This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-03-28 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The administration of justice is a sacred task and it demands the highest degree of efficiency, dedication and professionalism.[9] Sheriffs ought to know that they have a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch[10] so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice;[11] otherwise, the judgment, if not executed, would be futile,[12] an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party.[13] | |||||
|
2004-08-31 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Q: And after the execution on February 9, 1996, what happened? A: The full implementation of the Writ of Execution was not served because the Motion to Quash Writ of Execution and several other Motions were unresolved by the Court up to the present time.[22] Firstly, Ignacio has no discretion, much less authority, to grant as he did in the handwritten note,[23] the defendants a grace period within which to comply with the Writ of Execution. He is to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter.[24] In this case, the judgment ordered the defendants to vacate the litigated area; to pay reasonable monthly rentals from the time judgment was rendered until the plaintiffs shall have been restored to their actual and physical possession of the land in question; and to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P3,000.00 as attorney's fees, without mention of any grace period to be accorded the defendants. | |||||