This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| [55] Coca Cola Bottlers, Phils., Inc. v. Roque, G.R. No. 118985. June 14, 1999, 308 SCRA 215, 223. | |||||
|
2012-02-15 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In order to justify a grant of actual or compensatory damages, it is necessary to prove, with a reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence obtainable by the injured party, the actual amount of loss. One is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has adequately proved. Damages, to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must be actually proved with a reasonable degree of certainty.[41] The Court cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the amount of damages.[42] Actual proof of expenses incurred for the purchase of medicines and other medical supplies necessary for his treatment and rehabilitation should have been presented by respondent, in the form of official receipts, to show the exact cost of his medication, and to prove that, indeed, he went through medication and rehabilitation. Aside from the letter of Dr. De la Paz, respondent miserably failed to produce even a single receipt showing his alleged medical and rehabilitation expenses. By reason thereof, petitioner should not be held liable for the P94,000.00 medical expenses of respondent as actual or compensatory damages, for lack of basis. Verily, in the absence of official receipts or other competent evidence to prove the actual expenses incurred, the CA's award of medical expenses in favor of respondent should be negated. | |||||