The Attorney General of the Republic presented a crucial opinion within the scope of Extraordinary Appeal with Aggravation (ARE) 1.532.603/PR. This case is the paradigm for Theme 1.389 of General Repercussion in the Supreme Federal Court, which deals with jurisdictional competence and the burden of proof in actions that discuss the existence of fraud in civil or commercial service contracts, as well as the legality of contracting with legal entities and self-employed individuals. 

In his statement, the head of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office defended the recognition of the constitutionality of alternative forms of contracting to the traditional employment relationship. The central point of the thesis presented is that it is up to the Common Courts, and not the Specialized Courts, to decide on the existence, validity, and effectiveness of civil or commercial service contracts. According to the opinion, the relevant civil procedural rules regarding the distribution of the burden of proof should be applied in relation to the allegation of contract nullity. 

The Attorney General's Office's reasoning is based on the consolidated jurisprudence of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), which guarantees companies the freedom to define their organizational choices and business models. The opinion highlighted that the Constitution does not impose a specific production model and that the employment relationship should not be the only legal regime governing human labor. The opinion reinforces that the principle of valuing work and free enterprise must be harmonized, allowing professionals and entrepreneurs to opt for more flexible legal regimes that adapt to social changes, such as the franchise system. 

In the specific case that sparked the discussion, a former Prudential do Brasil franchisee sought recognition of an employment relationship, arguing that the franchise agreement had been misused. The Superior Labor Court had already granted the company's appeal, declaring the hiring legal, and the Attorney General's opinion now confirms that the Labor Court does not even have jurisdiction to assess the validity of this type of contractual relationship. 

The proposed understanding establishes that, should the Common Courts identify any nullity in the commercial legal transaction, under the terms of the Civil Code, the case files would then be sent to the Labor Courts for the determination of any potential rights and consequences in the labor sphere. Finally, it is worth noting that the reporting Justice Gilmar Mendes ordered the nationwide suspension of all proceedings dealing with issues related to General Repercussion Theme 1,389 until the final judgment of the appeal.