Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
0 comments 
Pool Maintenance Worker Was Called a “Swindler” on Social Media, 3rd Civil Court of Campo Grande Recognized Moral Damage and Condemned Two Defendants to Joint Payment of R$ 4 Thousand, with Correction and Interest
The Justice of Mato Grosso do Sul condemned two defendants to compensate a defamed pool cleaner in a group with approximately 170 thousand members. The decision is from the 3rd Civil Court of Campo Grande, signed by Judge Juliano Rodrigues Valentim.
The case arose after a post accused the worker of receiving payment for pool cleaning and not performing the service, in addition to labeling him a “swindler.” The magistrate recognized the moral damage and set R$ 4 thousand, with correction and interest.
According to the records reported by the press, the professional stated that the contract, on May 27, 2023, was for repairing the motor and required the purchase of parts. Under pressure, he refunded R$ 300, and the post was removed the following day.
-
A little-known rule in the Civil Code allows for other relatives to be called to the support action when the person who should pay first cannot cover everything alone.
-
Government enacts new law requiring ex-couples to share custody of pets in case of divorce, with rules for time of cohabitation, veterinary expenses, and loss of ownership in cases of animal abuse.
-
Justice condemns truck driver to pay R$ 87,000 after leaving truck with soybean cargo unattended at a gas station for two days: insurance company refused to cover and the loss fell entirely on the driver.
-
Considered Trump’s last ally in Europe, Giorgia Meloni has just suspended a military agreement of over 20 years with Israel and rejected Italy’s entry into the blockade of Hormuz.
Context of the Case and What Influenced the Sentence
The judge understood that, even if there were discussions about the complete execution of the agreement, the offensive public exposure outweighed “the right to complain.” The dissemination in a widely accessed virtual environment affected the dignity and image of the plaintiff.
For the magistrate, the subsequent retraction did not erase the effect of the damage because the message had already circulated widely, subjecting the worker to embarrassment in the digital community. The content was considered false and offensive.
As reported, the conviction is joint among the defendants. The amount of R$ 4 thousand must be corrected and increased by interest, a standard applied in moral damage convictions in the civil sphere.
What Each Side Argued
The pool cleaner maintained that he had previously provided services to one of the defendants and that, in the new call, he was hired to repair the motor and not to clean the pool. The delay was due to the need for parts to finish the repair.
He filed a police report and sought compensation for moral damages, as well as retraction in the same group where the accusation had been published. The refund of R$ 300 occurred before the removal of the post.
The defendants claimed that they contracted for repair and cleaning, alleged breach of contract, and stated that the refund only happened after insistence. They also reported publishing a retraction on December 1, 2023 and disputed the amount requested.
Why There Was a Conviction for Moral Damage
The core of the decision was the illegality of the content and its massive reach. Legitimate criticism of the service has limits: it does not authorize imputing fraud, nor does it allow exposing data or labeling someone as a “swindler” without objective basis. This point was highlighted in the coverage by local media.
The Justice considered that any partial breach does not legitimize defamation. The conduct constituted an abuse of right, a sufficient element for recognizing moral damage in re ipsa — that is, presumed by the offense itself.
The retraction during the process was valued but did not eliminate the harm. The reputational effect of the message in a large group persists even after deletion. Recent decisions in the State follow a similar line when there is vexatious exposure on social media.
What Changes for Consumers and Service Providers
For those hiring services, the guidance is to document the demand, deadlines and scope, resorting to formal channels in cases of failure. Accusatory publications can generate civil liability and legal costs, even with subsequent retraction.
For professionals, keeping conversations and receipts helps demonstrate good faith and progress of services. When there is a dispute, seeking mediation or the Judiciary prevents the multiplying effect of social media. Local jurisprudence has been firm against honor attacks.
Civil law experts remind: freedom of expression does not cover defamation. In summary, criticism is allowed, offense is compensable. The line is drawn by truthfulness, tone, and context of disclosure.
How the Decision Fits in the Legal Scenario
The case adds to other decisions that recognize moral damages for digital offenses in Mato Grosso do Sul, including based on impact and persistence of the content. The 3rd Civil Court of Campo Grande has precedents emphasizing the protection of honor.
The fixing of the quantum observes criteria of proportionality, economic capacity, and pedagogical effect. The amount of R$ 4 thousand is within the spectrum applied to specific offenses, when there is no proof of extensive material damage.
Beyond the amount, the central message is the liability of those who publish, share, or maintain defamatory content. In large groups, the impact is amplified, which weighs in the measurement of damage.
Do you think the decision was fair or should the amount be higher to deter mass attacks? Comment if the Justice should toughen convictions for defamation in large groups or if the current level is sufficient to curb abuses.
Seja o primeiro a reagir!