This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-09-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Anent the actual damages, the Court of Appeals is correct in not awarding the same inasmuch as the respondent failed to establish the amount garnished by petitioner. It is a well settled rule that one who has been injured by a wrongful attachment can recover damages for the actual loss resulting therefrom. But for such losses to be recoverable, they must constitute actual damages duly established by competent proofs, which are, however, wanting in the present case.[36] | |||||