This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-02-10 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Respondent sheriff did not provide any explanation why it took him more or less six (6) months to implement the writ. Such leads us to conclude that he was waiting for money from the complainants. His act of stalling the implementation of the writ of execution unless and until complainants give him money unfairly portrayed court personnel as languorous workers driven to act only when money is handed over, like token-operated machines. We held in Mendoza v. Tuquero[13] that sheriffs have no discretion on whether or not to implement a writ. There is no need for the litigants to "follow-up" its implementation. When writs are placed in their hands, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate. Unless restrained by a court order, they should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed.[14] Respondent sheriffs failure to immediately implement the writ gives rise to the presumption that he was waiting for financial considerations from the winning party. We have previously ruled that failure of the sheriff to carry out what is a purely ministerial duty, to follow well-established rules in the implementation of court orders and writs, to promptly undertake the execution of judgments, and to accomplish the required periodic reports, constitutes gross neglect and gross inefficiency in the performance of official duties.[15] | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice because they are tasked to execute final judgments of the courts, which would otherwise become empty victories for the prevailing party, if left unenforced.[20] As agents of the law, sheriffs are mandated to uphold the majesty of the law, as embodied in the decision, without unnecessary delay to prevent injury or damage to the winning party. There is no need for the litigants to "follow-up" the sheriff's implementation of the writ.[21] Once the writ is placed in their hands, sheriffs are duty-bound to proceed and see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed.[22] | |||||
|
2014-07-23 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Time and again this Court has pointed out that high standards are expected of sheriffs who play an important role in the administration of justice.[28] In serving court writs and processes, sheriffs should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed.[29] Once a writ is placed in his hand, it becomes the sheriff's duty to proceed with reasonable speed to enforce the writ to the letter, ensuring at all times that the implementation of the judgment is not unjustifiably deferred, unless the execution of which is restrained by the court.[30] As emphasized in Astorga and Repol Law Offices v. Roxas,[31] sheriffs should be mindful that litigations do not end merely with the promulgation of judgments. Execution of judgments, being the final stage in the litigation process, should be carried out speedily. | |||||