Banco do Brasil deve responder por ação de revisão do PASEP, decide TJPA com base no Tema 1150/STJ

CALCULATION SPREADSHEET HERE: https://pay.kiwify.com.br/OTbMvRm?afi... ✅ Learn about the PASEP action that paid out over R$ 500,000 👉🏻 https://wp.me/paLIV2-5Ci ✅ Download the free ebook 👉🏻 https://vsprevidenciario.com/ ✅ WHATSAPP CHANNEL 👉🏻 https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Vb6V... ✅ TELEGRAM CHANNEL: https://t.me/CANALPROFESSORVALTERDOSS... ✅ WHATSAPP GROUP 👉🏻 https://chat.whatsapp.com/DLbp10ThNbl... ✅THOSE WHO WORKED BEFORE 1988 MAY RECEIVE COMPENSATION, DECIDES STJ. ACCESS HERE: https://go.hotmart.com/A77119532I Banco do Brasil must answer for PASEP review action, decides TJPA based on STJ Theme 1150 Introduction An important judicial decision reinforced the understanding that Banco do Brasil can be called to answer in actions involving possible failures in the management of accounts linked to PASEP. The case analyzed deals with an action for specific performance combined with a request for material and moral damages, in which the plaintiff questions alleged embezzlements, improper entries, and the lack of correct application of earnings in her individual PASEP account. The decision is relevant because it applies Topic 1150 of the Superior Court of Justice, which recognized the legitimacy of Banco do Brasil to be a defendant when the discussion is not limited to the monetary correction indices of the fund, but involves failure in the provision of services, undue withdrawals, embezzlement, or lack of income. Case Context The case originated from an Action for Specific Performance combined with Material and Moral Damages, filed by Maria da Paz Soares de Lima against Banco do Brasil S.A., involving the review of an account linked to the PIS/PASEP program. In the first instance, the judge dismissed the case without prejudice, based on article 485, item VI, of the Code of Civil Procedure, understanding that Banco do Brasil was not a legitimate party to respond to the action. Therefore, the plaintiff was ordered to pay court costs and attorney's fees, set at 10% of the value of the case, but with the enforceability suspended due to legal aid. Dissatisfied, the plaintiff filed an appeal. In the appeal, she requested the full application of STJ (Superior Court of Justice) Precedent 1150, arguing that Banco do Brasil was responsible for failures in the management of the PASEP account, improper withdrawals, embezzlement, and failure to invest the due income. Furthermore, the plaintiff requested the application of the Consumer Protection Code, the reversal of the burden of proof, compensation for material damages in the amount of R$ 70,694.63, and compensation for moral damages in the amount of R$ 10,000.00. Banco do Brasil filed counter-arguments defending the upholding of the judgment. The Public Prosecutor's Office opined in favor of maintaining the bank's lack of standing to be sued and confirming the dismissal of the case without prejudice. Explanation of the judicial decision Upon reviewing the appeal, Judge Mairton Marques Carneiro, of the Court of Justice of Pará, acknowledged the appeal and decided the case unilaterally, based on the Internal Regulations of the TJPA, as it concerned a matter already known to the court. The central point of the decision was to verify whether or not Banco do Brasil has standing to respond to the action. The first-instance judgment had understood that the discussion would be exclusively about monetary correction indices of the PASEP, a matter involving the Union. However, the reporting judge disagreed with this understanding. The decision highlighted that the Superior Court of Justice, in the judgment of Special Appeals No. 1,895,936/TO, 1,895,941/TO and 1,951,931/DF, under the repetitive appeals procedure, established the thesis of Theme 1150. According to this thesis, Banco do Brasil has passive legitimacy to respond in actions that discuss any failure in the provision of service regarding the account linked to PASEP, undue withdrawals, embezzlement, and lack of application of the income defined by the Board of Directors of the program. The rapporteur observed that the initial petition itself did not deal merely with a simple review of monetary correction indices. The plaintiff pointed to alleged embezzlement, undue entries, lack of proof of the destination of debits, incorrect application of income, and patrimonial damage resulting from the management of the PASEP account. Therefore, the court applied the so-called theory of assertion. This theory means that the legitimacy of the parties must be analyzed based on the allegations made in the initial petition, and not from a premature conclusion about who is right on the merits. In other words, since the plaintiff attributed failures in the administration of the PASEP account to Banco do Brasil, the bank must remain in the process to respond to these allegations. Whether or not there was any irregularity should be determined later, with the production of evidenc...