This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the case at bench, Sheriff Diaz's act of receiving P1,500.00 from Atty. Timbol, and P136.96 from Agcambot, for the expenses to be incurred in the execution of the writs, without first making an estimate and securing prior approval from the MTCC, as well as his failure to render accounting after its execution, are clear violations of the rule. Even if conceding that the sum demanded by Sheriff Diaz is reasonable, this does not justify his deviation from the procedure laid down by the rule.[7] Neither the acquiescence nor consent of the complainant, before or after the implementation of the writ will absolve him from liability.[8] The mere act of receiving the money without the prior approval of the court and without him issuing a receipt therefor has been considered as a misconduct in office.[9] | |||||
|
2009-07-14 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Indeed, at the grassroots of our judicial machinery, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs are indispensably in close contact with the litigants; hence, their conduct should be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court, for the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of its personnel; hence, it becomes the imperative sacred duty of each and everyone in the court to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice. [28] Respondent's discourtesy and braggadocio in dealing with complainant and his wife with regard to an official matter should not be tolerated. The Court will not allow respondent to use his position to throw his weight around when dealing with party-litigants like herein complainant. | |||||