Blog

In a recent decision, the 7th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 1st Region, in a labor enforcement proceeding, annulled the summons by public notice of partners in the context of an incident of disregard of legal personality, after finding that the court, although it had ordered the summons by E-Letter, did not send the electronic notifications.

This is not a mere procedural flaw. The rapporteur identified that the PJe system contained records of summonses by E-Carta with the same date as the publication of the notices.

However, the E-Carta system itself reported that no notifications had been sent to the partners and that the notifications were sent later and only to communicate the judgment. The partners were included as defendants and convicted without any real opportunity for defense.

Service by public notice is exceptional in nature and is only legitimate when it has been demonstrated that ordinary means of location and notification have been exhausted. Publication in a public notice, without any attempt at electronic communication, constituted an irremediable defect, as it directly violated the right to adversarial proceedings and full defense.

The court recognized that the absence of valid service of process contaminates all subsequent acts of enforcement. The warning to companies and legal departments is concrete. Enforcements that appear to be consolidated may have their proceedings substantially reopened when the nullity of fundamental procedural acts is identified.

Inclusions in the passive pole, asset freezes, and discussions that have already been resolved may be overturned on appeal, forcing renegotiations or revisions of guarantees.

This understanding is in line with the growing and necessary rigor in the analysis of procedures that expand the scope of enforcement. The disregard of legal personality, in itself, already represents the mitigation of asset autonomy, which is why courts have been demanding strict compliance with each procedural step, with verification of the effectiveness of the acts.

Internal departments and law firms need to go beyond simply monitoring the formal progress of proceedings. This means verifying whether subpoenas have been issued and delivered, whether ordinary remedies have been exhausted before the adoption of the notice, and whether the adversarial process has been preserved.

The mere existence of orders or records in the system does not, in itself, ensure the validity of the acts.

Compliance with formalities requires substance, not just appearance. It is this effectiveness that confers legitimacy on procedural acts, and without it, even decisions considered to be consolidated remain legally vulnerable over time.

Por Pedro Chicarino