It is notorious knowledge of the fact that, from a doctrinal and jurisprudential point of view, the taxability of art role. 1.015 of the CPC is insufficient against countless situations that may occur within a judicial process.
It turns out that Carpena Advogados filed a warrant for the interlocutory decision that determined the blockade of cash relating to peritatory fees contested to exhaustion, in order to see the order of constriction in the limit and, in merit, reduced in> Quantumhomologated. At the time - prior to STJ's decision that mitigated CPC article 1,015 role taxability - the advocacy bench understood that, in spite of the exarated Óbade of the SIMULA 267 of the STF, and there is no one skilled judicial mechanism to heal the violation of Liquid and right, the most successful alternative would be the management of Mandatory Action, whose initial petition, however, remained rejected by the Court of Justice of the State of Rio Grande do Sul.
by means of interposition of an ordinary appeal, the reform of the decision was obtained, remaining the argument that the safety warrant is admissible only in cases of teratological decision, non-partial basis. In the rules of the RMS 55.930 - RS (Rel. Minister Sérgio Kukina, First Class, DJE 17/12/2019), Minister Rapporteur, the first class of the STJ, pointed out the member of the Court Quo
The STJ's decision, consigned to the assessment of the appeal in a security mandam, seeking not surprising the parties that trusted the taxability of the abovementioned art. 1,015, correctly applied the modulation established in the repetitive special appeal, with the legal thesis contained therein only applies to the interlocutory decisions made after the publication of the judgment on 19 December 2018 and therefore must admit the imposing of the warrant safety for those situations in which there was no recursal alternative provided for in the system.
