This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-08-11 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Being the frontline representative of the justice system, a sheriff must always exert every effort and, indeed, consider it his bounden duty, to perform his duties in order to maintain public trust. He must see to it that the final stage in the litigation process -- the execution of the judgment -- is carried out with no unnecessary delay, in order to ensure a speedy and efficient administration of justice. A decision left unexecuted or indefinitely delayed due to his neglect of duty renders it inutile; and worse, the parties who are prejudiced thereby tend to condemn the entire judicial system.[19] | |||||
|
2007-12-04 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is mandatory, therefore, for the sheriff to execute the judgment and make a return on the writ of execution within the period provided by the Rules of Court. With respect to partially satisfied or unsatisfied writs, the sheriff must make periodic reports in accordance with Rule 39 Sec. 14. Such periodic reporting on the status of the writs must be done by the sheriff regularly and consistently every thirty days until they are returned fully satisfied.[11] In the instant case, there is no showing that respondent had taken the trouble to comply with this duty. | |||||