Void Judgment

A void judgment, for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based on it is void. It may be said to be "a lawless thing which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head."

Sheriffs, agents of the Law

Sheriffs play an important role in the administration of justice. They are tasked to execute final judgments of the courts. If not enforced, such decisions become empty victories of the prevailing parties. As agents of the law, sheriffs are called upon to discharge their duties with due care and utmost diligence because in serving the court's writs and processes and implementing its orders, they cannot afford to err without affecting the integrity of their office and the efficient administration of justice. 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. As agents of the law, high standards are expected of sheriffs.

Misconduct/Grave Abuse of Authority

To warrant dismissal from service, misconduct must be grave, serious, important, weighty, momentous, and not trifling. The misconduct must imply wrongful intention and not a mere error of judgment and must also have a direct relation to and be connected with the performance of the public officer's official duties amounting either to maladministration or willful, intentional neglect, or failure to discharge the duties of the office. In order to differentiate grave misconduct from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard to established rule, must be manifest in the former. These acts are inimical to judicial service and constitute conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service as they violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or tend to diminish the peoples faith in the Judiciary. 

Code of Professional Responsibility

The Lawyer's Oath is a source of obligations and duties for every lawyer, and any violation thereof by an attorney constitutes a ground for disbarment, suspension or other disciplinary action. The Lawyer's Oath is a sacred trust that must be upheld and keep inviolable.

Lawyers are licensed officers of the courts empowered to appear, prosecute and defend the legal causes for their clients. As a consequence, peculiar duties, responsibilities and liabilities are devolved upon them by law. Neither vindictiveness nor harassment could be a substitute for resorting to the appropriate legal remedies. The aim of every lawsuit should be to render justice to the parties according to law, not to harass them. A lawyer shall observe and maintain the respect due to the courts and to the judicial officers and should insist on similar conduct by others; A lawyer shall not attribute to a judge motives not supported by the record or have no materiality to the case. Being an officer of the court, a lawyer must resist the whims and caprices of his clients and temper his client's propensities to litigate, so must he equally guard himself against his own impulses of initiating unfounded suits (A.C. 7474, September 09, 2014).

Judicial Errors

"A trial judge is not accountable for performing his judicial functions and office because such performance is a matter of public duty and responsibility. The judge's office and duty to render and administer justice, being functions of sovereignty, should not be taken for granted. No administrative charge for manifest partiality, gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law should be brought against him for the orders issued in the course of judicial proceedings." - Justice Bersamin

It is settled that a judge's failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.

If a party is prejudiced by the order of a judge, his remedy lies with the proper court for appropriate judicial action and not with the Office of the Court Administrator by means of an administrative complaint.