During the years 1950 and 1951, petitioner Crispulo Malicse  was the proprietor and operator of the Palo  Alto Hotel and Restaurant located at 417 Isaac Peral, Manila, where he maintained rooms for lodging of his hotel guests, a restaurant  where meals, wines  and liquors  are  served not only to hotel guests but also to other customers who are not hotel guests, and a place where cigars and cigarettes  are sold to everybody.  He was duly provided with the required privilege tax receipts  as hotelkeeper, keeper of a  restaurant, fermented liquor dealer  and retail tobacco dealer  as prescribed  in  section 182 in  relation  to section 191, section 193 (k)  and section 193 (n)  of the Tax Code.  And for the aforesaid years, he rendered separate returns: one  for his business  as hotel keeper and another for his  business as keeper of a  restaurant.   As hotel-keeper, he paid the 3 per cent percentage tax on his gross receipts  and  for his business as keeper of  a restaurant where wines or liquors are served,  he paid the 5 per cent percentage tax prescribed in section 191 of  the Tax Code amounting to P6,433.53.

On March 31, 1952, the petitioner demanded refund  of the amount claiming that the restaurant which he operated in the Palo  Alto Hotel  and Restaurant is  not separate nor distinct from his hotel business; that the operation  of said restaurant is merely  incidental to and  necessarily connected with the  hotel business and as such his receipts from  said restaurant should be considered receipts  of his hotel  business, subject to the 3 per cent percentage tax due from him as hotelkeeper and, lastly, that the sales  of cigars and cigarettes in said restaurant do not form part of his gross  receipts as restaurant keeper and therefore not subject to the  5  per cent  percentage  tax.  On January  21, 1953, the  demand was denied by the  respondent who ruled that a keeper of a restaurant where wines and liquors are served is subject to 5 per cent percentage tax prescribed in section 191 of the Tax Code and that petitioner's receipts from sales of cigars and cigarettes in his restaurant form part of his gross  receipts as keeper of the restaurant. Thereupon the petitioner requested the respondent that his petition be submitted, for resolution, to the Conference  Staff of the Bureau of Internal Revenue;, the request was  granted and the  Conference Staff took cognizance  of the  case. It found, however, no reason to reverse or modify the  decision of the respondent and, accordingly, the petitioner was notified of the final decision denying the demand  for refund  of  the alleged overpayment  of the 5  per cent  percentage tax  on the gross receipts from his restaurant business.  Not  satisfied with the decision, petitioner appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No.  401 A, series of 1951.  On February 4, 1954, the Board of Tax Appeals  affirmed the decision of the respondent,  hence  this present petition  for review of the decision of  the  Board  of  Tax Appeals in accordance with section 20 of Executive Order No. 401-A,  dated January 5, 1951.

The facts of the case are not.disputed. Petitioner admits that during the years 1950 and 1951 he engaged in hotel  business,  operating at the same time a restaurant within  the premises of the hotel,  and  that in  said restaurant he served  meals, wines or liquors and sold cigars and cigarettes not only to hotel  guests but also to outsiders.  And  the evidence  on record  conclusively shows that  petitioner was then  duly  provided  with privilege tax-receipt as  hotel keeper  and  another  privilege  tax receipt as keeper of a restaurant, which clearly proves that during  the aforesaid years the  petitioner ran  and operated a  restaurant business  distinct  from his  business as  hotelkeeper.

The present case calls for the interpretation and application of section 191 of  the  Tax  Code which reads as follows: "Keepers of restaurants,  refreshment parlors and other eating places shall pay a tax  of 3%, and keepers of bars and cafes where wines or liquors are served, 5% of their gross receipts."

The word  "restaurant"  seems not to be included in the aforequoted provision of law, where there  are only  mentioned the  "keepers of bars and cafes where wines or liquors are served" as  the persons bound to pay 5 per cent percentage tax on their  gross receipts.  But, as correctly contended  by the respondent, "cafe" is a  general  term which includes restaurants; "cafe" is denned in Webster's International  Dictionary as "a coffee-house; a room for coffee and light refreshment; a restaurant; formerly in the U. S. a barroom." Consequently, a restaurant where wines or liquors  are served comes within the purview of the phrase "bars and cafes where wines or liquors  are served" as contemplated in section 191  of the Tax Code and therefore subject to the 5 per cent percentage tax prescribed therein.

Petitioner contends, however, that his restaurant  business cannot be subject to  the 5 per cent percentage tax because section 191 of the Tax Code is  only applicable to, purely  drinking  establishments. This  contention  is untenable for, as pointed out by the Solicitor General in his brief,  "if this theory is sustained,  it would be easy for taxpayers to  evade the  payment  of the 5 per cent percentage tax prescribed  in  section 191 on  bars and  cafes where wines  or  liquors are served by the simple expedient of not maintaining a purely drinking  establishment and  keeping just a sort of  an  eating establishment but at the same time serving  therein wines  or liquors which could not have been the intention of our legislators."

In conclusion, we find that the petitioner rendered separate  returns for his  business  as hotelkeeper and  as keeper of a restaurant; that he paid 3 per cent percentage tax on the gross receipts  from hotel guest for  lodging, meals, drinks, cigars and cigarettes and other services furnished them;  that he paid the questioned 5  per cent percentage tax for his restaurant business on  the gross receipts from meals, wines,  liquors, cigars  and  cigarettes served or sold to his customers who were not hotel guests, and for these gross receipts, he was properly taxed under section 191 of the Tax Code.

Wherefore, finding  no  errors in the decision appealed from, the same is hereby affirmed.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.