SC says RTC may proceed with case vs former telecom exec

The Supreme Court is set to direct the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City to proceed with the hearings on a case filed against a former top telecommunications executive for the payment of money totalling P5 million both in unpaid company loans and damages.

Nextel Communications Phils. Inc. (now Next Mobile) as early as October 2001 filed a petition with the Pasig RTC against former president and chief executive officer Antonio Urera for the collection of a company housing loan amounting to P3.354 million which he refused to pay despite repeated demand. Upon his separation from Nextel on April 18, 2001, the entire balance of the principal loan became due and outstanding.

Urera likewise borrowed another P1 million from the company, of which only P26,195.36 was paid through salary deduction, leaving a principal balance of P973,804.64.

Nextel in its complaint likewise claimed that Urera was reimbursed by the company then of foreign travel expenses incurred by his son and other companions not officially connected with Nextel. The complainant alleged that the act not only constituted estafa which is a crime but also undue enrichment for which the company should be reimbursed plus interest, as wel as paid damages.

In its petition, Nextel also said that Urera transferred Nextel properties from the Nextel office to the office of Edsamail, where his son Marco was the chief executive officer. This the company said not only is a conflict of interest, but also a breach of his employment contract.

However, instead of paying the said amounts, Urera, through his lawyer Alan Paguia, filed a motion to dismiss, saying that Nextel filed a false certification of non-forum shopping. Paguia alleged that Nextel has already filed a civil complaint for replevin (repossession of a company car) against Urera, but the company claimed in its certification that the replevin case does not involve the same basic issues as the case for sum of money and damages.

The RTC of Pasig however denied the motion to dismiss filed by Urera as well as a motion for reconsideration to the decision denying the motion to dismiss.

Urera then elevated the case to the Court of Appeals where it filed a petiton for certiorari with preliminary injuction seeking to reverse and set aside the RTC order.

The CA upheld the RTC ruling, so Urera brought the matter to the Supreme Court asking the High Court to review the CA decision.

The Supreme Court denied the petition, saying that Urera failed to show that the CA committed any error in its decision.

With the SC ruling, Next Mobile lawyers said the RTC can now proceed with the case against Urera on the merits.