This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2003-09-18 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| There can be no question in this regard that the act of respondent in tardily submitting his sheriff's return more than sixty (60) days after receipt of the writ is deserving of reproof. Respondent sheriff ought to know that he has a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch.[28] As has been earlier stated, when a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff he should proceed to execute the same with reasonable celerity and promptness according to its mandate.[29] Unless restrained by a court order, a sheriff should see to it that the execution of judgments are not unduly delayed.[30] As the Court trenchantly said in Aquino v. Lavadia,[31] "[R]endered inutile is a decision left unexecuted or delayed indefinitely because of the sheriff's inefficiency, negligence, misconduct or ignorance. Moreover, parties who are prejudiced tend to condemn the entire judicial system."[32] | |||||
|
2003-08-15 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| There likewise appears no patent irregularity nor arbitrariness on the part of respondent sheriff in enforcing the writ of demolition. The sheriff may have been overzealous in enforcing the writ during an unholy hour in the morning but, once such a writ is placed in his hands, it becomes his ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it in accordance with its mandate.[3] Unless restrained by a court order, he would be bound to see to it that the execution of judgment directed by the Judge is not unduly delayed.[4] In the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, a presumption exists that a sheriff has acted in good faith in the performance of his official duty.[5] | |||||