This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2010-11-15 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| We have consistently held that when a respondent's inefficiency springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law, or a principle in the discharge of his duties, he is either too incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he holds, or he is too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad faith and with grave abuse of judicial authority.[22] | |||||
|
2006-02-16 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| This Court has repeatedly warned that by the very nature of their functions, sheriffs are under obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability,[9] and must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, and above all else, be above suspicion.[10] | |||||
|
2006-02-16 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| This Court has repeatedly warned that by the very nature of their functions, sheriffs are under obligation to perform the duties of their office honestly, faithfully and to the best of their ability,[9] and must conduct themselves with propriety and decorum, and above all else, be above suspicion.[10] | |||||
|
2006-01-31 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Immediacy of execution does not mean instant execution. When a decision in ejectment cases states that it is "immediately executory," it does not mean dispensing with the required notice or three-day removal period. [32] A sheriff who enforces the writ without the required notice or before the expiry of the three-day period runs afoul with Section 10(c) of Rule 39. | |||||