This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2006-11-27 |
|||||
| As this Court has said more than once, the execution of judgment is the fruit and end of the suit and is the life of the law.[8] A judgment, if left unexecuted, would be nothing but an empty victory for the prevailing party.[9] Worse, the parties who are prejudiced tend to condemn the entire judicial system. Thus, unless restrained by a court order to the contrary, a sheriff should always see to it that the execution of judgment is never unduly delayed. Although respondent failed to comply with the required sheriff's return,[10] respondent may not be faulted for issuing the notice of garnishment as it is his ministerial duty to enforce the writ without undue delay once it is given to him, unless restrained. There being no order restraining respondent from implementing the subject writ, we find his conduct to be proper. | |||||