|
|
|
|
|
THE
CITY OF
MANILA,
G.
R.
No. 31162
January
13, 1930
-versus-
CARLOS PALANCA, Defendant-Appellant. VILLA-REAL,
J :
This is an appeal taken
by defendant Carlos Palanca from the judgment of the Court of First
Instance
of Manila, the dispositive part of which is as follows:
In support of his appeal, the appellant assigns the following alleged errors as committed by the Court below in its judgment, to wit:
"2. The trial court erred in not finding that in order to produce a finished, saleable product defendant had to rectify and convert into liquor the alcohol distilled by him. "3. The trial court erred in not finding that the plaintiff has no authority to apply to the business of the defendant both Section 2530 of the Manila Charter and Section 747 of the Revised Ordinances." When the hearing of the present case began, the parties submitted it for decision upon the following agreed statement of facts:
"2. That in the year 1918, the plaintiff in the exercise of the power granted by the Manila Charter to regulate and fix the amount of the license fees for rectifiers, enacted Ordinance No. 717 which is embodied as Sections 745 to 747, Chapter 75, of the new Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila. "3. That during the period comprised between the years 1922 and 1928, inclusive, the defendant has been engaged in, or has conducted, the business of a distiller of alcoholic liquors, under and by virtue of a license issued by the plaintiff to him from year to year pursuant to Section 2530 of the Administrative Code, and that in order to be able to sell and dispose of the products of defendant's distillery establishment, defendant rectifies said products. "4. That the process by which the defendant manufactures alcoholic liquors is as follows: (1) Molasses, which is the only raw material used, is fermented and distilled into alcohol by either or both of two processes: (a) The fermented molasses is pumped into a distilling apparatus, and by continuous process comes out of the apparatus, rectified alcohol: or (b) the fermented molasses is pumped into a distilling apparatus and comes out crude alcohol, which is again pumped into another distilling apparatus and comes out rectified alcohol. (2) The rectified alcohol is then made into wines and other alcoholic liquors, by mixing various ingredients. "5. That rectified alcohol converted into wines and other alcoholic liquors in the manner above described are the products which defendant sells to the public. "6. That during the period above-mentioned defendant has not obtained nor paid the fees for the rectifier's license provided for by the above-mentioned Ordinance No. 717, notwithstanding due demands made upon him therefor by plaintiff. "7. That during the period from 1922 to 1927, inclusive, the defendant has paid internal revenue taxes for rectifiers, as evidenced by Rectifier Privilege Tax Receipts Nos. B-3-13, B-3-12, B-3-11, B-3- 10, B-3-10 and B-3-9, besides the internal revenue privilege taxes for distillers as evidenced by receipts Nos. B-2-4, B-2-3, B-2-3, B-2-3, B-2-3, and B-2-3." The only question to be decided in the instant appeal is whether or not by virtue of the license issued to the defendant under Section 2530 of the Administrative Code, he is authorized to rectify the alcoholic liquors distilled by him. Section 2530 of the Administrative Code provides as follows:
It will be noted that the legal provision just quoted, besides being entitled "Distiller's license," deals with the distillation of alcoholic liquors, and the sale, gift, or disposal of the distilled products, and makes it unlawful for any person or persons to conduct a distillery for the manufacture of alcoholic liquors without such license. Section
1465 of the
said Administrative Code defines "distiller of spirits" in subsection
(a)
as follows:
The same Section defines "rectifier" in subsection (c) as follows:
Section 745 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, defines "rectifier of distilled spirits" as follows:
It will be seen that there is an essential difference between a distiller and a rectifier, and the word "rectifier" is given the same definition in Section 1465 of the Administrative Code and in Section 745 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila. Subsections (1) and (2) of paragraph IV of the agreed statement of facts read as follows:
"(2) The rectified alcohol is then made into wines and other alcoholic liquors, by mixing various ingredients." Thus,
the defendant distills
and rectifies alcohol either by a continuous process of distillation
first
and then rectification, or by both processes, one of distillation and
the
other of rectification, afterwards converting the rectified alcohol
into
wines and other alcoholic liquors by mixing with various ingredients.
The fact that under his distiller's license, he is by Section 2530 of the Administrative Code, permitted to sell and dispose of alcoholic liquors manufactured in his distillery, does not authorize him to rectify said spirituous liquors, since we have seen that to distill and to rectify are two essentially different processes in the manufacture of alcoholic liquors. The fact that in order to be able to sell his alcoholic products he must rectify them, does not mean that to distill and to rectify the one and the same thing, and that distilled spirituous liquors cannot be sold. Perhaps the defendant would rather continue the manufacture of alcoholic liquors rectifying them after distillation, in order thus to obtain a higher price at a lower cost. The court below, then, did not commit the first alleged error imputed to it. As to the third assignment of error, as Section 2530 of the Manila Charter, contained in the Administrative Code, only regulates the business of distilling spirituous liquors, and not of rectifying them, and as the municipal board is authorized by Section 2444, subsection [l] of the same Code, to regulate and fix the amount of the license fee to be paid by rectifiers, the trial court has not incurred the third assignment of error in holding that Section 747 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila does not seek to tax the business of rectifying spirituous liquors, but only to regulate it by requiring a license not provided for by Section 2530 of the Manila Charter. For the foregoing considerations, We are of opinion and so hold: (1) That a distiller of spirituous liquors who has secured a license under Section 2530 of the Manila Charter, contained in the Administrative Code, is not exempt from the payment of the license fee required of all rectifiers of distilled spirits under Section 747 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila, if he rectifies the spirituous liquors distilled by himself, thus being at the same time a distiller of spirituous liquors and a rectifier of distilled liquors; and (2) that said Section 747 of the Revised Ordinances of the City of Manila does not create a tax on the business of rectifying distilled spirits, but simply requires a license to regulate the same. In virtue whereof, and finding no error in the judgment appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed in toto, with costs against the appellant. So ordered. Avanceña, C.J., Street, Malcolm, Ostrand and Romualdez, JJ., concur. Johns, J., dissents. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|