Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

BENJAMIN T. HOFER v. TYRONE V. TAN

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4148-P 2016-02-10	SPS. JOSE AND MELINDA CAILIPAN v. LORENZO O. CASTAÑEDA PEREZ, J.
The rules on sheriffs expenses are clear-cut and do not provide procedural shortcuts. A sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from a party-litigant without observing the proper procedural steps, otherwise, it would amount to dishonesty and extortion.[12] And any amount received in violation of Section 10, Rule 141 constitutes unauthorized fees.
	AM No. P-14-3272 2014-11-11	FELICIANO O. FRANCIA v. ROBERTO C. ESGUERRA PER CURIAM
The rules on sheriffs expenses are clear-cut and do not provide procedural shortcuts. A sheriff cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from a party-litigant without observing the proper procedural steps otherwise, it would amount to dishonesty and extortion[9]. And any amount received in violation of Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court constitutes unauthorized fees.
	AM No. P-12-3043 2014-01-15	ATTY. MARCOS R. SUNDIANG v. ERLITO DS. BACHO PERALTA, J.
"fn">[13] Section 52 (A) (20), Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as a grave offense, which is punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year
	AM No. P-12-3063 2013-11-26	ELEANOR P. OLIVAN v. ARNEL JOSE A. RUBIO PER CURIAM
This Court doubts if respondent indeed took to heart and heeded seriously these previous warnings. His conduct in this case and his prior infractions are grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Leniency is of no moment for doing so would give the public the impression that incompetence and repeat offenders are tolerated in the judiciary.[59] The frequency of respondent's offenses only demonstrates his propensity to violate the Rules of Court and the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel. With two cases decided against him, and taking the substantive merits of this case, respondent has clearly demonstrated his incorrigibility and unfitness to be in the service.[60] Consequently, the imposition of the ultimate administrative penalty of dismissal from service is warranted.
	AM No. P-13-3153 2013-10-14	ATTY. VLADIMIR ALARIQUE T. CABIGAO v. NEPTALI ANGELO V. NERY REYES, J.
It is likewise improper for Nery to ask and actually receive money from Vision Automotive, even if the money would be used to defray the expenses in serving the summons to the defendant in Civil Case No. 01785 SC. "Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any payments from the parties in the course of the performance of their duties. They cannot just unilaterally demand sums of money from the parties without observing the proper procedural steps."[11]