This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2011-07-13 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court recognizes the fact that sheriffs play a vital role in the administration of justice. In view of their important position, their conduct should always be geared towards maintaining the prestige and integrity of the court. In Escobar Vda. de Lopez v. Luna, [35] the Court explained that sheriffs have the obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their abilities. [36] They must always hold inviolate and revitalize the principle that a public office is a public trust. [37] As court personnel, their conduct must be beyond reproach and free from any doubt that may infect the judiciary. [38] They must be careful and proper in their behavior. [39] They must use reasonable skill and diligence in performing their official duties, especially when the rights of individuals may be jeopardized by neglect. [40] They are ranking officers of the court entrusted with a fiduciary role. [41] They perform an important piece in the administration of justice and they are required to discharge their duties with integrity, reasonable dispatch, due care, and circumspection. Anything below the standard is unacceptable. [42] This is because in serving the court's writs and processes and in implementing the orders of the court, sheriffs cannot afford to err without affecting the efficiency of the process of the administration of justice. [43] Sheriffs are at the grassroots of our judicial machinery and are indispensably in close contact with 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 echoed in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the people who work thereat, from the judge to the least and lowest of the ranks. [44] | |||||