STJ Removes Requirement to Search for Defendant’s Address Before Service by Publication

This page is a translation of the original Portuguese text, provided for convenience. It deals with Brazilian law. If there is any discrepancy, the Portuguese version prevails. Read the original in Portuguese

The STJ (Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice) has ruled that a plaintiff does not have to search public agencies for the defendant’s address before requesting service by publication, which streamlines access to justice and cuts procedural obstacles.

What the STJ Decided

The Third Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) held that a plaintiff has no obligation to consult public agencies and registries on his or her own to find the defendant’s address as a precondition for requesting service by publication (citação por edital). The decision marks a significant shift in how courts read the requirements of Article 256 of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The case reached the high court after lower courts denied the request for service by publication on the ground that the plaintiff had not exhausted every possible out-of-court effort to find the defendant. In particular, the lower courts pointed to the failure to check government databases such as the Federal Revenue Service, the Detran (the state motor vehicle department), and the Regional Electoral Court. The STJ overturned that reasoning in clear and direct terms.

The Legal Background: Service by Publication Under the CPC

Service by publication is governed by Articles 256 to 259 of the 2015 CPC. Among other situations, it applies when the defendant is unknown or uncertain, when the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown, uncertain, or inaccessible, or when the other methods of service provided by law have failed. It is a subsidiary procedural mechanism, used only when the ordinary means of locating the defendant prove ineffective.

Requiring prior searches of public agencies created legal uncertainty, because there was no uniform rule on which databases had to be checked or how those attempts should be documented.

In practice, one question lingered: how far must a plaintiff go before asking the court for service by publication? Some courts took the view that litigants had to consult public records and government information systems on their own initiative, and even hire locator services, before requesting publication. The STJ has now rejected that requirement.

“The plaintiff cannot be burdened with going from one public agency to another in search of the defendant’s registration data as a requirement for granting service by publication, on pain of creating an obstacle to access to justice that the law does not provide for.”

Why the Decision Matters in Practice

For those who litigate or advise clients day to day, the decision brings real relief. Requiring prior searches of public agencies created legal uncertainty, because there was no uniform rule on which databases had to be checked or how those attempts should be documented. Some courts demanded searches with the Detran, others with the Federal Revenue Service, and others with the state Court of Justice’s search system — and the absence of any one of them could lead to denial of the request.

Moreover, many of these systems are available only to the Judiciary itself, which made the requirement even more disproportionate. Under the STJ’s new guidance, it is the court, not the plaintiff, that must order the necessary searches of public agencies before granting or denying service by publication. The judge may even use systems such as Bacenjud, Infojud, and integrated people-locator platforms to do so, sparing the litigant a bureaucratic run-around.

If you want to better understand the methods of service of process and a defendant’s rights in civil proceedings, we recommend our content on social security law and access to justice, where we cover other aspects of the judicial process that affect everyday people.

Impact on Plaintiffs, Defendants, and Lawyers

The decision has different effects on each party to a case. For plaintiffs, the immediate impact is fewer bureaucratic hurdles: they no longer need to attach proof of searches in multiple public registries as a condition for admitting a request for service by publication. This speeds up the case and lowers operating costs, especially in lawsuits involving many defendants, such as class actions, collection suits, and tax enforcement actions.

For defendants, the ruling does not remove any safeguards. The STJ made clear that service by publication remains an exceptional measure, and that the court must verify that the legal requirements are met before granting it. The publicity of the notice, the methods of publication, and the deadlines remain governed by Articles 257 to 259 of the CPC, so that defendants have a reasonable chance of learning about the lawsuit.

For lawyers, the STJ precedent provides grounds to challenge trial-court and appellate decisions that still demand prior out-of-court searches as a requirement for service by publication. We recommend consulting a specialized lawyer whenever you have doubts about the best procedural strategy in a specific case.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is service by publication, and when is it allowed?

Service by publication is a way of notifying a defendant that a lawsuit exists when the defendant cannot be found by ordinary means. It is allowed when the defendant is unknown, when the defendant’s whereabouts are unknown, or when other attempts at service have failed. It is governed by Articles 256 to 259 of the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure and is subsidiary and exceptional in nature.

Does the plaintiff still have to try to find the defendant before requesting service by publication?

Yes. The plaintiff must show that an attempt was made to locate the defendant and that it failed — for example, by stating that the defendant was not found at the address listed in the case documents. What the STJ eliminated was the specific requirement that the plaintiff search public databases on his or her own before making the request. The court may order additional searches if it considers them necessary before granting service by publication.

Does this STJ decision apply to every case in Brazil?

The decision was issued by the STJ’s Third Panel and reflects that panel’s current position. It was not issued as a súmula (a formal summary of settled case law) or as a repetitive-appeals ruling — which would give it formal binding force. Even so, state and federal courts should widely follow the precedent, because it reflects the interpretation of the high court responsible for unifying the application of federal law across the country. Lawyers can rely on it in petitions and appeals.

As informações deste artigo são de caráter informativo e não substituem consulta jurídica individualizada. Cada caso possui particularidades que exigem análise específica.