This action was  instituted in the  Court of First Instance of Zamboanga by two Chinese firms, namely, Heo Cheo Tong y Co., composed of the partners  Yeo Loby and Yeo Seng, and the firm of Yeo Boon Cheong & Company, for the purpose of recovering from the defendant municipality of Zamboanga, of  which the  codefendant Carlos Dominguez  is acting municipal treasurer, the  sum of P1,440, with interest and costs.   Upon hearing the  cause the trial  court gave judgment in favor of the plaintiffs to recover the amount sued for with interest from the date of the filing of the complaint, but without costs.  From this judgment the defendants appealed.

The two concerns which are plaintiffs  in  this action have been conducting for years in the municipality of Zamboanga two pawnshops, during which  time they  have paid the annual license tax  imposed by the city ordinances upon the  businesses conducted by them as pawnbrokers. On December 12, 1927, the municipal council of Zamboanga passed an ordinance (No. 210) effective January 1, 1928, among other things imposing upon pawnbrokers  who devote themselves exclusively to loans an annual license tax in the amount of P1,800, and upon pawnbrokers  who engage in the making of loans and the selling of jewelry or other effects the higher annual tax of P2,400.  The license tax of P1,800 thus imposed upon pawnbrokers is in effect a mere republication of the  former provision taxing pawn-brokers; while the  provision imposing the larger tax  of P2,400 upon pawnbrokers who sell jewelry or other effects is new.

It appears that both the partnerships with which we are here concerned are engaged in selling jewelry from their shops in addition to making loans as  pawnbrokers.  Accordingly, the defendant municipal treasurer made demand for  the payment of the increased tax imposed by the new ordinance.   In response to this demand the plaintiffs paid without question the sum of P1,800 imposed upon them respectively for conducting the business of pawnbrokers, but as to the further sum of ^600 demanded of them in respect to the  additional activity of selling jewelry,  payment was made under protest.  The amount thus paid under protest, including the surcharge resulting from their failure to pay the  tax within the time required, was P1,440.

The  basic tax of P1,800  per annum imposed on pawn-brokers in general by the ordinance  (No. 210) is clearly valid, as pawnbrokers are expressly mentioned in subsection (d)  of section 2625 of the Administrative  Code as one of the classes of persons that may be lawfully taxed.   As to the excess above the sum, of P1,800, we concur with the trial court in the opinion that the tax is invalid.  Those who engage in selling jewelry are subject to the internal-revenue tax upon their sales, but jewelers are not mentioned among the classes of persons upon whom license taxes may be imposed by a municipal council.  Moreover, where the Legislature has clearly withheld the power to impose license taxes upon persons engaged in a particular activity, such as the selling of jewelry, the act of engaging in this activity cannot be used as a criterion for establishing a class which shall be  subject to a higher tax than that imposed generally upon persons engaging in a taxable activity.  To permit  this would  be merely to sanction  an  evasion of the immunity from the  license tax conferred by law.   It is true that under the power to tax  pawnbrokers  it is competent for a municipal council to discriminate between pawnbrokers of different sorts, but the  criterion taken for such discrimination, or  division of pawnbrokers into classes,  must be reasonable.  This cannot be said of the classification here adopted, for it  violates  the rule requiring uniformity in taxation, in this, that some persons engaged in selling jewelry are taxed while others are not   It is suggested, however, that the additional tax imposed upon the pawnbroker in respect to the selling of jewelry or other effects can be sustained as a tax imposed upon  dealers in second-hand merchandise.  It is true that, under  subsection (d)  of section 2625 of the Administrative Code, municipal councils  are authorized to impose a tax upon  dealers in second-hand merchandise.  But it  does not appear that the selling of merchandise by the plaintiffs  in this case is limited to  second-hand jewelry; and even if  such fact had appeared, it  is doubtful  whether a person selling jewelry at second-hand should be classed as a dealer in second-hand merchandise.  By universal usage the  expression "dealer in second-hand merchandise" has  reference more particularly to persons who buy and sell clothing and household effects at second-hand.

Our conclusion is that the tax in question is invalid, and the judgment appealed from will be affirmed.  So ordered, with costs  against the municipality  of Zamboanga.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm,  Ostrand, Johns, Romualdez, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.