SPOUSES NORA SAGUID and ROLANDO P. SAGUID vs. SECURITY FINANCE,
INC., G.R. No. 159467, December 9, 2005
“x
x x.
It
is well-settled that actual or compensatory damages must be proved and proved
with reasonable degree of certainty. A party is entitled only up to such
compensation for the pecuniary loss that he has duly proven.[47] It
cannot be presumed.[48] Absent
proof of the amount of actual damages sustained, the Court cannot rely on
speculations, conjectures, or guesswork as to the fact and amount of damages,
but must depend upon competent proof that they have been suffered by the
injured party and on the best obtainable evidence of the actual amount thereof.[49]
In
the instant case, the trial court awarded as actual damages the amount of P750.00
per day as daily earnings of the seized vehicle from 28 October 1998 until its
return. Same should be deleted for lack of competent proof. The bare assertion
of petitioner Rolando Saguid that the subject vehicle was earning P750.00
a day before it was seized is inadequate, if not speculative, and should not be
accepted because it is not supported by independent evidence. Petitioners should
have at least presented a record or journal that would clearly show how much
the vehicle earned in a specific period. This, petitioners failed to do.
Instead, they relied on mere allegations that do not prove anything.
X
x x.”
