You're currently signed in as:
User

FINANCIAL BUILDING CORPORATION v. RUDLIN INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

This case has been cited 1 times or more.

2013-11-13
REYES, J.
Moreover, the CA was correct in finding that such loan was not exclusively devoted to the installation projects but was also utilized in financing the construction and air-conditioning system of AMC. It would be certainly unfair to reimburse AMC for such interest payments absent any factual proof of its fraction that pertains to the installation projects themselves. "[O]ne is entitled to an adequate compensation only for such pecuniary loss suffered by him as he has duly proved."[58]