In a recent decision, the 3rd Public Law Chamber of the TJ-SP dismissed an interlocutory appeal filed by Companhia Paulista de Força e Luz (CPFL), which sought to revoke the free legal aid granted to a consumer.
What is an interlocutory appeal?
The interlocutory appeal is an appeal used to challenge interlocutory decisions, i.e. decisions made during the proceedings, before the final judgment.
It is used to challenge decisions that cannot be immediately challenged on appeal, such as decisions on provisional measures or the granting of benefits such as free justice.
This appeal is lodged directly with the Court, which will examine the decision as a matter of urgency, if there is any urgency.
The case analyzed
In the case under review, the Plaintiff filed a claim for repetition of debt against CPFL. After filing the lawsuit, the Plaintiff requested the benefits of free justice under the terms of Law No. 1.060/50 and art. 98 of the CPC1, documenting his condition of economic hyposufficiency, and the benefit was granted by the trial court.
As a result, CPFL filed an interlocutory appeal with the aim of overturning the decision, claiming that the Plaintiff had not proven that he was a poor person and that paying the costs of the proceedings would not harm his livelihood, and that he was therefore not entitled to free legal aid.
The understanding of the TJ-SP
Thus, in a judgment (decision of a collegiate court) handed down by Judge Paulo Cícero Augusto Pereira, it was pointed out that, according to the well-established case law of the TJ/SP, the challenge to the granting of gratuity of justice does not fall within the scope of art. 1.015 of the CPC.
He also points out that the list of grounds for filing an interlocutory appeal has the nature of mitigated taxability, in accordance with the understanding consolidated by the STJ, in the judgment of Theme No. 988.
Although there is the possibility of exceptionally admitting an interlocutory appeal against decisions that are not expressly provided for in the list, its admissibility depends on demonstrating urgency, characterized by the pointlessness of judging the matter when an appeal is filed, which is not the case here.
The TJ-SP decision
Continuing his reasoning, the judge affirmed that the appropriate means to combat the granting of gratuity of justice is the appeal, provided for in art. 1.009 of the CPC, and the interlocutory appeal filed by CPFL is not allowed.
In this way, the decision of the 3rd Public Law Chamber of the TJ-SP reaffirms the importance of observing the rules laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure and the appropriateness of appeals, ensuring respect for the procedural rules in force.
Doubts and questions?
We are attentive to the latest case law and discussions in all areas of the Judiciary in order to provide adequate and effective advice to our clients.
