TST suspends trial involving fine of R $ 100,000 against lawyer after suspicion of judge
Ministra Liana Chaib asked for a view of the case in SDI-2, postponing the definitive analysis of the penalty applied to the professional.
The Superior Labor Court (TST) suspended, on Tuesday (10), the trial of an appeal filed by a lawyer fined at R $ 100 thousand after a Labour judge establishes, on his own initiative, an incident to question his impartiality. The analysis was interrupted after Minister Liana Chaib requested a view of the case, postponing the decision of Subsection II Specialized in Dissídios Individuais (SDI-2).
Before the suspension, the rapporteur of the case, Minister Maria Helena Mallmann, voted against the lawyer’s appeal and defended the maintenance of the decision that rejected the writ of mandamus submitted by him. For the magistrate, part of the allegations was filed outside the legal deadline, while the other questions should be addressed through the resources provided for in the legislation.
The controversy originated in a labor action that was in the Betim 2Labor Court, in Minas Gerais. During the process, the magistrate himself instituted an incident of suspicion, a procedure used to assess possible doubts about the impartiality of a judge, and referred the case to the Regional Labor Court of the 3rd Region (TRT-3).
The 11th panel of TRT-3 rejected the suspicious incident and imposed penalties on the lawyer representing one of the parties. Among the sanctions were a fine for litigation of bad faith and another of R $ 100 thousand, destined for the Fund of Diffuse Rights.
The panel also determined the sending of letters to the Labor branches of the region and authorized the participation of the Association of Labor Justice Magistrates of the 3rd Region (Amatra3) in the case as amicus curiae, an expression used to designate a third party admitted to contribute to the judicial discussion.
Dissatisfied, the lawyer appealed through writ of mandamus. He argued that the judge could not institute the incident of suspicion without a formal request and contested the fines, alleging disrespect to the right of defense and the prerogatives of the advocacy. The processing of writ of mandamus was initially denied by TRT-3, a decision subsequently maintained after appeal. In view of that, the lawyer led the discussion to the TST.
In examining the case, Maria Helena Mallmann pointed out that the incident of suspicion was instituted in October 2023, but the writ of mandamus was not presented until December 2024. Thus, the question exceeded the legal deadline of 120 days for the use of this legal instrument.
The minister pointed out, however, that the loss of the deadline only applied to the challenge of the judge’s initiative to open the incident and forward the case to the regional court. The other decisions of the 11th panel of the TRT-3, including the penalties imposed on the lawyer, were not covered by that understanding.
On financial sanctions, the rapporteur considered that the writ of mandamus could not be used to replace the available procedural resources. According to her, the lawyer had already submitted an ordinary appeal to question the same points and there was also an indication of a review appeal to the TST in the original labor process.
Although he informed that he could not consult the full content of the journal resource, Mallmann considered that the limitation did not change its conclusion on the case. When presenting her vote, the minister stated that she did not identify any breach of net and certain law or the requirements necessary to justify exceptional intervention by means of writ of mandamus. That’s why he argued that the lawyer’s appeal should be rejected.
The rapporteur, however, did not take credit for the legality of the fines imposed by the regional court. With the Liana Chaib view request, the trial remains suspended until the minister returns the process to continue the analysis by SDI-2.