The hypothesis of a protest of a trade bill (duplicata) for an amount greater than the debt does not give rise to moral damage to be indemnified, since the drawee remains in the condition of debtor, although at a level lower than the one indicated. Accordingly, the Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) denied the appeal of a debtor. He sought compensation for moral damages as a result of the protest of a trade bill for an amount greater than that owed.
In the case, the amount of R$ 6,000 was agreed between the parties. For the engineering services contracted. Subsequently, the debtor was notified of a protest for R$ 17,000.
See also:
What are the advantages of making a will?
According to the reporting justice of the special appeal, Justice Nancy Andrighi, the irregular protest of a bill may give rise to a sentence for moral damage due to the damage to credit caused by the publicity of the act of protest. This naturally associates the debtor with the stigma of being a bad payer in the marketplace.
However, according to the reporting justice, the discussion of the appeal refers to a protest for an amount greater than the debt, there being no attack on the personal reputation of the appellant or on his honor and credibility before his fellow citizens. Such a situation, according to the justice, does not constitute moral damage.
There was no moral damage
“The one who, in fact, falls into the condition of debtor, being in arrears in the payment of a debt assumed by himself, cannot feel morally offended by a protest of a bill that, although irregular for not faithfully representing the amount of the debt, only came to testify to the default,” the reporting justice stated.
The justice cited that the characterization of indemnifiable moral damage requires proof of a series of factors that did not occur in the case analyzed.
“For moral damage to be characterized, the judge must be able to identify in the concrete case a serious aggression or attack on the dignity of the human person, capable of giving rise to intense suffering and humiliation, disrupting the psychological balance of the individual for an unreasonable period of time,” he stated.
The ruling of the court of origin, which cancelled the protest but denied the request for compensation, was upheld in its entirety by the Third Panel.
Source: STJ
← Back to blog