FINANCIAL
BUILDING CORPORATION vs. RUDLIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, BLOOMFIELD EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION, INC., RODOLFO J. LAGERA, MA.
ERLINDA J. LAGERA AND JOSAPHAT R. BRAVANTE, G.R. No. 164186,
October 4, 2010; with accompanying case
-- RUDLIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, BLOOMFIELD EDUCATIONAL
FOUNDATION, INC., RODOLFO J. LAGERA, MA.
ERLINDA J. LAGERA AND JOSAPHAT R. BRAVANTE vs. FINANCIAL BUILDING CORPORATION, G.R. No. 164347,
October 4, 2010.
“x x x.
As to
Rudlins counterclaim for reimbursement of its expenses in
repairing the defective waterproofing, not a single receipt was presented by
Rudlin to prove that such expense was actually incurred by it. Under the Civil
Code, one is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary
loss suffered by him as he has duly proved. The award of actual
damages must be based on the evidence presented, not on the personal knowledge
of the court; and certainly not on flimsy, remote, speculative and non-substantial
proof.[46]
The
testimony of Rodolfo J. Lagera on the total cost allegedly spent by Rudlin in
repairing the waterproofing works does not suffice. A court cannot
rely on speculations, conjectures or guesswork as to the fact of damage but
must depend upon competent proof that they have indeed been suffered by the
injured party and on the basis of the best evidence obtainable as to the
actual amount thereof. It must point out specific facts that could provide
the gauge for measuring whatever compensatory or actual damages were borne.[47]
X x x.”
