Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

EDNA FE F. AQUINO v. ISABELO LAVADIA

This case has been cited 8 times or more.

	AM No. P-06-2241 2012-07-10	JUDGE PELAGIA DALMACIO- JOAQUIN v. NICOMEDES DELA CRUZ DEL CASTILLO, J.
We find such an excuse unsatisfactory. "All employees in the judiciary should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency."[15] As Process Server, Dela Cruz ought to be aware of the importance to serve the court processes with dispatch. "It is through the process server that defendants learn of the action brought against them by the complainant. More important, it is also through the service of summons by the process server that the trial court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant. It is therefore important that summonses, other writs and court processes be served expeditiously."[16] Besides, "heavy workload x x x is not an adequate excuse to be remiss in the diligent performance of one's public duties as a public servant. Otherwise, every government employee charged with negligence and dereliction of duty will always use this as a convenient excuse to escape punishment to the great prejudice of public service."[17] In this instance, we find Dela Cruz guilty of simple neglect of duty for the delay in the service of the subject Order.
	AM No. RTJ-06-1992 2010-07-06	OLIVIA LAUREL v. JUDGE PABLO B. FRANCISCO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
While Cuevillas herself acknowledged being remiss in the performance of her duties for a time, we deem the same to be excusable given the circumstances. She was obviously overburdened with work. An inventory of cases was being conducted in their sala during the months of February, March, and April of 1998. In addition, she was participating in the revision of ballots in the election case Judge Francisco was handling in the RTC of Sta. Cruz. It is not difficult to understand how Cuevillas could have missed sending notices of hearings for May 1998 to the parties in some cases, thus, resulting in the cancellation of said hearings. Nevertheless, we must remind Cuevillas that she must capably perform her duties despite the heavy workload, and we shall not be as tolerant in the future should she be remiss again. All employees in the judiciary should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency. As officers of the court and agents of the law, they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence. Any conduct they exhibit tending to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary will not be condoned.[67]
	AM No. P-07-2359 2008-08-11	JUDGE OFELIA CALO v. RICARDO L. DIZON CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The Court has said time and again that a sheriff's duty in the execution of a writ is purely ministerial; he is to execute the order of the court strictly to the letter. He has no discretion whether to execute the judgment or not. He is mandated to uphold the majesty of the law as embodied in the decision. When a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate.[20] Accordingly, a sheriff must comply with his mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible.[21] There is even no need for the litigants to "follow up" a writ's implementation.[22]
	AM No. P-06-2169 2008-03-28	ROGELIO V. URBANOZO v. CRISANTO T. FLORA PER CURIAM
The administration of justice is a sacred task and it demands the highest degree of efficiency, dedication and professionalism.[9] Sheriffs ought to know that they have a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch[10] so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice;[11] otherwise, the judgment, if not executed, would be futile,[12] an empty victory on the part of the prevailing party.[13]
	AM NO. P-06-2288 2007-06-15	EDDIE M. TIU v. ROMEO A. DELA CRUZ TINGA, J.
Respondent's inefficiency and irresponsibility in the performance of his duties are reprehensible. While there may be no evidence that his acts were tainted with bad faith, he nevertheless failed to discharge his duties with judiciousness and proficiency. All employees in the judiciary should be examples of responsibility, competence and efficiency. As officers of the court and agents of the law, they must discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence.[29] The judiciary expects the best from all its employees. Respondent's performance is clearly wanting. Not only did his neglect delay the administration of justice; it also impaired public confidence in the judiciary.[30]
	ADM MATTER NO. P-06-2268 2006-11-27	BIENVENIDO L. PUNZALAN v. RUMEL M. MACALISANG
Settled is the rule that when a writ is placed in the hands of a sheriff, it is his duty, in the absence of any instructions to the contrary, to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute it according to its mandate.[4] Unless restrained by a court order, they should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed. Accordingly, they must comply with their mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible.[5] Records show that the writ of execution issued on July 25, 2003 already attained finality when complainant filed the Motion to Quash only on August 28, 2003, or more than a month beyond its reglementary period within which to assail said order.
	AM NO. P-06-2131 2006-03-10	ROSALINDA PESONGCO v. ERNESTO B. ESTOYA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Sheriffs ought to know that they have a sworn responsibility to serve writs of execution with utmost dispatch. When writs are placed in their hands, it is their ministerial duty to proceed with reasonable celerity and promptness to execute them in accordance with their mandate. Unless restrained by a court order, they should see to it that the execution of judgments is not unduly delayed. Accordingly, they must comply with their mandated ministerial duty as speedily as possible.[23] As agents of the law, high standards are expected of sheriffs.[24] As explained in Bernabe v. Eguia,[25] citing Vda. de Abellera v. Dalisay:[26]