This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
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] | |||||
|
2012-09-24 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Records disclose that after levying on the property of the judgment obligors, respondent sheriff issued a notice of auction sale (notice) and accordingly scheduled the sale on September 3, 2007. It was, thus, incumbent upon him to comply with the requirements of Section 15, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (Rules) prior to the sale, namely, (a) to cause the posting of the notice for 20 days in 3 public places in Pasig City where the sale was to take place; (b) to cause the publication of the notice once a week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation, selected by raffle; (c) to serve a written notice of the sale to the judgment obligors at least three days before the sale. However, notwithstanding receipt from the complainant of the amount of P15,000.00 under an assurance that he would take care of everything, no auction sale was conducted on the scheduled date for lack of the required publication. Worse, he asked anew for publication expenses in a higher amount, and solicited money for his cellphone load, transportation expenses in the service of the notice, as well as sheriff's fee of 2.5% of the minimum bid amount indicated in the notice. Moreover, instead of conducting the auction sale as re-scheduled, he unjustifiably insisted that complainant accept the P500,000.00 paid by the daughter of Sps. Bambalan which is below the amount sought to be recovered under the subject decision. He likewise failed to observe the proper procedural steps laid down in Section 10,[14] Rule 141 of the Rules in collecting sums of money from a party-litigant. He should have (a) prepared an estimate of expenses to be incurred; (b) obtained court approval for such estimated expenses; (c) caused the interested party to deposit with the Clerk of Court and Ex Officio Sheriff the corresponding amount; (d) secured from the Clerk of Court the said amount; (e) disbursed/liquidated his expenses within the same period for rendering a return on the writ; and (f) refunded any unspent amount[15] to the complainant. | |||||