There is presented in this appeal simply a question of fact.   A careful study of the evidence presented on the trial leads us  to  the conclusion that the judgment  should be reversed.   We  are of the opinion  that  it is against the great preponderance of the evidence.   That the lorcha containing the potatoes, the value of which is in controversy, was  left  for two days in the hot  sun,  tightly closed and without ventilation, was due entirely to the wrongful acts and to  the gross  carelessness of the employees of the  defendant company, is conclusively established by the evidence. The  captain of the  ship from which the potatoes were being  discharged,  the first  officer  of  the same, and the customs inspector who was stationed on board thereof during the discharge of its  cargo, and  other witnesses, demonstrate  this  fact  beyond  a  reasonable doubt.   That the potatoes,  when  discharged from the vessel into the lorcha, were in good condition,  is demonstrated with equal  conclusiveness.  This is shown not only by the testimony of the witnesses above mentioned, but by all the circumstances of the case.  In addition to the potatoes discharged into the lorcha, there had  been discharged into numerous cascos several thousand  crates of  potatoes  from the same ship and from  the same hold at the  same time.  It has  been shown  by uncontradicted  proof that all of  the potatoes, except  those  found in the lorcha, were  in good condition at  the time of their discharge.  Only those in  the lorcha, after two days of exposure to the heat of the sun, in tightly closed compartments, without ventilation, were found to be rotted beyond use or value.   From  the evidence  we  are satisfied that the  potatoes  in  question  when  discharged from the ship into the  lorcha were in good condition.  That such was the case is demonstrated from the evidence beyond cavil  or question.  The only witness who seriously questions that fact is the witness Villanueva, who was an employee of the plaintiff on board the vessel at the time the potatoes were discharged into  the lorcha, and was shortly afterwards discharged by  the plaintiff.  He  testified  that when so discharged they  were so badly rotted as to be without value.  Yet we find that  this same witness, when he made a written report to the plaintiff, his employer, as to the condition of the potatoes when discharged,  therein stated concerning  the  condition of those potatoes that  out of the 1,085  crates  so discharged into the lorcha only 54 crates were in bad condition and  a few were damp.   The condition  of  the potatoes  thus described by the written report which he at the  time made to his employer describes a condition usual with potatoes at that time of the year and about the same as that of the potatoes discharged into the cascos.

It has been shown by the evidence that the worthless and rotted potatoes of this cargo constituted  about 5 per cent of the whole.   This seems from the evidence to be the usual loss sustained  in  the  transportation  of  potatoes at that season of the  year.  Gross negligence of the defendant in the handling  and care  of these potatoes being conclusively   demonstrated by the proofs, he should pay to the plaintiff the value of those lost  by such negligence.  The value of the potatoes  proved  upon  the trial  was P3.75 a  crate, amounting in all  to P4,068.75.  Deducting 5 per cent of this sum  for the general loss on  the whole  cargo, there remains a balance of P3,865.31.

The  judgment  is  reversed and a  judgment  is  hereby given  against the defendant and  in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of P3,865.31, with  costs of this appeal.   So ordered.

Arellano,  C. J.,  Mapa, Carson,  and  Trent, JJ., concur.