In the context of the increasing digitalization of financial transactions and the Brazilian judiciary, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) recently issued a landmark decision of significant importance for the legal departments of financial institutions and companies that operate with negotiable instruments. In Special Appeal No. 2.015.911 – DF (2022/0228851-9), the Fourth Panel reaffirmed that filing the original hard copy of a Bank Credit Note (Cédula de Crédito Bancário – CCB) is not an absolute admissibility requirement for the enforcement of an extrajudicial instrument within Brazil’s electronic court system.
The decision, authored by Justice Antonio Carlos Ferreira, addresses the traditional understanding of the principle of negotiability (cartularity), which historically required physical possession of the negotiable instrument to enforce the rights embodied therein. The Court concluded, however, that the current procedural framework calls for a reinterpretation of this principle in light of judicial efficiency and technological developments.
The New Paradigm for Digital Documentary Evidence
The central issue was whether the absence of the original hard-copy instrument would render the enforcement petition procedurally defective. The STJ rejected this proposition based on three principal statutory grounds:
- Statutory Equivalence (Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure – CPC/2015): Article 425, item VI, of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure establishes that digital reproductions of public or private documents have the same evidentiary value as the original documents.
- Electronic Judicial Proceedings (Law No. 11,419/2006): Article 11 of Law No. 11,419/2006 provides that documents digitized and filed in electronic court records are deemed original documents, provided that their origin and signatory are duly authenticated.
- Duty of Custody: The requirement to preserve the original instrument has never been an end in itself. Its purpose has always been to ensure that the credit instrument had not been negotiated after enforcement commenced and that the party seeking payment is the lawful holder of the credit, thereby preventing the same instrument from being endorsed to third parties or serving as the basis for multiple concurrent enforcement proceedings. The STJ held that this purpose has not disappeared with digitalization; rather, it has shifted to Article 425, §1, of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, which imposes upon the holder of the instrument the legal duty to preserve the original until the expiration of the time limit for filing a rescissory action. It is this statutory duty of custody—rather than the physical production of the original before the court—that now serves to prevent improper endorsement or unlawful circulation of the credit after the enforcement action has been filed.
Judicial Discretion and Functional Formalism
The judgment emphasizes that the requirement to produce the original hard-copy instrument has not been abolished but has instead become a matter of judicial discretion pursuant to Article 425, §2, of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, a court should require the deposit of the original instrument only where the debtor raises a specific and substantiated challenge.
General allegations regarding the absence of the original document constitute formalism without practical utility and are incompatible with the principles of procedural efficiency, instrumental application of procedural rules, and the effective administration of justice. The production of the original document is justified only where there are concrete indications of:
- alteration or forgery of the instrument;
- improper endorsement;
- negotiation of the credit to a third party; or
- multiple enforcement proceedings based on the same instrument.
Strategic Implications for the Financial and Corporate Sectors
For banks and companies operating in Trade Finance, Corporate Finance, and Agribusiness, the decision provides greater legal certainty while reducing operational costs. The logistics associated with storing and physically forwarding original negotiable instruments to judicial offices represent both institutional risk and a significant administrative burden.
With specific regard to the Bank Credit Note (CCB), the Court recalled that, pursuant to Article 29, §1, of Law No. 10,931/2004, these instruments may circulate only through a special endorsement (endorsement in full / “endosso em preto”), which significantly reduces the risk of improper negotiation by ensuring that every endorsement identifies the transferee, unlike other negotiable instruments that may circulate more freely.
The decision also reinforces the presumption of procedural good faith, noting that Brazilian law already provides severe sanctions for abusive conduct, including fines for acts offending the dignity of justice (Article 77, §2, of the Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure) and double damages for wrongful debt collection (Article 940 of the Brazilian Civil Code).
Conclusion
The ruling does not eliminate the possibility of requiring submission of the original hard-copy CCB. Rather, the STJ rejects its automatic and indiscriminate requirement. Where a party raises a specific challenge regarding the authenticity of the document, the negotiation of the credit, an improper endorsement, or the existence of multiple enforcement proceedings involving the same instrument, the trial court retains full authority to order production of the original document.
The interpretation reaffirmed by the STJ in Special Appeal No. 2.015.911 provides greater predictability for electronic enforcement proceedings based on Bank Credit Notes while reducing litigation focused solely on procedural formalities. Judges retain authority to require production of the original instrument whenever concrete circumstances justify such a measure. For companies, the decision confirms that digital credit recovery processes may be conducted more efficiently, allowing legal departments to focus on the enforceability, certainty, and liquidity of the underlying credit without being constrained by formal requirements that no longer reflect the realities of modern electronic litigation.
References and Legal Framework
Superior Court of Justice (STJ). Special Appeal No. 2.015.911 – DF (2022/0228851-9). Reporting Justice: Justice Antonio Carlos Ferreira. Decided on March 17, 2026. Available at: https://scon.stj.jus.br/SCON/GetInteiroTeorDoAcordao?num_registro=202202288519&dt_publicacao=27/03/2026.
BRAZIL. Law No. 13,105, of March 16, 2015. Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure (Articles 77, 79–81, and 425).
BRAZIL. Law No. 11,419, of December 19, 2006. Provides for the Computerization of Judicial Proceedings (Article 11).
BRAZIL. Law No. 10,931, of August 2, 2004. Provides for the Bank Credit Note (Cédula de Crédito Bancário – CCB) (Articles 28 and 29).
BRAZIL. Law No. 10,406, of January 10, 2002. Brazilian Civil Code (Article 940).