Post by account_disabled on Jan 30, 2024 4:59:03 GMT -5
The penalty for litigation in bad faith must be applied to the party, and not to his lawyer, in accordance with articles 14 and 16 of the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, he cannot be punished in the records in which he supposedly appears as litigant in bad faith, even if he commits professional misconduct. Any unfair conduct must be investigated in an independent process, in accordance with article 32 of the Law Statute (Law 8,906/94). On this basis, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of Rio Grande do Sul accepted an appeal to overturn a fine of R$5,000 imposed on a lawyer who works in the District of Passo Fundo.
The penalty was applied by judge 1st Court of the 4th Civil Court. With the Buy Phone Number List unanimous decision, the process returned to its origin to regularize the procedural representation and normal progress of the case. The judge imposed the fine, extinguishing the case, as she found bad faith on the part of the lawyer in the files of the declaratory action of unenforceability of charges combined with repeated undue payment and compensation for moral damages, proposed against an electricity concessionaire. The power of attorney granted to the lawyer was irregular, as he only gave powers to contest adjustments in the electricity tariff, and not the undue insurance charges on the invoices issued by the concessionaire. '
'Thus, the filing of this action is undue, having also found that there are actions filed in duplicate, apparently with the aim of choosing the court in which the action will be processed, which is completely inadmissible. This fact goes against the principles of celerity and good faith, only serving to further trouble the Judiciary,'' he wrote in the sentence, handed down in October 2013. In the judge's perception, by engaging in this conduct, the lawyer failed to observe the principles of speed and procedural economy, invoked by the category itself to complain about the slowness of the Judiciary. He also failed to act with loyalty and good faith and to present the facts in accordance with the truth, as provided for in article 14, items I and II of the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure. Based on his work as a whole, the lawyer would have practiced '' act that violates the jurisdiction'', which justifies the payment of a fine to the State.
The penalty was applied by judge 1st Court of the 4th Civil Court. With the Buy Phone Number List unanimous decision, the process returned to its origin to regularize the procedural representation and normal progress of the case. The judge imposed the fine, extinguishing the case, as she found bad faith on the part of the lawyer in the files of the declaratory action of unenforceability of charges combined with repeated undue payment and compensation for moral damages, proposed against an electricity concessionaire. The power of attorney granted to the lawyer was irregular, as he only gave powers to contest adjustments in the electricity tariff, and not the undue insurance charges on the invoices issued by the concessionaire. '
'Thus, the filing of this action is undue, having also found that there are actions filed in duplicate, apparently with the aim of choosing the court in which the action will be processed, which is completely inadmissible. This fact goes against the principles of celerity and good faith, only serving to further trouble the Judiciary,'' he wrote in the sentence, handed down in October 2013. In the judge's perception, by engaging in this conduct, the lawyer failed to observe the principles of speed and procedural economy, invoked by the category itself to complain about the slowness of the Judiciary. He also failed to act with loyalty and good faith and to present the facts in accordance with the truth, as provided for in article 14, items I and II of the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure. Based on his work as a whole, the lawyer would have practiced '' act that violates the jurisdiction'', which justifies the payment of a fine to the State.