O método bifásico de quantificação do dano moral à luz do dever de fundamentação das decisões

Abstract

This Undergraduate Thesis analyzes the two-stage method of quantifying moral damages as a tool to control judicial discretion and a mechanism for the enforcement of duty to provide reasoned legal decisions. The study is driven by the problem characterized by the lack of objective criteria in the arbitration of the indemnity quantum, leading to arbitrary decisions that violate Article 489, §1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). The methodology is based on qualitative research with a hypothetical-deductive approach, employing a literature review and a documentary analysis of the case law from the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) and the Court of Justice of the State of Sergipe (TJSE). Initially, the legal nature of moral damages and the substantiation crisis within the Brazilian context are examined. Subsequently, the structure of the two-stage method institutionalized by the STJ is described, which is divided into two phases: the first focused on isonomy through the establishment of a base value grounded in precedents, and the second dedicated to equity by adjusting it to the specific circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the relationship between the two-stage technique and the duty of analytical justification is established, demonstrating its effectiveness in increasing predictability and appellate controllability. Finally, the panorama of the TJSE's adherence to this methodology is investigated, highlighting structural weaknesses such as the risk of hidden tariffs and the merely rhetorical use of the method. Ultimately, it is concluded that the two-stage method represents an advancement for Brazilian civil liability, confirming the hypothesis that its analytical application reinforces the effective fulfillment of the duty to provide reasoned decisions and provides rationality to judicial discretion. However, the effectiveness of this methodology remains conditioned on the objective manifestation of the judge’s ethical commitment to the transparency of legal reasoning—a duty that must be duly externalized during the determination of moral damages.