A responsabilidade civil do banco mandatário frente ao sacado em casos de protesto indevido de duplicatas mercantis: problemática da súmula 476 do Superior Tribunal de Justiça
Carregando...
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2022-06
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Carvalho, Fernanda Mayumi de
Orientador
Dellore, Luiz Guilherme Pennacchi
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
Os títulos de crédito são documentos destinados a facilitar a circulação do crédito ao longo do desenvolvimento da sociedade capitalista, e vem desempenhando essa função até hoje. Portanto, se o devedor não apresentar o aceite, o credor pode supri-lo e apresentar impugnação à cártula em tempo hábil. No entanto, muitos empresários os emitem de forma fraudulenta com o objetivo de obter lucro ilícito com a venda de tais títulos, ou seja, sem qualquer motivo para fazê-lo. Com isso, os títulos acabam sendo enviados para protesto, mesmo sem a devida justificativa, causando dano moral ao sacado que de fato, muitas vezes sequer estava inadimplente ou mesmo sabia da existência da cópia protestada.
Esses danos morais são presuntivos, devido ao “choque” de crédito que os protestos naturalmente causam aos sujeitos. A atitude da instituição bancária também facilitou a circulação de títulos fictícios, de modo que tais instituições agem como representante para facilitar cobranças e protestos, sem que houvesse qualquer comprovação da existência dos mesmos motivos.
À vista disso, a Súmula 476 do STJ foi firmada para esclarecer quanto à responsabilidade das instituições financeiras ao realizar cobranças em nome do mandante, contudo, sua intepretação diverge entre os tribunais de modo que não há entendimento único, e sim, majoritário, apesar de não parecer correto.
Vale ressaltar que, nesta hipótese, a casa bancária deveria ser inicialmente condenada a reparar o dano causado por suas ações. Nesse sentido, como foi constatada negligência no ato de não exigir justificativa para protestar, há a possibilidade de responsabilização subjetiva.
Debt securities are documents intended to facilitate the circulation of credit throughout the development of capitalist society, and have been performing this function until today. Therefore, if the debtor does not present the acceptance, the creditor can supply it and submit a impugnation to the credit title in a timely manner. However, many entrepreneurs fraudulently issue them with the aim of making an illicit profit from the sale of such securities, that is, without any reason to do so. As a result, the debt securities end up being sent for protest, even without proper justification, causing moral damage to the drawee who, in fact, was often not even in default or even knew of the existence of the protest of titles. These moral damages are presumptive, due to the credit “shock” that protests naturally cause to the victim. The attitude of the banking institution also facilitated the circulation of fictitious securities, so that such institutions act as a representative to facilitate dunning and protests of the titles, without any proof of the existence of the same reasons. In view of this, Precedent 476 of the STJ was signed to clarify the responsibility of financial institutions when carrying out dunning on behalf of the principal, however, its interpretation differs between the courts so that there is no single, but majority, understanding, despite not seem correct. It is worth mentioning that, in this case, the banking house should initially be ordered to repair the damage caused by its actions. In this sense, as negligence was found in the act of not demanding justification for protesting, there is the possibility of both be responsable for the ilicit act.
Debt securities are documents intended to facilitate the circulation of credit throughout the development of capitalist society, and have been performing this function until today. Therefore, if the debtor does not present the acceptance, the creditor can supply it and submit a impugnation to the credit title in a timely manner. However, many entrepreneurs fraudulently issue them with the aim of making an illicit profit from the sale of such securities, that is, without any reason to do so. As a result, the debt securities end up being sent for protest, even without proper justification, causing moral damage to the drawee who, in fact, was often not even in default or even knew of the existence of the protest of titles. These moral damages are presumptive, due to the credit “shock” that protests naturally cause to the victim. The attitude of the banking institution also facilitated the circulation of fictitious securities, so that such institutions act as a representative to facilitate dunning and protests of the titles, without any proof of the existence of the same reasons. In view of this, Precedent 476 of the STJ was signed to clarify the responsibility of financial institutions when carrying out dunning on behalf of the principal, however, its interpretation differs between the courts so that there is no single, but majority, understanding, despite not seem correct. It is worth mentioning that, in this case, the banking house should initially be ordered to repair the damage caused by its actions. In this sense, as negligence was found in the act of not demanding justification for protesting, there is the possibility of both be responsable for the ilicit act.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
endosso , mandato , duplicata , protesto , letter of endorsement , mandate , duplicate , protest title