Post by xyz3800 on Feb 28, 2024 8:53:04 GMT
\The Individual Disputes Subsection of the Superior Labor Court (SDI-2) ordered the seizure of 10% of Transit do Brasil's gross monthly revenue for the execution of a judgment in favor of an accounts manager. The percentage takes into account other restrictions imposed on the company by the common courts and the need not to compromise business activity. The telecommunications company was ordered to pay labor claims to an accounts manager in the amount of R$351,000, calculated in July 2015. To enforce the debt, it offered assets for seizure, but the court of the 1st Labor Court of São Paulo Paulo rejected them and ordered 30% of monthly revenue to be blocked. In a writ of mandamus, the defendant company requested the cancellation of the attachment order. He claimed that he suffered three more blocks in actions judged by civil courts, a circumstance that, in total, would compromise 90% of his monthly revenue and make it impossible to continue his economic activity.
The Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region canceled the attachment because it understood that the block on revenue is an exceptional measure taken only when there are no other assets sufficient for execution. The decision was based on article 620 of the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure. In examining the account manager's ordinary appeal, the TSR rapporteur, minister Delaíde Miranda Arantes, highlighted that, according to the court's Exit Mobile Number List Precedent 417, the seizure of money does not offend the liquid and certain right of the defendant when the execution is final. She also highlighted that the seizure followed the classification of assets subject to blocking, provided for in article 655 of the CPC. In relation to the rule of article 620, he warned that the principle of execution effectiveness and the full guarantee of satisfaction of the labor credit prevail over the principle of less onerous execution for the debtor.
The minister, however, voted to reduce the attachment to 10% of the company's gross monthly revenue, excluding the amount allocated to the personnel payroll from the calculation basis. The blockade previously determined by the civil court motivated the reduction. According to the rapporteur, if courts of different jurisdictions determine almost simultaneous seizures of the company's revenue, the chronological order of the request must be observed. At the time of the blockade relating to the manager, there was only a civil lien against the defendant, 30% of revenue. Considering just the two, the rapporteur highlighted that the constriction would be 60%. “The sum means a very high percentage, which objectively proves to be sufficient to compromise the company's activity”, he said based on Jurisprudential Guideline 93 of SDI-2, by which the incidence of seizure on revenue is permitted as long as the percentage does not compromise the regular development of business activity.
The Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region canceled the attachment because it understood that the block on revenue is an exceptional measure taken only when there are no other assets sufficient for execution. The decision was based on article 620 of the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure. In examining the account manager's ordinary appeal, the TSR rapporteur, minister Delaíde Miranda Arantes, highlighted that, according to the court's Exit Mobile Number List Precedent 417, the seizure of money does not offend the liquid and certain right of the defendant when the execution is final. She also highlighted that the seizure followed the classification of assets subject to blocking, provided for in article 655 of the CPC. In relation to the rule of article 620, he warned that the principle of execution effectiveness and the full guarantee of satisfaction of the labor credit prevail over the principle of less onerous execution for the debtor.
The minister, however, voted to reduce the attachment to 10% of the company's gross monthly revenue, excluding the amount allocated to the personnel payroll from the calculation basis. The blockade previously determined by the civil court motivated the reduction. According to the rapporteur, if courts of different jurisdictions determine almost simultaneous seizures of the company's revenue, the chronological order of the request must be observed. At the time of the blockade relating to the manager, there was only a civil lien against the defendant, 30% of revenue. Considering just the two, the rapporteur highlighted that the constriction would be 60%. “The sum means a very high percentage, which objectively proves to be sufficient to compromise the company's activity”, he said based on Jurisprudential Guideline 93 of SDI-2, by which the incidence of seizure on revenue is permitted as long as the percentage does not compromise the regular development of business activity.