Worker who receives R $ 32,000 attests to poverty and gets free justice

The 8th class of the TST granted the benefit of free justice to an author who receives R $ 32 thousand in salary. The collegiate verified that the action was brought before the labor reform and stressed that the mere declaration of economic under-sufficiency, with a relative presumption of veracity, authorizes the granting of free justice to the natural person.

“There is no way to reject the request for granting the benefit of free justice based on the amount of remuneration that was informed by the claimant in the initial petition, since the magistrate does not know the claimant’s personal and family life to conclude that his remuneration would not be committed, for example, to medical treatments, debts, financing, alimony or common expenses. ”

The Regional Court did not hear the plaintiff’s appeal, due to desertion, emphasizing that the benefit of free legal aid was dismissed because the appellant initially declared that he was employed and received a salary of R $ 32 thousand.

In an appeal to the TST, the author argued that he is entitled to the benefit, since for the granting of it, the simple declaration of poverty is enough.

Rapporteur, Minister Dora Maria da Costa verified that the lawsuit was filed before the labor reform, so that the granting of free justice must be linked to the fulfillment of the requirements established in the previous wording of art. 790, § 3 of the CLT. The requirements are that the claimant earn a salary equal to or less than two minimum wages or that he / she presents a declaration of poverty.

“There is no doubt, therefore, that the mere declaration of economic hyposufficiency signed by the party in the case, with a relative presumption of veracity, authorizes the granting of free justice to the natural person.”

According to the rapporteur, there is no way to reject the request to grant the benefit of free justice based on the amount of remuneration received by the worker, as the magistrate does not know the claimant’s personal and family life to conclude that his remuneration would not be compromised, for example, with medical treatments, debts, financing, alimony or common expenses.

SOURCE: MIGALHAS 02/19/2020