Portuguese 
English 
Spanish 
4 min of reading 
3 comments 
Unprecedented Decision Strengthens Protection of the Right to Defense and Acknowledges that Medical Emergencies of Children Justify Absence in Labor Hearings Without Automatic Application of Confession
The Labor Court of Rio de Janeiro gained attention again after a landmark ruling, in which a worker succeeded in overturning the confession penalty imposed on her for missing a hearing while she was taking her child for an emergency medical appointment. This information was disclosed by the Regional Labor Court of the 1st Region (RJ), and the case drew attention because it exposed how a rigid interpretation of the law can violate constitutional guarantees such as due process and ample defense.
Right at the beginning of the process, the professional – hired in 2013 to work as a commercial consultant – contacted the Labor Court to claim salary differences, overtime, and other rights she considered due. However, her absence at the instruction hearing resulted in the immediate application of the confession penalty by the lower court, even with her lawyer present and requesting time to present justification. The request, however, was denied.
Worker Presented Certificate Proving Child’s Emergency, but Lower Court Rejected Justification and Applied Confession
As recorded in the process, the initial ruling declared the confession of the worker regarding the factual matter, taking the arguments presented by the company as true. Thus, all requests made by her were denied. The situation worsened when, in the declaration embargos, the originating court stated that the medical certificate presented did not prove her inability to move, nor the motherhood regarding the patient who required care.
-
Parental bereavement law comes into effect in Brazil and requires hospitals to change care for mothers and fathers facing gestational, fetal, and neonatal losses.
-
A little-known law can save a family’s only home from going to auction for ordinary debts: Law No. 8,009/1990 makes residential property unseizable and prevents thousands of Brazilians from losing their homes due to claims that do not fall under legal exceptions.
-
The Municipal Guard secures strategic points in Curitiba against chain snatching, expands operations in Portão and Matriz, and reacts after a R$ 1,500 chain is snatched.
-
‘Loan shark can work,’ but with limits, and lending money with interest is not a crime! STJ decides that collection between individuals is permitted and maintains the obligation to return the principal amount; see rules, limits, and when there is abuse
Dissatisfied, the professional appealed to the Regional Labor Court. In the appeal, she argued that her absence was duly justified and that she was accompanying her child for emergency care exactly at the time of the hearing, which was proven by the certificate attached to the records. Therefore, she requested the nullification of the ruling and the return of the case to the originating court for the reopening of the instruction.
Judge Angelo Galvão Zamorano, rapporteur of the case in the 6th Panel of the TRT of the 1st Region (RJ), noted right away that the justification presented was completely compatible with the reality of a medical emergency. More than that: he emphasized that requiring proof of inability to move – as provided by Summary 122 of the TST – did not apply to this case, since no one can predict the urgent need to seek medical attention for a child.
Judge Determines Nullity of the Ruling, Acknowledges Violation of Ample Defense, and Orders Reopening of the Instruction
The rapporteur also highlighted that the birth certificate attached to the records proves motherhood, dispelling any doubts about the legitimacy of the reason for the absence. In light of this, his conclusion was categorical: the first-instance ruling violated due process and ample defense by denying the time for justification, ignoring the medical certificate, and applying confession without adequately analyzing the context.
Thus, the judge ordered the acceptance of the nullity and directed the return of the records to the Originating Court for the reopening of the instruction, gathering personal testimony from the worker and issuing a new ruling. The decision was unanimously endorsed by the 6th Panel, reinforcing the understanding that medical emergencies fully justify absence from procedural acts.
This case serves as a warning to workers and companies: in decisions of the Labor Court, the resources provided for in Article 893 of the CLT are applicable, and ample defense must always prevail when there are plausible and proven justifications.
In light of all this, do you believe that the worker was treated justly when her justification was initially ignored, or did the firm stance of the judge – in restoring her right to due process – reveal a necessary correction to prevent hasty decisions from harming those facing real emergency situations?
Acho q o juiz q recusou o atestado médico deveria ser demitido por total incompetência. Além de demostrar ser uma pessoa desumana e cruel
Sentença absurda ! Felizmente o Desembargador corrigiu a arbitrariedade cemetida.
Em um país onde a ” lei de Gerson’ sempre prevalece, junto com a grande quantidade de processos a julgar, fica um impasse de 50% de decisão/ dúvida, mas o que revolta se fosse um (do meio), da média para cima, teria se determinado o acolhimento da nobre advogada da solicitante, mas como é da classe proletariado tem que brigar, e esperar anos por um contexto favorável.