LORETO LUCIANO DE SALAS vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CAR (Page-2)

the incident, to the assistant supervisor for sales of the defendant in San Fernando, Mr.
Alejandro Luna, who on his part investigated the accident and was able to talk with the
watchmaker only and saw the tweezer with which he removed the fragments of the bottle
lodged in the right eye of Loreto. (T.S.N., July 29, 1960, witness, Alejandro Luna, and the
chief supervisor, Ricardo Austria, on his part assured the husband of Loreto that he would
inform the Central Office in Manila so that his wife could be compensated, but he did not
succeed, thus she lost the sight of her right eye, Loreto assisted by her husband had to go to
the Court to file a complaint on December 24, 1953, and asked that she be allowed to
litigate as a pauper but the Judge refused to grant it arid Loreto paid the corresponding fees
and at the trial presented as corroborating witnesses to the incident Montana Pascual and her
daughter, Fe; the defendant for its part, tried to prove through its witnesses, Messrs, Miguel
Unson and Jose Gutierrez, that San Miguel manufactured beer and the bottles for containing
it, with the due care as is usual for the same in the United States and in addition, tried to
demonstrate in the cross-examination by the plaintiff, that there could not have been a
spontaneous explosion of the bottle but simply a breakage of it, which happened at that time
due 16 the own negligence of Loreto j and the Lower Court sustained the defendant; and
hence in this appeal, the plaintiff alleges that it committed the following errors:

"I. The Lower Court erred in not finding that Plaintiff-Appellant's
right eye could no longer see as it eventually lost its vision.

II. The Lower Court erred in not finding that the Beer Bottle sold by
Defendant'Appellee exploded when the cooler was opened by Plaintiff-
Appellant and the splinters of said beer bottle which exploded injured the
right eye of Plaintiff-Appellant.

III. The Lower Court erred in not awarding Damages and Attorney's
fees in favor of Plaintiff-Appellant.

IV. The Lower Court erred in dismissing the complaint." (Brief for
the Plaintiff-Appellant, p. 4);

which can be discussed jointly, so that they present two simple questions, to wit; 1,
what really happened, a spontaneous explosion or a simple breakage of the bottle; and 2.
what should the legal consequence of one or the other case.

CONSIDERING: With respect to the question of fact, the statement of the plaintiff
that the bottle of beer, Pale Pilsen exploded upon the opening of the cooler is supported by
two eyewitnesses, a certain Montana Pascual and the daughter of Loreto named Fe
(hearings of March 23, stenographer, Maglalang and November 23, 1959, stenographer,
Vergara, and the Lower Court mentioned no detail regarding the deportment of these
witnesses which can indicate lack of sincerity; and on the other hand, the defendant
corporation did not present any proof how the incident happened; so that with the positive
proofs of the plaintiff and the absence of proof to the contrary from San Miguel, it follows