Yesterday, I showed that my appeal to the TRT-SP was not heard on the merits because of a procedural issue concerning proof of payment of court costs.My lawyers did not give up.
During that period, I was introduced to Amauri Mascaro Nascimento, a leading Brazilian labor law scholar and founder of Mascaro Nascimento Advogados.
After learning about the case, he offered his law firm’s services without charging legal fees.
The dispute eventually reached Brazil’s Superior Labor Court (TST - Tribunal Superior do Trabalho).
And there was one particularly important element.
In 2005, CAIXA issued an official statement after reviewing its records.
Its conclusion was explicit:
📌 “The payment was duly made”.
CAIXA also acknowledged that it could have better advised me about obtaining the final receipt and stated that, after identifying problems with its self-service procedure, it suspended DARF collections through that module to adjust the process.
More importantly, CAIXA considered its confirmation sufficient to support the appeal and stated that there would be no reason for the Court to reject it.
Yet the merits remained outside the Court’s review.
The TST did not examine whether I had identified irregularities, complied with the Code of Ethics by reporting them, or whether my dismissal weeks later could have constituted retaliation.
The dispute remained procedural.
On May 27, 2009, the TST’s 5th Panel unanimously denied the appeal.
Thus ended a six-year legal battle.
Even with CAIXA’s official confirmation that the payment had been made, the procedural obstacle remained, and my retaliation claim was never reexamined on the merits by an appellate court.
There is another circumstance that has raised questions for me: by then, Eni’s Brazilian assets had already been acquired by Petrobras.
I have no evidence of any interference by Petrobras in the TST’s decision, and I do not present this hypothesis as fact.
The documented fact is this: the proceedings ended without the central issue being reexamined on appeal.
And the original judgment still recorded that I had identified irregularities, reported them to the appropriate persons, and fulfilled my duty as an employee and the Code of Ethics.
The labor proceedings were over.
But the Flinto Case was not.
I then received advice that would change the course of this story:
📌 go back directly to Eni.
Later in 2009, I would submit a new Memorial to Eni’s Board of Directors.
That is where I will resume this chronology next week.
After twenty-five years, my request to Eni remains the same:
🔴 that the facts and the entire body of evidence be submitted to an independent, impartial, and transparent review.
❎ Learn more:
1️⃣ Caixa Statement:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English
2️⃣ TST Judgment:
🔹 Portuguese
🔹 English
3️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events - Event 22
