Continuing our series on binding precedents of the Brazilian Superior Labor Court (TST) in 2025, today we discuss the validity of court fees and appeal deposits paid by third parties unrelated to the lawsuit, as has passed the time when, to file an appeal, it was necessary to observe, among others, two requirements: appealing within the legal deadline and paying court fees and appeal deposits to the Court. In other words, eight days to file the appeal and evidence the payment of the court fees and the appeal deposit.

Nowadays, some courts have added an extra layer to the interpretation of 1^st paragraph of article 789 of the Brazilian Labor Law (CLT), which establishes that "the costs will be paid by the losing party (..)." Literally, the losing party.

The big problem with this new interpretation is that many companies engage specific advisory services to make the payment of the appeal deposit and court fees on their behalf, as well as adjust this collection with the law firms that represent them before courts.

In general, the purpose of delegating these payments to third parties would be to meet the deadline for the payment. This is because, often, the approval and payment flow of companies exceeds the eight days provided in the CLT as the appeal deadline.

This interpretation, for example, has been repeatedly adopted by the 5th Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 2^nd Region (TRT-2), which has considered the collection of court fees and appeal deposits made by a person other than the losing party as irregular. As a result, appeals filed in this context are not accepted by the court.

This new wave finds echo in Precedent No. 128, item I, issued by the TST, which establishes that it is the responsibility of the appealing party to make the legal deposit, in full, for each new appeal filed, under penalty of the appeal not complying with its legal requirements.

What is concluded from this Precedent is that the TST understood it to be the responsibility of the appealing party to make the appeal deposit and collect the court fees. The possibility of third parties unrelated to the case making such payments was not foreseen.

Despite this understanding, the 5^th Panel of the TST (Justice Minister Breno Medeiros) reviewed its understanding in the judgment of Ag-RRAg No. 0010863-68.2020.5.15.0067, which took place on October 16, 2024. The Panel changed its prior understanding that did not admit the payment of court fees and appeal deposits by third parties unrelated to the case. With the new understanding, the 5^th Panel of the TST joined four other Panels of the TST (1st, 6th, 7th, and 8th), which consider the payment of court fees and appeal deposits made by third parties as valid.

The Regional Labor Court of the 18^th Region (TRT-18), when judging an Incident of Repetitive Cases (IRDR 0011549-78.2023.5.18.0000) in March 2024, also took a position aligned with the current majority understanding of the TST. On that occasion, the legal thesis established was that it is possible for a third party unrelated to the case to make the payment, provided that "the collection forms for the court fees and the appeal deposit have been generated in the name of the appellant, with the due indication of the lawsuit data."

In other words, there is no invalidity of the appeal in situations where the payment of court fees and appeal deposits are timely and carried out in the appropriate manner, with correct and sufficient indications of the parties, the appellant, and other lawsuit data, and the final payment is made by funds from a bank account of a third party unrelated to the case.

Thus, if the collection forms are generated in the name of the taxpayer/collector with their CPF/CNPJ, the payment would be considered made by them, as it was done in their favor.

Decisions in this sense prioritize the application of the principle of the essential purpose of the judicial procedure (articles 154 and 244 of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code), which determines that the compliance with the necessary formalities for the performance of a certain act should not be the main objective. Once its essential purpose is fulfilled, the act should be considered valid, even if carried out in an unconventional manner.

This discussion is a setback and ends up having the opposite effect on procedural speed. This is because it leads the aggrieved party to resort to whatever instance is necessary to validate the fulfillment of the purpose of the appeal, while the merit itself is forgotten.

Despite the regrettable and, in our view, unnecessary discussion, there is still no uniform understanding on the validity or not of “outsourcing” the payment of court fees and appeal deposits. This scenario, however, is likely to change this year, as the collection of court fees and appeal deposits is one of the matters defined by the TST to be analyzed to later become a binding precedent. We await confidently that the TST will make the best decision in favor of legal certainty and validate court fees and appeal deposits paid by third parties.

Click here to read other articles in the series.