A coisa julgada sobre questão em benefício de terceiros.

Abstract

This paper aims to examine to what extent it is compatible to extend the res judicata to third party beneficiaries who are involved in the same legal issue, based on the interpretation of articles 503 and 506 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A literature review of the literature was carried out to survey the conditions for the formation of res judicata on a harmful question in the light of art. 503 of the CPC and its extension to third parties under the terms of art. 506 of the CPC. In the dissertation, case studies of three precedents of the American Supreme Court were also carried out, as an investigative form of the grounds for which the US began to admit the res judicata on an issue for the benefit of third parties in both disputes (Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. University of Illinois Foundation), as well as in initial petitions (Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore), by fulfilling requirements, however, they prevented its extension in cases where the Government is a party to the dispute (the United States v. Mendonza), looking at the end by analyzing to a measure we can use or refute these hypotheses in Brazilian law. As well as, to identify a distinction among the institutes of the Thought Judged on Matters for the Benefit of Third Parties, Precedent, IRDR and Thought Judged Formed in Public Civil Actions, through the bibliographic review of the literature. In the end, the qualitative results of the research carried out are presented. In this new conception of the objective limits of res judicata, it is investigated what, within a sentence, becomes immutable and indisputable after the determined res judicata, who is bound by the res judicata and who can benefit from the res judicata. The extent of the res judicata extension is related to the ideals of legal certainty, procedural economics, and reduction of litigation, fostering a culture of equal treatment, generating predictability and legal certainty.