Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 200567 2015-06-22	METROPOLITAN BANK v. CPR PROMOTIONS VELASCO JR., J.
In determining whether a counterclaim is compulsory or permissive, We have, in several cases, utilized the following tests:[28]
	GR No. 200408 2014-11-12	S.V. MORE PHARMA CORPORATION v. DRUGMAKERS LABORATORIES PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Since the sales projection on which the CA based its award for actual damages was derived from figures representing the "alleged unregistered or fabricated sales invoices" of E.A. Northam from 1990 to 1993[59] and the "desired profit" of 15-20%,[60] it would therefore be a legal mishap to sustain that award. As case law holds, the amount of loss warranting the grant of actual or compensatory damages must be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty, based on competent proof and the best evidence obtainable by the injured party.[61] The CA's finding on respondents' supposed loss of profits in the amount of P6,000,000.00 based on the erroneous sales projection hardly meets this requirement. Accordingly, it must be set aside.