Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SALVADOR L. BERNABE v. WINSTON T. EGUIA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AM No. P-11-2972 2011-09-28	YOLANDA LEACHON CORPUZ v. SERGIO V. PASCUA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Sheriffs have the ministerial duty to implement writs of execution promptly. Their unreasonable failure or neglect to perform such function constitutes inefficiency and gross neglect of duty. When writs are placed in the hands of sheriffs, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable speed and promptness to execute such writs in accordance with their mandate.[15]
	AM No. P-07-2322 2010-04-23	DALMACIO Z. TOMBOC v. SHERIFFS LIBORIO M. VELASCO CARPIO, J.
We reiterate that sheriffs, as public officers, are repositories of public trust and are under obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully, and to the best of their abilities.[4] Sheriffs are bound to use reasonable skill and diligence in the performance of their official duties, particularly where the rights of individuals might be jeopardized by their neglect.[5] In this case, Velasco failed to act with caution in the implementation of the writ of demolition, which resulted to damage to complainant.
	AM No. P-06-2169 2008-03-28	ROGELIO V. URBANOZO v. CRISANTO T. FLORA 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]
	AM No. P-07-2307 2008-03-14	NECENIO GILLANA v. BALBINO B. GERMINAL AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Respondent is required to make a return and submit it to the court immediately upon satisfaction of the judgment in part or in full; and if the judgment could not be satisfied in full, to make a report to the court within 30 days after his receipt of the writ and to state why full satisfaction could not be made. As sheriff, it was respondent's duty to continue making a report every 30 days on the proceedings being taken thereon until the judgment was fully satisfied. The reason for this was to update the court on the status of the execution and to give it an idea as to why the judgment was not satisfied, with the ultimate purpose of ensuring the speedy execution of decisions.[17]
	AM NO. P-06-2131 2006-03-10	ROSALINDA PESONGCO v. ERNESTO B. ESTOYA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
[29] Bernabe v. Eguia, supra note 25, p. 269, citing V.C. Ponce Co., v. Eduarte, 397 Phil. 498, 514 (2000).
	AM NO. P-02-1612 2006-01-31	CONRADO E. COBARRUBIAS v. ARNIEL S. APOSTOL CARPIO, J.
Rule 141 of the Rules of Court authorizes a sheriff's legal fee of P500 for executing a writ of attachment. [22] Additional sums may be required from the party requesting the writ. However, the sheriff must always follow the procedure in Section 9 of Rule 141. This means that the sheriff executing the writ must submit for the court's approval an estimate of the expenses to be incurred and for the interested party to deposit the amount with the Clerk of Court and the ex-officio sheriff. These expenses shall then be disbursed to the executing sheriff subject to his liquidation within the same period for rendering a return on the writ. [23]
	AM No. P-04-1789 2005-07-22	JUDGE JOSE MANUEL P. TAN v. HENRY G. PAREDES PER CURIAM
In the implementation of a writ of execution, only the payment of sheriff's fees may be received by sheriffs. Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of the performance of their duties. To do so would be inimical to the best interests of the service because even assuming arguendo such payments were indeed given and received in good faith, this fact alone would not dispel the suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes.[14] Corollary, 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 or extortion.[15]
	AM NO. P-04-1789 2005-06-22	JUDGE JOSE MANUEL P. TAN v. HENRY G. PAREDES PER CURIAM
In the implementation of a writ of execution, only the payment of sheriff's fees may be received by sheriffs. Sheriffs are not allowed to receive any voluntary payments from parties in the course of the performance of their duties. To do so would be inimical to the best interests of the service because even assuming arguendo such payments were indeed given and received in good faith, this fact alone would not dispel the suspicion that such payments were made for less than noble purposes.[14] Corollary, 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 or extortion.[15]