LORETO LUCIANO DE SALAS vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CAR (Page-6)

,sb that in the spontaneous explosions of bottled beverages, the judges in the
instances in which they had the opportunity to ascertain that they actually happened,
although possibly in rare instances, because the factories take due precautions in their
manufacture, so that the cases constitute exceptions to the rale, and that this case seems to
be an exception; but it is not as claimed by Mr. Gutierrez, 'impossible', but if to all these
another detail which this Court has noted is added to the evidence, almost immediately after
the happening of the incident, it was reported to San Miguel Brewery. This circumstance
cannot but convince that the plaintiff was very much convinced that she had a case based on
injury against San Miguel, because if on the contrary it was due to her own negligence
which caused the injury to her right eye, she and her husband would not have the same
certainty, and to this must be added the special fact that the representatives of San Miguel
were convinced of her good faith and the truth of the complaint. Alejandro Luna, assistant
supervisor of sales in San Fernando, investigated the case and the complaint, and he learned
from Loreto 'upon her closing the cooler, the bottle exploded'

"Q- A bottle of what?

A - A bottle of beer exploded." T.S.N., 263, Maglalang, 29 July,
I960;

the same which was seen by the watchmaker who removed with a tweezer the
fragments lodged in the eye of Loreto:

"Q - Did you see that hair tweezer which, according to him, he used
in extracting the bits of glass from the eye of Mrs. Salas?

A - Yes, sir." T.S.N., 268, id,;

thus, with respect to the question of fact, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that
it has to accept the version of the plaintiff and her witnesses, and the question to be resolved
is what should be the legal effect and consequences of the same.

CONSIDERING: That since this is so, the injury caused by the spontaneous
explosion of the bottle has been proven = this proof should be considered sufficient to prove
the negligence in its manufacture and in the production of the beverage, because it is
inconceivable that a bottle of beer will explode spontaneously without any defect in its
manufacture or production or in both, taking into account that neither has it been proven
that the explosion resulted from a fortuitous event or a force majeure, true the Lower Court
made an observation to counter the contentions of the defendant, the plaintiff must present
her own evidence, decision, page 6, but to require this is almost an impossibility, for in the
first place she must have a lawyer throughout the case who had the opportunity to examine
the method of production before the incident and not afterwards, and in the second place, it
appears that the same question that the Court asked to witness Gutierrez had supplied the
deficiency, because as has been said, he admitted that in some cases it can occur in the