.