In indivisible claims, unsuccessful litigants may adopt divergent avenues of appellate recourse: some lodge an appeal on the merits within the statutory time limit, while others resort to cassation after its expiry. The principal question is which court should adjudicate these challenges and in what sequence. Judgment No. 9609970909100021, rendered by Branch Three of the Supreme Court, relying on the hierarchy of judicial instances, accorded priority to appellate review and stayed cassation proceedings pending determination of the appeal.

Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, this article examines the procedural autonomy of litigants in choosing their avenue of recourse in tension with the unity of their judicial fate in indivisible litigation, and critically analyzes the Supreme Court’s approach. The findings indicate that, although staying cassation proceedings pending determination of the appeal is consistent with the primacy of appellate review, its practical application gives rise to unresolved procedural difficulties, particularly due to the extension of the appellate judgment’s effects to other unsuccessful litigants and the unavailability of cassation against appellate judgments. Even Uniformity Decision No. 855 of the General Board of the Supreme Court, despite recognizing an independent right to seek cassation, has failed to resolve practical and procedural issues arising from its implementation.