Brazilian courts penalize litigants for bad faith for challenging legitimate banking contracts
Recently in Brazil, two legal cases have highlighted the judiciary’s strictness regarding disputes over debts and moral damages. In the City of Conceição do Coité, a man was penalized for bad faith after denying the validity of a banking contract. Meanwhile, in Salvador, the court rejected a request to declare a debt non-existent due to insufficient evidence and confirmed the existing legal relationship between the parties. Both cases illustrate the judiciary’s low tolerance for generic claims and emphasize the importance of contractual records, especially under the perspective of Strict Liability in the Consumer Protection Code. It’s worth taking a closer look!
Recently, in the city of Conceição do Coité, Bahia, a man was found guilty of bad faith after denying the validity of an existing banking contract. The case was presided over by Judge Daniel Serpa de Carvalho from the 1st specialized court system.
The legal dispute began when the plaintiff challenged his inclusion in the “Serasa Limpa Nome” list (which provide restrictive entries for those with a bad credit record), claiming he was unaware of a banking contract that had incurred debts in his name. He sought in court the annulment of these charges, the removal of his name from the negative credit platform, and financial compensation for moral damages, arguing that he had never signed such a contract.
After reviewing the case files, the judge confirmed the legitimate existence of the contract and the corresponding charges, refuting any possibility of error on the part of the financial institution, as evidenced by a photograph from the time of the contract signing and the personal document presented. The judge applied Article 374, section III, of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code, deeming the existence of a valid contract between the parties and the default on the debts uncontroversial.
Furthermore, the request for compensation for moral damages was denied by the judge, who found no evidence of a substantial negative impact on the plaintiff’s life that would justify the claim of violation of personal rights. The court concluded that the inconveniences reported did not exceed mere “everyday displeasures.”
The verdict also addressed the issue of malicious litigation, noting that the plaintiff acted dishonestly by altering facts he knew to be unfounded. Consequently, the action was deemed groundless, resulting in the plaintiff’s condemnation for malicious litigation.
Parallel Situation in Salvador
In a similar case adjudicated on March 18, 2023, at the 4th Consumer Relations Court of Salvador, Bahia, Judge Luciana Amorim dismissed a request that sought a declaration of non-existence of debt and compensation for moral damages, citing insufficient evidence and confirmation of the legal relationship between the parties involved. The case involved a dispute where the plaintiff claimed that his name was improperly included in the credit protection agencies.
The decision was based on substantial evidence confirming the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant, and highlighted the importance of Law N° 8,078/90 (Consumer Protection Code), which adopts the theory of strict liability. This theory requires only establishing a causal link between the conduct and the damage, regardless of fault.
Citing the doctrine of Maria Helena Diniz, which defines human conduct as “a human act, whether commission or omission, illicit or licit, voluntary and objectively attributable, by the agent or third parties, that causes damage to another,” the judge argued that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate the absence of a causal link that would detach their action or omission from the claimed damages.
The defense presented documents and electronic records, including system screenshots that proved the existence of the debt and the legal relationship, refuting the plaintiff’s claims of fraud or misuse. The judge also emphasized the lack of evidence of an attempt to report fraud, such as a Police Report, which could justify the claim of non-existence of the debt.
Finally, the judge applied Articles 80 and 81 of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code concerning malicious litigation, stating that the plaintiff proceeded improperly by using the judicial system for unfounded claims, presenting a generic and inadequate petition template, without specific substantiation or minimal evidence.
Both decisions underline a consistent judicial practice where reliance on generic petitions without concrete evidence is not tolerated. In these cases, it becomes clear that companies must maintain detailed records of their transactions and contracts to ensure the legitimacy of their actions, while the judicial system reinforces that unfounded claims or attempts to manipulate the legal process are not only disfavored but also subject to significant sanctions.
References
BRASIL. Tribunal de Justiça do Estado da Bahia. Juiz de Direito Daniel Serpa de Carvalho. Processo nº 0008604-37.2023.8.05.0063. 1ª Vara do Sistema de Juizados – Conceição do Coité. Conceição do Coité, BA, N.I.
BRASIL. Tribunal de Justiça do Estado da Bahia. Juíza de Direito Luciana Amorim Hora. Processo n° 8022938-29.2023.8.05.0001. 4ª Vara de Relações de Consumo da Comarca de Salvador. Salvador, BA, 18 de março de 2024.
