This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-09-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It need not be overemphasized that by doing what he did, respondent failed to live up to the above- mentioned standards. In short, he conducted himself in a manner prejudicial to the service.[33] Indeed, in Loyao, Jr. v. Armecin[34] the Court stated that | |||||
|
2003-07-17 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Respondent Sheriff failed to live up to the above-mentioned standards. In short, he conducted himself in a manner prejudicial to the service.[12] Indeed, in Canlas v. Balasbas,[13] we held:At the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and their deputy sheriffs are indispensably in close contact with the litigants, hence, their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice. In V.C. Ponce Co., Inc. v. Eduarte,[14] it was held that the sheriff is a court officer primarily responsible for the speedy and efficient service of all court processes and writs originating from his court and the branches thereof and those that may be delegated to him by other courts. As such officer whose duties form an integral part of the administration of justice, a sheriff and his deputies may be properly dismissed,[15] fined,[16]or suspended[17] from office by this Tribunal, in the exercise of its administrative supervision over the judicial branch of the government, for actions committed in violation of the Rules of Court which impedes and detracts from a fair and just administration of justice.[18] | |||||