THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. F. E. GEEENFIELD, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

The appellant is  charged with violation of
section 4 of municipal ordinance No. 1, series of 1934, of the
municipality of Manapla, Occidental  Negros.  It is alleged that in
January,  1934, the accused, then manager of the North Negros Sugar Co.,
Inc., established and operated a talking cinematograph without paying
the tax corresponding to the first  quarter  of said year.

It has
been proven that the accused, in a building erected for said  purpose,
established  and operated, through payments, a talking cinematograph
wherein not only the laborers of said  corporation  but also the public 
in  general were  admitted.

Section 4 of municipal ordinance No.
1, series of 1934, of the municipality of Manapla, compels every
operator of a talking cinematograph to pay  quarterly in  advance a
municipal license tax of P300 annually.  This tax has been levied by
virtue of the authority conferred  upon  the municipal council by
section 1 of Act No. 3422 to impose license taxes upon persons engaged
in any occupation or business.

The appellant  contends  that the
cinematograph established by him is not of the nature of  a business,
the only purpose thereof being to provide  the  laborers of the 
corporation, of which he is the manager, with amusement and relaxation
and to prevent their having  to go to other places in search of
amusement.  It appears, however, that the entrance fee charged is such
that it enables him not only to defray the regular operating expenses
but also to cover the value of the machine and the building in  which
the cinematograph is established.  This  being so,  the enter- prise has
the character of a business, inasmuch as it is for the purpose  of
gain.  For purposes  of .the tax, the proceeds obtained after deducting
all  the  expenses necessary  for the  operation  of the business, 
constitute gain. In this sense, after all the expenses of operating the
cinematograph are paid and the value of the machine and the building
recovered, these machine and building, in  so far as they represent 
value,  would  constitute  a gain in  the operation of  the
cinematograph.

For the foregoing considerations, the appealed
judgment ordering the appellant to pay a fine of P25 and a license fee
of P75  for the  first quarter of the year  1934, with the corresponding
subsidiary imprisonment in  case of insolvency, is affirmed,  with the
costs. So ordered.

Villa-Real, Abad Santos, Imperial, Diaz, Recto,  and Laurel, JJ., concur.