The merits were never heard

Yesterday, I showed a fundamental part of the judgment issued by the 18th Labor Court of São Paulo.

Although my claim for moral damages was dismissed, the judge himself recorded that I had identified irregularities at Agip do Brasil in Cuiabá, reported them to the appropriate persons and, in doing so, fulfilled my duty as an employee and complied with the company’s Code of Ethics.

I disagreed with the judgment.

So my lawyers appealed to the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region - Tribunal Regional do Trabalho da 2ª Região (TRT-SP).

It was an opportunity to have the case reviewed by a panel of appellate judges.

But the merits of my appeal were never examined.

Not because the Court reviewed the documents, assessed the evidence and concluded that the judgment should be upheld.

The appeal was not heard because of a procedural issue concerning proof of payment of the court costs.

The TRT-SP decision states that the document submitted did not constitute definitive proof of payment because it was a “provisional document obtained through a bank envelope”.

According to the Court, the information contained in it was unilateral, there was no bank certification, and the attached DARF payment form had not been authenticated.

The decision itself reproduces the warning printed on the bank receipt:

📌 “Payment will only be deemed settled after the envelope has been opened and the amounts contained therein have been confirmed”.

Then came the conclusion: “I do not hear the appeal”.

That sentence has an important consequence for the reconstruction of the Flinto Case.

The TRT-SP did not rule that my allegations were wrong.
It did not conclude that the evidence was insufficient.
It did not reexamine the merits of my retaliation claim.

The Court simply did not hear the appeal because of a procedural issue concerning proof of payment of the court costs.

As a result, the central issue in the case - whether my dismissal, only weeks after I reported irregularities, could constitute retaliation - was not reviewed by a panel of appellate judges in that proceeding.

But my lawyers did not give up.

The dispute over this procedural decision would eventually reach Brazil’s Superior Labor Court.

And only years later, in 2009, would the case finally come to an end.

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 - March 29, 2004:
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

2️⃣ TRT-SP Decision - Ordinary Appeal
🔹 Original in Portuguese
🔹 English translation

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