Precedentes judiciais e litigância de má-fé: a nova dimensão da responsabilidade das partes na lide de acordo com o modelo constitucional de processo civil

• Autor(a) principal: Stipsky, Paulo Ricardo
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da PUC_SP
• Texto Completo: https://repositorio.pucsp.br/jspui/handle/handle/25748
• topic: CNPQ::CIENCIAS SOCIAIS APLICADAS::DIREITO; Precedente judicial; Boa-fé e cooperação; Constitucionalização do processo; Judicial precedent; Good faith and cooperation; Constitucionalization of the process

Good faith and cooperation are highlighted in the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code of 2015 (CPC/2015), as general clauses inserted in the form of fundamental rules of the civil procedure, without prejudice to the duties of the litigants under penalty of an act against the dignity of Justice and/or liability for procedural damage, making possible to imposing a monetary fine and compeling the party to indemnify the opposing for the losses suffered. In this sense, the topic should be reviewed with a focus on the interpretation of the process according to the Constitution and having in mind the new dimension of the litigant’s responsibility as holders and recipients of the fundamental right to the reasonable lenght of the process and in view of the scopes of the jurisdiction. Then, the legislator established that the courts should standardize their jurisprudence and keep it stable, complete and coherent, further determining that the judicial precedents listed in article 927 of CPC/2015 must be observed by judges and courts, always with focus on the scopes of the jurisdiction and in search of the desired legal-procedural effectiveness. Therefore, in addition to decisions on concentrated control of constitutionality and binding statements, both with binding effect and erga omnes effectiveness under the terms of the Brazilian Constitution of 1988, judges and courts must also observe the theses arising from a Incidence of Assumption of Competence (IAC), a Repetitive Demand Resolution Incident (IRDR), an Extraordinary Appeal (RE), a Repetitive Special Appeal (REsp), a non-binding statement of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) in constitutional matters and of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) in infraconstitutional matters, and also an orientation from the plenary or the special body of the respective court. It is from this on that the litigant’s liability must be analyzed, in view of the duty to observe judicial precedents, making it possible to recognize that the litigant’s must observe the judicial precedents under a penalty for bad faith litigation