This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2004-01-15 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| The duty of sheriffs to execute a writ issued by a court is purely ministerial,[66] not discretionary.[67] Clearly, they must keep the levied property safely in their custody, not in that of any of the parties. They exercise no discretion in this regard, for attachment is harsh, extraordinary and summary in nature -- a "rigorous remedy which exposes the debtor to humiliation and annoyance."[68] Contrary to the claim of respondent sheriff, his unusual zeal and precipitate decision to give possession of the machine to the plaintiff effectively destroys, the presumption of regularity in his performance of official duties.[69] "Any method of execution falling short of the requirement of the law deserves reproach and should not be countenanced."[70] | |||||