Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELIZABETH A. TIONGCO v. SHERIFFS ROGELIO S. MOLINA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	AM No. P-12-3087 2012-09-24	DIONISIO P. PILOT v. RENATO B. BARON PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Under Section 52[20] of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, dishonesty and grave misconduct are classified as grave offenses meriting the supreme penalty of dismissal from service[21] even for the first offense. On the other hand, dereliction of duty for failure to comply with Section 10, Rule 141 of the Rules of Court is punishable with a fine of P5,000.00.[22]
	AM No. RTJ-11-2284 2011-07-13	SPS. SUR AND RITA VILLA AND LETICIA GOREMBALEM VALENZUELA v. PRESIDING JUDGE ROBERTO L. AYCO 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]
	AM NO. P-05-2017 2005-06-29	MILAGROS A. LOPEZ v. NICOLAS C. RAMOS TINGA, J.
As responsible officer of the court, Sheriff Ramos is bound to discharge his duties with prudence, caution and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs. Upon him depends the execution of a final judgment of the court; as a sheriff he must be circumspect and proper in his behavior. His neglect and failure to comply faithfully with the provisions of Rule 141 created a negative impression and placed the sheriff's office as well as the court itself in a bad light.[30]
	AM No. P-04-1884 2004-12-09	QBE INSURANCE INC. BY: MARCELINA F. VALLES v. CRESENCIANO K. RABELLO TINGA, J,
It behooved respondent to confirm and establish the veracity of the information he received by making his own verification with the SEC. Instead of doing so, he unthinkingly accepted the representations of the employees of Rizal Surety and hastily filed the Urgent Ex-Parte Manifestation and Motion dated 24 May 2002, informing the trial court, among others, that Rizal Surety had changed its corporate name to QBE Ins. (Phils.), Inc. This prompted the trial court to issue its 27 May 2002 Order, directing the implementation of the Writ of Execution against the properties of QBE. While respondent's acts may not have been tainted with bad faith or malice, he nevertheless failed to discharge his duties with prudence, caution and attention which careful men usually exercise in the management of their affairs.[16]
	AM No. MTJ-04-1518 2004-01-15	ATTYS. VILMA HILDA D. VILLANUEVA-FABELLA v. JUDGE RALPH S. LEE PANGANIBAN, J.
As a public officer who is a repository of public trust, respondent sheriff has the obligation to perform the duties of his office "honestly, faithfully and to the best of his ability."[73] He must be "circumspect and proper in his behavior."[74] Reasonable skill and diligence he must use in the performance of official duties, especially when the rights of individuals may be jeopardized by neglect.[75]