| dc.description.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. | eng |
