My role of whistleblower was confirmed

Yesterday, I showed that on July 31, 2003, on the last day of the period considered available by my lawyers, I filed a labor lawsuit against Agip do Brasil.

My claim for moral damages was dismissed.

At first glance, I had lost.

But that is only part of the story.

To understand what was actually placed on the judicial record, it is necessary to read the reasoning of the March 29, 2004 judgment.

The judge recorded as undisputed facts my dismissal without cause, the company’s internal Code of Ethics, and investigations into irregularities at Agip do Brasil in Cuiabá.

And the judgment went further.

After examining the testimony and circumstances, it stated:

📌 “The claimant identified irregularities at the company in Cuiabá and communicated them to the proper persons, thereby fulfilling his duty as an employee and under the Code of Ethics”.

That sentence is fundamental to the Flinto Case.

It judicially establishes three elements I have maintained for twenty-five years:

🔹 I identified irregularities.

🔹 I reported them to the company.

🔹 And I fulfilled my duty as an employee and the Code of Ethics.

Even so, the judge did not find moral damages.

The Court’s reasoning deserves attention when viewed twenty-two years later.

The judgment states that it would defy logic to imagine a company punishing an employee who investigated irregularities harmful to the company and reported them to prevent greater problems.

Because I had been dismissed without cause, the judge concluded that Agip do Brasil had merely exercised its right to terminate my employment.

My claim for damages was therefore rejected.

But one question remained unanswered:

📌 if I identified irregularities, properly reported them, and complied with the Code of Ethics, why was I dismissed only weeks later?

That question becomes even more relevant alongside the events presented in recent posts: headquarters’ subsequent intervention and the successive departures of executives from the Brazilian commercial structure.

But there was another problem.

I had the right to appeal and seek review by a panel of appellate judges.

That review on the merits never took place.

Not because the appellate court examined the evidence and upheld the judgment, but because of a procedural issue involving payment of the appeal costs.

That is what I will show tomorrow.

After twenty-five years, my request to Eni remains the same:

🔴 that the facts and the entire body of evidence finally be submitted to an independent, impartial, and transparent review.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Judgment of the 18th Labor Court of São Paulo - Mar 29, 2004:
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

2️⃣ Witness statements and testimony:
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

3️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events - Event 22

I turned to the courts

Yesterday, I explained why I waited.

After my report reached Eni’s Board of Directors, I saw headquarters order a further investigation into the facts, Italian executives become directly involved in Brazil, and a series of dismissals affect Agip do Brasil’s commercial structure.

I still believed Eni would contact me.

But that never happened.

While I waited, the deadline to seek redress before the Brazilian Labor Court was approaching.

So, on July 31, 2003, on the last day of the period considered available by my lawyers, I filed a labor lawsuit against Agip do Brasil.

The core of the case was simple.

📌 I argued that my dismissal could not be separated from the irregularities I had investigated and reported internally, in accordance with the company’s own Code of Ethics.

Agip do Brasil presented a different version.

According to its defense, I had been dismissed “without cause”, and there was no basis for claiming a “breach of trust”. The defense argued that the company had simply exercised its right to terminate my employment.

From that moment on, two different versions of the same events were formally before the Court.

On one side, I presented documents and witnesses to demonstrate the circumstances surrounding my dismissal.

On the other, the company maintained that the termination was lawful and challenged my claim for damages.

The proceedings moved forward.

Documents were submitted.

Witnesses were heard.

The competing versions were examined.

Then, on March 29, 2004, the 18th Labor Court of São Paulo issued its judgment.

At first glance, the outcome was unfavorable to me: my claim for moral damages was dismissed. The operative part of the judgment itself records the dismissal of my claim.

But reading only the outcome means overlooking an essential part of this story.

Because in explaining its decision, the Court made findings concerning the irregularities in Cuiabá, my reporting of those irregularities to the company, and my compliance with the Code of Ethics.

And those words became part of a judicial decision.

That is what I will show tomorrow.

After twenty-five years, I continue to make the same request:

🔴 do not read only the conclusions. Read the documents.


❎ Learn more:

1️⃣ Labor Lawsuit - filed on July 31, 2003 (Five volumes - more than 1,200 pages - original in Portuguese)

2️⃣ Witness statements and testimony:
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

3️⃣ Judgment of the 18th Labor Court of São Paulo - March 29, 2004:
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

4️⃣ Chronology of Facts for the Reconstruction of Events - Event 22