Judicial Surety Bond: Formal Rigor Resumed
SBDI-1 pacifies: registration of the policy with SUSEP must be proven. at the time of filing of the appeal. Subsequent regularization is not feasible.
What was being debated?
The defendant company replaced the appeal deposit with a judicial surety bond when filing its appeal — a practice permitted by article 899, § 11, of the CLT (Labor Reform of 2017).
The problem: the appellant did not attach proof of registration of the policy with SUSEP, as required by Joint Act TST/CSJT/CGJT No. 1/2019. The Regional Court declared the appeal inadmissible.
The 5th Panel of the TST (Superior Labor Court) overturned the decision, granting a deadline for regularization — a decision that the SBDI-1 (Specialized Section for Individual Disputes) later reversed.
What does Joint Act No. 1/2019 require?
- Presentation of the judicial guarantee insurance policy.
- Proof of policy registration with SUSEP.
- Certificate of good standing of the insurance company with SUSEP (Superintendence of Private Insurance).
Article 5, § 4: "The deadline for submitting the policy is the same as for carrying out the procedural act that it aims to guarantee."“
A deadline for regularization? That's not applicable.
- OJ No. 140 of SBDI-1 only applies to insufficient collection — not to the absence of documentation.
- The irregularity in the policy is equivalent to the total absence of the appeal deposit.
- Article 1,007, § 2, of the CPC does not apply in this case.
- TST Precedent No. 245 requires proof of payment of court fees within the appeal deadline.
Syllabus – excerpt
E-ED-Ag-ARR-983-75.2020.5.06.0011
“"The late submission of the document in question cannot be accepted, since, according to § 4 of Article 5 of the aforementioned Joint Act, as well as TST Precedent No. 245, the party must prove that the preparation fee has been paid within the time limit for filing the appeal, and therefore, granting a period for regularization is inadmissible."”
What changes in your process?
- Before filing an appeal, confirm that the policy is registered on the SUSEP portal.
- Attach the insurance policy + proof of registration + certificate of good standing to the appeal simultaneously.
- There are no second chances: flaws in the policy are equivalent to a lack of preparation.
Article written by: Rafael Mello, Israel Cruz and Ana Vasconcelos.
A recent decision by the SBDI-1 of the TST reinforces the formal rigor in the use of judicial surety insurance as a substitute for the appeal deposit.
The Court established the understanding that proof of registration of the policy with SUSEP must occur at the time the appeal is filed, and any subsequent regularization is not possible.
The absence of this documentation is equivalent to a lack of preparation, resulting in the dismissal of the appeal. This stance raises the level of procedural requirements and increases the risks for companies. Preventive action and rigorous document verification become indispensable.”