This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2007-08-31 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We cannot overemphasize the primordial role sheriffs play in the dispensation of justice. As officers of the court, they must discharge their duties with great care and diligence.[12] They are exhorted to use reasonable skill and diligence in performing their official duties, especially when the rights of individuals may be jeopardized by neglect.[13] The raison d'etre for this exacting standard is grounded on public office being a public trust.[14] More particularly, sheriffs, in serving the court's writs and processes, and in implementing the orders of the court, cannot afford to err without affecting the efficiency of the process of the administration of justice.[15] | |||||
|
2005-03-16 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| But even assuming that the defendants/judgment debtors were insolvent, respondent sheriff should have garnished their salaries (being paid employees) to enforce the judgment in the subject case as provided for in Section 9(c), Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court. (c) Garnishment of debts and credits. The officer may levy on debts due the judgment obligor and other credits, including bank deposits, financial interests, royalties, commissions and other personal property not capable of manual delivery in the possession or control of third parties. Levy shall be made by serving notice upon the person owing such debts or having in his possession or control such credits to which the judgment obligor is entitled. The garnishment shall cover only such amount as will satisfy the judgment and all lawful fees. Either to desperately cover his tracks after it was pointed out to him that the defendants were not insolvent at all or out of sheer ignorance of the law, respondent sheriff advised complainant to file a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution allegedly so that he could levy on the properties of the defendants. But there was no need for an alias writ of execution for him to levy on the real properties of the defendants. The life of the writ was for five years and the judgment of the court had not yet been fully satisfied. Section 14, Rule 39 of the Revised Rules of Court states that: Section 14. Return of writ of execution. The writ of execution shall be returnable to the court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in part or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty (30) days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect during the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The officer shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the proceedings taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its effectivity expires. x x x (emphasis ours) 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 ability. They are bound to use utmost skill and diligence in the performance of their official duties particularly where the rights of individuals may be jeopardized by their neglect.[5] Here, we find respondent sheriff utterly wanting in zeal and dedication. He was highly incompetent, downright inefficient and grossly ignorant of the law when he did not faithfully execute the writ of execution to the prejudice of complainant. | |||||
|
2005-01-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Sheriffs, as officers of the court and agents of the law, are bound to use prudence, due care and diligence in the discharge of their official duties. Where rights of individuals are jeopardized by their actions, they may be properly fined, suspended or dismissed from office by virtue of this Court's administrative supervision over the judicial branch of the government.[21] | |||||
|
2003-04-30 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| The conduct required of court personnel must always be beyond reproach and circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility.[10] The image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work therein, from the judge to the lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a true temple of justice.[11] | |||||