Your assigned case,
in thirty seconds.
Type the G.R. number or a party's name. Get the doctrine it's cited for, then open the full ruling to check the language yourself.
Study material, not legal advice. Written and checked by the PhilippineLaws team to the best of our knowledge; not reviewed by a lawyer. A digest is a summary — the full decision is the authority, so read it before you cite it.
Try
Punctuation doesn't matter — “GR 101083”, “G.R. No. 101083” and “101083” all find the same case.
156 of 156 cases
Criminal Law
27- G.R. No. 1380332006· DigestBaleros v. PeoplePressing a chemical-soaked cloth on a woman's face while lying on top of her, without any act of undressing or touching her private parts, is not an overt act of rape. It is at most unjust vexation, punished as light coercion
- G.R. No. 2033352014· DigestDisini v. Secretary of JusticeCyber libel valid only as to the original author; aiding/abetting cyber libel void; no double prosecution with RPC libel
- G.R. Nos. 249027 & 2491552024· DigestGuinto v. Department of JusticeGCTA after final conviction covers persons convicted of heinous crimes, recidivists, habitual delinquents and escapees
- G.R. No. 1727162010· DigestIvler v. Modesto-San PedroReckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single quasi-offense, and its consequences only fix the penalty. A conviction or acquittal for one consequence bars prosecution for the others, and Article 48 does not apply to quasi-offenses
- G.R. No. 1625402009· DigestJacinto v. PeopleTaking a check that turns out to be unfunded, with intent to gain, is an impossible crime and not qualified theft, because the thing taken was worthless (factual impossibility)
- G.R. No. L-634191986· DigestLozano v. MartinezBP 22 punishes the making and issuing of a worthless check, not the failure to pay a debt. It is a valid police-power measure and does not violate the ban on imprisonment for debt
- G.R. No. 961321992· DigestMagno v. Court of AppealsChecks issued only to cover a "warranty deposit" in a lease arrangement, which the drawer never received or used, are not issued "to apply on account or for value," and their dishonor does not make out a violation of BP 22
- G.R. No. 1729532008· DigestMallillin v. PeopleChain of custody: the prosecution must account for every link from seizure to presentation in court, and the presumption of regularity cannot overcome the presumption of innocence
- G.R. No. 1020071994· DigestPeople v. BayotasDeath of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his criminal liability and the civil liability based solely on the offense (ex delicto). Civil liability that also rests on another source of obligation survives, but only through a separate civil action
- G.R. No. 1294332000· DigestPeople v. CampuhanConsummated rape requires proof that the penis touched the labia or slid into the female organ. Merely grazing the surface or touching the mons pubis is at most attempted rape
- G.R. No. 1427732003· DigestPeople v. DelimWhere the primary and ultimate purpose of seizing a victim is to kill him, the deprivation of liberty is only incidental and is absorbed in the killing. The crime is murder or homicide, not kidnapping
- G.R. No. 953221993· DigestPeople v. DomasianKidnapping does not require confinement in an enclosure, because any deprivation of liberty suffices. A ransom note delivered after the kidnapping was consummated is not an impossible crime
- G.R. No. 1407562003· DigestPeople v. EscoteRobbery with homicide is a single, indivisible special complex crime. Treachery does not qualify it, but it is a generic aggravating circumstance when the homicide victim is killed treacherously, and it must be alleged in the information
- G.R. No. 1359812004· DigestPeople v. GenosaBattered Woman Syndrome — elements for self-defense; BWS as mitigating circumstance
- G.R. No. 435301935· DigestPeople v. LamahangAn attempt must be an attempt at a specific crime. Overt acts that do not clearly show which felony was intended cannot be punished as an attempt at the graver one
- G.R. No. 1224851999· DigestPeople v. MahinayRape with homicide on circumstantial evidence; guidelines on the rights of persons arrested or under custodial investigation
- G.R. No. 477221943· DigestPeople v. OanisMistake of fact excuses only when committed without fault or carelessness; excess in the performance of duty is only an incomplete justifying circumstance
- G.R. No. L-710921987· DigestPeople v. OlvisUncounselled custodial confessions and forced re-enactments are inadmissible
- G.R. No. 887241990· DigestPeople v. OritaThere is no frustrated rape. Rape is consummated by any penetration of the female organ, however slight, and is only attempted if there is none
- G.R. No. 1167361997· DigestPeople v. OrtegaOne who helps conceal what he believes is a corpse, when the victim is in fact alive and then drowns, commits a felony and is liable for the graver result under Article 4(1). Abuse of superior strength requires a deliberate use of force out of proportion to the victim's means of defense
- G.R. No. L-743241988· DigestPeople v. PugayWithout proof of a prior agreement, each participant answers only for his own act. One who commits a felony answers for its graver result even if he intended less (Art. 4)
- G.R. No. 1921232014· DigestSolidum v. PeopleRes ipsa loquitur does not apply where a rare bad outcome is all that is shown; medical negligence, even in a criminal case, generally requires expert proof of the standard of care and causation
- G.R. No. 2609732024· DigestTogado v. PeopleThe exact firearm seized must be presented, with its integrity preserved, in illegal-possession prosecutions
- G.R. No. L-52721910· DigestUnited States v. Ah ChongMistake of Fact
- G.R. No. L-729641988· DigestUrbano v. Intermediate Appellate CourtThe death must be the direct, natural and logical consequence of the wound. An efficient intervening cause, here a later tetanus infection, breaks the chain of causation and bars a homicide conviction
- G.R. No. 1601882007· DigestValenzuela v. PeopleThere is no frustrated theft. Theft is consummated once the offender gains possession of the thing with intent to gain, even without any opportunity to dispose of it
- G.R. No. 2527392024· DigestXXX v. PeopleMarital Infidelity as VAWC
Civil Law
26- G.R. No. L-300561988· DigestAgcaoili v. GSISReciprocal Obligations / Suspension of Performance
- G.R. No. L-392471975· DigestBalanay v. MartinezPartial Validity of Wills
- G.R. No. L-101261957· DigestBataclan v. MedinaProximate Cause
- G.R. No. L-236781967· DigestBellis v. BellisNationality Principle in Succession
- G.R. No. 1408172001· DigestBondagjy v. BondagjyBest Interest of the Child Over Religious Interpretation
- G.R. No. 1191901997· DigestChi Ming Tsoi v. CAPsychological Incapacity (Art. 36)
- G.R. No. 1060631996· DigestEquatorial Realty v. Mayfair TheaterRight of First Refusal
- G.R. No. L-192811965· DigestIn Re: SantillonIntestate Shares / Surviving Spouse and Child
- G.R. No. 2017632018· DigestMangondaya v. Ampaso'Ada Must Be Proven as a Fact; No Dismissal Without Pre-Trial and Trial in Shari'a Courts
- G.R. No. 2016142016· DigestMendez v. Shari'a District CourtAncillary Jurisdiction of Shari'a Circuit Court over Custody in Divorce Cases; Due Process in Custody Awards
- G.R. No. 1721222007· DigestMercury Drug v. HuangEmployer Liability / Diligence of a Good Father
- G.R. No. L-178701962· DigestMindanao Bus Co. v. City AssessorImmovable Property by Destination
- G.R. No. 1914252011· DigestNollora v. PeopleBigamy; Muslim Conversion No Defense Where Marriages Not Solemnized Under P.D. 1083
- G.R. No. L-234451966· DigestNuguid v. NuguidPreterition / Total Omission of Compulsory Heir
- G.R. No. L-122191918· DigestPicart v. SmithTest of Negligence (Reasonable Foresight of the Prudent Man); Last Clear Chance
- G.R. No. 1741612015· DigestR Transport Corporation v. YuActual owner-employer not exempt from quasi-delict liability because another is the registered owner
- G.R. No. 1087631997· DigestRepublic v. Court of Appeals and MolinaThe Molina Guidelines (Art. 36)
- G.R. No. 2210292018· DigestRepublic v. ManaloForeign Divorce Initiated by the Filipino Spouse (Art. 26(2), Family Code)
- G.R. No. L-254941972· DigestSanchez v. RigosOption Contracts / Lack of Separate Consideration
- G.R. No. 1120191995· DigestSantos v. Court of AppealsPsychological Incapacity — Gravity, Juridical Antecedence, Incurability
- G.R. No. 1963592021· DigestTan-Andal v. AndalPsychological Incapacity as Legal Concept
- G.R. No. L-639151986· DigestTañada v. TuveraPublication Requirement
- G.R. No. 1507582004· DigestTenebro v. Court of AppealsNullity of the Second Marriage under Art. 36 Is No Defense to Bigamy
- G.R. No. L-684701985· DigestVan Dorn v. RomilloForeign Divorce / Alien Spouse
- G.R. No. 1888322014· DigestVillagracia v. Fifth Shari'a District CourtShari'a District Court Jurisdiction over Real Actions Requires That All Parties Be Muslims
- G.R. No. 1939022011· DigestZamoranos v. PeopleValid Talaq as Defense Against Bigamy
Remedial Law
26- G.R. No. 23521910· DigestAlonso v. VillamorLiberal Construction of Rules — Substitution of the Real Party in Interest on Appeal
- G.R. No. L-533731987· DigestCrespo v. MogulOnce an Information Is Filed, Its Disposition Rests in the Sound Discretion of the Court
- G.R. No. 2547532023· DigestDeduro v. VinoyaRed-tagging as a Threat Justifying Issuance of the Writ of Amparo
- G.R. No. 2138472015· DigestEnrile v. SandiganbayanBail May Be Granted on Humanitarian Grounds, Independently of the Merits of the Charge, Where Continued Detention Is Clearly Shown to Endanger the Health or Life of the Accused
- G.R. No. 1409542005· DigestHeirs of Hinog v. MelicorHierarchy of Courts; Estoppel From Assailing Jurisdiction; Deficient Docket Fees Paid in Good Faith
- G.R. No. 2349992021· DigestHeirs of Sanchez v. AbrantesDismissal at Plaintiff's Instance Is Without Prejudice; No Res Judicata or Litis Pendentia
- G.R. No. 2281652021Kolin Electronics Co. v. Kolin Philippines Int'lDominancy Test in Evidence
- G.R. No. 1891222010· DigestLeviste v. Court of AppealsBail Pending Appeal Is Discretionary Even Absent the Bail-Negating Circumstances of Rule 114, Section 5
- G.R. No. L-759191987· DigestManchester Development Corp. v. Court of AppealsDocket Fees as Jurisdictional
- G.R. No. 1309742006· DigestManotoc v. Court of AppealsSubstituted Service of Summons Requires Strict Compliance, Shown in Detail in the Sheriff's Return
- G.R. No. 1706332007· DigestMCC Industrial Sales Corp. v. Ssangyong Corp.An Ordinary Facsimile Transmission Is Not an Electronic Document or Electronic Evidence
- G.R. No. 1415242005· DigestNeypes v. Court of AppealsThe "Fresh Period Rule": 15 Days to Appeal From Denial of a Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration
- A.M. No. CA-05-18-P2005· DigestNuez v. Cruz-ApaoText messages as ephemeral electronic communications — proven by testimony of a party or person with personal knowledge
- G.R. No. 1010831993· DigestOposa v. FactoranIntergenerational Responsibility / Legal Standing
- G.R. No. 1224851999People v. MahinayCustodial Investigation Rights
- G.R. No. 1502242004· DigestPeople v. YatarDNA Evidence Is Admissible; Compelled DNA Sampling Does Not Violate the Right Against Self-Incrimination
- G.R. No. 1703542006· DigestPinga v. Heirs of SantiagoDismissal of the Complaint for the Plaintiff's Fault Does Not Carry the Counterclaim With It
- G.R. No. 1895382014· DigestRepublic v. OlaybarRule 108 May Correct Substantial Entries Through an Adversary Proceeding; Cancelling a Forged Marriage Record Is Not a Declaration of Nullity
- G.R. No. 1809062008· DigestSecretary of National Defense v. ManaloThe Right to Security of Person as Freedom From Threat and as a Guarantee of Government Protection Under the Writ of Amparo
- G.R. No. 1308661998· DigestSt. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRCHierarchy of Courts (Rule 65 vs. NLRC)
- G.R. Nos. 79937-381989· DigestSun Insurance Office, Ltd. v. AsuncionDocket Fees — Payment Within a Reasonable Time; Lien on Judgment
- G.R. No. L-214501968· DigestTijam v. SibonghanoyJurisdiction by Estoppel (Laches)
- G.R. No. 2609732024· DigestTogado v. PeopleExact Confiscated Firearm Must Be Presented and Its Integrity Preserved
- G.R. No. 2236102017· DigestUy v. Del CastilloVoluntary Appearance Cures Lack of Summons; Heirs' Liability Limited to Inheritance
- G.R. No. 2026662014· DigestVivares v. St. Theresa's CollegeHabeas Data Is Not Limited to Killings and Disappearances; a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy on Facebook Requires Use of Privacy Tools
- G.R. No. 1073831996· DigestZulueta v. Court of AppealsEvidence Taken by One Spouse in Violation of the Other's Privacy of Communication Is Inadmissible
Political Law
23- G.R. No. 1680562005· DigestAbakada Guro v. ErmitaDelegation of Legislative Power
- G.R. No. 2685462024· DigestAn Waray Partylist v. COMELECCOMELEC, not HRET, Jurisdiction to Cancel Party-List Registration
- G.R. No. L-450811936· DigestAngara v. Electoral CommissionSeparation of powers and judicial review; the Electoral Commission, as sole judge of legislative election contests, has the implied power to fix the period for filing protests
- G.R. No. 2092872014· DigestAraullo v. AquinoTransfer of Appropriations and Savings — Section 25(5), Article VI (DAP)
- G.R. No. 1898522016· DigestBegnaen v. Sps. CaligtanNCIP jurisdiction is concurrent with regular courts, but the body that first takes cognizance excludes the others
- G.R. No. 2085662013· DigestBelgica v. OchoaLegislators may not take part in budget execution after the budget is enacted; the PDAF and similar pork barrel laws are unconstitutional
- G.R. No. 1683382008· DigestChavez v. GonzalesFreedom of Expression / Prior Restraint
- G.R. No. 2691592024· DigestCity of Caloocan v. MalabonBoundary disputes between highly urbanized cities must first be jointly referred to their sanggunians (LGC Secs. 118-119); declaratory relief is improper
- G.R. No. 1353852000· DigestCruz v. Secretary of Environment and Natural ResourcesConstitutionality of IPRA (Tie Vote)
- G.R. No. 1713962006· DigestDavid v. ArroyoCalling-out power vs. emergency powers: the President may declare a state of national emergency, but cannot take over private businesses without a law from Congress
- G.R. No. 2547532023· DigestDeduro v. VinoyaRed-Tagging / Writ of Amparo
- G.R. No. 2033352014· DigestDisini v. Sec. of JusticeCybercrime Prevention Act — Online Libel, Real-Time Traffic Data and Takedown
- G.R. Nos. 146710-15 & 1467382001· DigestEstrada v. DesiertoA President's resignation may be inferred from the totality of his prior, contemporaneous and posterior acts; a non-sitting President has no immunity from criminal suit; prejudicial publicity requires proof of actual prejudice
- G.R. No. 2211392019· DigestHa Datu Tawahig v. Cebu City ProsecutorPrimacy of State Criminal Law Over Tribal Resolutions
- G.R. No. 1939642015· DigestLim v. GamosaLimits of NCIP's Administrative Jurisdiction
- G.R. No. 2635902023· DigestMacalintal v. COMELECPostponement of Elections and the Right of Suffrage (R.A. 11935)
- G.R. No. 1998022018· DigestMandanas v. OchoaThe LGUs' just share under Art. X, Sec. 6 is computed on all national taxes, not only national internal revenue taxes
- G.R. No. L-483211946· DigestOh Cho v. Director of LandsRegalian doctrine: land not acquired from the State belongs to the public domain unless possessed since time immemorial; an alien cannot obtain registration under the Public Land Act
- G.R. No. 765391990· DigestPit-og v. PeopleGood-faith belief of ownership negates criminal intent in theft; courts must weigh customary ownership claims carefully
- G.R. No. 2216972016· DigestPoe-Llamanzares v. COMELECCOMELEC cannot decide a candidate's qualifications in a COC-cancellation case; foundlings are presumed natural-born; residence may be counted from actual return
- G.R. No. L-639151986· DigestTañada v. TuveraPublication of Laws / Due Process
- G.R. No. 1812842015· DigestUnduran v. AberasturiNCIP jurisdiction under IPRA Sec. 66 covers only disputes between members of the same ICC/IP; the regular courts otherwise have jurisdiction, subject to exceptions under Secs. 52, 54 and 62
- G.R. No. 1228462009· DigestWhite Light Corp. v. ManilaPolice power and substantive due process: a legitimate aim does not save an ordinance whose means are unduly oppressive when less intrusive means are available
Labor Law
14- G.R. No. 1586932004· DigestAgabon v. NLRCDismissal for Just Cause Without Statutory Due Process; Nominal Damages (Agabon Doctrine)
- G.R. No. 1605062010· DigestAliviado v. Procter & Gamble Phils., Inc.Labor-Only Contracting
- G.R. No. 2517362025· DigestAragones v. Alltech Biotechnology Corp.Perfection of Employment Contract; Start Date as Suspensive Period, Not Condition
- G.R. No. 1700872006· DigestFrancisco v. NLRCTwo-Tiered Test for Employment Status
- G.R. Nos. 204944-452014· DigestFuji Television Network, Inc. v. EspirituSuccessive Fixed-Term Contracts / Regular Employment
- G.R. No. 1474202004· DigestOdango v. NLRCMonthly-Paid Employees / No Work, No Pay; Sec. 2, Rule IV, Book III IRR Void
- G.R. No. 859851993· DigestPhilippine Airlines v. NLRCLimits of management prerogative — employees must be heard on, or at least informed of, disciplinary rules affecting their tenure
- G.R. No. 1676142009· DigestSerrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc.OFW Rights / Unconstitutional 3-Month Cap
- G.R. No. 1170402000· DigestSerrano v. NLRCThe Serrano Doctrine — Full Backwages for Termination Without the Required Notice
- G.R. No. 1380512004· DigestSonza v. ABS-CBNIndependent Contractor / Control Test
- G.R. No. 1308661998· DigestSt. Martin Funeral Home v. NLRCJudicial Review of NLRC Decisions via Rule 65 Certiorari in the Court of Appeals
- G.R. No. 1647742006· DigestStar Paper Corp. v. SimbolNo-spouse employment policy — valid only on proof of a reasonable business necessity (BFOQ)
- G.R. No. 2000942013· DigestVigilla v. Philippine College of CriminologySolidary Liability in Labor-Only Contracting
- G.R. No. 1680812008· DigestYrasuegui v. PALFailure to meet continuing weight standards — analogous just cause (Art. 282(e)) and BFOQ
Taxation Law
13- G.R. No. 1680562005· DigestAbakada Guro v. ErmitaInput tax credit is a statutory privilege; the 70% cap and the 5% final VAT withholding on government purchases were upheld
- G.R. No. 2266802022· DigestAces Philippines Cellular Satellite Corp. v. CIRSitus of income: satellite air time fees paid to a nonresident foreign corporation are Philippine-sourced
- G.R. No. L-288961988· DigestCIR v. Algue, Inc.Lifeblood doctrine, but taxes must be collected according to law; reasonable pay for services actually rendered is deductible
- G.R. No. 2178982020· DigestCIR v. BCDASale proceeds of Metro Manila camp lands under Section 8, RA 7227 (as amended) are exempt from all taxes, including creditable withholding tax
- G.R. No. 1340622007· DigestCIR v. BPIPre-1997 assessments need not state their legal and factual bases; an assessment not protested within 30 days becomes final and unappealable
- G.R. No. 1663872009· DigestCIR v. Enron Subic PowerNotice Requirement (FAN)
- G.R. No. 2128252015· DigestCIR v. Next Mobile, Inc.Defective waivers of the statute of limitations held valid by exception where both parties were at fault and the taxpayer was estopped
- G.R. No. 1874852013· DigestCIR v. San Roque PowerThe 120+30-day periods for input VAT refund claims are mandatory and jurisdictional; the only exception covers premature judicial claims filed while BIR Ruling No. DA-489-03 was in force (10 Dec 2003 to 6 Oct 2010)
- G.R. No. L-78591955· DigestLutz v. AranetaRegulatory Purpose
- G.R. No. 2227432017· DigestMedicard Philippines v. CIRNo Letter of Authority, void assessment; a Letter Notice is not a substitute
- G.R. No. L-104051960· DigestPascual v. Sec. of Public WorksPublic Purpose
- G.R. Nos. 208310-11 & 2086622023· DigestPeople v. MendezNo assessment is required to prosecute a tax offense, or to award civil liability for unpaid taxes in the same criminal action before the CTA
- G.R. No. L-311561976· DigestPepsi-Cola v. TanauanDouble Taxation
Commercial Law
13- G.R. No. 844581989· DigestAboitiz Shipping Corp. v. Court of AppealsCarrier-passenger relationship continues for a reasonable time after disembarkation; extraordinary diligence toward passengers
- G.R. No. L-81511955· DigestCalanoc v. Court of AppealsContra Proferentem Rule
- G.R. No. 1504032007· DigestCebu Salvage Corporation v. Philippine Home Assurance CorporationCarrier liable for cargo lost on a vessel it does not own; voyage charter is a contract of carriage
- G.R. No. 1087341996· DigestConcept Builders, Inc. v. NLRCPiercing the corporate veil: the control-fraud-proximate cause (instrumentality) test
- G.R. No. 783251990· DigestDel Monte Corp. v. Court of AppealsTrademark infringement and unfair competition: the casual purchaser test; side-by-side comparison is not the final test
- G.R. No. L-318451979· DigestGreat Pacific Life Assurance Co. v. Court of AppealsBinding deposit receipt is merely conditional; concealment in life insurance
- G.R. No. 2281652021· DigestKolin Electronics Co. v. Kolin Philippines Int'lTrademark resemblance: Holistic Test abandoned, Dominancy Test governs; Nice classification abandoned as a relatedness factor
- G.R. No. 1543422004· DigestMighty Corporation v. E. & J. Gallo WineryNon-Competing Goods / Trademark
- G.R. No. L-119101958Philippine Racing Club v. BonifacioLast Clear Chance (Checks)
- G.R. No. 880131990· DigestSimex International (Manila), Inc. v. Court of AppealsFiduciary Duty of Banks
- G.R. No. 923831992· DigestSun Insurance Office v. Court of AppealsAccident insurance: meaning of 'accident'; negligence of the insured is not willful exposure to needless peril
- G.R. Nos. 200070-712021· DigestTotal Office Products and Services (TOPROS), Inc. v. ChangDoctrine of corporate opportunity: guidelines for a Section 34 (now Section 33, RCC) claim
- G.R. No. 1467172004· DigestTransfield Philippines v. Luzon Hydro Corp.Independence principle in standby letters of credit; beneficiary may invoke it; fraud exception
Legal & Judicial Ethics
8- A.M. SDC-97-2-P1997· DigestAlawi v. AlauyaExclusive Use of Title "Attorney"
- AC-57132002· DigestBurbe v. MagultaCreation of Attorney-Client Relationship
- AC-31951989· DigestCantiller v. PotencianoNeglect and abandonment of a client's cause; misappropriation of client money
- G.R. No. 1001131991· DigestCayetano v. MonsodPractice of law, broadly defined, as a constitutional qualification for COMELEC Chairman
- AC-132532024· DigestFelix & Cabreros v. GadonLawyer's abusive, discriminatory on-air statements; penalty for a previously disbarred lawyer (CPRA Canon VI, Sec. 42)
- G.R. No. L-9611949· DigestHilado v. DavidConflict of interest: a lawyer consulted by one party may not later represent the adverse party in the same case
- G.R. No. L-276541970· DigestIn Re: AlmacenLimits of a lawyer's criticism of the courts; disciplinary proceedings are sui generis
- Bar Matter No. 5531993· DigestUlep v. Legal Clinic, Inc.Legal-clinic services as practice of law; prohibition on advertising legal services
Docket not confirmed · 6On the list, but the G.R. number on file doesn't match any decision in the library. Find the correct citation before you use one of these.
- No confirmed citation1940Calalang v. WilliamsDefinition of Social Justice
- No confirmed citation1954In Re: CunananSC's Exclusive Rule-Making Power over the Bar
- No confirmed citation1973In Re: Integration of the BarIntegration of the Philippine Bar (IBP)
- No confirmed citation1929In Re: TagordaProhibition on Solicitation and Advertising
- No confirmed citation1909Mateo Cariño v. Insular GovernmentNative Title Doctrine
- No confirmed citation1907Patriarcha v. OrfateProving Custom as a Fact
42 further entries are left off entirely: they carry placeholder dockets rather than real G.R. numbers, and a citation that doesn't exist is worse in a recitation than no entry at all.