Judge orders lawyer to pay Prevent Senior R$ 300 in damages.
Lawyer Bruna Mendes dos Santos Morato was convicted of moral damages due to accusations made against the operator during the Pandemic CPI (Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry).
Rafa Santos, Conjur - Ongoing investigations, indictments, and reports from parliamentary commissions of inquiry cannot be confused with a finding of guilt. This is especially true in Brazil, where the Constitution stipulates that no one shall be considered guilty until a final and unappealable criminal conviction is reached.
This was the understanding of Judge Gustavo Coube de Carvalho, of the 5th Civil Court of São Paulo, in ordering lawyer Bruna Mendes dos Santos Morato to compensate the health plan operator Prevent Senior with R$ 300 for moral damages.
The decision was prompted by a lawsuit filed by the operator against the lawyer, who became nationally known for making serious accusations against the company during the Covid Parliamentary Inquiry Commission in 2021.
Bruna represented the lawyers who had left the company and stated in parliament that her clients were being persecuted by Prevent Senior and that its directors were criminals acting as "militias" and "mafias."
In analyzing the case, the judge noted that the defendant was a lawyer and therefore knew that investigations and indictments cannot be used as evidence of established guilt.
"By publicly stating that the author 'persecutes' and 'threatens' its professionals, and that its directors are 'criminals' who act as 'militias' and 'mafias,' participating in a 'macabre plot' that allegedly deprived 'these people of their opportunity to survive,' the defendant attributed infamous conduct, defined as a crime, to the company," the document stated.
The judge also dismissed the argument that the lawyer had merely exercised her right to free expression, since she did not present any final criminal judgments in which the directors of Prevent were convicted of crimes such as racketeering, criminal association, or homicide.
"Without this, the defendant's conduct proved to be unlawful and can be classified as an attempt to assassinate the reputation of a large company. The resulting moral damage is evident, as well as demonstrated by the widespread repercussions in the press and social media of the offenses and accusations spread," he stated when condemning the lawyer.